Reaching the “truth” is like nearing the horizon: a grateful response to the criticism of historian Viktor Maul

In his article Claudio Ingerflom, a prominent Franco-Argentine historian, gives a succinct and pithy response to some criticisms of his monograph “I am the Tsar. The History of Imposture in Russia” made by Russian historian Viktor Maul in his review. C. Ingerflom elaborates on his interpretation of the historical significance of Stepan Razin’s uprising, his understanding of the Russian term “samozvanets” (a self appointed), and his vision of the interconnection between the physical body of the monarch and his “mystical body”, i.e. the monarch’s dignity, which played a particular role in Russia’s historical path. He argues that imposture may be devoid of political or social motives, whereas the Russia in the past witnessed quite a few instances when fraud and mystification equaled to selfappointment at that time were directly connected with the slavish and humble position of those who chose the road of fraud and mystification. Obviously, historical research cannot do without critical and, at the same time, benevolent exchange of opinions among colleagues, concludes the author. The achievements of historical science which have stood the test of time are always the result of plentiful critical evaluation and verification. For historians approaching “the truth” is like approaching the horizon.