 |
|
|
THE PERCEPTION OF OPEN-ENDED
TIME. |
|
|
|
by
Dr. Yaroslav Kesler
Another great undertaking of 12th
century historians, perhaps the most difficult, was the
mastery of time. As a result
of a hundred years of evolution, the entire West,
finally, agreed to position every year in a continuous
series from the birth of Christ, and everything, without
exception, began finally to relate that very Christmas
to one and the very same year - regardless of the doubts
and hesitations they had. Then, after universal
agreement had been established relative to the Christian
Era, the historians had to resolve another complex
problem: to indicate the year from the birth of Christ
for various dates where the texts reported to them and
to assign on one and the same chronological scale facts
relative to which neither written sources nor human
memory reported a precise time. Experts on church
calendars, virtuosos in
the area of chronology, and
12th century monks coped with this problem so
successfully that even today it arouses amazement in us."
(Bernard Guenee. "Histoire et culture historique dans
l'occident medieval." Moscow, Yazyki Slavyanskoy Kul'tury
(Languages of Slavic Culture), 2002, page 411).
"In half a century of
vigorous activity, Benedictine scholars salvaged,
considering their capabilities, everything from the past that could
be salvaged. It so happened that their
successors did not find an incentive for new
investigations in this area. They simply continued to
talk about their own time. The 12th century historians were
above all researchers. The 13th century historians were,
first of all, witnesses" (ibid. page
412).
Much more profound information
about the perception by mankind of such a notion, it is
possible, as TIME is hiding behind these lines of the
prominent modern French historian, Bernard Guenee. And
about the essence of a chronology.
Two completely different things are
understood by the term "chronology." (1) A chronology as
a succession of events in time and (2) a chronology as a
science about the measurement of time. At the same time,
by "historical chronology" they understand a
subordinate historic discipline which studies
the systems of a method of numbering the years and the
calendars of various peoples and states, and also helps
to establish dates of historic events and the beginnings
of historic sources.
A chronology (1) is a retrospective
reconstruction, inasmuch as the only, sliding,
point of counting time backwards -- present time, as a
result, is
conventional. This in full measure relates to
historical chronology.
A chronology (2) is a natural
science discipline, inasmuch as it is based on
recurring measurements of oscillating and rotating natural cycles. This in full measure relates to
astronomical chronology.
Observation of the surrounding
environment does not give man an absolute "point for the
start of time." The counting of time from the "Big Bang"
is just as conventional as, let us say, from the
"Creation." But an observation of the environment
renders the ability of a comparison of ensuing events
with natural cycles. And these observations also
underlay the numerous variants of calendars long before
the appearance of a chronology (1).
Which natural cycles has mankind
been observing? The shortest - the daily cycle - of the
rising and the setting of the sun. But this cycle, from
the point of view of an observer from Earth, is uneven
in the course of a day itself within the limits of one
cycle (up to the Arctic Circle), and beyond the Arctic
Circle the solar year generally degenerates into one day
which consists of one day and one night.
Second in increase of relative
duration is the "tidal" cycle (connected, as we now
know, with the moon, but they didn't know this earlier.)
The English word tide "flood" is the same as the
German Zeit, the Swedish and Norwegian
tid "time" (also compare the
Dutch tij = flood and tijd = time), inasmuch as the
coastal, and indeed, even more so, the island
inhabitants, naturally, measured their activity with the
high and low tides.
The somewhat prolonged lunar
(monthly) cycle is most convenient because of the
ability of counting two-week (English fortnight) intervals between
the first and third quarters (the "growing" and "aging"
moons) - phases of the moon, and also, considering the
full moon and new moon - the determination of a weekly
cycle and the establishment of a connection between
daily and monthly cycles.
Still longer is the yearly cycle,
subdivided into the "time of the year," it is settled
only later - with the aid of devices which allow the
determination of the equinox, and then also the
solstice. This then relates also to the seasonal
flooding of rivers (for example, of the
Nile), and to the onset of a season of
monsoons in the tropics.
The "Metonic Cycle" (19 years) and
the "Solar Cycle" (28 years) are the next stage in the
mastery of the natural cycles for a local, but more
wide-scale, tie-in for time against the background of a
starry sky. Observation of the planets is a qualifying
factor of the second order relative to these fundamental
cycles. (Weather conditions are a complicating factor,
but which do not exclude observations of the heavenly
bodies.)
