One of the authors of the so-called Norman theory» the emergence of Russian statehood. Conducted scientific polemics with M. V. Lomonosov, contributed to the publication of V. N. Tatishchev’s History of Russia. Returning to Germany, Schlözer received a professorship at the University of Göttingen, teaching history and statistics. Author of works on Old Russian grammar, history, paleography. In 1803, for his work in the field of Russian history, he was awarded the Order of St. Vladimir IV degree and elevated to the nobility. In the last years of his life, he recognized and proved the authenticity of The Tale of Igor's Campaign. Schlözer's works had a great scientific resonance in Russian historiography second half of the XVIII - XX centuries.

Biography

Born July 5, 1735 in the family of pastor Johann Georg Friedrich Schlozer († 1740). His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were Protestant clergy. Having lost his father early, Schlozer was raised by pastor Gaygold, his mother's father, and he was also trained and assigned to the nearest school in Langenburg. At first, his grandfather trained him as a pharmacist, but, in view of his grandson's great abilities, he decided to give him a more extensive education and transferred him to a school in Wertheim, the head of which was his son-in-law Schultz. Here Schlozer was distinguished by remarkable diligence; under the guidance of Schultz, he studied the Bible, the classics, studied languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin and French, as well as music, and found more time to give lessons that brought him funds to buy books.

Having reached the age of 16, in 1751 Schlözer went to Wittenberg University, known at that time for its theological faculty, and began to prepare for a spiritual title. Three years later, after defending his thesis "On the Life of God" - "De vita Dei", he moved to the University of Göttingen, which then began to gain fame for its freedom of teaching. One of the best professors at that time was Michaelis, the theologian and philologist, an expert in Oriental languages, who had big influence to Schlozer. Here Schlözer also began to study the geography and languages ​​​​of the East in preparation for a trip to Palestine, as well as medicine and politics. In order to acquire the necessary funds for the journey, in 1755 he accepted the position of a teacher offered to him in a Swedish family in Stockholm.

While teaching, Schlozer himself began to study Gothic, Icelandic, Lapland and Polish languages. In Stockholm, he published his first scholarly work, The History of Enlightenment in Sweden (Neueste Geschichte der Gelehrsamkeit in Schweden. - Rostock und Wismar. 1756-1760), and then The Experience of the General History of Navigation and Trade from Ancient Times (Farf?k til en allman Historia am Handel och Sj?fart. Stockholm. 1758) on Swedish, which dwelled on the history of the Phoenicians. Wishing to become practically familiar with trade and to find among the wealthy merchants a person who would provide him with funds for traveling to the East, Schlözer traveled in 1759 to Lübeck. The trip was unsuccessful; in the same year he returned to Göttingen and took up the study of natural science, medicine, metaphysics, ethics, mathematics, statistics, politics, Mosaic legislation and legal sciences. Such an extensive and versatile education developed a critical direction of mind in Schlozer.

In Russia

In 1761, at the invitation of F.I. Miller, he came to Russia and took the place of a home teacher and his assistant in historical works with a salary of 100 rubles. in year. In 1761-1767. worked at the Imperial Academy of Sciences, adjunct since 1762. Honorary member of the Academy of Sciences (1769) and the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (1804).

Schlözer set himself three tasks: to learn Russian, to help Miller in his "Sammlung Russischer Geschichte" and to study Russian historical sources, for which he got acquainted with the Church Slavonic language. He soon began to disagree with Miller. Schlozer could not be satisfied with the modest role that Miller assigned him, and left him, and through Taubart was made an adjunct of the academy at indefinite time. Schlözer was carried away by chronicles, but much was incomprehensible to him. Taubart accidentally found a handwritten German translation complete list annals, made by the scientist Sellius, and Schlözer began extracting from it. Here he noticed the connection of the chronicle story with Byzantine sources and began to study George Pachymer, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but since it turned out that everything could not be explained by Byzantine sources alone, he began to study the Slavic language and on this occasion expressed the following opinion: “who is not familiar with Greek and Slavic languages and wants to study the annals, that eccentric who looks like someone who would begin to explain Pliny, not knowing natural history and technology".

In 1764, Schlozer, who did not like the prospect of being an ordinary Russian academician with 860 rubles. salary, which only he could count on, he decided to leave for Germany, and there to publish his "Rossica" - extracts from sources; for this purpose, Schlözer asks for a 3-year vacation and in turn offers two study plans.

1st. Thoughts on the way Russian history is processed; These thoughts are as follows: there is no Russian history yet, but it can be created by him, Schlözer. This requires: 1) studium monumentorum domesticorum, that is, the study of Russian chronicles: a) critical (small criticism: collecting and checking them to get a more accurate text), b) grammatical, since the language of the chronicle is not clear in many places, c) historical - comparing chronicles in content with each other in order to note features and inserts in them and in others historical writings; 2) studium monumentorum extrariorum, the study of foreign sources, mainly chronicles: Polish, Hungarian, Swedish, especially Byzantine and Mongol-Tatar, even German, French and papal, since, starting from the 10th century, they contain information about Russia . Critical study should be carried out according to the following method: 1) all manuscripts should receive their name and be described “diplomatically”, 2) history should be divided into sections, preferably by grand dukes, and for each section compose special book, in which to enter all comparisons, explanations, additions and contradictions from Russian and foreign sources.

Schlozer's second plan concerned the spread of education among Russian society. The Russian Academy of Sciences, he says, from 1726 to 1736 published several good textbooks, but from 1736 to 1764 she did nothing. Schlözer proposes to publish a number of popular works in easy Russian language.

His projects met opposition from the academy, especially from Lomonosov and Miller. The latter feared that Schlözer would publish the collected material abroad and that the accusation, as happened shortly before, would fall on him. The empress intervened in this matter, who offered Schlozer to study Russian history under her patronage with the title of ordinary academician and 860 rubles. salary and allowed to give him international passport. Upon returning to Göttingen, Schlözer continued to study with Russian students who came there, but did not agree to continue serving under the then order at the academy. Schlözer left for Göttingen and did not return, although his contract expired in 1770. In Göttingen he published in 1769 a detailed list of annals under the title Annales Russici slavonice et latine cum varietate lectionis ex codd. X. Lib. I usque ad annum 879. His other works on the history of Russia: "Das neue ver?nderte Russland" (1767-1771); Geschichte von Lithauen (1872); Allgem. nord. Geschichte" (1772) and others.

In 1770, Schlözer made an attempt to re-establish relations with the academy, mainly for financial reasons, but nothing came of it. Upon his return from Russia, Schlözer occupies the chair of an ordinary professor of philosophy in Göttingen, then, in 1772, after the death of the founder of the Göttingen statistical school, Gottfried Achenwahl, his chair of history and statistics, and in 1787, the chair of politics. But even in Göttingen, Schlozer followed the course of historical science in Russia, and when the Molochs and Scythians again appeared in it, the aged Schlozer again takes up Russian history and writes his Nestor (1802-1809), which he dedicates to Emperor Alexander I. Life his in Göttingen was devoted to work on statistics, politics and journalistic activity. Therefore, Schlözer's activities can be divided into the following departments: 1) history in general and Russian history in particular; 2) statistics and journalism.

