The true history of the world through the eyes of mathematicians. Historical face of the era Restored faces of historical figures
[email protected] in category, question opened 09.26.2017 at 15:00
2. Why do real historical figures coexist with gods here? What does this mixture of fictional and historical indicate?
3. How does a myth differ from a fairy tale? What unites them?
4. Do you know how Slavic deities are similar to Greek gods?
?1529
The global flood from which they escaped
Devaclion and Pyrrha.(Probably this event
recorded in ancient stone
chronological table from the island of Paros,
refers to the flood caused by the eruption
Santorini volcano.)
1519
King Cadmus, the founder of Kadmeia, came to
Thebes from Phenicia and taught the Greeks writing. 1432
King Minos, son of Zeus, from Mycenaean
the Achaeans reigned over Crete, and the Phrygian dwarfs
taught the Greeks how to forge iron.
1409
The goddess Demeter came to Athens and
taught the Greeks agriculture.
1300
Hercules, having cleansed the Augean stables and
Having defeated King Augeas, he established the Olympic Games.
1260
Theseus, having killed the Minotaur, liberated Athens
from tribute, gave them laws and established the Isthmian Games.
1251
Campaign of the Seven against Thebes, and at the same time
The Nemean Games were established.
1208
June 5. Capture of Troy after ten years
Trojan War.
1202
Orestes, son of Agamemnon, avenging his father,
kills his mother, but is acquitted by the Areopagus court.
1128
Resettlement of the Dorians led by the kings
Heracleidae in the Pelopennese.
1085
Death of Codras, king of Athens, in the war with
Doryans. The end of royal power in Athens.
937
The rise of the poet Hesiod.
907
The rise of the poet Homer.
895
The Argive king Fidon introduced
use of precise measures, scales and money.
Historical consciousness is a complex socio-psychological phenomenon that includes many different elements: memory of the past, political, social, national and regional assessments of past events, images of historical heroes, traditions, historical knowledge, symbols, objects, etc. Often it is historical consciousness plays a vital role in determining an individual’s or a social group’s own identity and, as a result, significantly influences the choice of political, social, religious and even everyday preferences. The sources for the formation of historical consciousness are diverse: historical memory, folklore, religious teachings, historical mythology, official state concepts, scientific interpretations, works of literature, art and architecture, etc.
Historical consciousness is an established phenomenon, based on traditional historical values, but at the same time very flexible, susceptible to influence both from outside and from within, changing depending on the variability of external circumstances. A huge role is played by state policy in the field of history, implemented through the education system, culture, mass media, support for certain religious teachings, etc.
However, the possibility of non-state and anti-state influence on historical consciousness has always existed, and in the modern world has greatly increased. For example, any universalist ideology that claims global hegemony involves deliberate actions to erode and even destroy traditional national, state or religious historical consciousness to replace it with its own vision of history (“history is the struggle of classes”; “history is the struggle for rights person”, etc.). Subject to historical consciousness and influence of individual social groups that present their group or corporate historical priorities as generally significant. Therefore, this area at all times remains an arena of struggle between various socio-political forces in order to establish certain goals of historical development. After all, the struggle for history is always a struggle for the present and the future.
Understanding the essence of historical consciousness, its forms and development processes depends on the religious and philosophical preferences and methodological principles of certain thinkers, political, religious and public figures. It is impossible here to characterize all aspects of historical consciousness and demonstrate all approaches to its analysis. Therefore, historical consciousness will be considered within certain frameworks: firstly, from the standpoint of traditionalist-conservative methodology; secondly, as a primarily national phenomenon, i.e. as the historical consciousness of the people; and thirdly, using the example of the development of the historical consciousness of the Russian people, i.e. taking into account Russian national specifics.
"Kinship in History"
In Russia, all discussions, be it about problems of the economy, current politics, culture, or anything else, quite quickly turn into disputes about history. Apparently, this is inevitable, because without unity when it comes to historical issues, it is difficult to unite when it comes to the present and, most importantly, the future. Consequently, for the existence of the Russian people and the Russian state, a single historical consciousness is of great, if not decisive, importance.
The reasons for this can be found in ancient times. Among the Slavic peoples, the basis of society was the territorial or neighboring community, whose members were connected not so much by blood, but by a common economic life, a common territory, and spiritual and cultural preferences. Moreover, in such a community not only people from different tribes coexisted, but also representatives of different nations, i.e. ethnically distant from each other. But such historical phenomena have resulted in the fact that almost all Slavic peoples have no memory of distant blood relationships.
In fact, most Russians usually remember their relatives up to a maximum of 4-5 generations. Meanwhile, representatives of any Caucasian or Turkic people are always ready to talk about distant ancestors, including progenitors, because the memory of them is reverently preserved by family and tribal traditions. And, for example, in the Scandinavian sagas the names of ancestors from 30-40 previous generations are listed. Among the Russian elite, boyars and nobles, the first genealogies appeared only in the second half of the 16th century, and even then they were most often fictitious, especially in those parts that related to the origin of clans. Then it was fashionable to invent foreign ancestors for yourself: on the one hand, it seemed to be an honor to trace your family lineage from some noble foreigner, but on the other hand, go prove that this is not so, because in Muscovite Rus' they knew practically nothing about the genealogical connections of Western Europe.
The most striking example of such an invented genealogy is the genealogy of first the boyars, and then the tsars from the Romanov family, the beginning of which was traced back to the mythical ancestors who left for Rus' “from Prussia” at the beginning of the 14th century. Similar stories happened later, and at a completely official level. Thus, at the beginning of the 18th century, on the instructions of Peter I, a mythical pedigree of his favorite Alexander Danilovich Menshikov was invented, who, thanks to this invention, received the title of His Serene Highness Prince of the Holy Roman Empire. The main Russian population, peasants, even received surnames only in the 18th-19th centuries. during the revision censuses, and so each new generation was nicknamed either by the name of the grandfather, or by the profession of some recent ancestor, or by his nickname.
Thus, one of the cardinal qualities of Russian national consciousness is not “kinship by blood,” but “kinship by history.” And not only the current situation, but also the future of the Russian people, moreover, their very existence, depends on the answers to historical questions. Unlike many other peoples, Russians, as well as most other Slavs, instead of “blood”, one of the unifying principles, along with the image of a single Earth, a single language, a single faith, a common culture and a single state, is a single historical consciousness (the same “kinship in history”).
This is a whole complex of the most important events, a single assessment of which has been honed over centuries of common historical fate, and recognition of this assessment means, strictly speaking, belonging to the people. And a very real feeling by a person of the involvement of his own destiny in something big, significant, great, the involvement of modern generations in the historical fate of their people, their understanding of their own historical and moral responsibility for their land and their people before past and future generations.
The unified historical consciousness itself consists of several conditional “levels”. The basis of “kinship in history” is the common historical memory of the people. This is a feeling (conscious or unconscious) of the unity of historical destiny and therefore the most common form of historical consciousness, most often existing in the form of sensory images presented in various oral and written sources (legends, tales, epics, sayings, songs, literary and artistic works, etc.) .d.). Historical memory arises in ancient times, but exists throughout the entire historical existence of a people, including in its present state. It is precisely because of its sensory nature that historical memory often contradicts scientific historical knowledge, because for it the exact dates and places of events, the real names of the participants in these events, and even the reality of the historical figures themselves are not always important. Moreover, the historical memory of the people exists predominantly in a mythologized form and cannot be otherwise, for myth is an ordinary and completely normal state of the historical memory of the people.
