Ch. 1.3.1, Vol. 4, History: Fiction or Science?, Exam

This article contains my analysis of Fomenko’s History: Fiction or Science?, Volume 4, Chapter 1, Part 3.1. Chapter 1 is titled “Russian chronicles and the Millerian-Romanovian version of Russian history”, part 3 is titled “THE RADZIVILOVSKAYA CHRONICLE FROM KÖNIGSBERG AS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE POVEST VREMENNYH LET”, and part 3.1 is titled “The origins of the chronicle’s most important copies”.

I established 17 claims for a total of 17 points. Out of the 17 points, I have determined 14 (82.35%) to be supported or contradicted. Out of the 14 points, I have determined 14 (100%) to be supported and none (0%) to be contradicted.

As of right now, Fomenko’s grade on this part is 100% (14/14), which is an A+.[13]

Fomenko’s overall grade is shown on the overview article: Examining Fomenko’s New Chronology.


Fomenko’s Citations

Fomenko uses two citations in this bit, namely:

# [715] “Radziwill Chronicle. Text. Research. Description of miniatures”. Facsimile edition. – St. Petersburg, publishing house “Glagol”, Moscow, publishing house “Art”, 1994.

# [716] “The Radziwill Chronicle”. – Complete collection of Russian chronicles, v. 38. L., publishing house Science, Leningrad branch, 1989.


The Examination

Claim 1

“The modern version of the ancient Russian history was initially based on a single chronicle – the Radzivilovskaya Letopis.”[1, p.26]

The Radzivilovskaya Letopis is another name for the Radziwiłł Chronicle (aka Königsberg Chronicle, or as the Radziwiłł or Königsberg codex).[2], [3, p.29]

Claim 1 is undetermined.

Claim 2

“This is what historians themselves are telling us in a very straightforward manner, calling this copy the oldest Russian chronicle ([716], page 3).”[1, p.26]

Claim 2 is supported.[8, p.3]

Claim 3

“Let us turn to the fundamental multi-volume edition entitled The Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles published by the USSR Academy of Sciences. In the foreword to its 38th volume the historian Y. S. Lourie informs us of the fact that “the Radzivilovskaya Letopis is the oldest chronicle to have reached our time” ([716], page 3).”[1, p.26]

Claim 3 is supported.[8, p.3]

Claim 4

“We must instantly note that this chronicle looks like a standard handwritten book, with pages made of paper and a XVIII century binding, qv in [716] and [715], as well as fig. 1.2.”[1, p.26]

Claim 4 is supported. I think his source makes note of the binding of the codex being from the 18th century.[8, p.3] I think the pages being made of paper was mentioned mentioned too.[8, p.4] Please correct me if I’m basing this on a faulty translation.

Claim 5

“This isn’t an archaic scroll of parchment like the ones that artists frequently portray the Russian chroniclers with.”[1, p.26]

Claim 5 is undetermined. I’m not sure what artists and works he referring to here.


Claim 6

I skipped over two sentences because they repeated information which had already been stated. Claim 6-16 are allegedly based on Fomenko’s citation [716] pages 3-4.

“It dates from the alleged XV century.”[1, p.26]

Claim 6 is supported. It has been dated to the 15th century, specifically the 1490s.[3, p.29]

Claim 7

“It is presumed that the chronicle describes historical events that took place in Russia from the earliest days and up until the alleged year 1206, which is where it ends abruptly.”[1, p.26]

Claim 7 is supported. The chronicle reportedly does contain events up until 1206.[5] I will mention that I have not read the chronicle myself but there is apparently a full facsimile edition provided on Fomenko’s website.[6]

Claim 8

“It is the very Radzivilovskaya chronicle that the entire modern concept of the history of Kiev Russia is based upon.”[1, p.26]

Claim 8 is undetermined.

