TrueLife - HISTORY: Science or Fiction Reading 2

Starting point is 00:00:01 Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Heiress through ruins maze, lights my war cry, born from the blaze.

Starting point is 00:00:49 The poem is Angels with Rifles, the track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Seraphini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Welcome back, my friends. We got history, fiction or science, part two. volume one, so I guess it'd be like 1.2. Thank you to everybody who's taken a moment to give me some feedback and is enjoying the series. I'm really enjoying it. I've actually learned that I do not have all the books in the series because of an awesome listener. And looking forward to picking up some more of those. Let's jump right in here. For those of you catching up on speed, we left off

Starting point is 00:01:48 with the critique of history by Sir Isaac Newton. Additionally, the critique of Newton being crazy in his old age, according to the church representatives at the time. Now we'll be getting into the next part. Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov. S.I. Vavlov wrote the following about N.A. Marizov. N.A. Marizov managed to combine his selfless revolutionary devotion to his people with a completely amazing dedication to scientific work. This scholarly enthusiasm and the completely unconditional, passionate love for scientific research should remain an example to be followed by,

Starting point is 00:02:57 all scientists, young and old. Sergei Ivanovich Vavlov, essays and memoirs. Moscow. Naskau Publishing, 1981, page 284. I'm not sure we need the footnotes, but I'll throw them in until I get some feedback. The first researcher of our time who had raised the issue of providing scientific basis

Starting point is 00:03:24 for the consensual chronology in its fullest and quite radically, was Nikolai Alexandrovich Morzaa Figures 1.15, 1.16, 1.17 We can see a monument.

Starting point is 00:03:46 You can also see some images of the man. I'm going to put those in the pictures below so you can look for him down there. I'm going to try and match up the pictures in the book with where we're at in the story. It may not match exactly. However, if you look close, you should be able to follow along.

Starting point is 00:04:08 In a Morozov was an imminent Russian scientist and encyclopedist whose fortune was far from easy. Morozov's father, Peter, was a rich landowner and belonged to the old aristocratic Shepkin family. In a Morozov's great-grandfather was a relation of Peter the Great. N. A. Morozov's mother was a simple surf peasant, Anna Voslveina Morova, whom P.A. Shopkin married after signing her liberty certificate. The church did not confirm the marriage, and so the children received their mother's surname. At the age of 20, N.A. Morozov joined the libertarian Narodinaya Volia movement.

Starting point is 00:05:02 In 1881, he was sentenced for incarceration in Schleselberg for life, where he had studied chemistry, physics, astronomy, mathematics, and history, all on his own. In 1905, he was let free, having spent 25 years in Gaul. After having received his freedom, he had immersed himself in a vast body of scientific and pedagogical work. his memoirs are of the greatest interest see figures one point two too many authors wrote about morozov his literary biography for example is written by m a papov after the october revolution morozov became director of the leszgaft institute for national scientific studies where he had done the major part of his famous research in ancient chronology with the use of natural scientific methods supported by enthusiasts and the staff of the Institute. After A. M. Morazov left his director's office, the Institute was completely reformed,

Starting point is 00:06:15 possibly with the objective of casting the important historical research conducted there by A. Morazov and his group into oblivion. Morozov has made honorable member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, decorated with the order of linen and the red banner of labor. More about the body of his prominent work in chemistry and several other natural sciences can be read in multiple publications. In 1907, Morozov published a book titled Revelations in Storm and Tempest, where he analyzed the dating of the New Testament, Apocalypse,

Starting point is 00:06:58 and came to conclusions that contradicted the scalegiate, chronology. In 1914, he published The Prophets, which contains a radical revision of the Scaligerian datings of the biblical prophecies. In 1924 to 1932, Morozov published the fundamental work Christ in several volumes. The initial name of this opus had been the history of human culture and the natural scientific point of view. It contains detailed criticisms of the Scaligerian chronology. The important fact discovered by Morozov was the consensual scaligerian chronology is based on an unverified concept. Having analyzed a great body of material, Morozov put forth and partially proved the fundamental hypothesis that Scalinger's chronology had been expanded arbitrarily

Starting point is 00:07:54 as compared to reality. This hypothesis was based on the repetitions that Morozov had found, namely the text that apparently described in the same events, but are dated differently and considered unrelated in our time. The publication of this work caused vivid discussions in the press, and its repercussions can be found in contemporary literature. There have been a number of rational counterarguments, but the critical part of Christ remained undisputed in its entirety. apparently Morozov had been unaware of the similar works of Sir Isaac Newton and Edwin Johnson, that were all but forgotten by his time. This makes the fact that many of Morozov's conclusions coincide with those of Newton and Johnson, all the more amazing.