For example, Vladimir the Red Sun is very popular in the historical memory of the Russian people. But this is a character from Russian epics, and therefore a collective image of an ancient Russian prince (X-XIII centuries), which has little in common with real historical figures. However, even in scientific literature one can sometimes find an identification of the epic Vladimir the Red Sun with the historical Kiev prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, the Baptist of Rus' (died in 1015), and in the ordinary historical memory of the people, Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich is most often present under the nickname “Red Sun” .
In addition to the fact that historical memory can contradict scientific knowledge, it is also internally contradictory. This is especially typical for large nations living over vast territories and in contact with other ethnic groups. For this reason, firstly, diverse versions of general historical legends arose and existed in parallel, and, secondly, local legends that had no analogues. In Russian historical memory, probably the most striking local legend can be considered “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign” (XII century). This monument, on the one hand, reflects the oldest southern Russian historical and religious mythology, dating back to the 4th century. AD and has no analogues either in Russian or in other Slavic legends, and, on the other hand, the chronicle version of history that already existed by that time, presented in the “Tale of Bygone Years,” is not reflected in any way.
At a certain stage in the existence of a people, most often during the creation of a state, there is a need to structure historical memory and create a concept of history that meets state interests (primarily the interests of the ruling family). Gradually, from different versions of legends in the course of their purposeful editing, an official state interpretation of history is formed, which begins to have a decisive influence on the formation of the historical consciousness of the people.
History from above
In the history of Russia there have been several official interpretations of national history. In the first centuries of the existence of the Old Russian state (late 9th-11th centuries), different ideas coexisted in the historical consciousness of the population of different regions about “where did the Russian land come from and who was the first to reign in Rus'?” In the northeast, in Novgorod, they adhered to the version about the calling of the Varangians Rurik and his brethren, and in the south, in Kyiv, they considered a certain Kiy and his family to be the “founding father”. This dispute is clearly reflected in the Tale of Bygone Years, the first Russian chronicle to contain both versions. But there were those who disagreed with these two legends. Thus, some “dissenters,” among whom was, for example, the first Russian Metropolitan Hilarion (11th century), author of the famous “Sermon on Law and Grace,” considered Prince Igor the Old to be the first Russian prince. Others, including the unknown author of “The Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” called a certain Troyan, either a pagan god, or a mythical ancestor, the ancestor of the Rus, and the Russian land itself was called “the land of Troyan.”
Apparently, we owe the birth of the first official interpretation of Russian history primarily to the princes Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh (1053-1125) and his son Mstislav Vladimirovich the Great (1076-1132). These were the last two princes who fought for all-Russian unity, and the last rulers of a single Old Russian state. It was during their reign, and perhaps on their instructions, in the first quarter of the 12th century. Russian scribes and chroniclers in Kyiv brought together various legends and traditions of Slavic and non-Slavic peoples into a single text, “The Tale of Bygone Years,” and thereby created the first unified interpretation of Russian history. Then, for the first time, the specific features of the Russian land were defined, and domestic history was “inscribed” for the first time in world and, above all, Christian history; the place of the Russian land in the Christian world was determined.
Finally, it was then that different versions of the emergence of the Old Russian state (“Russian Land”) and the origin of the Russian princely family were included in a single consistent chain of events. Some side variants of the genealogy of the Kiev princes were discarded (for example, the figures of Askold, Dir and Oleg, who began to be called not princes, but “boyars” and “voivodes”. The consequence of this is the absence of these figures on the monument to the “Millennium of Russia”, erected in Veliky Novgorod in 1862). But the main figure stood out - Rurik was declared the common ancestor of all Russian princes. And this despite the fact that, apparently, until the end of the 11th century in Kiev, few people knew about Rurik, and the chroniclers had to artificially connect Rurik and Igor, who was separated from his supposed “father” by at least two generations, with ties of kinship!
Over time, the interpretation of Russian history proposed by the authors of the Tale of Bygone Years became generally accepted and was then included in all subsequent chronicles as a narrative about the initial stages of the existence of the Russian people (the earliest version of the Tale of Bygone Years was preserved in the Laurentian Chronicle, known in a manuscript of the 14th century). . A little later, it was this interpretation of Russian history, along with a single Orthodox faith, that helped the Russian people resist Horde rule and preserve, at first illusory, and later increasingly realistic hope for the revival of Russian unity, including state unity.
However, one must keep in mind that in Rus' at all times there were several chronicle centers. In the XI-XIII centuries. when presenting and assessing contemporary and some historical events, Kiev, Novgorod, Rostov, Galich and others argued among themselves, and even in Kiev they looked at history differently, for example, the scribes of the Tithe Church interpreted the events of the past and present differently from each other Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. In the XIV-XV centuries. in northeastern Rus', Moscow and Tver chroniclers competed; in addition, the Novgorod and Pskov chronicles preserved specific views on modernity and history. These different chronicle traditions influenced the formation of subsequent official and scientific interpretations of Russian history.
The second official interpretation of history, which arose in the 16th century, turned out to be even more significant for the beneficial development of the Russian people and the Russian state. The reason for its emergence was changed historical circumstances: at the end of the 15th century, the Russian state gained independence and at the same time, after the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, it remained the only independent Orthodox state. That is why at the beginning of the 16th century. In Russia, some kind of spiritual and intellectual explosion of incredible strength and consequences is taking place - church and secular thinkers began the most intense work to find a new place for the Russian state and the Russian people in world history.
The result of this search was the emergence of a number of the most important spiritual and political complexes and images (“Third Rome”, “New Israel”, “New Jerusalem”, “Holy Rus'”), in which all the semantic and goal orientations of the historical existence of Russia and the Russian people found expression . And in the Russian book tradition, the most important, fundamental historical works appeared: “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir”, “The Front Chronicle Code”, “The Nikon Chronicle”, “The Degree Book of the Tsar’s Genealogy” and many other significant works, on the ideological basis of which the Russian kingdom later grew , and then the Russian Empire. The official interpretation, created in the 16th century, had the greatest influence on the formation of Russian historical consciousness, offering contemporaries and descendants the main periodization, main assessments and main characters of Russian history, which have largely been preserved to this day.
Moreover, the Romanovs, having become the reigning family in the 17th century and not having a direct blood relationship with the Rurikovichs, nevertheless in every possible way emphasized and justified their relationship with the previous dynasty, which allowed them to transfer to themselves all the sacred, symbolic and legendary ideas that were in the Russian consciousness associated with the Rurik family that has reigned for centuries.
At the same time, unofficial interpretations of history continued to exist during this period: firstly, until the beginning of the 17th century. in some centers, their own chronicles were preserved with original interpretations of historical events; secondly, from the middle of the 16th century. Works by various authors began to appear, presenting their own interpretations of the past and present (for example, the works of Andrei Kurbsky). These unofficial interpretations played a role in the formation of subsequent concepts of national history.
In the 18th century, in response to the transformations of Russian life during the reforms of Peter I and Catherine II, not just a third interpretation emerged, but rather a whole complex of new interpretations of Russian history. At the same time, different interpretations exist in parallel and have approximately the same impact on the historical consciousness of the people.
First of all, a scientific interpretation of Russian history is created. Its appearance was inevitable: the semantic and goal orientations of Russia’s existence needed to be understood from the point of view of a new rationalistic worldview. Therefore, the religious, spiritual and political concepts that existed until then were discarded, and the so-called “scientific approach” was gradually established in the understanding of history, i.e. a rational, critical look at the past.
This was started by the first Russian historian Vasily Tatishchev (1686-1750), and the work continued in the works of Mikhail Shcherbatov (1733-1790), Nikolai Karamzin (1766-1826), Mikhail Pogodin (1800-1875), Nikolai Ustryalov (1805-1870) , Nikolai Kostomarov (1817-1875), Sergei Solovyov (1820-1879), Vasily Klyuchevsky (1841-1911), Sergei Platonov (1860-1933) and others, now professional historians. An important feature of the scientific interpretation was that there was no unity in it, because every historian either built his own concept of the history of Russia, or joined an existing one, developed and supplemented it. Thus, during this period, several interpretations of Russian history appeared at once, united only by a common methodological approach - all of them were built on rationalistic, scientific-critical principles.
In addition, in the XVIII - early XX centuries. There were several official interpretations of history, successively replacing each other. Moreover, they were edited in a certain spiritual and political key with the direct participation of Russian emperors (Peter I and Catherine II showed particular interest in this in the 18th century, and Nicholas I in the 19th century). The most influential can be considered the official interpretations proposed by the authors of gymnasium textbooks: in the 19th century. - course of Russian history by Ustryalov, and at the beginning of the 20th century. - Platonov.
After the revolutionary events of 1917 and the establishment of Soviet power, a fourth, official interpretation of Russian history was created - “Marxist”. At the same time, other interpretations were prohibited, and their followers were subjected to repression (one can recall the notorious “Academic Case” of 1929-1931, in which academicians Sergei Platonov, Evgeniy Tarle and many other historians suffered).
This interpretation was based on the same rationalistic principles, but at first it brought them to the point of absurdity: in the first years of Soviet power, in the interests of preparing the population for the world revolution, the previous history of Russia was generally denied or acquired bizarre forms, as, for example, in the writings of the “head of Marxist historical schools in the USSR" by academician Mikhail Pokrovsky. Only in the mid-1930s, when the Bolshevik leadership abandoned the idea of world revolution and concentrated its efforts on its own country, did a state order appear for the development of the concept of national history. And in the 1940s -1950s. The mass consciousness was offered a completely intelligible construction called “History of the USSR.” In other words, once again the hegemony of one of the possible interpretations of history was established “from above.” However, it must be borne in mind that even within the framework of Marxist ideology, discussions on various problems continued in Soviet historical science, and in general, Soviet scientists made a significant contribution to the development of world historical science.
After the collapse of the USSR, various scientific, religious, ideological and even non-sci-fi interpretations of domestic and world history coexisted in Russia. “Historical pluralism” turned into a real “historical bacchanalia”, and there was a danger of the destruction of a single historical consciousness, and therefore a threat to the existence of the people and the state. The answer to these concerns was the so-called “Concept of a new educational and methodological complex for national history,” which should serve as the basis for the creation of textbooks for secondary schools. However, in the scientific community (including the team of authors of “Concept”) the idea of developing a new official interpretation of history was perceived skeptically, and in some cases, critically. I think that is why the “Concept” itself turned out to be loose in structure and contradictory in content. Thus, today the question of developing an official interpretation of the history of Russia, which would serve the further existence and development of a unified historical consciousness of the people, remains open.
The limits of rationalism
As you can see, debates about history have always been ongoing in Rus'. But from time to time it was possible to develop a certain unified idea of the past, a certain interpretation of history recognized by everyone (or the majority). And then, on its basis, the future of Russia was built, and this interpretation itself became part of the general historical consciousness of the people.
On what principles can a new interpretation of Russian history be built? Today it is generally accepted that the only correct scientific knowledge is based on a critical understanding of sources, because it is precisely this that represents a certain objective vision of historical events. Consequently, scientific knowledge is the pinnacle of the historical consciousness of the people. In other words, it is knowledge substantiated by rationalistic, scientific methods that comes to the fore.
There is a large amount of truth in such a belief, but one should not think that the historical consciousness of the people can be reduced only to scientific knowledge. Still, historical consciousness is a much more complex phenomenon than any of the scientific interpretations of history. Moreover, scientific knowledge cannot pretend to be ousted from the historical consciousness of the people of historical memory. A scientific understanding of any subject of knowledge, including history, presupposes the equal existence of different interpretations of the same plots. That is why there is no and, most likely, cannot even exist, a “single correct” scientific interpretation of history in general and Russian history in particular, accepted for all centuries. Surely, in parallel or after the existing one, another interpretation will appear, the creators of which will consider it equally “unique” and “correct”.
At the same time, different interpretations differ not only in the degree of approximation to historical truth, but also in their tasks, goals, level of social influence, etc. And it cannot be any other way in science, and it should not be. Science, after all, only offers the authorities and society different solutions, different paths, different interpretations of the past, but any more or less final choice is up to society and the authorities themselves.
Consequently, only rational historical knowledge cannot be considered the only form of a unified historical consciousness. But then what kind of interpretation of history can be considered as the basis for the preservation and development of a unified historical consciousness of the people? In this case, the main criterion is the need to preserve and further exist the people in history, which means that such concepts as the subjectivity of the people in history, national and spiritual sovereignty, traditional values, national, religious, social, political identity, etc. come to the fore. In this case, the understanding of the science of history itself changes. From a traditionalist-conservative point of view, history is a science that reveals the meaning of historical development, and therefore, the science of how to arrange present and future life with the help of knowledge and understanding of the past.
From this point of view, it turns out that not all interpretations of history are “equally useful.” For example, some can serve to strengthen and establish the people, the formation of their unified historical consciousness, the development and approval of the ideological, spiritual, socio-political foundations of the people's existence. Others, on the contrary, with their hypercriticism or orientation towards other, non-traditional values for Russia, can contribute to the further atomization of both the Russian population and the Russian state.
There is another difficult point. As already mentioned, different interpretations of history, as the most important components of historical consciousness, have different effects on the development of the country and people. In particular, the first two official interpretations of Russian history (which arose, respectively, in the 12th century and in the 16th century) played an outstanding role in the history of Russia and ensured the ideological, spiritual and political formation and development of the Russian people and the Russian state. But neither of them were scientific. Both the first and the second were built not so much on factual material (although using certain facts), but on religious truth and historical myths, sometimes even created by Russian wise men and then introduced by them into historical and political use.
For example, at the beginning of the 16th century, through the efforts of a number of Russian thinkers (we know only one of them by name - a certain Spiridon-Sava), a mythologized version of the origin of the Rurik dynasty from the Roman Emperor Augustus was created, which was considered the absolute truth in the 16th-17th centuries. and was even transferred to the new royal dynasty of the Romanovs, who had nothing to do with the Rurikovichs. It would seem that our ancestors greatly sinned against the “historical truth.” But here's a paradox! It was these spiritual and political concepts and historical and mythological subjects that became the ideological basis of the future Russian Empire and the ideological justification for Russia’s breakthrough into the world space. In other words, such an approach to understanding history and the establishment of such an understanding in the public consciousness played a significant and sometimes decisive role in the powerful forward movement of Russia.
And, conversely, which arose in the 18th-19th centuries. scientific, i.e. The “correct”, critical (sometimes hypercritical) attitude towards one’s own history, seemingly abandoning historical myths, played a significant role in preparing the collapse of both the Russian Empire and the complex of traditional Russian values at the beginning of the 20th century. The same story repeated itself at the end of the 20th century: the “Marxist” version of history, for all its claims to be scientific, turned out to be completely mythological. But it was the Soviet historical myth that at one time helped socialist construction in Russia, but over time it lost its creative powers, and the united historical consciousness of the Soviet people, formed by the Marxist scheme, collapsed under the pressure of other concepts of history.