Claim 9

“This concept was born in the XVIII century.”[1, p.26]

Claim 9 is supported. Ideas on the origins of Kievan Rus were first generated in the 18th century.[9, p.23]

Claim 10

“The Radzivilovskaya chronicle becomes known and introduced into scientific circulation in the early XVIII century.”[1, p.26]

Claim 10 is supported. It appears to me that scientific analysis really picked up after Tsar Peter had his copy produced.[3, p.30] Fomenko’s source also appears to me to claim that scientific analysis did not begin until the 18th century.[8, p.3] Please let me know if you have evidence of pre-18th century scientific analysis.


On page 26 there is a quote allegedly from page 4 of Fomenko’s citation [716] but the quote does not have the ending quotation mark, only the beginning quotation mark. Due to this, I’m not sure where the quote ends and where Fomenko’s narration starts again.


Claim 11

“We find the following passage in [716], page 4: “In 1713 Peter ordered a copy of the Radzivilovskaya chronicle as he was passing through Königsberg, complete with miniatures.”[1, p.26]

I’m granting Claim 11 as supported. Fomenko’s source does say that it was ordered in 1713.[8, p.4] A different source does say that the copy was produced in 1713 but apparently it was ordered to be created two years prior, in 1711.[3, p.30]

Another different source appears to me to claim that it wasn’t until 1715 that Peter I became familiar with it.[7, p.6] This date is in the same decade though and so it might be safe to say that Peter became familiar with it in the second decade of the 18th century. I will mention that the author of [7] mentions the same source that Fomenko heavily relied on, “Complete collection of Russian chronicles, v. 38”.[7, p.7]

Claim 12

“This was the copy used by V. N. Tatishchev when he started his research of Russian chronicles, likewise M. V. Lomonosov.”[1, pp.26-27]

Claim 12 is supported. M. V. Lomonosov and V. N. Tatishchev both used Peter’s copy for their own works.[8, p.4]

Claim 13

“The actual original was brought to St. Petersburg after the Russian army had taken Königsberg after seven years of warfare, and given to the library of the Academy of Sciences in 1761 ([716], page 4).”[1, p.27]

Claim 13 is supported. The location, the year, and the event were all correct.[3, p.30]

Claim 14

“Just one of the chronicle’s copies is dated to the XV century – this is the actual Radzivilovskaya Letopis as it is known to us today.”[1, p.27]

Claim 14 is supported. There is only one other record with the same information that dates to the 15th century. It is called the Moscow-Academic Chronicle. I don’t think Fomenko names this copy by name which I found somewhat odd as his source did name the copy.[8, p.4]

Claim 15

“There are other copies of the same chronicle in existence – however, they all date from the XVIII century, thus being substantially more recent in their origins.”[1, p.27]

Claim 15 is supported. The other copies have been dated to the 18th century.[8, p.4]

Claim 16

“Historians presume them to be copies of the XV-century Radzivilovskaya Letopis.”[1, p.27]

Claim 16 is supported.[8, p.4]

Claim 17

“We must note right away that the intermediate copies of the Radzivilovskaya chronicle didn’t reach us for some reason – where are the copies made in the XVI-XVII century?”[1, p.27]

Claim 17 is supported. I did not find any mention of any copies from the 16th-17th century. Fomenko’s comment is somewhat sarcastic in that he’s claiming there are no 16th-17th century copies. In light of this, I think his question is rhetorical, but maybe he does want the answer.



[1] – Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[2] – Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[3] – Oleksij Tolochko. “Notes on the Radziwiłł Codex” (2013). Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[4] – Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[5] – Ivan Matfeevich Rezansky (John Beebe). “The Radziwiłł Chronicle” (28 Nov. 2018). Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[6] – Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[7] – B. M. Kloss. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[8] – “The Radziwill Chronicle”. – Complete collection of Russian chronicles, v. 38. L., publishing house Science, Leningrad branch, 1989. Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[9] – Nicholas V. Riasanovsky. “A History of Russia” (1993). Accessed 16 Feb. 2021.

[10] – Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

[13] – Accessed 15 Feb. 2021.

Access exclusive Ctruth content:

Buy Ctruth merch:

Donate to Ctruth directly:


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: