Dozens of books and hundreds of articles have been written about Pushkin. But no one says a word about his unshakable Great Russian imperial convictions. There are also striking predictions about the fate of Russia after the collapse of the empire: it will “lose Donetsk coal

THE TRUTH ABOUT PUSHKIN

Ivan LEPESHEV, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Grodno
Especially for the “Analytical newspaper “Secret Research”

On June 6 this year, almost all Belarusian republican newspapers did not fail to celebrate the 210th anniversary of the birth of A.S. with separate articles. Pushkin. And in 1997, by Presidential Decree No. 502, 1999 was declared the year of Pushkin in our country. It is clear that in other republics of the past Soviet Union(except Russian Federation) there were no such decrees and could not have been. Immediately, long before the anniversary, festive events began to be held. For example, the Academy of Sciences established scientific conference dedicated to Pushkin. Appropriate laudatory articles were published on the pages of newspapers and magazines. As if at the request of the workers, various proposals were made. Thus, corresponding member of the Petrovsky Academy of Sciences and Arts Albert Bagdasarov on the pages of the Nastanitskaya Gazeta (10/22/1998) proposed naming one of the universities after Pushkin. And after some time, Brest State University began to bear this name. And in Minsk they erected a monument to Pushkin. Why is Pushkin so dear to us, Belarusians? Do we know everything about him? Were we told about everything related to his work at school and reported on radio, television, in books, newspapers, magazines?

I will introduce readers to unconventional thoughts about the poet’s views reflected in his works, and I will touch on something that many of those who studied Pushkin in middle or high school were unlikely to think about.

And in the boundless expanses of the former Union, they began to study Pushkin’s work from the first grade (in our republic, with the so-called bilingualism, it’s the same now). We read, or even memorized, his poetic fairy tales (by the way, interesting and created at a high artistic level), then we went through great works of art (“Dubrovsky”, “ Captain's daughter"), the tragedy "Boris Godunov" and the novel in verse "Eugene Onegin". In each class, the only thing that was repeated was: Pushkin, Pushkin... And also numerous operas, ballets, films made based on his works. Moreover, the names of streets in cities (including Belarusian ones), institutions named after him. In Grodno, for example, a street, a cinema, and a library are named after Pushkin. Willingly or unwittingly, a kind of cult of Pushkin was created.

If today you ask a schoolchild or an adult what Russian writers he knows, the first answer you will hear is: “Pushkin.” His surname, one might say, entered everyday life and turned from his own into a common noun. Perhaps everyone has heard, or even said: “And who will do it for you - Pushkin?!” A ticket inspector on a bus might say to a hare: “Will Pushkin buy a ticket for you?” And this is reflected in literature. In I. Ptashnikov’s novel “Revenge,” a character says: “If you don’t want to, Pushkin won’t do it for you.” In A. Dudarev’s play “Break” we read: “Well, why are you shining in your eyes? - You talking to me? “No, to Pushkin.” Or in L. Kolodezhny’s story “Under the Cold Sky”: “What do you allow yourself? - I? “Not Pushkin.”

Undoubtedly, Pushkin - great poet Russian people. During his lifetime, he was already recognized by his contemporaries as the author of numerous masterpieces of art. This is the creator of the Russian literary language and the initiator of new, realistic literature, a great reformer. Pushkin is for Russian culture, language and literature the same as, say, T. Shevchenko is for Ukrainian, and Y. Kupala is for Belarusian.

Without sparing epithets and metaphors, Pushkin is called an “eternally living phenomenon”, “an unquenchable light of spirituality”, “the living soul of the people”... They also write about his worldwide fame. But this is unlikely to be the case. He is well known in the CIS countries, but in foreign countries, let’s be sincere, very few people know and read him. Among the Russian writers there, the most popular are L. Tolstoy, F. Dostoevsky and A. Solzhenitsyn. As evidenced in the “Belarusian Soviet Encyclopedia”, L. Tolstoy, according to UNESCO information, occupies one of the first places among writers in the number of languages ​​of the world into which his works have been translated. There is also this comparison: the complete works of Pushkin (L., 1979) are 10 volumes, and Tolstoy’s are 90 volumes. But nevertheless, in the same encyclopedia, L. Tolstoy is given 2 pages, and Pushkin - 4, Pushkin’s portrait takes up a whole page (intaglio insert), and Tolstoy’s photograph is passport size (three by four). Almost the same page-by-page ratio is in the recently published 18-volume “Belarusian Encyclopedia”: Tolstoy is allocated 3 columns, Pushkin - 6. The same cult of Pushkin is still in effect.

One of the characters in V. Bykov’s story “Obelisk” says that now “any student or even a high school student, just start a conversation with him about Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, he will immediately blurt out all their errors, mistakes and limitations.” In textbooks on Russian literature for secondary and high school Leo Tolstoy is described as a writer whose entire work is “in screaming contradictions.” On the one hand, he is a brilliant artist and thinker, a “lump,” a “seasoned little man,” and on the other hand, a “landowner, a fool for Christ,” a “hysterical wimp,” who says: “I don’t eat meat anymore and now eat rice cutlets.” " Various errors and misconceptions are also found in the works of Dostoevsky, Turgenev, Yesenin and others. And only Pushkin seems to enjoy the immunity of inviolability and shines like the sun. Meanwhile, in his work there are many real errors that people try not to notice or bashfully avoid. Or maybe for those who write about Pushkin, these are not errors at all, but ideology.

Dozens of books and hundreds of articles have been written about Pushkin. But no one says a word about his unshakable Great Russian imperial convictions.

The only exception is one work. Its author G.P. Fedotov (1886-1951) - an outstanding Russian historian and cultural philosopher. In 1925, he emigrated from the Soviet Union, taught in Paris, and then in the USA. In 1947, he published an essay “The Fate of Empires” in a foreign Russian edition, reprinted not so long ago by the Moscow magazine “Znamya” (1992, No. 3-4). The author characterizes the empire as a state that has expanded beyond national and ethnic boundaries and convincingly substantiates the inevitability of the collapse of the USSR - the last world empire. There are also such striking predictions about the fate of Russia after the collapse of the empire: it “will lose Donetsk coal, Baku oil... Great Russia, and with the addition of Belarus (probably) and Siberia (for a long time) still represents a huge body, with a huge population...” . The author calls Pushkin “the last singer of the Empire,” who sincerely believed that soon all the peoples of Russia, including those recently captured (“the Finn, and the now wild Tungus, and the Kalmyk, a friend of the steppes”), “will read Pushkin in Russian ( this is how “Monument” was understood), and all ethnographic survivals will become the property of museums and special magazines.”

In the already quoted poem “Monument” there are the poet’s words that in his “cruel age he glorified Freedom.” But what kind of freedom? Freedom for whom? The poet does not even want to know that a nation cannot be free if it enslaves other nations. But during Pushkin’s lifetime, Finland, Bessarabia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and many peoples of the Caucasus were conquered.

The poet had no doubt at all that the Russians were fulfilling a great mission, civilizing the natives - captured “wild” or “semi-wild” peoples. He was well acquainted with P. Pestel and shared the views expressed on the pages of Russian Pravda that the Russification of all foreign tribes would contribute to “raising Russia to the highest degree of prosperity, greatness and power” and that “in the entire expanse of the Russian state” should to be “only one language is Russian.”