It would seem that these examples prove the opposite of what the author claims: scientific historical knowledge demonstrates its enormous advantage over the mythological nature of traditional historical consciousness, which means that in the modern era only science can serve as the basis for the national perception of the past. But it should be borne in mind that asserting the truth of only a rational approach to the study of history is either a sincere delusion or a deliberate deception. The fact is that any scientific interpretation is also not devoid of mythology, especially if it is part of a certain historical concept built on certain religious and philosophical methodological foundations. And any absolutization of any one scientific interpretation of history is already the purposeful creation of another myth, perhaps a new one, or perhaps a revival of an old one.
In other words, the contradiction between the traditional and scientific ideas about history is not resolved as a result of the victory of one of the interpretations, because in this case just another myth triumphs.
All these arguments do not mean at all that the scientific understanding of history is bad, and the mythological understanding is good (or vice versa). This is just a reminder that relying on the omnipotence of science and rational knowledge in general is also a myth. And the limitations of scientific understanding of the world around us and, in particular, history must be taken as a given. Therefore, a strictly scientific idea of history is a matter for a relatively narrow circle of professionals who understand the complexity and ambiguity of historical knowledge, own special methods and methodologies, and are ready to reasonably defend their point of view in discussions with their equally trained colleagues.
But if we talk about the historical consciousness of the people, about how the majority of society imagines history, it is impossible to do without recognizing that in these ideas historical mythology continues to play a significant role as the most important part of the general historical memory, and therefore of a single historical consciousness. And there is nothing bad or scary in this. Trying to turn historical memory into an exclusively “scientific” one is not only another myth, but also the destruction of historical memory, which means the destruction of a people, the deliberate destruction of their national and spiritual-political identity.
The current generation of Russian historians is faced with the need to create a new interpretation of Russian history, which could become the ideological basis for the revival of the people, would help the people realize their place in the new world space, and which would be based not only on scientific knowledge, but also on the traditional values of the Russian people and all the peoples of Russia.
By creating the ironic, grotesque “History of a City,” Saltykov-Shchedrin hoped to evoke in the reader not laughter, but a “bitter feeling” of shame. The idea of the work is built on the image of a certain hierarchy: ordinary people who will not resist the instructions of often stupid rulers, and the tyrant rulers themselves. In this story, the common people are represented by the residents of the city of Foolov, and their oppressors are the mayors. Saltykov-Shchedrin ironically notes that these people need a boss, one who will give them instructions and keep a tight rein, otherwise the whole people will fall into anarchy.
History of creation
The concept and idea of the novel “The History of a City” was formed gradually. In 1867, the writer wrote a fairytale-fantastic work, “The Story of the Governor with a Stuffed Head,” which later formed the basis for the chapter “The Organ.” In 1868, Saltykov-Shchedrin began working on “The History of a City” and completed it in 1870. Initially, the author wanted to give the work the title “Foolish Chronicler.” The novel was published in the then popular magazine Otechestvennye zapiski.
The plot of the work
(Illustrations by the creative team of Soviet graphic artists "Kukryniksy")
The narration is told on behalf of the chronicler. He talks about the inhabitants of the city who were so stupid that their city was given the name “Fools”. The novel begins with the chapter “On the Roots of the Origin of the Foolovites,” which gives the history of this people. It tells in particular about a tribe of bunglers, who, after defeating the neighboring tribes of bow-eaters, bush-eaters, walrus-eaters, cross-bellied people and others, decided to find a ruler for themselves, because they wanted to restore order in the tribe. Only one prince decided to rule, and even he sent an innovative thief in his place. When he was stealing, the prince sent him a noose, but the thief was able to somehow get out of it and stabbed himself with a cucumber. As you can see, irony and grotesque coexist perfectly in the work.
After several unsuccessful candidates for the role of deputies, the prince came to the city in person. Having become the first ruler, he started the countdown of the “historical time” of the city. It is said that twenty-two rulers with their achievements ruled the city, but the Inventory lists twenty-one. Apparently, the missing one is the founder of the city.
Main characters
Each of the mayors fulfills his task in implementing the writer’s idea through the grotesque to show the absurdity of their rule. Many types show traits of historical figures. For greater recognition, Saltykov-Shchedrin not only described the style of their rule, comically distorted their surnames, but also gave apt characteristics pointing to the historical prototype. Some personalities of city governors represent images collected from the characteristic features of different persons in the history of the Russian state.
Thus, the third ruler, Ivan Matveevich Velikanov, famous for drowning the director of economic affairs and introducing taxes of three kopecks per person, was exiled to prison for an affair with Avdotya Lopukhina, the first wife of Peter I.
Brigadier Ivan Matveyevich Baklan, the sixth mayor, was tall and proud to be a follower of the line of Ivan the Terrible. The reader understands that this refers to the bell tower in Moscow. The ruler found his death in the spirit of the same grotesque image that fills the novel - the foreman was broken in half during a storm.
The personality of Peter III in the image of Guard Sergeant Bogdan Bogdanovich Pfeiffer is indicated by the characteristic given to him - “a Holstein native”, the style of government of the mayor and his outcome - removed from the post of ruler “for ignorance”.
Dementy Varlamovich Brudasty was nicknamed “Organchik” for the presence of a mechanism in his head. He kept the city in fear because he was gloomy and withdrawn. When trying to take the mayor's head to the capital's craftsmen for repairs, it was thrown out of the carriage by a frightened coachman. After Organchik's reign, chaos reigned in the city for 7 days.
A short period of prosperity for the townspeople is associated with the name of the ninth mayor, Semyon Konstantinovich Dvoekurov. A civilian adviser and innovator, he took up the appearance of the city and started a honey and brewing business. Tried to open an academy.
The longest reign was marked by the twelfth mayor, Vasilisk Semenovich Wartkin, who reminds the reader of the style of rule of Peter I. The character’s connection with a historical figure is indicated by his “glorious deeds” - he destroyed the Streletskaya and Dung settlements, and difficult relations with the eradication of the ignorance of the people - he spent four wars for education and three - against. He resolutely prepared the city for burning, but suddenly died.
By origin, a former peasant Onufriy Ivanovich Negodyaev, who, before serving as mayor, stoked furnaces, destroyed the streets paved by the former ruler and erected monuments on these resources. The image is copied from Paul I, as evidenced by the circumstances of his removal: he was dismissed for disagreeing with the triumvirate regarding the constitutions.
Under State Councilor Erast Andreevich Grustilov, Foolov's elite was busy with balls and nightly meetings with the reading of the works of a certain gentleman. As in the reign of Alexander I, the mayor did not care about the people, who were impoverished and starving.
The scoundrel, idiot and “Satan” Gloomy-Burcheev has a “speaking” surname and is “copied” from Count Arakcheev. He finally destroys Foolov and decides to build the city of Neprekolnsk in a new place. When attempting to implement such a grandiose project, the “end of the world” occurred: the sun went dark, the earth shook, and the mayor disappeared without a trace. This is how the story of “one city” ended.
Analysis of the work
Saltykov-Shchedrin, with the help of satire and grotesquery, aims to reach the human soul. He wants to convince the reader that human institutions must be based on Christian principles. Otherwise, a person's life can be deformed, disfigured, and in the end can lead to the death of the human soul.
“The History of a City” is an innovative work that has overcome the usual boundaries of artistic satire. Each image in the novel has pronounced grotesque features, but is at the same time recognizable. Which gave rise to a flurry of criticism against the author. He was accused of “slander” against the people and rulers.
Indeed, the story of Foolov is largely copied from Nestor’s chronicle, which tells about the time of the beginning of Rus' - “The Tale of Bygone Years.” The author deliberately emphasized this parallel so that it becomes obvious who he means by the Foolovites, and that all these mayors are by no means a flight of fancy, but real Russian rulers. At the same time, the author makes it clear that he is not describing the entire human race, but specifically Russia, reinterpreting its history in his own satirical way.