Schlözer as a historian

Before Sh., history was the subject of pure scholarship, the work of an armchair scientist, far removed from real life. Sh. was the first to understand history as the study of the state, cultural and religious life, the first brought it closer to statistics, politics, geography, etc. "History without politics gives only monastic chronicles and dissertationes criticas." Wessendonck in his "Die Begr?ndung der neueren deutschen Geschichtsschreibung durch Gatterer und Schl?zer" says that S. did in Germany for history what Bolinbrock did in England and Voltaire in France. Before Sh., the only idea that linked historical material was the theological idea of ​​the 4 monarchies of Daniel's prophecy, and the entire history of Europe was placed in the 4th Roman monarchy; to this we must also add the patriotic tendency, under the influence of which the facts were greatly distorted. Into this chaos Sh. introduced two new, albeit transitional, ideas: the idea of ​​world history for content and the idea of ​​historical criticism in terms of method. The idea of ​​world history made it necessary to study "all the peoples of the world" equally, without giving preference to Jews, or Greeks, or anyone else; it also destroyed national predilection: nationality is only the material on which the legislator is working and the historical move is being made. True, Sh. did not pay due attention to "the subjective elements of nationality as an object for scientific and psychological research," but this is due to his rationalistic worldview. The idea of ​​historical criticism, especially beneficial for a time when, out of reverence for classical authors, the historian could not doubt a single fact of their story, consisted in the requirement to analyze not the story itself, but its source, and from the degree of seriousness of it to reject the facts or admit them. The restoration of facts is the task of the historian. Development progress historical material S. pictured himself in a gradual appearance: Geschichtsammler’a, Geschichtsforscher’a, who must check the authenticity of the material (lower criticism) and evaluate its reliability (higher criticism), and Geschichtserz?hler’a, for which the time has not yet come. Thus, Sh. did not go further than understanding art history. With such views Sh. came to Russia and engaged in research of Russian history. He was horrified by Russian historians: “A foreigner has no idea about such historians!” But Sh. himself took the wrong road from the very beginning: noticing gross distortions of geographical names in one of the lists of the annals and a more correct style in another, Sh. immediately a priori created a hypothesis about the distortion of the chronicle text by scribes and the need to restore the original clean text annals. He holds this view all his life, until in his "Nestor" he notices that something is amiss. This pure text is the chronicle of Nestor. If all the manuscripts are collected, then by comparison and criticism it will be possible to collect the disiecti membra Nestoris. Acquaintance with only a few chronicle lists and, most importantly, complete ignorance of our acts (Sh. thought that the 1st act dates back to the time of Andrei Bogolyubsky), mainly due to a quarrel with Miller, was the reason for the failure of the critical processing of the annals. Much more successful were his views on the ethnography of Russia. Instead of the previous classification, based on the forced interpretation of words according to consonance or meaning, Sh. gave his own, based on the language. He spoke out especially sharply against the distortion of history for patriotic purposes. “The first law of history is not to say anything false. It's better not to know than to be deceived." In this regard, Sh. had to endure a big struggle with Lomonosov and other adherents opposite view. Their contradiction is especially sharp on the question of the nature of Russian life at the dawn of history. According to Lomonosov and others, Russia already then appears as a country so cultured that, when considering the further course of her life, one almost does not notice a change. According to Sh., the Russians lived "like the beasts and birds that filled their forests." This led him to the erroneous conclusion that at the beginning of history the Eastern Slavs could not have trade. In any case, Sh. in this case was closer to the truth than Lomonosov and others. general course historical development Sh. does not go further than his predecessors and contemporaries: he borrows it from Tatishchev. “The state was founded by a free choice in the person of Rurik,” says Sh., “A hundred and fifty years have passed before it gained some strength; fate sent him 7 rulers, each of whom contributed to the development of the young state and under which it reached power ... But ... the sections of Vladimirov and Yaroslavov overthrew it into its former weakness, so that in the end it became prey Tatar hordes… For more than 200 years it languished under the yoke of the barbarians. Finally came great person who avenged the north, freed his oppressed people and spread the fear of his weapons to the capitals of his tyrants. Then the state, which previously worshiped the khans, revolted; a powerful monarchy was created in the creative hands of Ivan (III). In accordance with this view, Sh. divides Russian history into 4 periods: R. nascens (862-1015), divisa (1015-1216), oppressa (1216-1462), victrix (1462-1762).

Schlözer as a statistician and publicist

W. - the most prominent representative of the Göttingen statistical school. He largely borrowed his view of statistics as a science from Achenval. Understanding statistics as separate scientific discipline, he at the same time considered it as part of politics; these two areas, in his opinion, are in the same connection as, for example, knowledge of the human body with the art of healing. For the arrangement of statistical materials in the development of them, he follows the formula: vires unitae agunt. These vires - people, areas, products, money in circulation - are the essence of the creation state structure; the use of these combined forces is carried out by the administration. Sh. belongs to the saying: "history is statistics in motion, statistics is a motionless history." Such a view is alien to the modern understanding of statistical science, but Sh.'s pragmatic method justifies it insofar as he seeks, in the statistical development of state science factors, to find a causal relationship between them based on a study of the social and economic data of the past of individual countries. This retrospective method was used by Sh., working, according to the Achenval system, to recreate a picture of the moral well-being of people, in parallel with a description of material conditions; this, in his opinion, is the dual task of statistics. From history as a science, he demanded that it take into account not only political and diplomatic events, but also the facts of an economic order. S. was well aware that statistics could not do without numbers, but at the same time he was an enemy of the so-called "slaves of tables", precisely because of the duality of the task that the Göttingen school set for this science. W. known as a theorist on the issue of colonization. His views in this respect were quite original for that time. The method of cultivating the land, the conditions of life, the statistics of crops and harvests - all this he demanded to be taken into account when discussing measures to encourage or delay resettlement. The desire of the state to increase the population must go hand in hand with the desire to expand and facilitate the means of subsistence, since, he said, "bread will always create people, and not vice versa." For more than 10 years, Sh. enjoyed great fame as a publicist and publisher of Staatsanzeigen. Arming himself against the abuse of granted rights, against arbitrariness, serfdom, he inspired fear in the German despots, who trembled for the preservation of the medieval order in their principalities. For a long time and stubbornly, he resumed the propaganda of the English Habeas corpus act, in his opinion, all the states of the mainland should have introduced it at home. Thus Sh. for several decades ahead of his contemporaries.

Main labor

Compositions

• "Versuch einer allgemeinen Geschichte der Handlung und Seefart in den ?ltesten Zeiten" (Rostock, 1761);
• "Systema politices" (Göttingen, 1773);
• "Briefwechsel meist historischen und politischen Inhalts" (1776-1782);
• "Historische Untersuchungen?ber Russlands Reichsgrundgesetze" (Gotha, 1776);
• "Entwurf zu einem Reisecollegium nebst einer Anzeige des Zeitungskollegii" (1777);
• "N?here Anzeige des sogenannten Zeitungscollegii" (1791);
• "Staatsanzeigen als Fortsetzung des Briefwechsels" (1782-93);
• "Staatsgelartheit nach ihren Haupteilen in Auszug und Zusammenhang" (Göttingen, 1793-1804);
• "Kritische Sammlung zur Geschichte der Deutschen in Siebenbörgen" (1795-97).
• In addition, he published the work of Achenwal: "Staatsverfassung der europ?ischen Reiche im Grundrisse" (Göttingen, 1784)

August Ludwig Schlözer (German August Ludwig (von) Schlözer; July 5, 1735, Gagstadt - September 9, 1809, Göttingen) was a Russian and German historian, publicist and statistician.

One of the authors of the so-called "Norman theory" of the emergence of Russian statehood. Conducted scientific polemics with M. V. Lomonosov, contributed to the publication of V. N. Tatishchev’s History of Russia. Returning to Germany, Schlözer received a professorship at the University of Göttingen, teaching history and statistics. Author of works on Old Russian grammar, history, paleography. In 1803, for his work in the field of Russian history, he was awarded the Order of St. Vladimir IV degree and elevated to the nobility. In the last years of his life, he recognized and proved the authenticity of The Tale of Igor's Campaign. Schlozer's works had a great scientific resonance in Russian historiography of the second half of the 18th - 20th centuries.

Born July 5, 1735 in the family of pastor Johann Georg Friedrich Schlozer († 1740). His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were Protestant clergy. Having lost his father early, Schlozer was raised by pastor Gaygold, his mother's father, and he was also trained and assigned to the nearest school in Langenburg. At first, his grandfather trained him as a pharmacist, but, in view of his grandson's great abilities, he decided to give him a more extensive education and transferred him to a school in Wertheim, the head of which was his son-in-law Schultz. Here Schlozer was distinguished by remarkable diligence; under the guidance of Schultz, he studied the Bible, the classics, studied languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin and French, as well as music, and found more time to give lessons that brought him funds to buy books.

Having reached the age of 16, in 1751 Schlözer went to Wittenberg University, known at that time for its theological faculty, and began to prepare for a spiritual title. Three years later, after defending his thesis "On the Life of God" - "De vita Dei", he moved to the University of Göttingen, which then began to gain fame for its freedom of teaching. One of the best professors at that time was Michaelis, a theologian and philologist, an expert in Oriental languages, who had a great influence on Schlözer. Here Schlözer also began to study the geography and languages ​​​​of the East in preparation for a trip to Palestine, as well as medicine and politics. In order to acquire the necessary funds for the journey, in 1755 he accepted the position of a teacher offered to him in a Swedish family in Stockholm.

While teaching, Schlozer himself began to study Gothic, Icelandic, Lapland and Polish. In Stockholm, he published his first scholarly work, The History of Enlightenment in Sweden (Neueste Geschichte der Gelehrsamkeit in Schweden. - Rostock und Wismar. 1756-1760), and then The Experience of the General History of Navigation and Trade from Ancient Times (Farfök til en allman Historia am Handel och Sjöfart. Stockholm. 1758) in Swedish, which dwelled on the history of the Phoenicians. Wishing to become practically acquainted with trade and to find among the wealthy merchants a person who would provide him with funds for traveling to the East, Schlözer traveled in 1759 to Lübeck. The trip was unsuccessful; in the same year he returned to Göttingen and took up the study of natural science, medicine, metaphysics, ethics, mathematics, statistics, politics, Mosaic law and the legal sciences. Such an extensive and versatile education developed a critical direction of mind in Schlozer.
In Russia

In 1761, at the invitation of F.I. Miller, he came to Russia and took the place of a home teacher and his assistant in historical works with a salary of 100 rubles. in year. In 1761-1767. worked at the Imperial Academy of Sciences, adjunct since 1762. Honorary member of the Academy of Sciences (1769) and the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (1804).