Pushkin also has statements about language. Let us think about how he, with a chauvinistic preaching of his national exclusivity, speaks about the incomparable greatness of the Russian language. He, they say, “as a material of literature, has an undeniable superiority over all European ones.” Of course, every gypsy praises his mare. But is it really possible to humiliate other languages ​​and unreasonably exalt your own? Neither Goethe, nor Byron, nor any other writer would dare say such a thing. All developed literary languages equally rich and equally equal, and there is not and cannot be an “equal” among them. Our writer, journalist, teacher completely agrees with Franciszek Bogushevich, who wrote that the Belarusian language is “the same human and gentlemanly language as French, or German, or any other.”

Yes, however, such excessive, but purposeful glorification of the “great, powerful, truthful and free Russian language” did not begin with Pushkin. One of his predecessors, Lomonosov, spoke out, it seems, no worse: “Charles the Fifth, the Roman Emperor, used to say that it is decent to speak Spanish with God, French with friends, German with the enemy, Italian with the female sex. But if he were skilled in the Russian language, then, of course, he would have added that it is decent to speak with all of them, for he would have found in him the splendor of Spanish, the liveliness of French, the strength of German, the tenderness of Italian, moreover, rich and strong in the images the brevity of the Greek and Latin languages."

Lines from Pushkin’s poem “He Lived Among Us” are often quoted, which says “about the times to come, when peoples, having forgotten their strife, great family will unite." But, of course, this means a family with an older brother at the head, under the auspices of the Russians. In the apologetic-imperial poem “To the Slanderers of Russia”, although the author asks questions, they are rhetorical and do not require an answer: “Will the Slavic streams merge into the Russian sea? Will it run out? That's the question." Oh, how today many of the “Slavic cathedrals” dream of the confluence of Slavic streams in the Russian sea and persistently hammer into our heads the invented thousand-year common history, culture, language of Russians and Belarusians, impose on us a foreign language, foreign history, foreign heroes, replace the former internationalism is interslavism.

Pushkin with ambition draws a great-power image of his vast country-empire, stretching “from Perm to Taurida, from the Finnish rocks to fiery Colchis, from the shocked Kremlin to the walls of motionless China.” The Caucasian mountain masses that have not yet been captured are “a nest of robber tribes, a fence of Circassian freedom.” In the poem “Prisoner of the Caucasus” we see the glorification of the conqueror: “I will sing of you, hero, O Kotlyarevsky, scourge of the Caucasus! Wherever you rushed like a thunderstorm, your move, like a black infection, destroyed and destroyed the tribes...” And threats: “Everything is subject to the Russian sword,” “Our double-headed eagle has risen to the indignant Caucasus.” And again: “Hold your snowy head, humble yourself, Caucasus: Ermolov is coming!” By the way, the last lines about Ermolov touched upon V. Mayakovsky, who for some time was a supporter of the call to “throw Pushkin off the ship of modernity” and in this regard noted (Poln. sobr. soch., vol. 12, 1958, p. 435): “How Should we convey to the Caucasus such lines that praised the Russian general, the enslaver of Georgia, in the name of the existence of a single, indivisible Russia? Or take, for example, Pushkin’s “Mazepa” - where they take Mazepa by the mustache.”

In the poem “The Bronze Horseman”, “the last singer of the Empire” justifies the tsar’s aggressive policy. On newly conquered lands Gulf of Finland Peter the Great stands and thinks: “From here we will threaten the Swede, here the city will be laid down in spite of our arrogant neighbor. Here we are destined by nature to open a window to Europe, to stand with our feet by the sea.” The line “cut a window to Europe” later became catchphrase, began to be used with the meaning “to establish business and cultural ties with European countries” - contrary to its real meaning, associated with aggression (“we will threaten the Swede”, “stand with a firm foot at the sea”).

By the way, this expression is satirically reinterpreted in Y. Kupala’s play “Tuteishya”. An Eastern scientist asks Yanka Zdolnik if the Belarusians are planning to acquire the sea for themselves, “to open a window somewhere - to Europe or Asia.” Yanka replies: “Even without the sea, sir, we have plenty of places to drown ourselves, as soon as the infection blows through the eastern or western windows.” Next, the “scientists” write that Belarusians do not think and do not want to think about expanding their borders, about the Dardanelles, the Indian Seas and any windows. Here this expression returns to its original, in the popular understanding, meaning associated with the seizure of foreign lands. It is precisely the same understanding of the expression that is reflected in the famous humoresque about Tsar Peter the Great and Prince Menshikov. The Tsar says: “Here we are destined by nature to cut a window into Europe! Or maybe we’ll also cut through to Asia!” And the prince: “There are not enough curtains for two windows!” (We know from history, however, that enough was enough...).

The previously mentioned popular representative of the Decembrist movement P. Pestel strongly advocated that Belarusians and Little Russians (Ukrainians) “be considered genuine Russians and not be separated from these latter by any names.” Pushkin shared these same thoughts. About Belarusians he wrote: “People who have been dear to us since ancient times.” “Well, what can you do, Pushkin was a sovereign, an imperialist,” - this is how S. Bookchin comments on these Pushkin words (Svoboda. 10/14/1997). This same Pushkin definition of Belarusians was subsequently repeatedly used by supporters of “Western Russianism” with their fantastic concept of three tribes of a single Russian people - Great Russians, Little Russians and Belarusians.

Pushkin’s attitude towards Ukrainians is clearly revealed when reading the poem “Poltava”. Mazepa, this, as Professor V. Antonovich wrote, “a very sincere and ardent patriot of Ukraine, who always cared about the complete independence of his region,” is shown in the poem as a “traitor to the Russian Tsar,” “a villain,” “Judas.” With conviction, Pushkin writes that “Mazepa has been forgotten for a long time; Only in the triumphant shrine once a year does the cathedral thunder about him with an anathema until now, threatening.” But today in Ukraine no one considers Mazepa a traitor; they pay tribute to him - in monuments, in street names, in images on hryvnias, etc.

“RELAX YOUR RIGHT HAND...”

In many other works of Pushkin, not mentioned above, one can see with the naked eye the same inviolability of his imperial convictions, unacceptable for a person with a non-Soviet mindset. Let’s not forget that the poet ended his life’s journey with the court rank of “Chamber Junker of His Imperial Majesty,” granted to him by the Tsar back in 1833. It seems that after Pushkin none of the writers had court titles.

Monographs, articles, and textbooks state that Pushkin’s work “helps strengthen friendship between our peoples.” great country" And when reading the writer’s works, you come across his arrogant, disdainful attitude towards the Tatars, Bashkirs, Circassians, etc.

Through the mouth of his positive hero from the story “The Captain’s Daughter,” the writer says that the huge and rich Orenburg province, recently annexed to the empire, “was inhabited by many semi-wild peoples” and that their “every minute indignation,” “frivolity and cruelty required continuous supervision from the government to keep them in subordination."

And today in our schools, in the 4th grade, “The Tale of the Dead Princess and the Seven Knights” is studied. It is included in a textbook prepared by Belarusian authors (T. Mushinskaya and others) and published in Minsk. Before the text of the work it is said that in Pushkin’s fairy tales it is not only the plot that attracts attention, but above all the “moral content”. Let us remember what the “moral content” is here.

A young, beautiful princess, condemned to death by the evil queen-stepmother, is miraculously saved. After wandering for a long time in the forest, she enters the tower. The owners of the house were not there, but the princess realized that “good people live here.” After some time they appear - “seven heroes, seven ruddy mustaches.” They behave in highest degree intelligent, gentlemanly and command respect from the reader. But let's see what they do. The poet, as if casually, talks about their constant occupation: “Before dawn, the brothers, as a friendly family, go out for a walk, to shoot gray ducks, to amuse their right hand, to hurry the magpie into the field, or to cut off the head from the broad shoulders of a Tatar, or to drive the Pyatigorsk Circassian out of the forest.” .