However, the purpose of creating the work Saltykov-Shchedrin did not make fun of Russia. The writer’s task was to encourage society to critically rethink its history in order to eradicate existing vices. The grotesque plays a huge role in creating an artistic image in the work of Saltykov-Shchedrin. The main goal of the writer is to show the vices of people that are not noticed by society.
The writer ridiculed the ugliness of society and was called a “great scoffer” among such predecessors as Griboyedov and Gogol. Reading the ironic grotesque, the reader wanted to laugh, but there was something sinister in this laughter - the audience “felt like a scourge lashing itself.”
Restoring a face from a skull, or the method of anthropological reconstruction of the appearance on a craniological basis, of famous (and not only) historical characters is a favorite pastime of anthropologists. Not long ago, scientists presented to the public their vision of Tutankhamun’s appearance. It is difficult to judge the degree to which the reconstruction results correspond to the true appearance of the heroes of the past. Sometimes even the reconstruction objects themselves turn out to be not what they were thought to be. But it's always interesting to look at them. Let's get acquainted with historical figures who have already sunk into oblivion, but look like living ones.
In 2003, Egyptologist Joanne Fletcher identified the KV35YL mummy as Nefertiti, the “chief consort” of the ancient Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten of the 18th dynasty. At the same time, a reconstruction of its appearance was carried out. However, in 2010, as a result of a DNA study, it turned out that the remains do not belong to Nefertiti, but to Akhenaten’s other “other half,” and also his sister. True, perhaps she was the wife of another pharaoh - Smenkhkare. However, Egyptologists agree that the remains belong to Tutankhamun's mother.
2. British scientists, using a virtual autopsy, recreated the appearance of Tutankhamun, the pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of the New Kingdom, who ruled Egypt in 1332–1323 BC.
Scientists believe that Tutankhamun suffered from genetic diseases, as well as malaria, which may have been the cause of his early death: the pharaoh died at the age of 19. Half of the men living in Western Europe are descendants of Egyptian pharaohs and, in particular, relatives of Tutankhamun, scientists believe. The common ancestor of the ruler of Ancient Egypt and European men with haplogroup R1b1a2 lived in the Caucasus about 9.5 thousand years ago. The carriers of the “pharaonic” haplogroup began migrating to Europe approximately 7 thousand years ago.
3. Apostle Paul is a major figure in world history, one of the authors of the New Testament and one of the founders of Christianity.
Saint Paul lived from 5 to 67 AD. Paul created numerous Christian communities in Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula. In 2009, for the first time in history, a scientific study of the sarcophagus located under the altar of the Roman temple of San Paolo Fuori le Mura was carried out. Bone fragments were found in the sarcophagus and were subjected to carbon-14 testing by experts who were unaware of their origin. According to the results, they belong to a person who lived between the 1st and 2nd centuries. This confirms the undisputed tradition that we are talking about the remains of the Apostle Paul.
4. King Richard III, reconstructed from the remains discovered in the autumn of 2012 under a car park in Leicester.
Richard III - the last representative of the Plantagenet male line on the English throne, reigned from 1483 to 1485. It was recently established that Richard III died on the battlefield after dismounting and losing his helmet. Before his death, the English king received 11 wounds, nine of them to the head. The absence of wounds on the arm bones suggests that the monarch was still wearing armor at the time of his death. Richard III was killed at the Battle of the Bosfort while fighting the pretender to the throne, Henry Tudor (the future King Henry VII).
5. The remains of the creator of the medieval heliocentric picture of the world, Nicolaus Copernicus, were discovered in the Frombork Cathedral (modern Poland) in 2005. In Warsaw, a computer reconstruction of the face was performed at the Central Forensic Laboratory.
In 2010, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry assigned names, and in 2011, officially approved the designations of the elements: darmstadtium, roentgenium and copernicium (or copernicium), with numbers 110, 111 and 112, respectively. Initially, the symbol Cp was proposed for the 112th element, Copernicium, named after Nicolaus Copernicus, then it was changed to Cn.
6. In 2008, Scottish anthropologist Caroline Wilkinson reconstructed the appearance of the great 18th-century German composer Johann Sebastian Bach.
Bach's remains were exhumed in 1894, and in 1908, sculptors first tried to recreate his appearance, guided, however, by famous portraits of the composer. Critics of the early 20th century were unhappy with this project: they argued that the bust could just as easily depict, for example, Handel.
7. Reconstruction of William Shakespeare's face was made from the death mask of the English poet and playwright.
The hypothesis of endless monkeys who will sooner or later publish William Shakespeare's work was tested by American programmer Jesse Anderson. The monkey program managed to print Shakespeare’s poem “A Lover’s Complaint” in a month. However, an attempt to test the hypothesis on living monkeys failed. In 2003, a keyboard connected to a computer was placed in the cage of six macaque monkeys at Paignton Zoo (UK). The monkeys typed five pages of incoherent text and broke the keyboard a month later.
8. In 2007, Italian scientists from the University of Bologna reconstructed the appearance of the great Italian poet of the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries, Dante Alighieri.
Dante Alighieri, according to some scientists, could suffer from narcolepsy - a disease of the nervous system, accompanied by attacks of drowsiness and sudden falling asleep. These conclusions are based on the fact that in Dante’s Divine Comedy the symptoms of narcolepsy are reproduced with great accuracy, as well as the often accompanying cataplexy, that is, a sudden loss of muscle tone.
9. Perhaps this is what Henry IV looked like - the king of France, the leader of the Huguenots, killed by a Catholic fanatic in 1610.
In 2010, forensic experts led by Philippe Charlier determined that the surviving mummified “head of Henry IV” was genuine. On its basis, in February 2013, the same scientists presented a reconstruction of the king’s appearance. However, in October 2013, another group of geneticists doubted the authenticity of the remains of the monarch of the Bourbon dynasty.
10. In 2009, the appearance of Arsinoe IV, the younger sister and victim of Queen Cleopatra, was reconstructed. Arsinoe's face has been recreated using measurements taken from her skull, which was lost during World War II.
Arsinoe died in 41 BC. According to the ancient Roman historian Josephus, she was executed in Ephesus on the orders of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, who saw her half-sister as a threat to her power.
11. The appearance of St. Nicholas was reconstructed according to data from an Italian professor of anatomy obtained in the 1950s during the restoration of the Basilica of St. Nicholas in Bari.
In Christianity, Nicholas of Myra is revered as a miracle worker and is considered the patron saint of sailors, merchants and children.
Each of us is literally crammed with historical information. We gleaned this information from textbooks, radio and television programs, books and newspaper articles. It is often almost impossible to understand this information, because over several centuries it has received its mutual agreement, forming a monolith of historical knowledge, or rather pseudo-knowledge, as well as the entire huge volume of the material itself. It is worth noting that history these days is studied by era and by country. This was probably done unintentionally, but this approach does not allow modern people to see the whole thing. Instead, he sees a patchwork quilt, sparkling with holes of unknowing. Therefore, we have to trust authorities. Is it just the authorities we trust? And are they right in everything? And isn’t there something behind them that prevents us from critically thinking about our past? It turns out that there is a way to verify the truth of certain statements of historical science. This turned out to be possible not for historians, but for specialists from another field of knowledge, namely mathematicians.