Schlozer set himself three tasks: to study the Russian language, to help Miller in his Sammlung Russischer Geschichte, and to study Russian historical sources, for which he became acquainted with the Church Slavonic language. He soon began to disagree with Miller. Schlozer could not be satisfied with the modest role that Miller put him, and left him, and through Taubart was made an adjunct of the academy for an indefinite time. Schlözer was carried away by chronicles, but much was incomprehensible to him. By chance, Taubart found a handwritten German translation of the complete list of the chronicle, made by the scholar Sellius, and Schlözer began extracting from it. Here he noticed the connection of the chronicle story with Byzantine sources and began to study George Pachymer, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but since it turned out that everything could not be explained by Byzantine sources alone, he began to study the Slavic language and on this occasion expressed the following opinion: “who is not familiar with Greek and Slavic and wants to write chronicles, that eccentric who looks like someone who would explain Pliny without knowing natural history and technology.

In 1764, Schlozer, who did not like the prospect of being an ordinary Russian academician with 860 rubles. salary, which only he could count on, he decided to leave for Germany, and there to publish his "Rossica" - extracts from sources; for this purpose, Schlözer asks for a 3-year vacation and in turn offers two study plans.

His projects met opposition from the academy, especially from Lomonosov and Miller. The latter feared that Schlözer would publish the collected material abroad and that the accusation, as happened shortly before, would fall on him. The empress intervened in this matter, who offered Schlozer to study Russian history under her patronage with the title of ordinary academician and 860 rubles. salary and allowed him to issue a passport. Upon returning to Göttingen, Schlözer continued to study with Russian students who came there, but did not agree to continue serving under the then order at the academy. Schlözer left for Göttingen and did not return, although his contract expired in 1770. In Göttingen he published in 1769 a detailed list of annals under the title Annales Russici slavonice et latine cum varietate lectionis ex codd. X. Lib. I usque ad annum 879. His other works on the history of Russia: "Das neue veränderte Russland" (1767-1771); Geschichte von Lithauen (1872); Allgem. nord. Geschichte" (1772) and others.

In 1770, Schlözer made an attempt to re-establish relations with the academy, mainly for financial reasons, but nothing came of it. Upon his return from Russia, Schlözer occupies the chair of an ordinary professor of philosophy in Göttingen, then, in 1772, after the death of the founder of the Göttingen statistical school, Gottfried Achenwahl, his chair of history and statistics, and in 1787, the chair of politics. But even in Göttingen, Schlozer followed the course of historical science in Russia, and when the Molochs and Scythians again appeared in it, the aged Schlozer again takes up Russian history and writes his Nestor (1802-1809), which he dedicates to Emperor Alexander I. Life his in Göttingen was devoted to work on statistics, politics and journalistic activities. Therefore, Schlözer's activities can be divided into the following departments: 1) history in general and Russian history in particular; 2) statistics and journalism.

Bayer, Miller, Schlozer and Lomonosov as historians

The undisguised condescending attitude towards Tatishchev and Lomonosov of our Normanists, who have a university education and from the student's bench blindly adopted a fanatical faith in the "scientific nature" of the Norman theory, and only for this reason a priori convinced of the "unscientific" other approaches to solving the Varangian-Russian question, additionally also stems from the fact that, according to P.N. known and of little interest to anyone”), according to S.L. Peshtich (1961), “they had no special historical training”, while foreign scientists went through “university school”. In the early 1980s M.A. Alpatov also emphasized that Lomonosov "went into battle with opponents armed with the achievements of Western historical science." But if we confine ourselves to such formal reasoning, then the fact that the historian M.N. Tikhomirov rightly pointed out in 1948 remains completely incomprehensible. academicians from foreigners did not write Russian history, although they were supposedly filled with all sorts of scientific prowess.

And that Schlozer in 1764, in his plan of work on the history of Russia, submitted to the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, undertook to create in three years “a continuation in German of Russian history from the founding of the state to the suppression of the Ruhrn dynasty, according to Russian chronicles (but without comparing them with foreign writers) with the help of the works of Tatishchev and gna stat. owls. Lomonosov". But even under such super-favorable conditions that his predecessors did not have, but at the same time they created works on Russian history, of course, not without errors and shortcomings (which does not detract from their merits, which have contributed to the development of science for the third century), he promises never did it. I did not fulfill it not in three years, not in my entire life. As Schlozer admitted in 1769 in the History of Russia. The first part before the founding of Moscow,” written with the involvement of Tatishchev’s Russian History and published in a small pocket format in German: “For serious readers, I am not able to write a coherent Russian history, much less for scholarly critical historians.” In the preface to Nestor. Russian chronicles in the Old Slavonic language”, dedicated to the comparison and analysis of chronicle news, he, thirty-three years later, again publicly said that “I refuse a comprehensive outline ... and limit myself only to Nestor and his closest successor, with a little up to 1200 G." (work ends 980).

With such a formal approach, it is also impossible to understand why Miller, as the same Peshtich noted in 1965, “as a result of 50 years of studies in Russian history ... could not compose complete overview her, more or less completed or formalized. Therefore, when I.G. Stritter (I.M. Stritter) began writing a history textbook for schools (and this assignment was given to him by the Commission on the Establishment of Schools in October 1783), “then, having familiarized himself with the materials of Miller’s literary heritage, stored in the famous Miller portfolios ", found almost nothing, - stated Peshtich, - that could be useful to him for compiling a training manual." “Surprisingly, however,” Stritter wrote on November 9, 1783 to Academician Ya.Ya. Shtelin - that the late historiographer, besides his historical tables(meaning the genealogical tables, which Miller was enthusiastically compiling for decades. - V.F.), left nothing processed on Russian history. Therefore, I myself collect materials from the annals. This is first.

Secondly, statements about the “university school” of German scientists, which allegedly armed them with “achievements of Western historical science,” somehow do not fit, for example, with the fact that Bayer recreated early Russian history without using Russian sources and only on the basis of Byzantine and Scandinavian news, produced Moscow ("Moskau") from Mosky ("Musik"), i.e. monastery, “Pskov from dogs, dog city”, in the Caucasus discovered the people “Dagistani”, and in “Kazakhia” “the oldest Cossack people of the settlement mentioned”, confused the French Bretons with the English-British, East Slavic Buzhans with the Tatars Budzhaks and convinced the then academia that Chud (Finns) are Scythians. What Miller, in turn, gave away, also fully expressing his level of source researcher and specialist in Russian history, preference for the late Nikon Chronicle (late 20s of the 16th century) over the ancient PVL (finally developed in early XII c.), took the tale of Prince Bova as a historical source, explained the term "thousand" by the fact that "by his name it is clear that he had to try for the well-being of many thousands of people", saw in Novgorod boyars elected officials, "in office, as in German cities, the ratsgers, and the boyars called them due to their arrogance," and in the chronicle kasogs (and Bayer repeated this mistake after him) the Cossacks.

Schlozer, in the age of Enlightenment, spoke about the creation of the world by God: the Earth “is not the same as it came out of the right hand of its Creator”, “the world has existed for about 6000 years”, singled out the period “from creation to the flood” in world history, talked about the fall of Adam and about the origin of the human family from him, seriously assured the reader that "Alexander Nevsky beat Lithuania at the Neva", that Russian word“prince” was formed from the German “Knecht” (serf), that the word “master” is close to the word “ram”, that Russian history begins only “from the advent of Rurik and the foundation of the Russian kingdom ...”, etc. In the latter case, one cannot fail to notice that V.N. Tatishchev and M.V. Lomonosov singled out, and this approach ultimately triumphed in science, the pre-Varangian period in the history of Russia (Normanists N.M. Karamzin and S.M. Soloviev as well as A.L. Schlozer, counted Russian existence only from the calling of the Varangians). And at that time, the construction that Russian history took place before Rurik was, M.T. Belyavsky, considering the historical views of Lomonosov, "new and important construction in science, far ahead of its development.

Thirdly, if we are talking about the “university school” of foreign specialists, then Miller, who drew in 1749-1750. with his speech (otherwise dissertation) “On the origin of the name and people of Russia”, the entire St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in a protracted dispute about the beginning of Russian history and suffered a complete fiasco in that, the reason for which the Normanists see exclusively in the machinations of the all-powerful “patriot” Lomonosov, supposedly the favorite of the nobility and the empress Elizabeth, she still did not pass. For he had only a gymnasium and two unfinished universities behind him. And in which he showed interest not in history, but in ethnography and economics, and even “from a young age,” in his own words, “until my return from a trip made in England, Holland and Germany (that is, until 1731 d. - V.F.), was more attached to the polyhistory of Morgof, to the history of learning, to the information required from a librarian. My father's extensive library nurtured this inclination in me." The half-educated student Miller arrived in Russia at the age of 20 in November 1725, not at all thinking about science, since he only dreamed of becoming I.D. Schumacher and the heir to his position - librarian of the Library of the Academy of Sciences (the idea to Miller that he could eventually become a librarian was inspired by Professor I.P. Kohl, calling him to Russia). In 1728, Miller, being an adjunct of the Academy, was admitted "to compose" the academic newspaper "Sankt-Peterburgskiye Vedomosti", published in German and containing a review of the foreign press, and in parallel with that in 1728-1730. “acted as secretary of the conference and office, gave out books in the library, proofread in the printing house”, and even “various academic publications” were printed under his supervision.