A chill creeps through my skin from these lines, from this fun of my right hand. These guys have a good job " good people" And the “moral content” of the fairy tale is also, to say the least, “pretty.” The cut off “head from the broad shoulders” of the Tatar, the murdered Sorochin and Circassian do not fit into this morality.

Maybe in the textbook under the text of the fairy tale there is some condemnation of robbery? No. There are only questions for students: “Which of the characters did you like the most? Who made you feel differently? Which ones exactly? How did the heroes treat the princess? Why?" That's all. Comments, as they say, are unnecessary.

In the poem “Poltava”, although it is said that “Ukraine was silently worried, a spark had ignited in it for a long time,” the poet was always on the side of Tsar Peter the Great. And he doesn’t even condemn him for such a wild act. Once, long before the Battle of Poltava, Hetman of Ukraine Mazepa feasted with the Tsar at his headquarters and “said a bold word.” The stern king, in front of numerous guests, threateningly grabbed Mazepa by the gray mustache. Moving forward to the present time, it is not difficult to imagine what the worldwide resonance and corresponding reaction would be if, say, Yeltsin or Putin grabbed a governor or, God forbid, his neighbor-president by the mustache in front of people.

In Europe, in addition to the Slavs (Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Lusatians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bulgarians, Macedonians), there live two more large groups of related peoples. One of them is Germanic (English, Germans, Dutch, Swedes, Danes, Norwegians, Icelanders). The other is the Romanesque group (French, Italians, Spaniards, Portuguese, Romanians, Moldovans). But no one has heard of any English statesman or writer fighting for the unification of all German peoples into one union. Moreover, England and Germany, both in the first and second world wars, were not allies, but opponents. Likewise, the French have never sought and do not seek to unite with the Spaniards, Italians and other Romance peoples. But where the theories of Pan-Slavism are in fashion, there statesmen They only dream of a union, federation or confederation, and the master of fine literature thinks about the time when “Slavic streams will merge into the Russian sea.” (Russians are not Slavs, but only Slavic-speaking Finno-Ugrians and Turks; the basis of Russia’s great power is not the idea of ​​Pan-Slavism, but the idea of ​​the Great Horde, hiding behind Pan-Slavism. - Ed.)

About ten years ago, in the Neman magazine, the memoirs of Ivan Nosovich (1788-1877), a famous lexicographer and folklorist, author of the first “Dictionary of the Belarusian Language”, “Collection of Belarusian Proverbs”, and a number of other significant works, were published. There is such an episode in these “Memories of My Life”.

In 1839, Nosovich, teaching Russian literature at the Sventyansky School, was once very shocked. All the students in his class categorically refused to memorize Pushkin’s poem “To the Slanderers of Russia.” This was repeated for three days in a row. Finally, the teacher realized what was going on. “Tell me honestly, do these poems contradict your patriotism? Is not it? - Yes, Mister Teacher! - everyone shouted.”

This is what the students were like back then! “Not like the current tribe,” as Lermontov wrote on another occasion.

A quarter of a century later, Muravyov-Hangman, the merciless strangler of Kalinovsky’s rebels, said: “What the Russian bayonet could not do, the Russian school will complete.” He, as stated in “Essays on the History of Belarus,” almost entirely replaced local teachers and officials with immigrants from the central Russian provinces, attracting them with increased salaries and the prospect of a quick career.

This upbringing lasted for many, many decades. And as a result of this, almost every schoolchild or student today memorizes everything they say and accepts everything printed or shown on TV at face value. Whatever is offered, he eats.

To be continued

Tags: Russia, Society, Pushkin

Our world contains many secrets and mysteries. Today, many people are wondering: are we alone in the Universe? Is there an invisible world of spirits? What abilities does a person have? What exploded in the Siberian taiga near the Podkamennaya Tunguska River in 1908? How can you explain the mysterious paintings in the Peruvian Nazca desert? Did the legendary Atlantis exist? And there are many, many other questions of our existence that excite the minds of modern inhabitants of planet Earth.

That is, there is always a certain audience that is interested in this topic. And it is clear that if there is a niche of demand, then there will be supply.

Irrational Russophobia

In Belarus, the “Analytical newspaper “Secret Research” (published with a circulation of about 20 thousand copies, 2 times a month) has settled in this niche. Editor-in-Chief - Vadim Deruzhinsky.

“Analytical newspaper “Secret Research” is a popular science publication about the unknown, the secrets of history and the mysteries of the Universe. Special attention The newspaper devotes itself to exposing the myths of mass consciousness. The newspaper is published twice a month and is distributed both at Belsoyuzpechat kiosks and through private distributors, as well as by subscription.

The peculiarity of this periodical is that, along with articles about UFOs and vampires, it also publishes materials devoted to the issues Belarusian history. About what kind of these historical materials, can be understood from the description of their authors, which they were given on the Internet on one of the forums (in our opinion, quite accurately):

“Their thinking and logic revolves around irrational Russophobia. That is, their worldview is stuffed with almost all Russophobic myths collected from all Russophobic Internet trash heaps. Talk to them and start any topics about Russians, Rus', Russia, etc. in good intentions is completely useless. They, according to popular opinion online, suffer from paranoia full program, in the most severe stage of the disease - graphomaniac. No jokes or sarcasm."

And this is true - after all, almost all of the historical and political analytics of “Secret Research” are permeated with: anti-Sovietism, anti-communism, anti-Slavism and other outright Russophobia. The USSR is told in black tones, Russian Empire, Kievan Rus and everything else that is connected with the Russian people and their achievements.

For example, in the article “Peter I did not found St. Petersburg” the following statement is given:

“The heiress of the Golden Horde, the Russian Empire, captured one sixth of the land. Captured with enormous blood, bringing untold misfortunes to those captured.”

Or in an article entitled “Why We Are Not Russians” we read:

“For two hundred years, tsarism and then the USSR tried to assimilate the Litvin-Belarusians into the Great Russian ethnos. Huge efforts - and zero results. Since the 1830s, Litvin was renamed “Belarusian”, and since 1864 Muravyov has already prohibited the concepts of “Belarus” and “Belarus”, only “Russian” as a resident of the North-Western region of Russia.”

It is clear to historians that these and similar statements are absurd and unsubstantiated. But nevertheless, all this rhetoric wanders from issue to issue in one variation or another.

Also, this newspaper completely denies the friendship of the Belarusian and Russian peoples. The red line runs through the thesis that Russians and Belarusians are alien to each other by blood, mental make-up and folk culture.

So in the article “Gene Pool of Belarus” Artyom Denikin (there are rumors that this is the pseudonym under which the newspaper’s editor-in-chief Vadim Deruzhinsky is hiding) writes:

“Many Russian politicians and political scientists repeat Soviet myth that supposedly “Belarusians and Russians are almost the same people,” and on this basis they consider it necessary for Belarus to become part of Russia. However, experts know very well that Belarusians and Russians have different ethnic origins, different anthropology, different languages, different ways of life, different traditions, different religions (Belarusians have Uniate and Catholic), different national characters. And recent studies by geneticists in Russia and Belarus have shown that the peoples have completely different genes.”

Let us note once again: these and similar theses (more like extremist ones) are published en masse in the newspaper.