Starting point is 00:08:49 However, Morozov raised the issue as a much wider and more profound one, having encompassed the entire period up to the 7th century, in the frame of critical analysis and found the need for a radical revision of datings. Despite the fact that Morozov had also failed to discover any sort of system in the chaos of altered datings that arose, his research was performed on a higher qualitative level than Newton's analysis. Morozov was the first scientist to have possessed the clear understanding of the necessity of revising the datings of medieval events, as well as those belonging to ancient history. Nevertheless, Morozov did not go further than the 7th century in time, considering the consensual version of the chronology

Starting point is 00:09:41 of the 7th to the 13th century to be basically correct. We shall yet see that this opinion of his turned out to have been gravely erroneous. Thus, the issues raised in our works are hardly new. that they reoccur century after century and get voiced even louder shows that the problem in question does exist and the fact that the independently suggested alterations of the ancient chronology those of Newton Johnson and Morozov are close to each other in principle is a clear witness that the solution to the problem we're studying lies somewhere in this direction it is worthwhile to give a brief account of the creation of Morozov's Christ. His ideas met vehement opposition. As early as during the publication stage, Morozov had to address Lenin as the head of state personally in 1921

Starting point is 00:10:42 and ask him for his support. Lenin had delegated the study of the issue to V. Lancharski. Let us quote Lancharski's reply. from Lancharski to Lennon Dear Comrade Lennon I received your requests in Morozov's book, Christ signed by Comrade Gorbanov.

Starting point is 00:11:09 It would please me greatly to delegate this matter to the editing board responsible for such matters. I, for one, am familiar with the work in question. It is perfectly preposterous thing that uses a ridiculous

Starting point is 00:11:24 demonstration to prove the date of the solar and lunar eclipse is, that the gospel refers to as having accompanied the crucifixion and occurred on Friday, that Christ had lived in the 5th century and not in the first, and uses this data to deny the existence of such historical characters as Julius Caesar, who turns out to have really been identified as Julian, the apostate, Augustus, etc. Also suspecting the falsification of the writings of Cicero, Horace, etc. As really referring to the Middle Ages. I like and respect Morozov a lot,

Starting point is 00:12:04 but this book is so bizarre that its publication shall definitely bring harm to the name of the author and the state publishing house. If serious science treated Morozov's demonstration concerning the apocalypse with great suspicion,

Starting point is 00:12:21 the book Christ, in its turn, can be regarded as completely absurd and based on the same scientific one-sidedness. If you consider this reply of mine not to be competent enough, I'll be glad to hand the book over to specialists for consideration, the People's Commissioner A. Lancharski. Shortly afterwards, having met Morozov personally and witnessed the detailed scientific report that the scientist had made during their meeting, Lucharski had radically changed his mind about the book and sent the following

Starting point is 00:12:56 missive to Lennon as early as August 12, 1921, in complete contradiction of his previous letter from Lancharski to Lennon to the State Publishing House with a copy to be delivered to the Committee of People's Commissars. Although I could not familiarize myself

Starting point is 00:13:17 with the actual manuscript of Comrade Morozov's voluminous opus Christ and his time, an oral report of its contents made by the author and a demonstration of several tables made me consider its publication as a matter of considerable importance one that is to be addressed as soon as possible since the work is rather large three volumes 50 sheets all and all and seeing as how we still haven't emerged from the state of acute paper crisis i would offer the petersburg branch of the state publishing house to cut the addition down to 4,000 copies at least in order to get it published without delay.

Starting point is 00:14:04 People's comments are of Education, Lancharsky. The comment of the editors is also noteworthy. The contradiction between the two Lancharski's letters to Lennon dated April 13th and August 12, respectively, can be explained by the fact that Lancharsky had revised his initial reply. The complete collection of linen's works erroneously states that Lancharski expressed a negative opinion of Morozov's work later on calling it non-scientific. Nevertheless, the first volume of Christ took three more years to be published in 24. Morozov had to request support from the government yet again. This time, it took the participation of F.E. Dürgensky.

Starting point is 00:14:53 Here is a fraction of. of the D'Argenzky letter to Morozov dated 14th August 1924. Dear Nikolai Alexandrovich, I am prepared to provide any assistance you may need in order to get your writing published. Just tell me what I have to do exactly, what obstacles need to be removed and what people need to talk to. I will be most glad if I manage to be of use to you in any way at all, kindest regards. section. Recent publications of German scientists containing criticisms of Scaligerian chronology. In the period since the publication of our works on chronology, which started to appear in 1980,

Starting point is 00:15:41 several German scientists have also published the rather interesting results of their research containing a critical analysis of the Scaligerian chronology. The first of these publications appeared in 1996. The ones we consider the most noteworthy are those written by Ui Topper, as well as Herbert Illig. Was there really a Charlemagne, which claims that many documents, which were ascribed to Charlemagne's epoch, today are really more recent forgeries. and builds a hypothesis that one needs to withdraw about three centuries from the medieval history, including that of Charlemagne's age.

