Science and pseudo-science in modern studies of Aleksandr Nevskii

Abstract

The article provides insight into debates about the life and political activities of Aleksandr Nevskii and the historical memory of him which have been going on for the last year or two. The author focuses on arguments used by the scholars in this polemics and analyzes the attempts to cast doubt on the results of research which has already been conducted. The author recognizes the necessity to take into consideration the opinions of these scholars who have suggested new interpretations of the sources on the basis of scientifically tested methodology, hence drawing conclusions about the discreditable facts in the biography of the prince and the inefficiency of his policy in general (G. Fennell, D. N. Danilevskii). However, particular emphasis is placed on the insufficient account of the existing historiographic work as well as the methodically inappropriate use (and sometimes disregard) of the above-mentioned sources. This drawback is typical of the works of the authors whose insight into the issues they study is not deep enough and who, nonetheless, are given an opportunity to express their views in leading historical periodicals. These aspects allow us to determine the development of a tendency to neglect the works of our historical forbearers — Soviet and Russian historians. As an example, the article provides the analysis of the theoretical construct A. N. Nesterenko’s article, published in “Voprosy Istorii” (№ 1, 2016) and containing a number of hypotheses that remain unconfirmed by the facts to a considerable extent. The refutation of these hypotheses does not take a great deal of effort, but makes us refer once again to the analysis of the sources and to the quite voluminous literature on this subject. That is why the article provides a representative survey of the statements of the scholars who at different times touched upon some disputable issues in the frame of the topic “Aleksandr Nevskii”, namely: the relations of Iaroslav Vsevolodovich with his spouse Feodosiia and father-in-law Mstislav Udaloi (the Bold), the spread of the practice of placing the minor children of the Rurik house at the prince’s table, the battle on the Neva, the circumstances of the canonization of Aleksandr, the interpretation of the chronicles and hagiographical texts, the reports of Tatishchev, and the like. Refs 25.