Disputes about the “Baltic substrate”

We open the latest issue for this month, look for an article on the history of Belarus and once again we are convinced that we have identified the pattern correctly, since without surprise we find another Russophobic article with the title: “Belarusians are Balts.” The author of the article is Vadim Rostov (on the Internet they noticed that the same Vadim Deruzhinsky is hiding under this pseudonym). In it, the author, in the already familiar style, presents a certain kaleidoscope of facts and opinions of various researchers, which is apparently intended to convince the reader that “ ...in terms of anthropology, genes, culture, Belarusians are Balts, Ukrainians are mainly Sarmatians and Scythians, Russians are Finno-Ugrians and Uraloids» .

But in fact, no serious genetic studies prove this. And speculating on the topic of the origin of the Slavic peoples is a very simple task, since these questions are covered in the darkness of centuries and are still waiting for their unbiased researchers.

There are several concepts just about the origin of Belarusians. Here are the main ones:

- Greater Poland Polish concept(whose creators - L. Golembowski, A. Rypinsky and others considered Belarusians to be part of the Polish ethnic group);

- Krivichskaya(whose adherents - M. Pogodin, V. Lastovsky and others considered only Krivichi people to be the ancestors of Belarusians);

-Krivichi-Dregovichi-Radimichskaya(the authors of which, J. Karsky, V. Picheta and others, considered the Krivichi, Dregovich and Radimichi to be the ancestors of the Belarusians);

- Old Russian(whose adherents - S. Tokarev, M. Tikhomirov, B. Rybakov, E. Korneychik and many other scientists adhere to the idea of ​​​​the common ancestors of Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians, their common ethnicity);

In the early 90s new concept the emergence of Belarus and the ethnogenesis of Belarusians was developed by historian-teacher at BSU Mikhail Pilipenko. He gave reasons for the fact that in the formation of the Belarusian ethnos there was both evolution and diffusion, participation in the ethnogenesis of Belarusians of certain groups of Baltic, Turkic and other ethnic groups.

Map of ancient Russian lands in the 9th-10th centuries

But as we already understand, Rostov-Deruzhinsky needs the theory of the “Baltic substrate” not to search for scientific truth, but in order to put a barrier in the way of the ethnic unity of Belarusians and Russians and to prove that ethnically Belarusians are more Baltic than Slavic.

The main thing in this evidence is the denial of Old Russian civilization as the ethnic, geopolitical and cultural basis for the generation of three fraternal peoples: Belarusian, Russian and Ukrainian.

We will not get involved in this controversy - this is not the scope of this article. An analysis of Deruzhinsky’s works is available on the Internet. And we will look at some facts from the biography of Vadimi Deruzhinsky, which somewhat explain his anti-Russian worldview.

Cook, mechanic, analyst

“Armed with the view of modern myopia and you think that you judge events correctly! Your conclusions are rotten; they are made without God. What are you referring to history? History is dead for you, and only a closed book. Without God you cannot draw great conclusions from it; you will bring out only insignificant and small ones"

N.V.Gogol

From 1998 to the present, Vadim Deruzhinsky has been the editor-in-chief and co-publisher of the Russophobic “Analytical newspaper “Secret Research”.

Despite the fact that the newspaper is present in information space Belarus has been around for about 20 years; there is practically no information on the Internet about both the newspaper itself and its editor-in-chief, except for what he tells about himself, either on the pages of his books or in discussions with various opponents.

V. Deruzhinsky does not like to shine. There is only one photo on the Internet, which is positioned as a photo of Deruzhinsky (perhaps it is not him).

He is also the author of almost all the provocative articles in the Secret Research newspaper, speaking under different pseudonyms: Vadim Rostov, Artyom Denikin (maybe some others). Here, for example, are the headings of some of his articles: “The myth of “every third Belarusian who died””, “Non-Russian Russian language”, “Non-Orthodox Belarus”, “The USSR was preparing an attack on Germany in 1941”, “The myth of the “triune people”” , “Belarusians are Balts”, “Was Belarus a colony of Russia?” and so on.

Born in 1965 in Rostov-on-Don, since 1977 he has lived in Minsk. Served in the Strategic Missile Forces in the Arkhangelsk region, graduated from Minsk State pedagogical institute foreign languages, worked as a translator in Bulgaria, then for five years he was an adviser to the Analytical Department of the CIS Executive Secretariat in Minsk.

Author of books on the topics of the unknown and alternative history - “Encyclopedia of Anomalous Phenomena” (2008), “Conspiracy Theory” (2009), “Book of Vampires” (2008), “Secrets of Belarusian History” (2009), “Forgotten Belarus” (2010) , “Myths about Belarus” (2013) and others.

As Deruzhinsky himself states: “In 2014, the Belarusian media published a ranking of the five most read books in the country. Vasil Bykov and Vladimir Korotkevich are there, and fifth on the list is my book “Secrets of Belarusian History”. According to all bookstores in the country. Published in 2010, reprinted six times.”

This is how Deruzhinsky describes his ancestry in the book “Secrets of Belarusian History”:

"According to Assembly of the Nobility Belarus, the Deruzhinsky family was one of the most famous noble families ON It was founded by the Polish nobleman Stefan Deruzhinsky, a native of the Polish city of Belz, who came to Belarus in 1564 and created the first Jesuit School on Belarusian territory in Vitebsk.

Martin Deruzhinsky was also known in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (mentioned in documents of the war of 1654-67 with Muscovy). During the time of Russian domination, Frantisek Deruzhinsky, a native of Orsha, after the closure of the Polotsk Jesuit Academy in 1820, left for the USA, where he headed the American Jesuit Society, and also founded the first Catholic university in the USA, which to this day bears his name.”

But as already in a conversation on one of the Internet forums, Vadim Deruzhinsky revealed the reasons for his conscious anti-Moscowism and Svyadomosti:

“And I find that you have a stronger understanding of the discipline of special propaganda. Fortunately, I am not a ufologist, but I am a reserve captain with a specialty in special propaganda, so I can easily distinguish ordinary forum members from those “comrades” who, in addition to the desire to express their opinions and judgments, also have a hidden super-goal of being on our Forum. You have this super goal sticking out like an awl from a bag.

FOR REFERENCE. The intelligence services of the Republic of Belarus and Ukraine only monitor forums to track anti-state trends. And only in one Russian Federation was a service of “sabotage on the Internet” created, on Pukin’s orders, where FSB senior leaders infiltrate the forums of the CIS and Baltic countries, undermining the discussion of topics about national self-identification and introducing “pro-Russian ideas.” As the Kommersant newspaper wrote, this service was created as a response to Kavkaz-Center during Chechen war- to primarily counteract Russian forums. And only then the work of the service covered Ukraine and other neighboring countries. .

By the way, my profession is not a vampireologist, but civil service analyst. According to my certification, I have the 4th category of a civil servant of the Republic of Belarus, which is similar to the position of head of a department in a city or regional Executive Committee. But I also have other professions: for example, I am a 4th category cook. Why don't you call me a cook? I am also a 4th category mechanic, I am also higher education teacher (and worked at school).

What the hell is Don? Only my father and I were born in Rostov-on-Don (the youngest son was born in 1938), and his older sister and brother - and all the rest of our Deruzhinskys were born in the Smolensk region, Monastyrschensky district, Raisky s/s, Poderni village . There was our estate, where the Bolsheviks created some kind of commune, and we were deported to the Rostov region.

My ancestors were Poles (I have a Polish surname), but since the 16th century they assimilated with the gentry of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and became LITVINS. Initially and for many centuries there were only Catholics in my family. But my relative Averyan Deruzhinsky (son people's writer Averyan Deruzhinsky, whose poems in school curriculum Belarusian literature - what is your answer to whether the Deruzhinskys are Belarusians) says that in our family there were also “Russians” who betrayed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and, having converted to Orthodoxy, assimilated into the Russian Empire.”

Galician Jesuit

In conclusion, Vadim Rostov (Deruzhinsky) admitted where the roots of his such righteousness and hatred of all Russian and anti-Russian myth-making come from,

Deruzhinsky (Rostov) admitted that “he’s not a damn Pole, but he’s the absolute GALICHAN. His surname comes from Galicia, from the village...

Here is the continuation of the autobiography:

V. Deruzhinsky:

“My origins of the surname, of course, are in Lyash Belz near Lvov, where Deruzhino (now Dzheruzhino) and Guta Deruzhinska (now Guta Dzheruzhinska). It was from there that my distant ancestor Stefan Deruzhinsky was from, who went to Vitebsk in 1564 with the mission of creating a Jesuit School there.”

In general, V. Deruzhinsky turned out to be quite worthy of the descendants of his ancestors, Jesuit gentlemen in robes.

Deruzhinsky’s books contain all the Russophobic articles from the newspaper “Secret Research”

From Russophobia to anti-Belarusianism - one step

So, we have in our country three very prolific and rabid Russophobic propagandists - Anatoly Taras (we wrote about him in our previous articles), Vadim Deruzhinsky, Mikhail Goldenkov (also writes articles in “Secret Research” and later compiles them into books ), who, either out of sincere conviction or for some other reason, throw mud at Russian history.

However, Taras, Goldenkov, Deruzhinsky are not only a Russophobic phenomenon, but at the same time anti-Belarusian. After all, for an unbiased researcher it is clear: if Russia were not good, bad - it does not matter - there would be no Belarus. No. This is the crux of the matter. Historians are well aware that the Poles are from the Belarusians, in best case scenario, would leave only memories.

Therefore, the unrestrained praise of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (from the first to the present), which Deruzhinsky is also engaged in, is also an anti-Belarusian project. The first RP strangled ON in its embrace. In the first RP there was no chance for the growth of Belarusianity - neither in the form of a nation, nor in the form of a state. Only that which was Polish or agreed to become Polish received the right to exist. The Constitution of May 3 emphasized the strict Polishness of the Republic of Poland. Even Valentin Akudovich, who is in love with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, acknowledged the absence of “Belarusian chances” in the Republic of Poland.

“Russian expansion was precisely what liberated the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Litvin-Belarusians... from Polish colonization, for which, from the perspective of current experience, we should have been grateful to Russia, because in the 18th century no trends were visible for the future emergence of an independent Belarus in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. "

About the attitude towards Belarusianness already in post-war Poland The statistics regarding the population in this country speak eloquently: the number of Belarusians has decreased by more than ten times over half a century. It is useful to read the historians O. Latyshonok and E. Mironovich living in Poland. In his book “History of Belarus the hell of the Syedzins of the 18th century. Yes, a packet of the XXI century.” they note that Belarusians were simply afraid to call themselves Belarusians, that “ they received full rights like Poles and none - like Belarusians", What " people of Belarusian origin were treated as full citizens, provided that they did not demonstrate their cultural differences in any way».

It seems that it is preferable for those nostalgic for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to see the Belarusian lands as “Kresuv sprouting”.

The advances of the apologists of “litsvinism” fit well into the thesis of the 21st century Polish historian and priest Valerian Kalinka, who said that if the Ukrainian Grits does not want to be Polish, then it would be better for him to become a nobody’s, but not Russian. Most likely, they measure Belarusians with the same yardstick.

Books by Deruzhinsky in the state bookstore in Vitebsk under the sign “Belarus - history, culture”

Conclusion

In peaceful and relatively quiet Belarus, not everything is so quiet. The Deruzhinskys publish books and teach. They work with young people. And these young people absorb the image of the Muscovite not just as a racially alien person, but as a disgusting creature that needs to be fought.

Let us ask ourselves: Why are the activities of such counterfeiters popular? It is unlikely that this is only the result of luring readers with provocative materials and catchy headlines. And indeed, there is another one objective reason. And this reason is the need of people for historical knowledge about their homeland. But most people don’t have enough time to read thick books and look for answers on their own. People need ready-made answers. This is where figures like Deruzhinsky and Taras come in, who (in our opinion, by order) create and introduce destructive information modules into society.

And, looking at the spread of these destructive myths in Belarus (and this is a threat to state security, first of all), I would like to ask: where are the authorities and the Academy of Sciences directly looking?

We do not call for resolving this issue according to the principle “no person - no problem” or seizing and banning all this kind of literature (in large bookstores In Minsk, the most provocative books by Taras and Deruzhinsky were removed from the shelves). As you know, this is not very effective, and will most likely only worsen the problem.

It is necessary to identify the underlying causes of ethnosocial conflicts and implement public policy to prevent them. And all this must be accompanied by high-quality popular science, historical and political journalism, which is now very necessary and will be in demand in the future.

Sources and materials:

“Analytical newspaper “Secret Research”, No. 12, 2016

“Analytical newspaper “Secret Research”, No. 17, 2013

V. Gigin. Was Belarus a colony? http://zapadrus.su/zaprus/filz...

“Analytical newspaper “Secret Research”, No. 11, 2016

V. Deruzhinsky. Secrets of Belarusian history, 2014

Who is Vadim Rostov or the Poles are still itching http://parafraz.net/kto-takoj-...

Chesnok.by: Was there or was there not a genocide of national Belarusian culture in the Russian Empire?

Chesnok.by: Who are Belarusians? Part one: On ideology and the national idea

Chesnok.by: Slutsk uprising: where are Belarusian nationalists being led?

Kirill Metelitsa: Vae soli. Nostalgia for the Empire http://ross-bel.ru/about/news_...

Aleg Latyshonak, Yaugen Miranovich. History of Belarus the hell of the Syeredzins of the 18th century. yes pachatu XXI century, 2010;

Belarusian nationalism is preached quietly but actively http://www.posprikaz.ru/2013/0...

If you are interested in this information, click " I like", leave

Staronka 2 z 4

Vadim DERUZHINSKY, editor-in-chief of the “Secret Research” Analytical Newspaper

For many centuries, scientists have been arguing about the origin of the names of the princes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Unfortunately, the authors are mistaken in the question of what ethnic group they belonged to, just as they are mistaken in the fact that these names were supposedly pagan.

Today no one can interpret the names of the princes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - although many have tried: and through Slavic language, and through Lietuvis (Zhemoit, which is mistakenly called “Lithuanian”), and even through Scandinavian and Finno-Ugric languages.

Undoubtedly, these names consist of repeated elements, and therefore mean something. For example, the element “ol”, with which Olgerd begins, is at the beginning of the name Olgimont. The element “mont” is in the names Vidimont, Germont, Zhigimont, Pisimont, Skirmont, Yamont. A name can start with “mont”: Montville. “Vil”, with which Montvil ends, is also in the names Radivil, Ginvil. Dovgerd begins with “dov”, like Dovmont. A number of names, as in a designer, are made up of these elements “dovg” + “gerd” - Dovgerd, “dovg” + “mont” - Dovmont.

More elements: “tovt” (Vitovt, Tovtvil), “vid” (Vidimont, Monivid), “min” (Mindovg, Mingailo), “kor” (Koriat, Koribut, Korigailo), “but” (Koribut, Butov), “skyr” (Skirmont, Skirgailo), “gailo” (Skirgailo, Yagailo, Kezgailo, Svidrigailo, etc.).

The authors of the encyclopedia “Lithuania” (A. Vaganas, Z. Zinkevičius, etc.), published in Vilnius in 1989, admit that from the point of view of the Lietuvis language, the meaning of these two-basic names of ancient Lithuania is “difficult to explain.” That is, these names are not related to the Eastern Baltic languages ​​of Zhemoit, Aukštait and Latvian.

Vladislav Yurgevich wrote about this back in 1864 in the brochure “The Experience of Explaining the Names of the Lithuanian Princes.” Nikolai Ermolovich referred to it in the famous book “In the Footsteps of a Myth.” However, these authors (and after them other Belarusian historians) went to the other extreme - they began to explain these names as “Slavic”. Which is exactly what is taken for the ears.

The Slavs (more precisely, the Slavic-speaking ones), like the Lietuvis, initially did not understand the meaning of these names, and therefore distorted them in every way. The name Keistut in the Pskov Chronicle is written in two forms: Kestuit and Kestuty. And the name Zhigimont, incomprehensible to the Slavic ear, was converted there into the already understandable Zhidimont and Zhidomont (derived from “Jew”). There is nothing to be surprised when the Pskov chronicler calls the king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth Stefan Batory Stepan Obatur.

Belarusian writer and philologist Ivan Laskov in his book “Chronicle Lithuania” (Vilnia, 2011) hypothesizes that these are Finno-Ugric names. However, Nikolai Ermolovich, in personal correspondence with him in 1989, replied that this exotic hypothesis was so frivolous that it did not even need discussion.

Indeed, all these disputes seem frivolous. All researchers are mistaken in not wanting to connect the names of ancient Lithuania with the local population. But it was not Eastern Baltic, not Slavic, not Finno-Ugric. And the Western Baltic: the Yatvingians and Dainoviches of Western Belarus, the Masurians of Northern Poland, the Prussians (Pogesans of Mindovg). Their languages ​​disappeared back in the 16th century - that is why we cannot today understand the meaning of the ancient names of Lithuania.

In fact, this is the pre-Slavic language of the Belarusians, our ancestors. Therefore, it is correct to call these names ancient Belarusian (Litvinian).

PAGAN OR CHRISTIAN?

But the origin of the names is only half the mystery. Even a small part of it. Much more surprising to all researchers is how Christian names coexisted among the princes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania with supposedly “pagan” ones.

For example, among the sons of Olgerd were Yagailo, Skirgailo, Svidrigailo, Korygailo, Lingwen, Vigunt, Koribut - and at the same time Andrei, Dmitry, Konstantin, Vladimir, Fedor.

The first ones are from the Tver princess, the second ones are from the Vitebsk princess.

Some hastily concluded that the children from the Tver princess were pagans, and from the Vitebsk princess they were supposedly Orthodox, and, moreover, “already Russian,” as one Moscow chauvinist wrote. Nonsense! These “already Russians” had their Lithuanian names exactly like that, and all 12 sons of Olgerd were Christians!

When in 1342 the Pskovites asked Olgerd to reign and offered him to be baptized, he replied: “I am already baptized, and I am a Christian, I don’t want to be baptized a second time” (Belorussia and Lithuania. St. Petersburg, 1890, p. 76).

And here is what the Resurrection Chronicle writes: “Olgerd had Yakov, named Jagiello, from V. Princess Ulyana of Tverskaya.”

Here's how it turns out: he was Jacob from birth, but they later named him Jagiello.

In 1864, Vladislav Yurgevich commented on this fact:

“It is obvious that Jagiello was a familiar form of the name Yakov, which the prince was given at baptism... that is, the godname Yakov was converted into a familiar form and called Jagiello, for otherwise the chronicler would have said: “there was a son of Jagiello named Yakov,” putting it earlier pagan name. Just as we see, Evnutiy, Vitovt, Olgerd and others bore the names given to them at baptism.”

Indeed, Vytautas was baptized by Yuri, Olgerd by Alexander, but they preferred names that everyone traditionally considers “pagan.” What is the reason for this preference? And were these names pagan?

The explanation invented by Yurgevich about a certain “familiar” form seems far-fetched. Firstly, they first give a pagan name, and only then at baptism a Christian one - and not vice versa. Secondly, often names do not have any connection so that one can talk about a certain “form”. The same Jagiello-Jacob, accepting Catholicism for the throne in Krakow, became Vladislav. If Jagiello and Yakov at least begin with a common letter, then Vladislav is unlikely to be something similar. And what is similar between Yuri and Vitovt? Thirdly, the very idea that the prince is given some kind of “familiar uniform” after baptism seems simply ridiculous. For example, no one familiarly called Ivan the Terrible “Vanka” or “Vanyukha”. So why on earth should this happen in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania?

Ivan Laskov in the book “Chronicles of Lithuania” gives his comment:

“There are many known cases when two names of one prince do not coincide at all. Thus, Olgerd’s son Koribut received the name Dimitri at baptism, Koribut’s brother Skirgailo received the name Ivan. Another son of Olgerd, the famous Andrei of Polotsk, bore the pagan name Vingolt. There is also clearly nothing in common between “Andrey” and “Vingolt”.

The history of the names of Andrei-Wingolt is also interesting because he was the son of a Christian woman, Maria of Vitebsk, and was born in Christian Vitebsk, where his father Olgerd reigned, but it turns out that Andrei’s first name was still Wingolt. This is evidenced by the Pskov chronicles, where it is reported: in 1341, under the threat of attack from the Germans, “I sent an ambassador to Vitebsk to Prince Olgerd to ask for help.<...>Prince Olgerd, having listened to the Pskov ambassadors, did not leave the word of the Pskov, ambassador to the governor of his prince Georgy Vitovtovich; and Olgerd himself raised his brother Prince Kestuit and his men Litovkov and the men of Vidblyan, and came to help the Pskovites, on the 20th day of July<...>and bring with you your son Andrei, so his prayer name was, but he had not yet been baptized” (Pskov Chronicles. M.-L., 1941, p. 18).”

What is “baptized” in the ideas of the chroniclers of that era? This word had an extremely narrow meaning - baptized into Orthodoxy. Alas, Ivan Laskov fell into this trap and then comes to conclusions with which I absolutely disagree:

“As we see, Andrei of Polotsk was not baptized until he was 16 years old, and Andrei had a prayer name, that is, he was called that when they prayed for him. This clearly shows that the Litvin princes were not secret Christians, but, on the contrary, open pagans, which they remained even in a Christian environment. For political purposes, they accepted both Orthodoxy and Catholicism (Mindovg, Jagiello, Svidrigailo were baptized into both faiths), but, in essence, they worshiped pagan gods and used predominantly pagan names. Otherwise, how can we understand that almost each of them had two names: Christian and pagan? Andrey - Vingolt, Jagiailo - Yakov, Skirgailo - Ivan, Koribut - Dmitry, Lungven - Simeon, Korigailo - Casimir, Vigont - Alexander, Svidrigailo - Leo... True, Olgerd had four more sons from his first wife, and we only know them Christian names: Dmitry, Konstantin, Vladimir and Fedor, but their pagan names simply did not reach us. The obviousness of such nominal pairs completely undermines Yurgevich’s hypothesis that the pagan names of the Litvin princes are in reality distorted Christian ones, for why, with one Christian, albeit distorted, one more, undistorted one?”

In fact, the Lithuanian princes were not pagans.