All the cycles mentioned are
observed over the course of a human life. But not one of
them assumes the need of man in some kind of open-ended chronology (1),
inasmuch as from an everyday point of view the tie-in to
some kind of them simultaneously is both essential and
sufficient.
The only irreversible process which
may induce man to an open-ended chronology is life
itself. Only two dates are struck on grave stones: birth
and death. All the remaining biography is secondary.
Yes, a definite continuity of generations exists, which
is realized in descendants, but not one of them (not
with the cyclical gene of protozoa) is a precise replica
of an ancestor. And over the course of a lifetime,
people confront situations when the everyday counting of
time is difficult ("a prisoner in solitary confinement
without windows.") But sunset even beyond the
Arctic
Circle is not so fatal for man as for a
one-day butterfly. The most ancient words, which reflect
the notion of some kind of a final segment of time,
characterize the relativity of the notion "open-ended
time" for a man absolutely.
I think hardly anyone will not see
a clear connection between, let us say, the English year, the German Jahr and the Russian Yar(a) = spring (compare also
with the Greco-Roman ora = "hour, time," and
finally, era!) And so even the word,
denoting a year in the Russian language ("god")
began to designate the notion "year" only in the
16th century, and before
that this word was connected with the notion "holiday,"
a "good (= suitable) time" (as the Serbs
have now). The Ukrainian "godina" means "hour" (in
Russian - "chas") but the Czech "chas" means simply
"time." English week, German Woche mean "week," whereas the
Russian derivative word - "vek" - initially meant "some
elapsing period" (compare, for example, "40 years is a
woman's lifespan"), but now it also is "100 years." That
is, initially some period is implied, and therefore, in
Ukrainian we have rik (plural roki, derived from "srok")
which, again, now means "year," and so on.
The Greek "chronos" still also means "time," and "year,"
and "duration" (compare also the Russian "krug.", and
even English "ring" - from ancient "hring" ) The variety
itself of the tie-in of words which reflect the notion
of some defined time interval, for a CONCRETE period
says in so many words that these notions have been
fixed, according to historic measurements, quite
recently.
In this connection, we turn
attention to the fact that the Greek word ENH meant the
"last day of the MONTH" (ENIAYTOC which has existed up
to now means "year, a large time interval, a cycle, a
period." But the Latin word ANN(US) = year and the Greek
ENH - are twin brothers! Therefore, in OLDEN times, most
likely, they counted by months (naturally, lunar.)
Here, for example, is what the
Central Asian historian al-Biruni (traditionally dated
to the 11th century)
writes: "They say that when a warning of a
flood came to Tahmuras, and this happened 231 years
before the flood, he gave an order to select in his
kingdom a place with wholesome air and earth. The people
did not find a place more worthy of such a name than
Isfahan. Then Tahmuras ordered the preservation of all
knowledge and the placing of it in the safest place.
This is confirmed by the fact that in our time in Jay,
[near] the city of Isfahan, they have discovered hills
in which they, when they excavated them, found
facilities, full of stacks of wood bast called "tuz"
with which they cover the swords and shields. The bast
was covered with some kind of characters, and no one
knew anything about these characters and what in
particular was inscribed."
It is obvious that it is possible
to warn someone about a catastrophe approaching in 231
years, but to expect practical actions in the near
future in order to avoid grave consequences is senseless
even in our time: if he who both listens seriously and
begins to engage in this problem - of a future far away from the
closest descendants, then there will be an
insignificant minority of them - even if it is to create
excitement artificially. But, let us say, a warning 231
months before, that is, approximately 19 years - that is
a fully realistic period for a predicted determination of fate
both at the given moment of the living
and of the generation immediately
following. And this does not require bringing in
such a religious notion as "prophecy."
Those OLDEN times ended when annual
counting replaced monthly.
When, then, was this
able to happen?
For designation of the calendar year, besides
ENIATOC, the Greeks also have other words: ???NOC which
already has been mentioned, and ETOC, the same as in the
Russian "summer" for the designation of years in the
plural. The presence itself of several words for the
designation of one and the same notion (according to
Emile Benveniste) says that in the past they had a
somewhat different meaning. (But, as it
is thought, in the works of Homer the words ENIATOC and
ETOC were used as synonyms. At the same time, it is
difficult to judge whether ENIAUTOC is connected with
ENH-AUTOC - "this period, that same period," compare
also he = that, or, let us say, directly
with ENH-ETOC, that is period = year.)
Both that and the other respond to
the notion "end of the counting." But it is important
that the word ENH has one more, at first glance, meaning
not connected with the first: "the day after tomorrow."
We shall add that for the designation of a month there
is the all-European MHN(AC). On consideration of the
Russian "month" in the meaning of the "crescent of the
moon," MHN takes on the meaning "rise of the moon after
the new moon," in contrast to ENH - "the day before the
death of the moon," that is, "the end of counting," "the
end of the period" besides. Therefore, the meaning "the
day after tomorrow," most likely, arose as "the night
after the new moon."
We note that up to now not one religious basis for the
motivation of the aforesaid has been brought in - there
just had been no need.
Now we shall examine the evolution
of such "historic" notions as "century" and
"millennium," which have no direct relationship to the
life or the natural cycles. (It is obvious that these
notions were able to evolve only after the adoption of a
universal decimal counting system.)
They translate the Latin word saeculum as "sort, generation,
a human lifetime" and as "century." However, this word
initially was in no way connected with the notion of a
"hundred" (the number.) But a human lifetime and the
change of generations, as we see, is connected directly
with the notion "life cycle," in which connection the
word "cycle" is considered everywhere as adopted from
the Greek kyklos "circle."
In this connection it is somewhat
logical to examine this "Greek" circle in comparison
with the Slavic "kolo" = circle (cf. also with Eng.
"coil"). (Compare "se kolo" with the Rumanian secol "century," Italian secolo, Portuguese seculo, French siecle, Spanish siglo, and also with the
Spanish sequelo = consequence.) In other words -
it is a GENERATION, a rotation of life in changing
generations. A generation according to "Constantine's
Indiction" is 15 years, the recurrent taxation on
inheritance in an indicated order.
The "Chinese," it is but the "Aztec" (!) period
for a generation - 20 years (3 generations for a 60-year
calendar cycle. We note that if the Chinese
calendar is connected with the conjunction of Jupiter
and Saturn, then it could not have been created earlier
than 1323.)
For comparison: right now a change
of regular generations in the military occurs
approximately over 12 - 15 years (and even, for example,
in the Osman military 500 years earlier from a beginning
recruit to a veteran it was 2 generations: 25 - 30
years.) The elite bureaucratic civil system of a
"progression to administrative bosses" is also
approximately once in 15 years. Not only does life span
play a role in the determination of an average
statistical term of a generation, but also simply the
onset of fertility (14 - 18 years). Then follows a
period of personality formation, the mastering of
professions and the acquisition of families (up to 30),
the most productive, the "adult," period is
approximately from 30 to 45 years, the "mature" period
is 45-60, the "pension" is 60-75, and further there is
only the gerontological. He who has advanced so
far. But on average, the number which characterizes the
change of generations clearly is close to that same
15-year "indiction" - that is, to some average conventional term, but defined
by experience.
"Constantine's Decree"
is, per se, a consolidation of some statistical data
which had been collected by the time of its
appearance. And what is more,
this is not religious, but fully "civil," that is a
"worldly" rotation, that is a "secular age": a notion,
which, probably, was being well preserved even under the
circumstances of a religious demarcation and
attempts at the establishment
of a universal CHURCH calendar all the way up to the
Gregorian of 1583. In other words: approximately to the
end of the traditional 15th century, it is possible,
there WAS NO accounting for centuries at all.
The word "seculaire" (the spelling
since 1611) in the French language assumed the meaning
of "centuries" for the first time in the form "seculare"
in 1549. Before this, the word "centenaire" (from 1370)
was used in the meaning of "centuries." The latter is
derived from "hundred" (cent) and "a hundred" (centain). And "seculaire," as
too "siecle" (century, epoch, the present) is not! And
this is direct evidence that the introduction of the
notion "century" as a chronological cycle is connected
not only with religiously-based calendar reform, but
also directly with "secularization" (secularisation, from 1567),
that is, with the establishment also of new "worldly"
(in French, seculier, from 1260) rules.