Mathematics is the queen of sciences
As a result of many years of work, a group of Russian mathematicians from Moscow State University created several new historical texts for research. The effectiveness of these methods was tested on fairly large, reliable material from the Middle Ages and the period of modern history, that is, the seventeenth and twentieth centuries. These methods were then applied to chronicles that historians date to the early sixteenth century AD. When studying these documents in world history, repetitions and three chronological shifts were discovered. For approximately 330 years, 1050 and 1800 years. As a result of these shifts in history, duplicates of a number of historical figures of ruling dynasties and even entire historical eras appeared. It was found that different ,describe the same events. With the help of research by mathematicians, it was possible to identify these historical twins. As a result, they constructed a new chronology scale, which is very different from the Scaliger-Pictarius scale generally accepted today.
This new timeline or map, as scientists call it, has given traditional historians a very unpleasant shock. It turned out that history was not what is commonly believed. Historians refused to believe her. And the authors of the new chronology had to build a new, real version of history themselves. That is, to reconstruct the history of a new chronological scale. The existing version of history before the seventeenth century is monstrously distorted. These mistakes were made by chronologists of the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries. At the same time, along with unintentional errors, major distortions were made that border on falsification. As a result, mathematicians managed to restore the true history before the seventeenth century. The completion of this activity of creating false history lasted until the nineteenth century.
Now let's see what the new chronology presented by Russian mathematicians looks like. Let's walk through centuries of history.
10th century
No information has reached us about events earlier than the eleventh century AD. There was probably no writing at that time. It appeared only in the tenth and eleventh centuries AD. The era before the eleventh century must be imagined as a primitive era at the dawn of civilization. Probably, at that time people did not yet know how to build any significant structures, much less buildings, so they lived in caves or dugouts. Only the primitive primitive tools of these people have survived to this day. Shards, bones, flint tools, knives, stone arrow and spear tips, from mammoth bones and predator teeth. Today all this is exhibited in museums, halls dedicated to primitive man, who supposedly lived many, many centuries and even millennia before our era. But, despite the lack of written information, modern historical textbooks contain many details about the life of people in the era earlier than the tenth century AD. Textbooks tell about the legendary Sumerians, about the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia and America, about the luxurious ancient culture of Egypt during the time of the pharaohs. The Trojan kingdom and the famous Trojan War, supposedly from the thirteenth century BC, are described in great detail. Enlightened ancient China, great ancient Rome, mysterious ancient India, ancient Assyria, Syria and Persia, as well as the ancient biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And as we are told today, all this existed in an era earlier than the tenth century AD. It is not true. All this really existed, but only after the tenth century AD, that is, in the last millennium of our history. The real written history of the world turned out to be much shorter.
11th-12th century
The most ancient kingdom was ancient, or old Rome. The capital of this ancient African kingdom was located near the mouth of the Nile. Subsequently, this city began to be called Alexandria. Today we have practically no information about this kingdom. This is probably where writing originated, first in the form of hieroglyphs. That is, people at that time wrote with pictures. Conventionally, we will call Alexandria the first Rome. There were no Cyclopean buildings known to us today in Egypt. There were no pyramids and sphinxes, temples and obelisks. All of them will be erected much later, in the era of the fourteenth, sixteenth centuries AD. In the tenth and eleventh centuries, the capital of the kingdom was moved to the Bosporus, where the city of Yoros arose, located on the outskirts of modern Istanbul. Let's call it the second Rome. It was also the Jerusalem of the Gospels, ancient Troy, medieval Constantinople, it was also the medieval Constantinople, it was also the modern Turkish city of Istanbul. It should be noted the excellent strategic position of this city, its powerful military fortifications, significant remains of which have survived to this day.
The power of the second Rome extended to many regions of the west and east. Themes, that is, the provinces of Byzantium, were located here. Such provinces were Egypt, Rus', the territory of Western Europe, where Germany, Italy, France, Spain and other states would subsequently arise. The Second Rome, also known as Jerusalem, the holy city, was at that time the generally recognized religious center of the kingdom. All themes were united by a common Christian religion. Independent local history in themes was practically not recorded at that time. were carried out only in Constantinople - the capital of the Christian kingdom. And they mainly reflected events of interest only to the capital itself.
In the twelfth century, important events took place in this new Rome that were later recorded in the gospels. , his earthly life, crucifixion and resurrection. The crucifixion of Christ took place in 1185 on Mount Beykos, which is located on the outskirts of modern Istanbul. In the era of Christ, that is, in the twelfth century, Rus' immediately and fully adopted Christianity. And not in a thousand years, as Scaligerian history assures us. The Russian Tsar Vladimir, that is, the ruler of the world, his mother, Queen Malka, and his chief military leader came to worship Christ. In the gospels they are described as three wise men under the names: Volkosar, Melchior and Caspar. In their honor, the huge Cologne Cathedral was erected, in which the famous sarcophagus of the Magi was placed. Thus, the events described in the gospels took place not far from Constantinople in the city of Yoros on the eastern bank of the Bosphorus.
The city in modern Palestine, called Jerusalem today, was in fact made in a rather desolate area of the Middle East from a small Arab settlement no earlier than the eighteenth century, or even the nineteenth, and declared a center of worship. But it has nothing to do with the Evangelical events.
The execution of Christ in 1185 Yoros caused a violent reaction, both in the capital itself and in the theme areas of the Aramean Empire. Especially in Rus', which was the homeland. At the end of the twelfth, beginning of the thirteenth centuries, it was Rus' that led the crusades that moved to Constantinople, with the aim of avenging the execution of Christ and punishing the guilty.
13th century
In 1204, Constantinople was captured during the crusade. The city was plundered and burned by the crusaders, that is, the Horde Cossacks and their allies. They are the ancient Achaeans, the Greeks described by Homer in the Iliad. The Achaeans were led by the so-called ancient Achilles, also known as the Russian-Horde prince Svyatoslav. This event went down in history as the legendary Trojan War, reflected in many documents also under the names: the Taquinian War and the Gothic War.
In the Scaligerian history of the Middle Ages, this same war is well known under the collective name of the crusades of the thirteenth century. Capture of Constantinople in 1204, then fall of Constantinople in 1261. In fact, the Trojan War was a series of separate bloody wars. The Great Trojan War in the thirteenth century AD was the first world war of the Middle Ages. It was a war between east and west. It predetermined the development of world history for several centuries to come.
With the fall of Constantinople and Jerusalem at the beginning of the thirteenth century AD, severe turmoil began in the Aramaic kingdom. The exodus begins. The flight and at the same time the invasion of various eastern groups from the capital region of the collapsing Aramea. They settled in different countries of Europe and Asia. Representatives of the royal dynasty of the Arameans also fled from the capital to the provinces of the former empire. Some of them did not want to come to terms with the loss of supreme power and began to fight for. According to the ideas of the Aramaic kings, who had a pronounced religious basis, their royal family had the full right to own the entire world. And not only the already known lands, but also all those that will be discovered in the future. They considered this right as a sacred and ancient property belonging to them by inheritance, which, due to temporary reasons, was illegally taken away from them, and which needed to be returned.
As a result, several states arose that considered themselves the successors of ancient Aramaea. For example, the Nicene Empire. In ancient times, the capital of this empire was the modern Turkish city of Iznik.
One of these states was Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' with its capital in Rostov the Great. The Vladimir-Suzdal, then Rostov, kings were representatives of the Aramaic dynasty, expelled from Constantinople during the collapse of Aramea at the beginning of the thirteenth century. They, like other representatives of the dynasty, began the struggle to restore the empire. But only they managed to create, partly military, partly peacefully, a powerful multinational state that covered the Volga region and the northern Black Sea region. By the end of the thirteenth century, a strong tsarist power emerged in Rus', relying on the country’s enormous natural wealth and resources, as well as on its strong and numerous army - a horde, the backbone of which was the cavalry troops - the Cossacks. Thus, in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', the metropolis of a new empire arose - the heir of the previous, Aramaic one. It was Rus'-Horde, or the Great Mongol Empire.