Starting point is 00:16:35 It has to be said that the chronological obtruncation suggested by Herbert is of a local nature. Herbert Illig and his colleagues are of the opinion that the contradictions they noticed in the Scaligerian history can be resolved by, minor corrections, such as subtracting 300 years from the history of medieval Europe. Our works demonstrate the deficiency of such local expurgations. What we claim is that the entire edifice of the Scaligerian chronology needs a cardinal revision in all that concerns the times preceding the 13th through the 16th century. The veracity of the Scaligerian chronology of ancient Egypt is questioned in, When did the pharaohs live?

Starting point is 00:17:37 By Gunner Heinzhen and Herbert Illig. One has to mention that the authors fail to make so much as a passing reference to the scientific overtures of Morozov, which were published in the early 20th century. Morozov's epic body of work entitled Christ, which was published in 24 and questioned the entire chronology of ancient Egypt pointed out the numerous collations of Egyptian dynasties and reasoned the necessity of a substantial concision of the ancient Egyptian history. Alack and alas there are no known translations of Morozov's works except for the German text of the revelations in storm and tempest. Despite our numerous appeals, Herbert Illig and his colleagues

Starting point is 00:18:30 still refused to recognize the existence of Morozov's research. It was only recently that the alternative history, Salon presided over by Professor Gabotsvich, finally managed to get the name of Morozov mentioned in German scientific debates. We should also point out, Gunner Heinzons, Assyrian rulers equaling those of Persia, 1185, where certain parallels are drawn between the comparative ancient histories of Assyria and Persia. However, Hindson fails to raise the possibility of transferring the events of that age into the medieval epoch, leaving them in the antediluvian historical period, which we believe to be a mistake. The suggestively titled C-14 Crash by Christian Blas and Hans Ulrich Neemitz is also interesting

Starting point is 00:19:36 and contains a voluminous body of evidence used by the authors to question the feasibility of using the radiocarbon analysis method, in its current state, at least, as well as the dendrochronological method. For the dating and of historical artifacts with any degree of proficiency. The questionable veracity of the Roman chronology and history, the hypercritical school of the 19th century. Let us give a brief account of the situation with the Roman chronology,

Starting point is 00:20:16 which has played a leading role in the global chronology of antiquity, fundamental criticisms of the traditional criticisms of the tradition, commenced as early as the 18th century in the Academy of Scriptures and Fine Arts. That was founded in Paris in 1701, and two decades later hosted extensive discussions about the veracity of the entire Roman tradition. The accumulated materials provided the basis for the more in-depth criticisms of the 19th century. one of the prominent representatives of this important scientific current, later dubbed hypercriticism, was the well-known German historian Theodore Moomsen, who pointed out the discrepancies between various accounts in such passages as, despite the fact that Tarquin II had already been an adult by the time his father died,

Starting point is 00:21:24 and that his reign had started 39 years after that, he got inaugurated as a, quote, young lad. Pythagoras, who had arrived in Italy almost an entire generation before the exile of the kings, which is supposed to have happened around 509 BC, is nevertheless supposed to have been a friend of Numa Pompellus. Historians are of the opinion that Numa died around 673 BC. The discrepancy here reaches a century at least.

Starting point is 00:22:06 To carry on quoting from T-Molensum, the state ambassadors who went to the city of Syracuse in the year 262 since the foundation of Rome had conversed with Dionysus the senior, whose reign started 86 years later. what we see as a deviation of about eight decades. The Scaligerian chronology of Rome is constructed upon a most flimsy foundation indeed. The time interval between different datings of the foundation of Rome,

Starting point is 00:22:41 which is a date of the greatest importance, is as large as 500 years. According to Hellenisus and Demosus, who are supposed to have lived in the sixth, century BC, and whose opinion on the matter was later supported by Aristotle, Rome had been founded by Anaeus and Ulysses, and named after the Trojan woman Roma. Several medieval authors concurred with this as well in Jean de Corse's Chronique de la Bocerche. We see a miniature, notably named, Trojans founding cities, Venice, Sicambre, Carthage, and Rome. The miniature can be seen in figure 1.25.

Starting point is 00:23:34 One has to remark that it represents a medieval scene. And the two Trojan kings have arrived to inspect the building site, are wearing warm fur hats with ear flaps. Okay, pausing here, if you look down in the video now or on the screen you should be able to see the pictures that were described in the previous text the pictures do in fact look like a medieval manuscript and they are indeed wearing the what looks like at least to my untrained eye medieval garb.

