Stanislav Kelembet (2017 – 2019)
Nicholas Zharkikh
Shortened text of the section. Full text in ukrainian version.
: Russian war criminals hit Kremenchuk with 9th rockets, an oil refinery and a thermal power plant were hit, 1 killed, 7 wounded ( to was still April 2, 2022).
But there are : an oil depot is on fire in Bryansk (key for the Druzhba oil pipeline).
Do not forget, dear readers, in what circumstances I am writing this (April 25, 2022 at 9:30 am).
Ukrainian historian Stanislav Kelembet has published a number of articles of interest to my topic in the last decade. Fortunately, all of them are available in digital form, because I have never seen the paper "Siveryansk Chronicle", and even more so other editions with its articles.
(1) Kelembet S. , Grand Duke of Chernihiv and Kyiv: some issues of origin, biography and family composition. – Siveryansk Chronicle, 2017, No. 1-2, p. 11 – 19.
And then, on the p. 16, S. K. writes about another "daughter" of Michael – Feodulia. Should it have been rejected on p. 13 one late legend in order to accept another legend of the same kind three pages later?
Well, it is impossible for me read more than one article a day. When will I read 4,000 articles at such a rate? And without this, I will not be able to concure with real academic scientists and doctors of historical sciences…
But I always remember that my ability to read articles and continue my work is paid for by the blood and lives of Ukrainian soldiers who beat the Rotten Straw Horde. So, I continue (April 26, 2022 at 8:10 am).
(2) Kelembet S. , prince of Kursk and Grand Duke of Chernihiv. – Siveryansk Chronicle, 2017, No. 4, p. 3 – 13.
One late fantasy is explained by another late fantasy, and this opens the field for new and new fantasies already produced by S. K.
Yesterday there were alarming reports about attempts by the Muscovites to advance on Zaporizhzhia and Kryvyj Rig, and this morning (April 27, 2020 at 7:00 a.m.) we already have good news – near Belgorod and something unknown in Voronezh. And they would not smoke where smoking is prohibited!
Well, while I have the opportunity – I continue.
(3) Kelembet S. , Grand Duke of Chernihiv. – Siveryansk Chronicle, 2017, No. 5, p. 13 – 29.
The article ends with a consideration of the mention of the murder of Andrij Mstislavich (T-176) and an attempt to find out – son of whose Mstislav he was [p. 23-24]. This case is completely hopeless, and S. K.’s new attempt confirms this.
(4) Kelembet S. : the first decades of Mongol rule. – Siveryansk Chronicle, 2017, No. 6, p. 3 – 11.
In this article, S. K. once again addressed the Vvedensky and Ljubech synodikons.
The "sequence" of the rule of these princes in Chernihiv is purely speculative. Fantasies do not need any sources, on the contrary, they only get in the way.
(5) Kelembet S. . – Siveryansk Chronicle, 2018, No. 3, p. 3 – 9.
Thus, we do not learn anything new about the promised boyars from S. Kelembet’s article. Did anyone have doubts?
Sitting in relatively safe Kyiv and not hearing the constant echo of the work of our artillery (as was the case in March), it is very easy to forget that there is a war going on somewhere and defenders of Ukraine continue to die. Meanwhile, the battle for Donbas is boiling, and I think our defense minister had reason to warn that the next few weeks will be very difficult.
And I will continue as long as I can (April 28, 2022 at 8:10 am).
(6) Kelembet S. N. : Mongol period (1246–1372). – Studia historica Europae Orientalis. Studies on the history of Eastern Europe (Minsk), 2018, vol. 11, p. 72 – 113.
In contrast to the article about the Chernihiv boyars, published in the same year 2018 and discussed above, in this article S. K. is skeptical (i.e. right) evaluates the pedigree of the Tolstoj family.
So, all those teachings about the fantasticness of genealogies, which I so painstakingly wrote out, are completely unnecessary for S. K., because he knows them perfectly even without me. Only one mystery remains – which "Stanislav Kelembet" is correct? The one who accepts the plausibility of genealogies, or the one who does not? Could it be that there are two different authors who hold opposite views, but for some reason publish their articles under the same name?
The article as a whole turned out to be weak, erroneous and anti-scientific.
(7) Kelembet S. N. : the late 12th – early 14th century. – Ancient Russia. Questions of medieval studies, 2019, No. 4, p. 5 – 17.
The abstract of the article does not promise anything good:
The article examines the question of the princes who ruled in Novgorod-Seversky after the famous Igor Svyatoslavich – during the period, about which no records have been preserved in the annals. The main source for the research is the synodikon of the Introduction Church in the Near Caves of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra [p. 5].
In this article, which was published the following year after my work on the Vvedensky synodikon, S. K. adopt and continue system of ignoring my works. Does he understand that by doing this he writes out a patent for himself as an "anti-scientist"? And this patent was issued in Moscow and signed by 31 doctors of science, including 1 (one) academician and 4 (four) corresponding members (as many of them are listed in the editorial board of the journal in question).
At the same time, the list of my articles ignored by S. Kelembet was supplemented by two more items: "Mythical "Kyiv princes" from the mythical "Putyvl dynasty"" and "The mythical "conquest of Kyiv" by Gedimin» (both published in 2018). In his article, S. K. touches on the same topics to which these my articles are devoted.
The article ends with a list of 9 (nine) mythical "princes" of Novgorod-Siversky, who "ruled" from 1198 to the beginning of the 14th century.
I will repeat once again: I do not follow the method of "academic scientists" and I do not ignore the works of those researchers who ignore my works. I am interested in the subject itself, not in my role in researching this subject. That’s why I reviewed S. Kelembet’s articles in detail and did not find any new ideas there. There are many repetitions of old ideas, mainly those of R. V. Zotov, but there are no new ones. It can be said that S. Kelembet tried to get the title "Zotov of our days" – and got it.
Reviewing the "scientific" work of S. Kelembet as a whole, I can state the following features inherent in it:
1, the pre-scientific level of most texts, the use of Tatishchev and Zotov as "sources";
2, falsification of history, ignoring sources that contradict the views of the author;
3, an anti-scientific approach, which consists in ignoring special works directly devoted to the same issues that the author considers.