At the same time, thanks to his closeness to the actual manager of the Academy, Schumacher (and he was also in charge of the Chancellery, in which, J.K. Grot emphasized, “the administration of the entire Academy ...” was concentrated), Miller’s authority as an academic functionary grew quite quickly. And thanks only to this, as they say now, administrative resource, the most important in making a career at all times, Miller became a professor. He notes P.P. Pekarsky, "as if he became an assistant to Schumacher, who at that time gave him unlimited power of attorney, so that when he left for Moscow at the end of 1729, Muller, in charge of academic affairs, took his place ...". And in July 1730 - at less than 25 years old - Miller, not having a completed university education and writings on history in general (as Professor G.B. Byulfinger stated then, he “had not yet read any of his studies in the Academic Assembly, since his works actually do not tend to that ... ”or, as A.L. Shletser described this situation many years later,“ not being known to the public by anything else, and not knowing Russian ... ”), became professor of history at the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Moreover, it became such despite the opinion of all academicians, among whom, it is worth paying attention to the Normanists, there was not a single Russian (mostly they, like Miller, were Germans), and only thanks to the perseverance of their patron Schumacher.

For, S.V. Bakhrushin explained, the academicians, “disliked by him for tricking Schumacher, failed Miller “out of passion”, and the intervention of the president himself was required; in fact, he became a professor by appointment, not by election.” Recently N.P. Kopaneva also emphasized that Miller “was promoted to professor by decree of the President of the Academy L.L. Blumentrost under the patronage of Schumacher, bypassing the opinions of academicians ”(Lomonosov in 1758-1759 and 1764 explained how Schumacher, “being meager in the sciences and leaving all exercise in them ...”, began to rise due to the search for “more confidence in himself ”with the first president of the Academy of Sciences Blumentrost“ and with others at court as private servants, which he already hoped to do with professors not in the way he should have shown himself to people, only scientists and great in reasoning sciences ... " And he saw that Miller, “as still a young student and not very hopeful in the sciences, would willingly take up the same craft with him in the hope of obtaining an honor as soon as possible, in which Schumacher was not deceived, because this student, walking among professors, endured about each other insulting news and thus led them into considerable quarrels, which Schumacher took advantage of by their disagreement, presenting them to the president as ridiculous and restless. that he offended them a lot, or both was the reason for this. However, in this reasoning, their opinion is not respected, because Miller was promoted from Blumentrost with others to professor by Schumacher’s idea”), and Professor Miller began to directly study Russian history only in 1731, when his plans to become a relative of Schumacher were finally frustrated. “Then,” Miller recalled his conflict with him in August of that year, “I lost hope of becoming his son-in-law and heir to his position. I saw fit to lay another academic way- it was Russian history, which I intended not only to diligently study myself, but also to make known to others in writings from the best sources. A bold undertaking! I had not yet done anything in this area and was still not quite experienced in the Russian language, but I relied on my literary knowledge and on my acquaintance with those books and manuscripts in the academic library that I learned to translate with the help of a translator. G. Bayer, who explained ancient Russian history and geography from Greek and northern writers, supported me in this undertaking. His intention was for me to help him in compiling articles and in preliminary processing, when I could learn Russian, which he did not doubt, because I was young and active ”(as P.N. Milyukov noted,“ the enterprise "To deal with Russian history was caused by Miller not so much by scientists as by practical considerations").

But in order to become a professional in such a truly “bold enterprise” as the study of Russian history by a foreigner who started this business with absolute zero and at the same time, who practically did not know the Russian language and did not know the Old Russian language at all, which closed access to the most important sources - chronicles, and even considering the raw history of Russia at that time, decades of the most diligent studies are needed, of course (Miller in 1760 recalled that in 1732 "was not able to read Russian writings himself, but had to resort to a translator". The language of the annals was poorly understood by the scientist many years later. Moscow at the beginning of 1765, he demanded a number of manuscripts from the Library of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and two translators. He was refused manuscripts, and S. Volkov was sent as a translator").

And in these studies, Academician Miller, which directly speaks of his understanding of the tasks facing the historian, for a long time glided over the very surface of Russian history, not at all penetrating inside, for he reduced all his work on it mainly to compiling genealogical tables. As noted by him in his autobiography, “both before and after my Siberian trip, I worked a lot in writing genealogical tables for Russian history ...”. And what these tables were, it is clear from the words of Lomonosov that Miller "instead of the most general state historical matter, practiced more in composing genealogical tables to please private noble persons." What, emphasized the same thing in 1937. S.V. Bakhrushin, despite all his disposition towards Miller in a conversation about him and his, according to the researcher, “enemy” Lomonosov, “knew how to flatter the genealogy of the pride of the old nobility, was always services when a genealogical certificate was needed...”.

In addition, since 1733, Miller was completely absorbed in Siberia and the processing of the huge material collected there over the course of almost 10 years. “After my return from Siberia,” the historian states in the same autobiography, “my main concern was the composition of the Siberian history, according to the archival lists I had collected and my own notes,” i.e. was engaged, in his own words, "new Russian history", and this is the XVI-XVIII centuries. And Schlozer noted in 1768 that “Mr. collegiate adviser Miller at first also devoted himself to ancient Russian history, as follows from the announcement where he announces the release of Saml in 1732. Russ. Gesch. However, as you know, then followed his ten-year journey through Siberia, returning from which he took up other topics. For this reason, the scientist turned to the actual initial history of Russia, with which the most complicated Varangian-Russian question is connected, only in the spring of 1749, when he was instructed to prepare a speech for the solemn meeting of the Academy of Sciences by autumn.

And how far before that time Miller's thoughts were far from the initial history of Russia and the Varangians, and what he was actually doing, is very clearly seen from his complaint filed in September 1750 to the President of the Academy of Sciences K.G. Razumovsky on I.D. Schumacher and G.N. Teplov. And in which he explained his refusal to give historical lectures at an academic university by the fact that “everyone who gave university lectures knows that they need some habit, and for history especially oral knowledge or memory of all adventures from the beginning of the world to our times. I don’t have this habit, because eighteen years after I was sent to Siberia, I didn’t give any lectures and I didn’t read foreign books, except for those relating to the Russian state, according to which I could renew my memory of the above historical adventures; but as soon as I practiced in a detailed description of all Siberia and in the knowledge of Russian history and the whole interior of Russia and the Asian states bordering Siberia, thereby preparing myself for the position of a Russian historiographer and for other useful services to the Russian state ... ".

And these "preparations" were not in vain - in November 1747, Miller was appointed "historiographer of the Russian state." Moreover, in the definition of the Academic Chancellery, it is specially highlighted for which he received such an honor: Siberian history, and there he spent about ten years on the double salary of Her Imperial Majesty against his current salary, which for the sake of another should not be entrusted to this matter, as to him, Muller, "that is, only because of his stay in Siberia and the fair amount spent on him funds.

Normanists see Miller's appointment as "historiographer of the Russian state" as evidence of his undoubted superiority as a historian over the professor of chemistry Lomonosov. But the "historiographer of the Russian state" is just a position, not a gift from God. And how much Miller corresponded to it in 1747, and much later, is clearly seen from the words of S.M. Solovyov that the printing of Tatishchev’s History of Russia “was entrusted to a person unable not only to correct distortions, but even to understand the real meaning of the work, which The best proof is the misunderstood meaning of the preface to the Core of Russian History. And since 1768, Miller has been printing Tatishchev’s work, he also wrote the preface to A.I. Mankiev, published in 1770 and erroneously attributed to Prince A.Ya. Khilkov.

Moreover, Miller, officially becoming a "historiographer of the Russian state", was obliged to compose, but did not compose a "general Russian history". As it was written in the same definition of the Academic Office, Miller “started his own business ... namely Siberian history, in which he would have a reliable description of the position of all Siberia geographically, faith, languages ​​​​of all the local peoples and Siberian antiquities, and thus, together with the professor Fischer to produce, so that every year it would be possible to publish one book of his travels ”, and“ when the Siberian history ends, then he, Muller, will be used to compose the history of the entire Russian empire in the department, which he was shown from the Academy to have according to the plan, which he himself composed at that time to be owned and tested in the office. As Miller’s student A.F. Malinovsky recalled, when Catherine II approached him with a proposal to write a “general Russian history”, he “refused due to old age and recommended Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. According to P.N. Milyukov, this event refers to the spring of 1767, i.e., when the historiographer was 62 years old. The fact that it was not a matter of old age here is also evidenced by the fact that just two years later - in 1769 - a proposal was received from Miller, “that the Academy of Sciences, under his supervision, compile the history of Russia, for which he had spent 45 years collected various materials. The Academy accepted this proposal, but nothing real was done either.