Starting point is 00:24:25 From now on, I'm going to try to put the pictures right when I talk about them, so you can look down and see. Thus, the foundation of Rome occurs immediately after the Trojan War, with both Anaeus and Ulysses took part in. But in the consensual chronology of Scalinger, the interval between the Trojan War, which allegedly took place

Starting point is 00:24:51 in the 13th century BC and the foundation of Rome which is said to have occurred in the 8th century BC is 500 years this means one of the following the foundation of Rome took place 500 years later than it is generally thought the Trojan war occurred 500 years later

Starting point is 00:25:17 or the chronographers are deliberately lying about Anaeus and Ulysses founding Rome. Also, what happens to Romulus in this scenario? Could Romulus have been another name for Ulysses? A lot of questions arise, as you can see, and they only increase in number once we start delving further in. Apropos, according to a different version, the city was named by Romulus, the son of Ulysses, and Circe. Could this mean that Romas, or Riemus, the brother of Romulus, was the son of Ulysses? This would be impossible without the paradigm of Scaligerian chronology, naturally.

Starting point is 00:26:10 The historian, B. Nice, has the following to say about it, Rome, as well as many other Italian cities, was once considered to have been founded by the heroes of Greece and Troy that wound up in those parts. There is a variety of legends to prove it. The most ancient one, which was quoted by Helenicus and Damascus as early as the 4th century BC, and later by Aristotle, claims that the city was founded by Enais and Ulysses and received its name from the Trojan one. woman Roma. Another version suggests Ramos, the son of Ulysses and Circe, to have been its founder. Let us reiterate that there are about 500 years separating this date from the consensual one. Such tremendous fluctuations in the determination of a date as important as that of the

Starting point is 00:27:12 foundation of the city, Rome, affect the datings of a great number of documents that use it, as a temporal reference point. The well-known history by Titus Levy is one of them. Actually, the identification of the city with the Italian Rome is one of the hypotheses of the Scaligerian chronology. The possibility that the city can be identified as the famous Rome upon the Bosporus or Constantinople, also known as Zargrad, or the city. city of kings cannot be excluded.

Starting point is 00:27:52 By and large, historians are of the opinion that the traditional Roman history has received us via the works of a mere handful of authors. The more fundamental one doubtlessly being the historical opus

Starting point is 00:28:09 by Titus Levy, it is believed that Titus Levy was born around 59 BC and described a 700-year period of Roman history. 35 books survived out of the original 144. The first publication of his writings took place in 1469 and was based on a manuscript of unknown origin currently lost.

Starting point is 00:28:35 The discovery of a manuscript with five more works occurred in Hassan sometime later. T. Momsen wrote, in what concerns the Global Chronicle, everything was a lot worse. The development of the historical science gave hope for traditional history to be verified by documents and other dependable sources.

Starting point is 00:29:01 But the hope was buried in complete frustration. The more research was conducted and the deeper it went, the more obvious. The difficulties in right, writing a critical history of Rome became. Furthermore, Bombson tells us that the numeric inviracities have been systematic in his works.

Starting point is 00:29:27 Until the contemporary historical period, he, Alexander Poyister, gave an example of putting the missing 500 years that had passed since Troy fell and until Rome had been founded into chronological perspective. We have to remind the reader that according to the chronological version that differs from the consensual,

Starting point is 00:29:51 Rome was founded immediately after the fall of Troy. Having filed this period with a list of ghostly rulers just like the one that were used widely by the chronographers of Egypt and Greece, apparently he was the one who brought the kings Aventinus and Tiberinus, as well as the Albanian clan of Sylvians into existence. The descendants didn't miss their opportunity to invent first names and periods of reigning. They even painted portraits for better representation.

Starting point is 00:30:31 These criticisms are also reviewed by Nice. Theodore Mumson was far from being the only scientist to suggest the review. the revision of these most important dates from the ancient times. A detailed account of what the historians later labeled the ultra-sceptical stance. The version questioning the veracity of the chronology of the regal Rome, as well as our entire knowledge of the first five centuries of Roman history, can be found in the problems inherent. in making the Roman documents concur with the chronology of Scalinger are related in 1481.

Starting point is 00:31:25 According to the historian in Radzig, the matter here is that the Roman manuscripts have not survived until our times. So all of our presumptions are based on whatever the Roman analysts have to tell us. but even here we run into major difficulties. The principle one being that even the analyst material is represented very poorly. The great annals of Rome have perished. It is assumed that the Roman Fausty gave yearly chronological lists

Starting point is 00:32:06 of all the civil servants of ancient Rome. These tables could theoretically provide for a trustworthy chronological skeleton of sorts. However, the historian G. Mardinov inquires, how do we make this all concur with the constant controversy that we encounter in almost every text of Levy? In the names of the councils, their frequent omissions among other things, and a complete lay's fair attitude to the choice of names.