Ivan Laskov talks about some “pagan gods” who were worshiped by the princes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. What kind of “pagan gods” are these, young Belarusian scientists found out in 2011.

The Ipatiev Chronicle and the “Chronicle of Bykhovets” report that Mindovg allegedly worshiped certain pagan gods, even after his baptism into the papal faith after 1253:

“His baptism was fraudulent. He honored his gods in secret. First Nanadai, and Telyavel, and Diverikz.”

In fact, these “pagan gods” are lines from a Christian prayer in the Yatvingian-Pogesan language, where Nanadai is “numons dajs”, Telyavel is “tawo walle”, Diveriks is “Deiwe riks”. This is together the phrase “Numons dajs tawo walle, Deiwe riks”, that is, “Thy will be done, Lord God!” This is the “Our Father” prayer in the language of the ancestors of today’s Belarusians - in our pre-Slavic Western Baltic language (that is, ancient Belarusian). (This is described in more detail in the essay by Alexei Daylidov and Kirill Kostyan “The Language of Mindovg” in No. 11, 2011 of our newspaper.)

Mindaugas was considered a “pagan” because he said the “Our Father” prayer twice in our ancient Belarusian language: “Thy will be done, Lord God!” (“Numons dajs tawo walle, Deiwe riks”) before boarding a horse or boat, before entering the city and on the bridge, before drinking, eating and sleeping.

The fact is that in the Baltic, before canonical Christianity, “heresies” in the form of Arianism and Bogomilism were widespread. The region of these “heresies” is the entire Baltic coast (with the exception of wild and truly pagan tribes such as the Zhemoyts). The Polotsk prince Vseslav the Magician actively helped the “pagan uprisings” in Polabian Rus' of the encouragers (1066) and in Sweden (1067) - that is, the uprisings of these Christian “heretics”.

Arianism and Bogomilism were called “paganism” by Catholics and Orthodox Christians, but in fact it was Christianity, considered “heresy.”

SOLUTION TO THE RIDDLE

So, Mindovg was not a pagan - he was a Christian and, judging by the rituals described in the chronicles, belonged to the Bogomil heretics. This discovery allows us to take a different look at the mystery of the paired names of the princes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

Ivan Laskov wrote: “As we see, Andrei of Polotsk was not baptized until he was 16 years old, and Andrei had a prayer name, that is, he was called that when they prayed for him.”

No! The Lithuanian princes had two names because there were two baptisms - one into their secret faith of the Bogomils, and the second into Orthodoxy or, less often, into Catholicism.

Wingolt was the name of Andrei Polotsky after his first baptism as a Bogomil. For this they prayed for his name in Lithuania - Western Belarus (not pagan, but Bogomil!), and for the Orthodox part of Lithuania (now Eastern Belarus) they gave the prayer name Andrei. Wingolt-Andrey was apparently baptized into Orthodoxy at the age of 16, but he was a Christian from infancy - and not at all a pagan.

Why does Olgerd have sons with Lithuanian names from his Tver wife, and Orthodox ones from his Vitebsk wife?

As the example of Andrei of Polotsk shows, in the second case, the children were initially baptized into the Bogomil faith, giving them Lithuanian Western Baltic names, but the children from the Vitebsk wife Olgerd received PRAYER NAMES, by which the Orthodox knew them. Although they were not baptized into Orthodoxy (Andrey, at least until he was 16 years old).

This shows that we misname historical characters. Olgerd’s children from his Vitebsk wife, in the same way, from childhood had Litvinian names AS MAIN, and not Orthodox names, which they considered secondary.

For example, in the traditional, invented interpretation of the Battle of Kulikovo, the regiments of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania Andrei and Dmitry Olgerdovich appear there - they are presented as “allegedly Russian” for their names. As we see, both sons of Olgerd from childhood called themselves names that were not Russian, and their “Russian names” - in fact Byzantine - are only prayer names for the Orthodox flock of the Byzantine faith in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

In a word, we need to reconsider the entire ancient history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the aspect that our historians had a tradition of calling the names of the Lithuanian princes “pagans”, and the population of Western Belarus, the Vilna region and the Bialystoch region itself - “pagan”. As we see, they were not pagans.

During the time of Olgerd, the Bogomil faith was transmitted as part of the princely attribute from the era of Mindaugas and earlier, therefore it preserved the Western Baltic language of prayers (“Numons dajs tawo walle, Deiwe riks”) - both this language itself and the names derived from it. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Zhemoit-Aukshtayts at that time were not yet Christians, but were idolaters; Mindovg’s Bogomilism was not widespread there before the adoption of Catholicism.

Why and how did these paired names of the princes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania disappear? Obviously, just like these names themselves disappeared from our population of Western Belarus. That is, because of the Slavicization of our Lithuania. (Please note that it is absurd to call these names “princely Lithuanian”; our entire population bore them.)

There is a lot of evidence that the Belarusians (Litvins) had their own special Litvinian language before “Rutenian”. For example, in 1501, the Ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in Rome under Pope Alexander VI, Erasmus Telak, reported to the Pope that the Litvins had their own language. But due to the fact that Rusyns (Ukrainians) inhabited almost half of the Principality, the Lithuanians generally began to use their language, since it was “convenient to use.”

Academician of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic Lietuva Zinkevicius claims that the clerical language of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has undergone changes. If in the 14th-15th centuries it was based on the dialects of the northern Volyn and southern Belarusian lands, then from the middle of the 15th century a written language was formed in the dialects of the strip from Brest to Novogrudok, and by the middle of the 16th century it was replaced by the language of the central strip from Minsk to Vilnius, which is considered to be “Old Belarusian”.

There is a gradual Slavicization of the Litvins, which came from Volyn (and the southern part of the Brest region is historical Volyn, where ethnic Ukrainian-Rusyns lived, not Litvins, and their language was Ukrainian). Thus, the transition of the Litvins to the Slavic language occurred in three stages in the period from the 14th to the mid-16th century, and the resulting “Stro-Belarusian” language itself is only a Volynian language with a huge local Baltic substratum.

Erasmus Telak was the official ambassador of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to the Vatican and gave a presentation there on the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Therefore, he knew the linguistic situation very well. His words that the Litvins have their own language, but switched to Ukrainian (Ruthenian), completely coincide with the conclusions of Zinkevicius. It turns out that the so-called “Old Belarusian language of the Statutes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania” is not ours at all, but only a “talk” of the Ukrainian language.

Here's another fact. In the same 1501, the Vilna Catholic Bishop Albert (Wojciech) Tabar received a letter from the Grand Duke of Lithuania and Russia Alexander. The point was that, without knowing the “Litvinian dialect,” the priests could not in any way teach the flock the word of God (for the services were conducted in Latin language). The bishop was entrusted with appointing priests who would know this “Lithuanian dialect” - I draw your attention, not at all the “Rusyn language” and not the “Zhemoytsk language”.

The document names 28 Catholic centers, the population of which did not know the “Ruten language” and spoke their own Lithuanian language. Among them: Lida, Dubinki, Paboysk, Slonim, Dubichi, Krasnoye Selo, Volozhin, Molodechno, Radashkovichi, Koidanovo (now Dzerzhinsk) and other cities, mainly in the present-day Minsk region, as well as Grodno and partly Brest. Also on the list: Grodno, Novogrudok, Volkovysk, Slutsk - and even distant Streshin above the Dnieper.