There was no Mongol-Tatar yoke in Rus'. There was no successful invasion of foreigners into Rus'. What is today declared as the Mongol-Tatar enslavement of Rus' was the unification of Russian principalities and the strengthening of tsarist power in the country.
In 1261, the ruler of Nicaea, with the help of the allied troops of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus', took Constantinople by storm. The great Mongol invasion began from the east from Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' to the west. This invasion predetermined the outcome of the Trojan War.
14th century
The final formation of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus' took place under the Grand Duke and Great Khan Georgy Danilovich. Today we also know him as Genghis Khan, or Bu Khan, in foreign sources. The armed forces of the state were called the word “Horde”, which in the old Russian language meant a large military association, an army. The word “horde” was also used to describe the armed forces as a whole. Due to the fact that the state had unlimited supplies of horses from the herds of the steppe, it was able to create a huge cavalry army. Since the horses needed food, the army was necessarily nomadic. To maintain the army, the rest of the country's population was subject to tribute - tithes. At the head of the state was a king with unlimited power - an autocrat. The capital region of the state was Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. At that time it was called Veliky Novgorod and under this famous name it was included in the chronicles. The center of administrative control was reflected in the chronicles as Yaroslav's Court of Veliky Novgorod. Fortified royal headquarters were located at different times in different cities: in Rostov the Great, Kostroma, Vladimir, Suzdal, and some other cities. Today we call the collection of these ancient Russian cities the Golden Ring of Russia.
By the end of the first half of the fourteenth century, during the reign of Ivan Danilovich Kalita, Rus'-Horde began the development and colonization of Eurasia and moved its troops in a western direction. Russian cavalry troops invaded Europe on a wide front. As a result, much of western Europe was colonized. The result of the aggressive campaigns of Grand Duke Georgy Danilovich, and then his brother Ivan Danilovich Kalita, in the first half of the fourteenth century, was the emergence of the great Mongol Empire with its center in Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. Tsardom of Russia is a Russian term, and Mongol Empire is a Western European term for the same state. In Russian sources, the worldwide empire was simply called - All Rus' or the Russian Kingdom. In foreign ones - the Mongolian, that is, the great empire.
In the fourteenth century, Ivan Kalita, who ruled the empire from 1328 to 1340, founded Rome in Italy, both as the center of secular and religious power in Western Europe, as well as the institution of popes. Ivan Kalita was both a king and a high priest, a caliph. In the West he left behind many memories, which over time became overgrown with legends and myths. For example, about the medieval king-priest Prester John. Due to the mistakes of the chroniclers, he was described on the pages of world history several times under different names, including under the name of Batu Khan. Thus, the first half of the fourteenth century is the beginning of the conquest of the world. During this time, the great Mongol Empire spread its influence over a vast territory of Eurasia and America. Moreover, this was not a military operation, but a more or less peaceful colonization of large spaces. The small tribes and nationalities living in these territories could not offer serious resistance to the Cossack imperial troops. New large states and kingdoms arose on the colonized lands. For example, the Great Mughal Empire of India, the Mongol Empire in the territory of modern China, the Maniliuk kingdom in Egypt, the Samurai kingdom in Japan, and finally, the famous May and Incas kingdoms in America.
This conquest was the first wave. It must be said that at that time, it was not so much about the military conquest of distant lands, inhabited mainly by wild tribes or not inhabited at all, but about their development and inclusion in the empire. According to some ancient sources, most regions of Eurasia and Africa in that era were sparsely populated, so the troops of Rus'-Horde, uncontrollably spreading in all directions from the Volga, settled on as yet undeveloped lands and created new cities, settlements, and cultures there. For example, the Horde development of India of that era is known to us from ancient sources, as the appearance of the famous Aryans here and the creation of the Aryan-Indian civilization in Hindustan. And the Cossacks who came to Egypt founded the Manilyuk dynasty there. Then they were described in the history of the so-called Ancient Egypt, under the name of the ancient Hyksos.
Numerous ancient chronicles tell about this as the dispersion of peoples. Like the great migration of peoples. How about the great Slavic conquest. How about the emergence of Babylon.
At the end of the fourteenth century, turmoil began in Rus'-Horde. In 1380, a bloody battle took place between the troops of Dmitry Donskoy and the troops. The capital of the royal headquarters of Dmitry Donskoy at that time was Kostroma, and it itself took place on the site of modern Moscow, where the Yauza flows into the Moscow River. At that time, the city of Moscow was not here yet. This battle was a battle for the final acceptance of Apostolic Christianity as the official religion of the entire Mongol Empire. Subsequently, on the site of the Battle of Kulikovo, Dmitry Donskoy founded the city of Moscow.
15th century
After about a hundred years of the existence of the Russian-Horde Empire, its rulers were faced with new, unprecedented problems. As a result of state construction, a network of good roads was built over vast territories. Along established caravan routes throughout Eurasia, epidemics began to easily spread, which from time to time broke out in the south of the empire. Deadly diseases: plague, cholera and others became an inevitable price to pay for the unification of vast territories of Europe, Asia, and Africa under one rule. There was only one way out - the introduction of administrative boundaries on the territory of a huge empire. The first center - Yaroslavl, also known as Veliky Novgorod, became the center of Rus'-Horde. The second center is Istanbul on the Bosphorus. Constantinople became the center of part of the Great Ottoman Empire, Atamania. At the same time, Constantinople regained its former significance, which it had in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries of our era. At the same time, a decision was made to force quarantine cleansing of areas where the epidemic prevailed. Such areas, according to the central government, were the lands of western and southern Europe. Cossack and Ottoman troops were sent there with a cruel order to destroy the sick population of these territories and repopulate all these lands. This huge operation is known today as the Ottoman-Taman conquest, it is also described in the Bible as the conquest of the promised land in the book of Exodus.
Thus, in the fifteenth century, Rus'-Horde was forced to send troops to the south and west for the second time. This was the second wave of conquests, that is, the conquest of previously subjugated territories, in which, starting from the fourteenth century, there were already armed forces of local rulers, governors of the horde, who did not want to be destroyed. However, the quarantine purge was carried out forcibly and very consistently. New governors were installed in the re-conquered lands of Europe and Asia. In Russian history, the trace of these events remained as a large-scale distribution of Novgorod lands to boyars, children of boyars, nobles and even the best slaves.
As a result, on the site of the ancient Aramaic empire in the mid-fifteenth century, the Ottoman-Atamanian empire arose. An empire allied with Rus'-Horde, with its center in Istanbul. By the way, the very name of the atamans, the family name of the sultans, comes from the well-known name - Hetman ataman. This was the name of the progenitor of the Ataman Sultans. At the same time, Western Europe and all of Eurasia in general are still under the rule of the great Mongol Empire. Europe, apparently, was somehow divided between Russia-Horde and Ottomania-atamania. At the same time, Europe, like other territories of Eurasia, paid tribute to the central government. Historians call this tribute a tribute to the Sultan.