Starting point is 00:32:42 How do we make it correspond with the names of the military tribunes? The Fosty are literally modeled with errors and distortions that one cannot make heads or tails of. Levy himself was already aware of how flimsy this foundation of his chronology had been. G. Mardinob sums up with the following. neither dioros nor levy possesses a correct chronology we cannot trust the fausty which tell us nothing about who was made consul in which year or the cloth writings that led lisinus marcus and tubero to contradictory conclusions the most trustworthy documentation is the kind that becomes identical as much more recent forgeries after in-depth analysis. It is thus somewhat disconcerning to hear the modern chronologist E. Brickman

Starting point is 00:33:52 assure us of the following. Since we possess full lists of Roman consuls for 1,050 years, the Julian dating for each one of them can be. deduced easily, given that the ancient datings are voracious. The closed-tonged implication is made that we possess a definite, trustworthy Julian dating of the foundation of Rome, despite the fact that the 500-year fluctuations of this date affect the entire consul list, as well as the whole history of ancient Rome based on this list. The actual monograph of Brickman also sadly fails to contain so much as a hint of a justification

Starting point is 00:34:48 for the fundamental dates in the ancient chronology. Instead of relating the dating basics, the book just offers a number of individual examples that explicitly or implicitly refer to the a priori known scheme of the consensual scaly. Ligerian chronology. The problems in establishing a correct chronology of ancient Egypt. This significant discrepancy is between the chronological data offered by the ancient sources and the global chronology of the ancient times as devised in the 17th century arose in other areas as well. For instance, the establishment of the Egyptian chronology

Starting point is 00:35:44 presented some substantial difficulties, since a great many documents contain chronological contradictions. Let us examine the correlation between the classical history of Herodotus and the Scaligerian chronology. For instance, in his consecutive, and coherent account of Egyptian history, Herodotus calls Chiops, the successor of Ramsonidos. The modern commentator will immediately correct in the following manner. Herodotus creates confusion in a chronology of Egypt. Ramsanotis was a king of the 14th dynasty, whereas Chiops, belong to the fourth.

Starting point is 00:36:43 The discrepancy here equals 1,200 years, no less. Just think of what the figure implies and of its sheer value. Twelve hundred years. Let us carry on. According to Herodotus,

Starting point is 00:37:01 Asici's was succeeded by Anysus. Modern commentary is also rash to tell us that Herodotus leaps from the end of the fourth dynasty to the beginning of the Ethiopian reign in Egypt. The leap is one of 1800 years. 1800 years.

Starting point is 00:37:26 In general, it turns out that the chronology of the kings given by Herodotus does not concur with that found in the fragments of Monotheo's list of kings. As a rule, the chronology of Herodotus is much shorter than the Scaligerian version. The time intervals between kings, according to Herodotus, are often thousands of years shorter than corresponding periods as given by Manateon. The history of Herodotus contains a great number of minor errors, those of 30 to 40 years. However, they only come to existence. as a result of attempts to fit his history into the Scaligerian chronology.

Starting point is 00:38:15 We quote a few of the numerous examples of such occurrences. The modern commentator tells us that Herodotus confuses King Cessotrus with the King Cometrix, the first. Also, Pidicus could not have met Crozius in. 560 BC. Another event related by Herodotus is commented upon thusly. It is an error made by Herodotus. Solon could not have met Croceus. But how can this be true?

Starting point is 00:39:00 Herodotus devotes an entire page to relating the interactions between Croceus and Solon. Scaligerian chronology on the other hand tells us, no such interactions ever took place. The commentators also accuse Herodotus of dating solar eclipses incorrectly, and so on and so forth. We should note that the choice of one chronological version from several contradicting ones is far from simple. There had been a conflict between the so-called short and long chronologies of Egypt that were developed, in the 19th century.

Starting point is 00:39:48 The short chronology is the one currently used, but it still consists a great many deep contradictions which remain unresolved. The most prominent German Egyptologist H. Brugash wrote, when the reader inquires about whether any epochs and historical moments concerning the pharaohs, Pharaohs can be considered to possess a finite chronological assessment, and when his curiosity makes him turn to the tables compiled by a great variety of scientists, he will be surprised to find himself confronted with a large number of opinions on the chronological calculations of the Pharaoh era belonging to the representatives of the newest

Starting point is 00:40:44 school. For instance, the German scientists date the ascension of menace, the first Egyptian Pharaoh to the throne as follows. Boak dates this event to 5702 BC. Unger 5613 BC. Bruges to 4455 BC. Laoth to 51. Excuse me. south to 41 57 BC lepsius to 3892 BC Bunsen to 3623 BC the difference between the two extreme datings is mind-boggling since it amounts to 2,079 years I should read that again just for effect for everybody the difference between the two extreme dating is mind-boggling since it amounts to 2,079 years. The most fundamental research conducted by competent scientists for the verification of the

Starting point is 00:42:00 chronological sequence of the pharaoh's reigns and the order of dynastical succession had also proved the necessity of allowing for simultaneous and parallel rains that would greatly reduced the summary reigning time of the 30 Manetho's dynasties. Despite all these scientific discoveries made in this error of Egyptology, the numeric data condition remains extremely unsatisfactory to this day. The situation hasn't improved to the present day. Modern tables date the beginning of the reign of Menace differently to approximately 3,100 BC, roughly, 3,000 BC, the fluctuation span for this date amounts to 2,700 years. If we consider other opinions, those of the French Egyptologists, for instance, the situation

Starting point is 00:43:02 becomes even more complex. Campullian gives the dating as 5867 BC, Lausseur, 57B. 5770 BC Mariette 5,00 BC Chavez 4,000 BC Meyer, 3180 BC Palmer

Starting point is 00:43:23 2224 The discrepancy Between the datings of Champollion and Palmer equals 3,643 years No commentary is needed We discover that

Starting point is 00:43:40 generally Egyptology which had poured some light over the perpetual darkness that had covered the ancient age of Egypt only came into existence 80 years ago, as Chantepi de la Sasse wrote at the end of the 19th century. He also said that it has been the private domain of a very few researchers, a lack and alas, the results of their research, have been popularized in too much haste. Thus many erroneous views had come into existence,

Starting point is 00:44:23 which resulted in the inevitable sobering when Egyptology became a lotless vogue, and the excessive trust in the results of the research was lost. To this day, the construction of the Egyptian chronology remains impossible. The situation with the list of kings compiled by Sumerian priest is even more complex. It was a historical skeleton of sorts, one that resembled our chronological tables. But sadly, this list was of little utility. By and large, the chronology of the king list makes no sense.

Starting point is 00:45:05 According to the prominent archaeologist El Wully, furthermore, the dynastical sequence have been set arbitrarily. We see that the great antiquity ascribed to these lists today contradicts modern archaeological information. Let us give just one example that we consider representing enough. Telling us about the excavations of what we consider to be the most ancient royal Sumerian sepulchures, dated roughly to the third millennium before Christ. Woolie mentions a series of findings of golden toiletry, which was toiletery, I'm a little tired. Golden, they wouldn't have golden toiletry. Come on, George, you with the program. All right, which was of Arabic origin and belonged to the early 13th century.

Starting point is 00:46:16 According to one of the best experts in the field, Woolie patronizingly calls the expert's mistake a forgivable one since no one had thought such advanced art could have existed in the third millennium before Christ. Unfortunately, the development of the entire critical concept and the propagation of the hypercritical current of the late 19th, early 20th century, froze. due to the sheer lack of objective statistic methods at the time, ones that could provide for the independent and objective verification of the previous chronological identifications.

Starting point is 00:47:03 The problem in dating the ancient sources, Tacitus and Pogio, Cicero, and Barziza, Vitruvius, and Albert. 30, the framework of the global Scaligerian chronology was constructed as a result of the analysis of the chronological indications given by the ancient sources. It is natural that the issue of their origin should be of interest in this respect. Modern histography manifests the posity of evidence in what concerns. the genesis of such ancient manuscripts. The general observation is made that the overwhelming majority of these documents

Starting point is 00:48:01 surfaced during the Renaissance epic that allegedly superseded the Dark Ages. The discovery of manuscripts often happened under circumstances that forbade the analysis which could allow the critical dating of such findings. In the 14th century, two prominent has been. historians, Hockhart and Ross, published the results of their research, proving that the famous ancient Roman history by Cornelius Tacitus was really written by the well-known Italian humanist Pogio Brocolini. The publications occurred in the years 1882 to 1885 and 1878. readers may turn their attention to 21, which covers this problem exhaustively.

Starting point is 00:49:03 We should just note that we deem the history by Tacitus to be an edited original, that is a partial forgery and not a complete one. However, the events related therein have been misdated and transposed far back in time. The history of the discovery of Tacitus books really provokes a great many questions. It was Poghion, who discovered and published the opuses of Quintilian, Valoreas, Flaccus, Asconius, Pendianus, Nonius, Marcellus, probus, some tractates by Cicero, Lucretius, Petronius, Ploutus, Tertullian, Marcellinels, Calpurn. The circumstances of these discoveries and their datings have never been related in detail.

Starting point is 00:50:09 See more about the history of Tacitus' books in Chronological Chapter 7. In the 15th century, famous humanists such as Manuel Chrysolaris, Jamisto Pliton, Bessonarion of Nysaia, and some others came to Italy. They were the first ones to familiarize Europe with the achievements of the ancient Greek thought. Byzantium gave the West almost all of the known ancient Greek manuscripts. Otto Neubauer wrote that the major part of the manuscripts,

Starting point is 00:50:56 that our knowledge of the Greek science is based upon consists of Byzantine copies made 500 to 1,500 years after the death of their authors. According to Scaligerian history, the entire bulk of the classical ancient literature only surfaced during the Renaissance. In most cases, detailed analysis shows us that the obscurity of the literature's origins and the lack of documentation concerning its passage through the so-called dark ages, leads one to suspect that none of these texts had really existed before the dawn of the Renaissance. For instance, the oldest copies of the so-called incomplete collection of Cicero's texts are said to have been made in the 9th through 10th century, A.D. However, one instantly finds out that the original of the incomplete collection had perished a long time ago. In the 14th to 15th century, there is a surge of interest in Cicero. So, finally, about 1420, the Milanese professor, Gasparino Barziza, decided to undertake a rather precarious endeavor.