Here is what the historian Apollon
Grigor'evich Kuz'min writes ("The Beginning of
Rus." Moscow, Veche
Publishers, 2003, page 201): "We note that the literal
meaning of the word "vek" in ancient times is the age of
an object, a phenomenon, a man. This is well known and
confirmed by a large quantity of sources (Sreznevskiy,
etc.). This word was most used for the designation of
the life of one generation. The MAIN meaning of the
Latin conformity to the Slavic vek is saeculum - exactly a
"GENERATION," "a HUMAN age," (Anan'ev et al.) The
Complete Latin Dictionary. 1862, page 761)."
Further, Kuz'min talks about Russian sources in
which it follows from context that "vechi" = generations
and not centuries. (The same thing regards, for example,
also the "ancient Icelandic" old - "generation, time,
century" (compare with Russian leto = summer.)
Even more amusing is the English century, which is borrowed from
the French, but centurie never meant "century"
in French, but only a military element - "a hundred"! It
is then the "Roman century" (noted for the first time in
1284). And the time of the appearance of English
"century" which stands by itself as the designation of a
hundred years is direct evidence to the time of the
introduction of counting by centuries -
simultaneously with the French seculaire, and with the
appearance of the notions of Trecento and Quatrocento and the like. The
likely time of the origin of the idea itself of counting by
centuries is no earlier than the end of the 15th century
and most likely - the first half of the 16th century.
It is important that the definition
"century" (saeculum) = 100 years is
axiomatic, that is, not requiring (and even not having)
proof. The meaning of the word saeculum = "100 years" was not
able to disappear from use after its legendary
establishment for more than 1,000 years. There really
are no natural reasons for maintenance of this axiom.
And there couldn't be.
What is
more, the maintenance of the meaning saeculum = "century" simply is
inconceivable without the PRECEEDING notion "decade" in
a denary system. The numeral 100 in a denary system
occupies a wholly definite place in the hierarchy of
this system relative to the base 10. The very word dekada "decade," which
designates "decade," was noted for the first time only
in 1385.
(And the legendary
"decennalia," supposedly introduced by Augustus and
which came to light in 1540, has no relationship to the
continuous counting of time.)
If one looks at the traditional
dates enumerated above, then the oldest of them is 1260.
This hardly is an accidental coincidence, as will be
shown below.
Even the Greek notion of
"chilieterida" as "millennium" is traced back no further
than that time. Etymologists are
trying to connect the Greek "chilia" = 1,000 with the
word "chera, cheri" - hand, having in mind that one
can look at both it and the other as a certain "end of
counting." We note that the word "chilia" is in no way
connected with the common Indo-European word "hundred"
(Greek hekato.) Just as even the Greek
"miriada" = 10,000 designates simply "many," and the Old
Russian designation 10,000 = "t'ma." And the Latin mille - this is originally also
simply "many," and only later is "thousand." In the
Balto-Slav-German linguistic habitat the situation is
completely different, inasmuch as the compound word
"tysyacha" (English thousand, German tausend and the like) initially
designates "a rich hundred," that is a "great hundred."
Here, in contrast to the Greek and Romance languages,
the reflection of a denary system of counting to a
thousand is completely clear.
Chilia - the origin of this Greek word is
just as vague in Greek
itself as it is transparent in the Arabic:
"The broad notion of guile (CHILIA)
was used, in particular, for the name of techniques
which we at the present time would relate to the
category of applied mathematics and mechanics. Ilm
al-khial - the "science of skillful techniques"
(literally "the science of guile," author's note) is
discovered in the medieval classifications of the
sciences. To outwit God - and some medieval Moslems
posed such a problem to themselves." ("A Comparative
Study of Civilizations." A reader. Moscow, Aspect Press,
2001, pages 289-290. Aristotle, Omar
Khayyam, Iskhak as-Sabani, Ibn Ketiba ad-Dinuri and Ibn
al-Irabi developed "ilm al-khial." "Al-Mundji," Beirut,
2000). And the Jewish
cabalists posed exactly the same problem to themselves,
in which connection everyone developed their ideas in
that same 13th century
("The Zohar"), and in the 16th century they were picked
up even by the Protestant mystics (Jakob Boehme).