At that time, each country in Western Europe had its own Horde governor, the king. The governors were subordinate to the central government of the great Mongol Empire, that is, the emperor. The word “Emperor” was used by Western Europeans to call the great Tsar Khan of Rus'-Horde, who ruled in Veliky Novgorod, far from them. There was one empire, and the emperor was, naturally, alone. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, a religious split of the previously united Christianity into several large branches and religions emerged in the empire. Namely, Orthodoxy, Islam, Catholicism, Buddhism and Judaism. They will acquire these names only in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Thus, all the main religions known today came from one root - from the single Christianity of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This explains, in part, the conclusions drawn by the large school of nineteenth-century scholars working in the field of so-called comparative religion. After processing a huge amount of material, they discovered amazingly many similarities between all these religions. But being shackled hand and foot by an infidel, they decided that Christianity had absorbed numerous elements of supposedly earlier cults. Actually this is not true. On the contrary, the former united Christianity, in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, was divided into several religions, each of which, naturally, inherited a significant part of the former cult, modifying it. At the same time, the previous common symbolism was also divided. The wide cross began to be used mainly by the Orthodox Church. The narrow cross is Catholic. The six-pointed star is one of the forms of the cross - in Judaism. A crescent with a star is also one of the forms of the cross – Muslim. The Gospel was most likely written at the end of the twelfth century AD, or at the beginning of the thirteenth century. The rest of the Old Testament was created in a later era. These books were edited and written until the mid-seventeenth century AD.
16th century
In the sixteenth century the empire reached the highest point of its power and prosperity. Its capital, after Yaroslavl Veliky Novgorod on the Volga, became Moscow. Instead of the previous small settlement on the territory of modern Moscow, a grandiose construction project began, on which the best architects, called from various provinces, worked. First, an underground city was built in an open way, then it was covered with ceilings and a surface city was erected - Moscow. This gigantic construction made a deep impression on contemporaries, and was described on the pages of many so-called ancient sources of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Herodotus describes sixteenth-century Moscow as an Egyptian labyrinth. In the Bible as the restoration of Jerusalem. In the middle of the sixteenth century, the Kazan kingdom, also known as the famous Khazar Kogonat, became the center of the Jewish religion. The Kazan Tsar, that is, the Khazar Kogan, and his court adopted Judaism. After this, Kazan tried to secede from the empire. In 1552, Tsar Khan Ivan the Terrible brutally suppressed the Kazan rebellion. One should not think that medieval Kazan and Khazar Judaism and modern Judaism are one and the same. Many modern concepts had a completely different meaning in the Middle Ages. Jew - meant one who glorifies God. And the Jews in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries called Ottomania - Atamamania with its capital in the evangelical Jerusalem-Istanbul. In an era of religious disagreement, any part of the provinces of the empire could call itself Israel in order to emphasize its rightness in a religious dispute. First of all, the word “Israel”, that is, a fighter for God, was a religiously charged name in the Russian empire of the Middle Ages.
In the second half of the sixteenth century, a revolt of the Horde governors broke out in Western Europe, who no longer wanted to obey the distant Tsar Khan of Veliky Novgorod and wanted to become independent rulers. Religious separation from the empire was chosen as the ideological basis of the uprising. Lutheranism, which arose in the West, was used by rebel reformers as a reason for political separation from the empire. Having suppressed the rebellion in Kazan, Rus'-Horde turned its gaze to the seething west. It was decided to send punitive troops there. In Russian sources these events are known as the beginning of the Livonian War. Lithuania was actually the name given to all of Western Europe. Historians later portrayed the matter as if it was about some small modern Lithuania in the Baltic states. In fact, the Great Empire in the sixteenth century sought to bring all of Western Europe into submission, and only then did historians try to portray the matter as if the campaign was not directed against all of Western Europe, but only against small modern Lithuania in the Baltic states.
Preparations began for a major punitive campaign in Western Europe. But at this moment in the capital of the empire, which grew into terror and oprichnina. According to research, the name “Ivan the Terrible” alone actually represents four successive kings in Russian history. Later, historians slyly united them under one name and called them.
18 century
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, all centers of resistance of the old Mongol dynasties were suppressed. So, for example, the Horde civilizations in America were drowned in blood by the troops of Western European reformers who invaded here in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Then Western historians shifted all the cruelty of this operation in time by about two hundred years down to the fifteenth century and retroactively attributed it to the era of the Horde-Ottoman colonization of America, slyly calling the previous and rather peaceful Horde colonization of the fifteenth century the bloody Spanish conquest. Thus, they secretly recolored the paper from white to black and vice versa. They shifted their atrocities onto others.
At the end of the eighteenth century, a famous one occurred. These events of 1779-1775 were not at all a simple suppression of the peasant-Cossack uprising, as they explain to us today. This was a real major war between the Romanovs and the last independent Russian-Horde state, Great Tartary, the capital of which was the Siberian city of Tobolsk. Only after winning the war with Pugachev did the Romanovs gain access to Siberia for the first time. And only after this the Americans first gained access to the western half of the North American continent and began to quickly capture it. But the Romanovs were not asleep either. At first they managed to capture Alaska. However, they were ultimately unable to keep her. As a result of the victory over Great Tartaria on the ruins of the Horde empire in America, the United States of America arose. The final division of the empire ended in the nineteenth century. This feast of the victors was completely erased from the pages of textbooks and history.
Even into the eighteenth century, the rule of the Romanovs remained largely an occupation of Russia by foreigners. The well-known serfdom was introduced by the first Romanovs and was nothing more than the enslavement of the population on the lands of the former metropolis conquered by foreigners. Centuries-old traditions were broken and... There was an attempt to carry out a deep church reform, which fortunately was not crowned with success and only led to a schism, but not a division of the Russian Orthodox Church. And only many years later, towards the end of their reign, the Romanovs changed, as if mutated under the influence of many factors of Russian life and turned into Russian tsars in spirit.
Russia, occupied by Western Europeans in the seventeenth century, largely absorbed the original Western European Romanov regime. After the war with Pugachev, having strengthened their position on the throne and finding themselves at the head of a huge country, the Romanovs felt like real masters of a large and rich state. They emerged from the subordination of their former masters in the west, and decided to revive in the broadest sense of the word.
History must become a science
A person who hears for the first time about the new chronology of Fomenko and Nosovsky has a hard time. Understanding the history is quite difficult, not to mention the amount of information that has to be absorbed is too large. However, a correct understanding of the past is so important that it justifies any investment of time in acquiring new knowledge. Much of what is happening today becomes clear only after we find out. A revolution has matured in history, similar to the revolutions that took place in natural science. Humanity cannot afford to stagnate in one place indefinitely, especially when the real prerequisites for revising established dogmas have matured. A change in our understanding of the past is inevitable and necessary, because a correct understanding of history affects so many things. It lies unconsciously at the basis of much knowledge: climatology and earthquake forecasts, understanding of population and sociology, linguistics and cultural studies, psychology and many others. The new chronology eliminates a large number of secrets and mysteries, finding simple and natural explanations for them. The chronology and history up to the eighteenth century AD lays the foundation for many political concepts and ideas of our time. For example, all territorial disputes are based on who previously lived on this or that land. These conflicts and disputes have their roots in chronology. If the chronology changes, the territorial claims will also change. Modern religions have a single source, and understanding this should serve to eliminate the painful contradictions that have arisen since the Reformation. When the empire was divided into parts of the province, various branches of Christianity appeared. Certain differences in Christian beliefs were present even before the split of the empire. But they were not so acute that a single religion split into several beliefs that were so different from each other. Today humanity could return to these religious origins in order to eliminate religious conflicts. The introduction of the existing version of history led to the alienation and scattering in different directions of peoples who think of themselves as independent fragments of humanity. After all, it is obvious that the correct history influences the correct worldview. Otherwise it turns out . But first of all, history itself must become a science and it is already becoming a science