Starting point is 00:52:28 of filling the gaps in the incomplete collection with his own writings for the sake of consequentiality. That's nice of him, isn't it? However, before he could finish this volume of work, a miracle occurred, a forlorn manuscript, with the complete text of all the rhetorical works of Cicero becomes unearthed in a parochial Italian town, by the name of Lodi.

Starting point is 00:53:01 Barziza and his students eagerly embrace the new discovery, arduously decipher its ancient script, and finally produce a readable copy. Subsequent copies constitute the actual complete collection. Meanwhile, the erocable happens. The original of the collection, the manuscript. of Lodi becomes abandoned since no one wants to confront the textual difficulties it presents and finally gets sent back to Lodi where it disappears without a trace. Nothing is known of what happened to the manuscript since 1428.

Starting point is 00:53:47 The European phylogists still lament the loss. Incidentally, the reverse or so-called Arabic reading of that, the name Barziza gives T-S-T-S-R-B without vocalizations, which is close to the consonant root of the name Cicero. Figures 1.28 and 1.29 show two ancient miniatures from a book by Cicero that was allegedly published in the late 15th century. In figure 1.1.1.5,000, in figure 1 point two eight cicero is portrayed from the left writing the tractate on the old age in figures one point two nine cicero is depicted from the right side pinning out the tractate on friendship we see a typically medieval setting cicero and his interlocutors are wearing mid-evil clothes which means

Starting point is 00:55:04 that the author of the miniatures in the 15th century or later apparently did not doubt Cicero to have been his historical contemporary De Vida 13 Caesarium by Caius Soutonius

Starting point is 00:55:26 is also only available as relatively recent copies all of them hail back to the only ancient manuscript that is presumed to have been in Einhard's possession in the alleged year 818 AD. His Vita Corolli Magni is supposed to represent a diligent copy of the biographical schemes of Soutonius today. The original document, known as the Fold of Manuscript, did not reach our time, and neither did the first copies. The oldest of Soutonius' copies is hypothetically the 9th century text that was only brought to light in the 16th century.

Starting point is 00:56:23 Other copies are dated to the post-11th century epoch in the Scaligerian chronology. The fragments from Devereus Illustribis by Soutonius also appeared very late. The alleged dating of the latest fragment is the 9th century AD. This manuscript was discovered by Pogio Brocoliating. in Germany in 1425. The Herzfeld manuscript did not survive. Nothing but several pages from the Tacitus part remained. But about 20 of its copies did survive.

Starting point is 00:57:12 Those were made in Italy in the 15th century. The dating of the ancient sources was performed in the 16th through 17th, century out of considerations that are perfectly nebulous to us nowadays. De Arcatura by Vitruvius was discovered as late as 1497 according to N.A. Morizov. The astronomical part of the book quotes the periods of heliocentric planetary circulations with the utmost precision. Vitruvius, an architect who was supposed to have lived in the first and second century, knew these periods better than Copernicus, the astronomer. Furthermore, his error in what concerns the circulation of Saturn differs from the modern value of the period

Starting point is 00:58:16 by a ratio of 0.007. The error ratio for Mars is 0.006 and a mere 0.003 for Jupiter. We should mark the magniloquent parallels between the books of the ancient Vitruvius and those of Alberti. the prominent humanist of the 15th century. See figure 130. One cannot fail to notice. A certain semblance of the names Alberti and V. Truvius.

Starting point is 00:59:13 Bearing in mind the frequent inflection of the sounds B and V. Alberti is known as a prominent architect, the author of the fundamental theory of architecture that is very similar to the theory of the ancient Vitruvius, as well as the ancient Vitruvius, the medieval Alberti, was the author of a voluminous tractate that included mathematical, optical, and mechanical knowledge, as well as from his theory of architecture. The title of the Middle Evil Opus of Alberti's The Ten Books on Architecture coincides with its ancient analog by Vitruvius. Nowadays, it is supposed that the ancient Vitruvius had been his ultimate ideal that he emulated in the creation of his tractate. Alberti's volume is written in the archaic manner.

Starting point is 01:00:19 Accordingly, the specialist have long ago compiled tables comparing fragments of the works by Alberti and Vitruvius, which sometimes coincide word for word. Historians explain this fact in the following manner. All of these numerous parallels unveil the Hellenistic Roman atmosphere that his thoughts evolved in. So the book of the ancient Vitruvius fits into the medieval atmosphere and ideology of the 15th century. Absolutely organically. Furthermore, the majority of Alberti's medieval constructions are an emulation of the ancient style. He creates a palace made to resemble a Roman amphitheater in its entirety. So the leading medieval architects fill Italian.