Fourthly, Bayer and Schlozer, although they had a university education, but this education could not give them, despite all the assurances to the contrary of the supporters of the Norman theory, no "special historical training" due to its absence in the programs of the Western European universities. At the theological faculties where they studied and where they prepared the corresponding dissertations (Bayer on the topic “On the words of Christ: or, or, lima, savafkhani”, Schlozer - “On the life of God”), it was possible to get acquainted only with biblical history, moreover, as Schlozer recalled, only in her "main events". For other periods of world history did not interest the pundits of that time. “Recall,” noted P.N. Milyukov - that even medieval history was considered insufficiently worthy of a story for the historical science of that time, which knew only its origins and its classics. A scientist who would take it into his head to study more recent times risked dropping his scientific reputation. The science of that time, which was created on the interpretation of classical antiquity, did not have methods for these other times and a different nature of the sources. In this connection, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, “general history, one might say, did not exist before in teaching. No criticism, no common views was still extremely sensitive in Germany, while in other countries a different concept of history was already beginning ... Germany, on the other hand, lived in medieval compendiums.

and universities in the 18th century. - these are not classical universities of the 19th-20th centuries, and they provided an erudite education typical of that era. So, after graduating from the theological faculty of the University of Wittenberg, Schlozer listened to lectures on philological and natural sciences at the University of Göttingen for a year, where, thanks to I.D. ) and where he decided to devote himself "for religion and biblical philology ...". Some time later, at the same university, for another two and a half years, he studied very big number disciplines, including medicine (in which he received degree), chemistry, botany, anatomy, zoology, metaphysics, mathematics, ethics, politics, statistics, jurisprudence. And with what baggage of knowledge of Russian history proper Schlozer arrived in our Fatherland, it is clear from his words that before leaving for Russia, he “studyed intensively” it for two and a half months and that in mid-eighteenth in. The Russian state was "terra incognita, or worse, described as completely falsely discontented." In this case, the words of the preface of the French edition of "Ancient Russian History" (1769) by Lomonosov are also indicative, where it is specially highlighted that in it we are talking about a people about whom little is known so far: "The remoteness of time and places, ignorance of languages, lack of materials imposed such thick darkness on what was printed about Russia that it was impossible to distinguish truth from lies ...".

Schlozer ended up on the banks of the Neva in November 1761 at the invitation of Miller to teach his sons and to help "in scientific works”, more precisely, he was assigned the role of a proofreader in the Sammlung russischer Geschichte published by the historiographer (by the way, Miller was informed, according to P.P. Pekarsky, “unfavorable reviews about Schlozer’s temper ...”, but he “neglected this warning” ). Under the influence of Miller, in whose house he lived for seven months, Schlozer gradually began to show interest in Russian history, and in May 1762 he was appointed assistant professor of history at the Academy of Sciences. And in June 1764, after long hesitation, he abandoned his university dream of tying scientific interests with religion and biblical philology, expressed a desire to develop the history of Russia. And already six months later, in January 1765, only by the will of Catherine II and, as in the case of Miller in 1730, bypassing the opinion of academicians, Schlozer became a professor of history at the Academy of Sciences. At the same time, he was granted an unheard-of privilege at that time - to present his works to the empress or to whom she entrusts their consideration, bypassing, in violation of all the rules, the Academic Chancellery and the Conference, “from which, as Lomonosov noted then, not a single academician anywhere , neither the most learned and glorious, was free.

Fifthly, Lomonosov was in no way inferior to Bayer, Schlozer, and even more so Miller in his education. In five years (1731-1735), he brilliantly mastered almost the entire program of study at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy in his homeland (the passage of its full course was designed for 13 years, and the training was divided into eight classes, in one year he completed three classes ), where, on his own initiative, he took up the study of Russian and world history. “Fortunately Lomonosov,” said Academician Ya.K. Grot, “the classical teaching of the Spassky schools put him on solid ground European civilization: it put its stamp on all his mental activity, reflected on his clear and correct thinking, on the finished ™ of all his labors. And from January to September 1736 he was a student of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences. Then in 1736-1739. student Lomonosov went through the "university school" of one of the best European universities of that time - Marburg, opened in 1527, where he listened to lectures at the philosophical and medical faculties. And he went through this “university school” so successfully that, upon graduation in July 1739, he earned the highest praise of his teacher, the “world sage,” as he was called in the 18th century, the successor to the great E.V. Leibniz, the outstanding German philosopher and specialist in the field of physical and mathematical sciences H. Wolf. And the recognized European authority, who, according to the exact words of S.V. Perevezentsev, “instilled the traits of German solidity into Lomonosov’s passionate Russian nature” and whom he idolized all his life and considered him “his benefactor and teacher”, noted that “ a young man of excellent abilities, Mikhail Lomonosov, from the time of his arrival in Marburg, diligently attended my lectures on mathematics and philosophy, and mainly on physics, and with particular love tried to acquire thorough knowledge. I have no doubt that if he continues his studies with the same diligence, then in time, upon returning to the fatherland, he can benefit the state, which I sincerely wish ”(during Lomonosov’s studies at Wolf University, noted M.I. .Sukhomlinov, taught about sixteen subjects: “general mathematics, algebra, astronomy, physics, optics, mechanics, military and civil architecture, logic, metaphysics, moral philosophy, politics, natural law, popular law, geography and chronology, and explained the work of Hugo Grotius on the law of war and peace").

On the medical faculty Lomonosov listened mainly to lectures on chemistry and received the title of "candidate of medicine" ("the most noble young man," Professor of Chemistry Yu. two years of his studies (1739-1741) should be added with Professor I.F. Genkel in Freiburg metallurgy and mining(Lomonosov in Germany, in addition to thorough work on compulsory disciplines- mathematics, mechanics, chemistry, physics, philosophy, drawing, German and French languages, etc. - independently improved knowledge in rhetoric, studied theoretical study Western European literature practical work over poetic translations, wrote poetry, created a work on the theory of Russian versification, got acquainted with foreign research on Russian history, etc.).

He was not inferior to German scientists in knowledge foreign languages, because he was fluent in Latin and ancient Greek languages, which allowed him to work directly with sources, most of which had not yet been translated into Russian (as his contemporary, historian and academician I.E. Fisher testifies, he knew Latin language"incomparably better than Miller", and the son of A.L. Schlozer and his first biographer H. Schlozer called Lomonosov "the first Latinist not in Russia alone"). To the same extent, our genius spoke German (moreover, several of its dialects) and French, thanks to which he was always aware of all the latest achievements of European historical science. Moreover, Lomonosov, as he himself stated, "knows quite well all the provincial dialects of the local empire ... understanding, moreover, Polish and other languages ​​\u200b\u200bwith Russian akin." And in the "Russian Grammar" he gives examples from Latin, Greek, German (and Old German), French, English, Italian, unspecified Asian, Abyssinian, Chinese, Jewish, Turkish, Persian, from the hieroglyphic writing of the ancient Egyptians.

At the same time, Lomonosov in the middle of the 18th century, i.e. at the time of the formation of history in Russia as a science and the development of methods for cognizing the past, he had a very important advantage over Bayer and Schlozer, for he was an outstanding naturalist who had no equal in Europe. And everyday long-term practice of the most thorough and the finest analysis in the exact sciences, especially chemistry, physics, astronomy, mathematics, developed a principle from him, which he very clearly stated in notes on physics in the early 1740s: “I do not recognize any fabrication and any hypothesis, no matter how probable it seemed, without precise evidence, obeying the rules that govern reasoning.

And the strict guidance of this principle led Lomonosov to numerous discoveries in completely different areas, which enriched domestic and world science, allowed him to see and understand what was beyond the power of others. For example, the transit of Venus solar disk On May 26, 1761, 112 astronomers observed in Europe and Asia. But only Lomonosov, following this phenomenon from his simple home observatory, established, observing through “very thinly smoked glass” into a small pipe, that “the planet Venus is surrounded by a noble air atmosphere, such (if only not more) than is poured around our globe of the earth." The appearance of a light rim around the disk of Venus, partially located on the disk of the Sun, was recorded in their notes by many observers, but only Lomonosov gave him the correct interpretation (P.P. Pekarsky explains that “thirty years later, after a small controversy between Schroeter and V. Herschel , these famous astronomers agreed on the existence of an atmosphere near Venus, which Arago confirmed even later”), and gave it because he had the phenomenal quality of a universal researcher, which the great mathematician L. Euler very accurately formulated in a letter to him dated March 19, 1754: "I have always been amazed at your happy talent, outstanding in various scientific fields."

As for his “Russian Grammar”, on which he worked for almost ten years (while working tirelessly in many other scientific fields and achieving stunning results there) and on which several generations of Russian people grew up (from 1755 to 1855, 15 of her publications) and even many of the foreigners (it was translated into German, French, Greek), Academician philologist Ya.K. Grot emphasized in the century before last that “Russians have the right to be proud of the appearance at home, in the middle XVIII century, such grammar, which not only withstands comparison with homogeneous works of other peoples at the same time, who have long outstripped Russia in the field of science, but also reveals in the author an amazing understanding of the beginning of linguistics, ”and that we owe the formation of “Russian written speech. He first identified grammatical structure and lexical composition of the language.

The grammars created before Lomonosov, P.A. Lavrovsky explained to his compatriots in the year of the centenary of the death of the genius of Russia, were related only to the Church Slavonic language and “were compiled slavishly according to the patterns of Greek and Latin, with all their terms incomprehensible to us and completely unnecessary rules and definitions ", that his grammar was far ahead of the works of "Western European scientists, not excluding the thoughtful Germans, to whom it owes being and modern science linguistics. There was, therefore, no place to borrow Lomonosov from...”, and that with our even best textbooks “we only supplement Lomonosov in some ways, leaving the main provisions in the same form”. It is also important to listen to the assessment that Lomonosov himself gave to his grammar: “Although my other main things are resurrecting me from the verbal sciences, however, seeing that no one is accepted, although I won’t do it, I’ll start, which will be easier for others after me to do” .

And his famous “Short Russian Chronicler”, with which Lomonosov, according to Lavrovsky, created the “skeleton of Russian history”, on the basis of which it was naturally “easier for others to do” works on Russian history, was so in demand by Russian society that in the shortest possible time - from June 1760 to April 1761, i.e. in just 10 months - it came out in three editions and an incredibly huge circulation for that time - more than 6 thousand copies. But even this circulation was so badly lacking that the “Brief Russian Chronicler” was rewritten by hand (and these lists have survived to this day; only N.M. Karamzin will then know such an incredible interest in his work in our history). The foreign countries also got to know him quite quickly: in 1765, 1767, 1771. the book is published in German, in 1767 in English.

Lomonosov was not only a leader in many areas of our science. He is "the compiler of the first Russian public manual on the theory fiction, a revolutionary in the theory and practice of verse, the founder of the still living system of Russian versification, the father of Russian scientific terminology... "(before Lomonosov, S.M. Solovyov gave examples, the titles of scientific works published by the Academy of Sciences, in Russian translation sounded like this: "On the forces of a moving body in data and on their measure", "On whole applications of different equalization"). The genius of Lomonosov “illuminated midnight ... and for a whole century,” A.A. Bestuzhev (Marlinsky) pointed out, “moved our literature forward. - The Russian language owes him rules, poetry and eloquence - forms, both - images. But Lomonosov also founded these areas, i.e. new sciences, for example, physical chemistry and economic geography.

As Academician Yakov von Shtelin, a friend of Lomonosov, accurately said in 1765 in a synopsis of a commendable word to the deceased: “Full of passion for science; desire for discovery. Moreover, in this striving, Lomonosov had practically no predecessors and he had to build, as Academician V.A. Steklov regarding the all-encompassing talent of this “mental giant”, who was ahead of his “age by more than a hundred years ...”, “new paths in almost all areas of the exact sciences”, while striving to “cover and perform at once a huge number of tasks, often incompatible with each other." One can only be amazed, our outstanding mathematician was amazed, knowing for himself what scientific work is, “how one person managed to do such a mass of the most diverse work at the same time”, while “with what depth of almost prophetic gift he penetrated into the essence of every question that arose in his all-encompassing mind."

And this "mental giant", guided by the above-mentioned principle and in his many years of studies in history and also comprehensively penetrating into the essence of its phenomena, did here too major discoveries accepted by domestic and foreign historiography: about the equality of peoples before history (“Greater antiquity does not take away glory from others, whose name later spread in the world. The deeds of the ancient Greeks do not darken the Roman ones, just as the Roman ones cannot humiliate those who for a long time took the beginning its own glory .... Not time, but great deeds bring advantage"), about the absence of "pure" peoples and their complex composition ("For neither common language it is impossible to affirm that from the beginning it stands by itself without any admixture. We see most of them as military unrest, migrations and wanderings in such an interweaving of each other that it is almost impossible to consider which people to give a greater advantage"), about the "majesty and antiquity" of the Slavs, about the Scythians and Sarmatians as the ancient inhabitants of Russia, about the complex ethnic composition Scythians, about the formation of the Russian nationality on a multi-ethnic basis (by combining the “old-time inhabitants of Russia” Slavs and Chuds), about the participation of the Slavs in the Great Migration of Peoples and the fall of the Western Roman Empire, about the relationship of the Hungarians and Chuds (“ strong earth Although the Hungarian region is separated from the local Chud regions by the great Slavic states, that is, Russia and Poland, however, there should be no doubt about the co-ethnicity of its inhabitants with the Chud, judging only by the similarity of their language with the Chud dialects, ”which the Hungarians themselves do not interfere with to notice, they were only convinced a century later), about the arrival of Rurik in Ladoga, about the high level of development of Russian culture (“We have a lot of evidence that in Russia there was no such great darkness of ignorance, which many external writers represent”), about the unreliability of “foreign writers” when studying the history of Russia , because they have "gross errors", etc.

Installed Lomonosov and facts negative property, showing the complete scientific inconsistency of the Norman theory: the absence of traces of Russia in Scandinavia, the absence of information about Rurik in Scandinavian sources, the absence of Scandinavian names in Old Russian toponymy, including the names of the Dnieper rapids, the absence of Scandinavian words in the Russian language (if Russia was Scandinavian, then, legitimately summarized the scientist during the discussion, “should Russian language to have in itself a great variety of Scandinavian words. So the Tatars, he explained, demonstrating in 1749 a high level of knowledge of the history of Russia and mastery of the comparative method, “although never in Russian cities they didn’t have a capital ... but they only sent Baskak or collectors, however, even today we have a great many Tatar words in our language. Therefore, it cannot be that the Varangians-Rus did not have the Slavic language and would speak Scandinavian, however, having moved to us, they would not have made a noble change in the Slavic language") that the names of our first princes, which Bayer, "following his imagination ”, “turned it over in a very ridiculous and impermissible way to make Scandinavian names out of them”, do not have “any sign” in the Scandinavian language and that in general the names themselves do not indicate the language of their speakers. On the whole, as Lomonosov concluded in his third response to Miller's speech in March 1750, "of course, he cannot find any traces of what he puts forward in the Scandinavian monuments."

At the same time, the historian Lomonosov noted, relying on sources, the long-standing presence of Russia in the south of Eastern Europe, where “ Russian people was a long time before Rurik”, the connection of Russia with the Roxolans, the existence of Neman Rus, from where the Varangians-Rus came to the Eastern Slavs, the broad meaning of the term “Varangians” (Varangians “were called the peoples living along the shores of the Varangian Sea”), which in the Tale of calling the Varangians, the chronicler singles out Russia from among the other Varangian, i.e., Western European peoples, while not mixing it with the Scandinavians, focused on the fact that the Varangian princes worshiped Slavic deities and explained to Miller, who insisted on their Scandinavian origin (and he remained true to this idea until the end of his life), the Slavic nature of the names Kholmogor and Izborsk, while noting the simplest way he turned everything Russian into Scandinavian: "The change of the city of Izborsk to Issaburg is very ridiculous ...". He also pointed out at the very beginning of his first review of Miller's speech (September 16, 1749), and this principle is constantly violated by Normanists, that it is necessary to substantiate not only assertions, but also denials: “It is true that in our chronicles there are not without fictions between the truth, somehow, among all ancient peoples, history is at first fabulous, but the truth with fables should not be thrown away together, affirming itself only on conjectures. And in the second remark on the speech (October-November 1749), Lomonosov formulated, in the context of the conversation of his vision of the origin of Russia, key principle impartiality, which is also ignored by supporters of the Norman theory: “for although he (Miller. - V.F.) rejects the origin of the Russians from the Roxolans, however, if he goes the direct way, then he must put all the arguments of the opposite side on Wednesday and then refute” .

In this regard, the conclusions of S.M. Solovyov and V.O. Klyuchevsky are very indicative, who, due to their Normanist delusions, did not recognize Lomonosov as a historian, but at the same time noted his contribution to historical science. So, Solovyov stated that in that part of Ancient Russian History where the sources are analyzed, “Lomonosov’s great talent sometimes shines in all its might, and he draws conclusions that science, after long labors, repeats almost word for word in our time”, that “the reader is amazed at the brilliant solution of some particular preparatory questions, according to the then means of science”, for example, about the Slavs and Chuds, as ancient inhabitants “in Russia”, about the retinue composition of “peoples who appeared at the beginning of the Middle Ages”, about the deep antiquity of the Slavs (“peoples they do not begin with names, but names are given to peoples”), admired his “excellent remark on the composition of peoples”. And, giving him special merit that he noticed the squad composition of the Varangians and thereby showed the absence of ethnic content in the term "Varangians", our eminent historian following Lomonosov, the Vikings were understood not by any specific people, but by European squads, “made up of people who, willy or unwillingly, left their homeland and were forced to seek their fortune on the seas or in foreign countries”, “a mob gang of adventurers”.