This real fact, which shows that in 1501 the entire population of the current Western half of Belarus (including the Minsk region) still spoke their “Litvinian language” (obviously Yatvingian) and did not know the Ruthenian (Ukrainian) language. (See the book by Pavel Urban “Old people: Language, culture, ethnicity.” Minsk, Tekhnalogiya, 2001. pp. 31-33. Urban refers to Codex Ecclesiae Vilnensis. Nr. 507. P. 616-617.)

The fact that Lithuanian and Zhemoit languages ​​are absolutely different languages- a lot of evidence. The Polish historian Jan Dlugash, in the 11th book of his chronicles, wrote about the appointment of a bishop for Zhemoitia: “Matej, a German by origin, who, however, was born in Vilna, was proposed for the first bishop of the see in Medniki. He knew Lithuanian [Litvinian] and Zhemoit language well.”

And the difference between them is huge: our Lithuanian prayer of Mindaugas “Numons dajs tawo walle, Deiwe riks” is incomprehensible to the ear of the Zhemoit, that is, the Lietuvis of Lietuva or the “Lithuanian” of “Lithuania,” as they now erroneously say.

OUR ATLANTIS

In the 16th century, our Western Baltic language (once native to the Krivichi of the eastern part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania; they were Slavicized by the Varangians centuries earlier), our Bogomilism, and our Western Baltic names and linguistic realities disappeared. They have survived to this day only in our surnames: Bortkevich, Gotsmanov, Gurinovich, Daineko, Didyulya, Domash, Domashkevich, Zygmantovich, Kebich, Korbut, Radivilov, Statkevich, Khatskevich, Chigir, Shushkevich - etc., almost every ancient one ( before tsarism) the Belarusian surname has Baltic roots.

And they still remained in place names. For example, in my youth I often visited the village of Skirmantovo, which is not far from Dzerzhinsk (Koidanovo). With the strength of our current language, it is impossible to decipher either the toponym Skirmantovo or the surname Skirmantovich - for scientists cannot decipher the name “Skirmant” itself, which lies in the essence of the toponym and surname.

There are authors today who, for political reasons, call our ancient two-part names of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (which were mentioned at the beginning of the article) something “ALIEN to Belarusians.” Like, this is not ours, not “Russian Orthodox”, and therefore not from our ancestors.

On this basis, they invent that only the princes of ancient Lithuania had such names. Like, this is “foreign for our Slavic-Belarusian tribe.”

But let’s open the Census of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania troops of 1528 and 1567. There, the vast majority of our ancestors had surnames derived from these supposedly “foreign” and “inexplicable by science” names:

Vidimontovich, Germontovich, Zhigimontovich, Pisimontovich, Skirmontovich, Yamontovich, Montvilovich, Ginvilovich, Dovgerdovich, Dovmontovich, Mindovgovich, Dovgerdovich, Vitovtovich, Koributovich, Butovtovich, Yagailovich, etc.

In the 16th century, our surnames were formed on behalf of the father of the clan - and the Census of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania troops is an irrefutable fact proving that then OUR PEOPLE had these “names inexplicable by science.” Even after accepting Orthodoxy or Catholicism, these surnames remained, “mysterious” for Orthodox and Catholics.

Censuses of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania show that the majority of the population of Belarus (Litvin-Belarusians) have original surnames derived from Lithuanian names. The question arises: if, as others fantasize, Belarusians have always been Slavs, then why on earth do Belarusians have surnames derived from the Lithuanian name of their father?

First and last names are given only IN THE NATIVE LANGUAGE. This means that during the period of the Census of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, our population was not yet Slavicized and spoke their native Lithuanian language.

But not Zhmud! And Western Baltic.

As Klyuchevsky said, scratch a Russian and there will be a Tatar in him. Exactly the same about us: scratch a Belarusian - and you will find a Litvin with the “mysterious” surname of a Lithuanian language that has sunk into oblivion, such as Monvilovich or Gedmintovich.

Let me remind you that the East Baltic language is characterized by archaic forms starting with “-s”. Their analogue in the language of our ancestors of the Western Balts were forms with “-ch”. Hence the surnames with “-ich” - instead of the Slavic one with “-ov”.

So in 1864, Vladislav Yurgevich completely incorrectly called his brochure “An Experience in Explaining the Names of the Lithuanian Princes.” Because we should be talking about the “experience of explaining” the original names of Belarusians.

Hence, attempts to interpret these names as “familiar forms of princely names” are absurd and unscientific in principle. Because these are not princely names at all - but the NAMES OF OUR PEOPLE. What other scientists do not want to see point-blank. How will they explain, I’ll take it at random, our surnames Monvilovich or Gedmintovich? These are not princes, and these are not Zhemoits - in 1939, among the Lietuvis, these surnames were changed to “Monvilovichus” and “Gedmintovicius”.

These Belarusian surnames, which I took at random from the Census, are based on the Western Baltic names Monvil and Gedmint, which were the names of the founders of these clans recorded in the Census of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania troops. Our surnames appeared 503 years ago: according to the resolution of the Vilna Sejm of 1507, “the lords, princes, zyamyans, udovs and gentry were ordered to enumerate people in their offices and present the lists to the gaspadar.”

This is how a layer of our Western Baltic self-identification was entrenched in our surnames of Belarusians - in the form of surnames derived from “names mysterious to science.”

But no one knows what these names meant in their semantics for our ancestors. For we have lost our very pre-Slavic language of our forefathers. I wrote in the book “Secrets of Belarusian History”:

“As for Lida (the capital of the Dainova principality), the origins of the toponym are a complete mystery, since everything that was connected with this people and the principality, which became part of the Belarusian ethnic group, has long been lost. The once glorious story of Dainova became a legend over the centuries, then the legend became a myth, and then everyone who remembered this myth died. All that remains is the name of Dainova's capital - Lida. But no one knows what it means anymore. Just like in Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings,” where in exactly the same way the history of the ancestors is lost and forgotten in the sands of time.”

So it is with our surnames like Monvilovich or Gedmintovich. This is something from our ATLANTIS. The search for something that has sunk forever...

Ghost Trains

Country of Shambhala. Tibet

Preiser's Hut - Anomalous Zone

Merovingians - the secret of the royal dynasty

Kislovodsk and its attractions

Kislovodsk is one of the most beautiful and sunniest Russian resorts. It is not only famous for its healing mineral waters, but...

Montecristo Island

In the 1550s, the famous Turkish pirate Red Beard and his follower Dragut captured the Montecristo monastery and organized...

Getting to know New Zealand

What makes New Zealand so amazing and attractive for travelers? This country is simply a paradise for nature lovers. Few, in what country...

Syracuse - a message from the past

The city of Syracuse, in Sicily, is one of the oldest cities in Italy, founded in the 8th century BC. In Syracuse there is...

Ancient city of Cologne

One of the oldest cities in Germany is Cologne - the fourth largest city in terms of population and the third largest in terms of territory. The city is located on...

Niagara Falls

For lovers of breathtaking views, a visit to Niagara Falls will not leave you indifferent. This is a famous waterfall in the United States, located between Lake Ontario and...

First of all, pearls are an incredibly beautiful stone that was...

Nanovaccines and implantable microchips

In a number of printed and electronic publications, both in Russia and...

Sharks in the Baltic Sea

Somehow it turned out that of the sharks in the Baltic Sea, only...

Avangard missile system - technical characteristics and capabilities

The newest Russian missile system "Avangard" has been put into mass production,...

Dead Sea - the mystery of Sodom and Gomorrah

The Dead Sea is one of the most mysterious and unique bodies of water...

Modern Templars

It is not known for certain whether the Norwegian Knights Templar actually existed...