Starting point is 01:01:14 in towns with ancient edifices and are nowadays considered an emulation of the classical age. But this by no means implies they were considered as such in the 15th century. The books are also written in the manner that will be made archaic much later. It is only after all of this in 1497 AD that the book of the ancient architect Vitruvius appears occasionally coinciding with a similar book of the medieval Alberti, word for word. One feels that the architects of the 14th and 15th century did not consider their endeavors to be an emulation of the classical age. They were the classical age. The emulation theory was to evolve much later in the works of the Skelligerian historians who were forced to explain the numerous

Starting point is 01:02:10 parallels between the classical age and the Middle Ages. One observes a similar situation with scientific literature. It would be expedient to remind the reader of how the acquaintance of the European scientists with the works of Euclid, Archimedes, and Apollonus occurred, since as we can see, the Middle Ages were the time when the revival of the achievements of ancient science took place. M. Y. Vygotsky, an expert in the history of science, writes that not a single solitary copy of Euclid's elements has reached our times.

Starting point is 01:03:00 The oldest manuscripts we know of is a copy made in 88. There is a large number of manuscripts that date from the 10th to the 13th century, figure 1.31, shows a page from a deluxe edition of Euclid's geometry dated 1457. It contains a picture of a panoramic view of Rome. It is most remarkable that the book by the ancient Euclid contains a picture of the medieval Rome, and not the ancient one. One can clearly see a Christian Gothic cathedral right in front. The commentators say that such Christian monuments as Erequil are depicted here.

Starting point is 01:03:56 One gets a clear implication that Euclid was really a medieval author. IG Bashmakova, an expert in the history of mathematics, informs us that even before for the publication of the Latin translation of the Arithmetica by the ancient Diphantus, the European scientists, have been using the algebraic methods of Diophantus, remaining unaware of his works. I.G. Bashmukva assesses the situation as somewhat paradoxical, the first edition of the Aramaicca. is dated to 1575 AD. If Ptolemy's Almagest was instantaneously continued by Copernicus, let us remind the reader that the surge of interest in the Almagus publication

Starting point is 01:04:57 immediately preceded the era of Copernicus. Diophantus opus must have been continued by Fermin. The history of both manuscripts and printings. Editions of the ancient Archimedes follows the pattern already known to us. According to Ian Velazovsky, all of the modern

Starting point is 01:05:23 editions of Archimedes have been based on the lost manuscript of the 15th century and the Constantinople Palompset that was found as late as 1907. It is assumed that the first

Starting point is 01:05:41 manuscripts of Archimedes reached Europe quite late in 1204. The first translation is supposed to have been made in 1269, and the complete text found in 1884. The 14th century, the first printed edition allegedly appeared in 1503, and the first Greek edition only in 1544. The works of Archimedes entered scientific circulation after that. On figure 1.32, you can see an ancient portrait of Archimedes from his book Opera, dating to the alleged 14th century. We see a typical medieval scientist in his study. The commentators could not fail to have marked this. The study is represented in the Renaissance fashion. Conical sections by the ancient Apollonius was not published until 1537.

Starting point is 01:06:52 Furthermore, Kepler, who was the first to discover the significance of conical sections, ellipses in astronomy, did not live to see the publication of the complete works of Apollonius. The next three books were first published in a Latin translation, a translation yet again in 1631. So the body of work of the ancient Apollonius only got to be published in its entirety after the discovery of the objects that this ancient tractate deals with in Kepler's epoch. By the way, could the works of the ancient Apollonius just be an edited version of the Pole Copernicus? The name Apollonius is almost identical to Polonius, a Pole, a native of Poland, or Polonia. The astronomer Copernicus was the immediate precursor of the astronomer Kepler. Copernicus 1473 to 1543 Kepler 1571 to 1630 well there we have it ladies and gentlemen

Starting point is 01:08:13 we're slogging our way through here we're trying to make some sense out of these ancient manuscripts and this rapscallion named Scalinger that took it upon himself to change the dates to everything. Who might have judged that guy? Probably was under a lot of stress. Probably had the church breathing down his neck. Hey man, you're going to get this stuff right. It's going to match these dates.

Starting point is 01:08:45 The church of that time was like the multinational corporations of today. Hey, just do it like this. They probably had people in charge that had no idea of what the hell they were doing. Anyways, my friends, it's getting late where I am. I love you guys. Thank you for sticking. sticking to it and giving me the great feedback. I really enjoy learning this stuff. I hope you enjoy it too. If you got any questions, just drop them in the comments.

Starting point is 01:09:14 I hope everyone is doing well for this particular time and history. Also, feel free to look up my podcast. It's True Life, T-R-U-E, capital L-I-F-E, one word. I got some interesting stuff. in there as well in a podcast format available on Spotify and Apple or anywhere you can find podcasts. Love you guys. Hope you doing well. Aloha.

TrueLife - HISTORY: Science or Fiction Reading 2

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.