Klyuchevsky, in turn, said that “his critical essay in some parts still has not lost its significance”, that “in certain places where conjecture and intelligence were required, Lomonosov sometimes expressed brilliant ideas that matter even now. Such is his idea about the mixed composition of the Slavic tribes, his idea that the history of the people usually begins before its name becomes well known. And in the "Course of Russian History" the scientist develops Lomonosov's idea, though without naming him, that the Russian people was formed "from a mixture of elements of Slavic and Finnish, with the former predominating." It does not hurt to notice that in the treatise of the outstanding representative of the German Enlightenment of the XVIII century. I.G. Herder "Ideas to the Philosophy of the History of Humanity" there is a section " Slavic peoples”, in which, as A.S. Mylnikov noted in 1988, “almost textual coincidences can be found” with Lomonosov’s statement about the Slavs contained in his “Ancient Russian History” (Mylnikov adds that this section “received at the end of the XVIII - the beginning of the 19th century, a noticeable spread in the Slavic lands and played an important role in the development of national-patriotic concepts among the Czechs, Slovaks and South Slavs. One of the propagandists of Herder's view was J. Dobrovsky").

Lomonosov's historical interests, as is well known, were not limited to the distant past. His "Ancient Russian History", ending with the death of Yaroslav the Wise, had, according to historians, a continuation and was brought to 1452. It is believed that he created, with the participation of A.I. Bogdanov, “A Brief Russian Chronicler”, according to the exact assessment of P.A. Lavrovsky, “the skeleton of Russian history”, which gives the history of Russia from the first news about the Slavs to Peter I inclusive, “ with an indication of the most important events and with the application of the genealogy of the Rurikoviches and the Romanovs to Elizabeth. Lomonosov was very much involved in the era and personality of Peter I, the archery riots. In 1757, at the request of I.I. Shuvalov, he wrote notes on the manuscript “History of the Russian Empire under Peter the Great” (first eight chapters) by F.-MA.A. Voltaire, where he corrected “numerous errors and inaccuracies of the text”, and all these amendments were adopted by a European celebrity. So, at his insistence, the French thinker revised and expanded the section "Description of Russia", completely redid the chapter on archery riots, using the "Description of the Streltsy riots and the reign of Princess Sophia" sent by Lomonosov, in many cases "almost verbatim" reproducing the latter in his "History". His own hand belongs to the “Abbreviated Description of the Impostors” and “Abbreviated on the Life of Sovereigns and Tsars Michael, Alexei and Fedor”, whose fate is still unknown, and which he also prepared for Voltaire (it would not be out of place to note that Miller’s notes to his the philosopher reacted extremely negatively to the work that he also did at the request of Shuvalov, undeservedly throwing in great irritation that “I would wish this man more intelligence ...”).

Finally, V.N. Tatishchev, just as our other great historian N.M. Karamzin, but no one will ever reproach him for this, as one can hope. E.F. Miller, of course, should not be reproached for the lack of a university education (P.N. systematization of sources) and he, as the Normanist N. Sazonov rightly said in 1835, “deserves the eternal gratitude of all lovers national history...”, and a year later, the anti-Normanist Yu.I. Venelin also quite rightly talked about his “extensive” merits and that he “deserved a lengthy and excellent biography”.

From Book 1. New chronology Russia [Russian chronicles. "Mongol-Tatar" conquest. Kulikovo battle. Ivan the Terrible. Razin. Pugachev. Defeat of Tobolsk and author

1.2. XVIII century: Miller After the clerk Kudryavtsev, Klyuchevsky passes, bypassing Tatishchev, immediately to Miller, who began work on Russian history under Elizabeth Petrovna. Let us ask ourselves a question: why, in fact, Klyuchevsky does not mention Tatishchev? After all, he lived under Peter I, that is,

From the book New Chronology and the Concept of the Ancient History of Russia, England and Rome author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

XVIII century: Miller After the clerk Kudryavtsev, Klyuchevsky passes, bypassing Tatishchev, immediately to Miller, who began work on Russian history under Elizabeth Petrovna.

author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

31. In what a fierce struggle was the Millerian-Romanov version of Russian history introduced into Russian society in the 18th century Lomonosov and Miller Earlier we already emphasized the striking circumstance that the version of Russian history accepted today was created in the

From the book Book 2. The Secret of Russian History [New Chronology of Russia. Tatar and Arabic languages ​​in Russia. Yaroslavl as Veliky Novgorod. ancient english history author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

32. The question of the authenticity of the published "Russian History" Lomonosov Lomonosov or Miller? In this section, fragments of the work of A.T. Fomenko, G.V. Nosovsky, N.S. Kellin. See. Above, the idea was expressed that the text of "Ancient Russian History" known today

author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

Supplement LOMONOSOV AND MILLER (G. V. Nosovsky,

From book Trojan War in the middle Ages. Analysis of responses to our research [with illustrations] author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

From the book Rus and Rome. Colonization of America by Russia-Horde in the XV-XVI centuries author Nosovsky Gleb Vladimirovich

53. The Millerian-Romanov version of Russian history was introduced into Russian society in a fierce struggle between Lomonosov and Miller

From the book of 100 great Jews author Shapiro Michael

ARTHUR MILLER (1915-2005) Theatre, as a form of entertainment, is designed to bring people together in public place for the sake of experiencing common experiences. The ancient Greeks used theater as a debate between deeply felt sadness and laughter. The gods and noble rulers of the earth were depicted in

From the book Calling the Varangians [Norman false theory and the truth about Prince Rurik] author Grot Lidia Pavlovna

How the orientalist Bayer introduced Swedish innovations In science and in the near-scientific community, it is widely believed that the German orientalist Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, after the publication of the article “On the Varangians” (De Varagis), became the founder of Normanism, a trend in the historical

From the book True History of Russia. Notes of an amateur author

Historians and History: Schlözer. Who "edited" the Radzivilov Chronicle? G.V. Nosovsky and A.T. Fomenko suspect Schlozer. Who is this? Schlözer August Ludwig (1735-1809) - German historian, philologist; in Russian service from 1761 to 1767. Since 1769 foreign honorary member

From the book Under the Hat of Monomakh author Platonov Sergey Fyodorovich

Chapter Three Scientific assessments of Peter the Great in later time. Soloviev and Kavelin. - Klyuchevsky. - Miliukov's view and its refutation. Fiction historians. - Military historians Such was the stock of judgments of the Russian intelligentsia about Peter the Great, when for an assessment of the era

From the book Calling the Varangians [Normans who were not] author Grot Lidia Pavlovna

How the orientalist Bayer introduced Swedish innovations Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer In science and in the pseudo-scientific community, it is widely believed that the German orientalist Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer, after the publication of the article “On the Varangians” (De Varagis), became

From the book True History of Russia. Notes of an amateur [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

Historians and history: Schlözer Who "edited" the Radzivilov Chronicle? G. V. Nosovsky and A. T. Fomenko suspect Schlozer. Who is this? Schlözer August Ludwig (1735–1809) - German historian, philologist; in the Russian service 1761 to 1767. Since 1769 foreign honorary member

From the book Great Chemists. In 2 vols. Vol. 2 author Manolov Kaloyan

ADOLF BAYER (1835-1918) Dusk is approaching. The spring wind is getting colder and colder. Professor Bayer and his assistant Richard Wilstetter are slowly walking along the deserted streets of Munich. Carried away by the conversation, they sometimes stop, gesticulating, something

author

Supplement Lomonosov and Miller (G.V. Nosovsky, A.T.

From the book The Trojan War in the Middle Ages. [Analysis of responses to our research.] author Fomenko Anatoly Timofeevich

2. The question of the authenticity of the published "Russian History" Lomonosov Lomonosov or Miller? (In this section, fragments of the work of N.S. Kellin, G.V. Nosovsky, A.T. Fomenko are cited; see Bulletin of Moscow State University, series 9, Philology, No. 1, 1999, pp. 116–125). In this work hypothesis about

The true history of Russia. Notes of an amateur [with illustrations] Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

Historians and History: Schlözer

Historians and History: Schlözer

Who "edited" the Radzivilov Chronicle? G. V. Nosovsky and A. T. Fomenko suspect Schlozer. Who is it?

Schlözer August Ludwig(1735–1809) - German historian, philologist; in the Russian service 1761 to 1767. Since 1769 he was a foreign honorary member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (since he returned to Germany in 1768). He enjoyed the patronage of the tsarist government (Shapiro, 1993, p. 271). It is useful to note that Schlözer came to Russia in 1961 to act as a home teacher for children in the family of the historian Miller. And four years later he was a professor of Russian history at the Academy of Sciences (at 30!). True, we note right away that Miller also became a professor quite quickly - after six years (at 26 years old). Such was the policy of the Russian government for the development of the Academy of Sciences.

During Seven Years' War with Prussia (1756-1763), Koenigsberg ended up in the hands of the Russians, and the original of the Radzivilov Chronicle came to Russia and was transferred to the library of the Academy of Sciences, where it is currently stored. Schlözer was the first to study it. He prepared an edition of the chronicle - “Nestor. Russian chronicles in the Old Slavonic language”, which was published in its German translation and with its explanations in Göttingen in 1802-1809 (Nosovsky, Fomenko, 1996, pp. 76, 82).

When in 1764 Schlozer decided to return to Germany, “by the personal order of Catherine II, Schlozer was appointed an ordinary academician with a salary of 860 rubles a year. At the same time, the empress allowed him to issue a foreign passport” (Vernadsky, 1998, p. 53). He came to Russia on the terms of 100 rubles a year. After publication in Germany in 1769. trial sheet of the annals (“purified Nestor”, and the sheet is just a trial one!) Schlozer was appointed an honorary academician with a lifelong pension. Why such attention and special care of the empress to the researcher of Russian chronicles? Even the queen took part in issuing the passport.

From the book People and Lodges. Russian Freemasons of the XX century author Berberova Nina Nikolaevna

Historians Starting from the thirties in the Soviet Union for half a century, there were practically no publications about Freemasonry of the 20th century, even about foreign, not to mention domestic. There were only mentions in academic articles and monographs by A.E. Ioffe, A.V. Ignatieva,

From the book Greece and Rome [The evolution of military art over 12 centuries] author Connolly Peter

Historians There are many stories about the campaign of Hannibal from Spain to Italy, and each of the authors, pursuing his own goals, sends Hannibal in a different way. The quality of these stories ranges from the quite scientific to the downright ludicrous. Much more

From the book Greece and Rome, encyclopedia military history author Connolly Peter

Historians There are many stories about the campaign of Hannibal from Spain to Italy, and each of the authors, pursuing his own goals, sends Hannibal in a different way. The quality of these stories ranges from the quite scientific to the downright ludicrous. Much more

From the book True History of Russia. Notes of an amateur author

Historians and history: the first books on the history of Russia until the 19th century. Who was the first to write the history of the Russian state? Most people know about our history only from school textbooks. Someone knows about the “History of the Russian State” by N.M. Karamzin, written in

From the book Varyago-Russian question in historiography author Sakharov Andrey Nikolaevich

Bayer, Miller, Schletser and Lomonosov as historians The unconcealed condescending attitude towards Tatishchev and Lomonosov of our Normanists, who have a university education and from their student days blindly adopted a fanatical belief in the "scientific nature" of the Norman theory, and only

From the book Under the Hat of Monomakh author Platonov Sergey Fyodorovich

Chapter Three Scientific assessments of Peter the Great in later times. Soloviev and Kavelin. - Klyuchevsky. - Miliukov's view and its refutation. Fiction historians. - Military historians Such was the stock of judgments of the Russian intelligentsia about Peter the Great, when for an assessment of the era

From the book Political Biography of Stalin. Volume 1 author Kapchenko Nikolay Ivanovich

Chapter 1 WHO ARE THE JUDGES: HISTORIANS OR HISTORY?

author Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

Historians and history: Schlözer Who "edited" the Radzivilov Chronicle? G. V. Nosovsky and A. T. Fomenko suspect Schlozer. Who is this? Schlözer August Ludwig (1735–1809) - German historian, philologist; in the Russian service 1761 to 1767. Since 1769 foreign honorary member

From the book True History of Russia. Notes of an amateur [with illustrations] author Guts Alexander Konstantinovich

Historians and history: the first books on the history of Russia until the 19th century. Who was the first to write the history of the Russian state? Most people know about our history only from school textbooks. Someone knows about the “History of the Russian State” by N. M. Karamzin, written in

From the book Without the Eternal Blue Sky [Essays on our history] by Aji Murad

History and historians The museum is trying to climb into which the fortress is being turned. That's why the surviving bits of the past only increase the pain. Killed city. Tortured. Its restoration is carried out somehow, without the participation of science, without thinking about beauty and eternity, they see only earnings in the museum.

From the book Big War author Burovsky Andrey Mikhailovich

From the book Africa. History and historians author Team of authors

A. S. Balezin. African Historians and UNESCO's "General History of Africa": Yesterday and Today, the "General History of Africa", published under the auspices of UNESCO in the 1980-1990s, was the first fundamental collective work of African scholars (written, however, in collaboration with white

From the book Nature and Power [World History environment] author Radkau Joachim

6. TERRA INCOGNITA: THE HISTORY OF THE ENVIRONMENT - THE HISTORY OF THE MYSTERIOUS OR THE HISTORY OF THE BANAL? It must be admitted that there is a great deal in the history of the environment that we do not know or only vaguely recognize. It sometimes seems that the ecological history of Antiquity or the non-European world before modern times consists in

One of the authors of the so-called "Norman theory" of the emergence of Russian statehood. He led a scientific debate with M. V. Lomonosov, contributed to the publication of V. N. Tatishchev's History of Russia. Returning to Germany, Schlözer received a professorship at the University of Göttingen, teaching history and statistics. Author of works on Old Russian grammar, history, paleography. In 1803, for his work in the field of Russian history, he was awarded the Order of St. Vladimir IV degree and elevated to the nobility. In the last years of his life, he recognized and proved the authenticity of The Tale of Igor's Campaign. Schlozer's works had a great scientific resonance in Russian historiography of the second half of the 18th - 20th centuries.

Biography

Born July 5, 1735 in the family of pastor Johann Georg Friedrich Schlozer († 1740). His father, grandfather and great-grandfather were Protestant clergy. Having lost his father early, Schlozer was raised by pastor Gaygold, his mother's father, and he was also trained and assigned to the nearest school in Langenburg. At first, his grandfather trained him as a pharmacist, but, in view of his grandson's great abilities, he decided to give him a more extensive education and transferred him to a school in Wertheim, the head of which was his son-in-law Schultz. Here Schlozer was distinguished by remarkable diligence; under the guidance of Schultz, he studied the Bible, the classics, studied languages: Hebrew, Greek, Latin and French, as well as music, and found more time to give lessons that brought him funds to buy books.

Having reached the age of 16, in 1751 Schlözer went to Wittenberg University, known at that time for its theological faculty, and began to prepare for a spiritual title. Three years later, after defending his thesis "On the Life of God" - "De vita Dei", he moved to the University of Göttingen, which then began to gain fame for its freedom of teaching. One of the best professors at that time was Michaelis, a theologian and philologist, an expert in Oriental languages, who had a great influence on Schlözer. Here Schlözer also began to study the geography and languages ​​​​of the East in preparation for a trip to Palestine, as well as medicine and politics. In order to acquire the necessary funds for the journey, in 1755 he accepted the position of a teacher offered to him in a Swedish family in Stockholm.

While teaching, Schlozer himself began to study Gothic, Icelandic, Lapland and Polish. In Stockholm, he published his first scholarly work, The History of Enlightenment in Sweden (Neueste Geschichte der Gelehrsamkeit in Schweden. - Rostock und Wismar. 1756-1760), and then The Experience of the General History of Navigation and Trade from Ancient Times (Farf?k til en allman Historia am Handel och Sj?fart. Stockholm. 1758) in Swedish, which dwelled on the history of the Phoenicians. Wishing to practically get acquainted with trade and find a person among wealthy merchants who would provide him with funds for traveling to the East, Schlözer went in 1759 to Lübeck. The trip was unsuccessful; in the same year he returned to Göttingen and took up the study of natural science, medicine, metaphysics, ethics, mathematics, statistics, politics, Mosaic law and the legal sciences. Such an extensive and versatile education developed a critical direction of mind in Schlozer.

In Russia

In 1761, at the invitation of F.I. Miller, he came to Russia and took the place of a home teacher and his assistant in historical works with a salary of 100 rubles. in year. In 1761-1767. worked at the Imperial Academy of Sciences, adjunct since 1762. Honorary member of the Academy of Sciences (1769) and the Society of Russian History and Antiquities (1804).

Schlozer set himself three tasks: to study the Russian language, to help Miller in his Sammlung Russischer Geschichte, and to study Russian historical sources, for which he became acquainted with the Church Slavonic language. He soon began to disagree with Miller. Schlozer could not be satisfied with the modest role that Miller put him, and left him, and through Taubart was made an adjunct of the academy for an indefinite time. Schlözer was carried away by chronicles, but much was incomprehensible to him. By chance, Taubart found a handwritten German translation of the complete list of the chronicle, made by the scholar Sellius, and Schlözer began extracting from it. Here he noticed the connection of the chronicle story with Byzantine sources and began to study George Pachymer, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, but since it turned out that everything could not be explained by Byzantine sources alone, he began to study the Slavic language and on this occasion expressed the following view: “who is not familiar with Greek and Slavonic and wants to write chronicles, that eccentric who looks like someone who would explain Pliny without knowing natural history and technology.