At the same time, the word "chilia"
is fully comparable with the Baltic-Slavic-German words
which reflect besides a certain interval, a cycle:
Ukrainian khvilina "minute," Czech chvile, Polish chwila; Lithuanian valanda "a time interval,"
English while, Dutch wijl, German Weile; Swedish vila "a rest, repose, to lie,
to rest", Norse hvil (rest), hvile "to rest;" English while, whilst "for the time being,
meanwhile," Dutch wijl, German weil, and also wave: Ukrainian khvilya, Byelorussian khvalya, Bulgarian v"lna, Czech vlna, Latvian vilnis, Dutch zwalp, German Welle, Swedish svall, Norwegian svalk, English swell "choppiness, surge" and
so on. We note again that in the Book of
Psalms literally side-by-side is the referenced
"millennium" as derived from "chilia" (90:5), and
"flood" (90:6). We again draw attention to the fact that
the word "wave" is now also used as a certain indication
of time.
But what did "millennium" mean
until the appearance of an open-ended chronology?
From where in general was the interpretation by
the Biblicists of the duration of the "day of creation"
as a millennium? Or, if one follows the ilm al-chial,
NOW could one just as successfully interpret "day of
creation" as a billion years, while bringing into it,
besides, the physicists, too? (This arbitrariness is the
same type as "render unto God what
is God's, unto Caesar what is Caesar's"... well, and
unto the locksmith what is the locksmith's.)
What really happened in 1259/1260,
actually, is known today to the one Lord God, but there
is real physical and chemical evidence of the
extraordinary NATURAL events of the time. The historians
write that in expectation of the end of the world,
people who had gone mad ran into the woods and committed
suicide.
The traces of a catastrophic event
are observed everywhere in the Arctic glacial core
samples in the form of exceptionally powerful and keen
(in the assessment of time) acidic and sulfate spikes in
the investigation of samples of native ice which relate
to this year. Over the course of 5,000 years before
this, and also after this, up to now nothing of the kind
has been noted.
As vulcanologists think, it was the
hugest eruptive event, the discharge of which was
transported from the source throughout the whole world.
(Langway C.C.Jr., Clausen H.B., Hammer C.U. An
inter-hemispheric time-marker in ice cores from
Greenland and Antarctica /Ann. Glaciol., 10, 1988, p.
102-108.) In which connection, a sign of this eruption
is noted in the ice cores both of the northern and of
the southern hemisphere, which can are evidence not only
of the great power of the eruption, but also of the fact
that it happened more likely in the lower latitudes than
in the middle or especially in the
upper.
Nonetheless, there has
been no success in tying the sulfate and acid spikes of
"1259" to a concrete volcano. There also is the opinion
that this catastrophic event was able to act as a
trigger for the start of the Little Ice Age owing to the
pollution of the atmosphere with the solid and flying
products of the eruption.
One can evaluate the catastrophic
effect of the 1259 event in the power of the spewing of
sulphuric acid into the atmosphere in comparison with
the eruption of the Tambora volcano (1815), the total
aerosol discharge of which into the stratosphere was
then in the estimates of Rampino and others on the order
of 200 megatons. [Rampino M.R., Self S., Stothers R.B.
Volcanic winters.- Annual Review of Earth and Planetary
Sciences. Lett., 16, 1988, p.73-99.]. The works [Raynaud
D. The total gas content in polar ice core. - The
climatic record in polar ice. Cambridge, 1983, p.79-82.;
and Gerlach T.M., Graeber E.J. Volatile budget of
Kilauea volcano. - Nature, v. 313, N6000, 1985,
p.273-277] estimate the discharge into the stratosphere
of aerosol sulphuric acid as a result of an eruption of
the Toba volcano (nearly 75,000 years ago) to be from
9?10^14 to 5x10^15 grams, at that time as a total
aerosol discharge, and according to Rampino for this
eruption - from 1,000 megatons and higher. From this it
follows (with an assumption of an equivalent proportion
of the components of the discharge for Toba and the
event of 1259), that in 1259 from 3.6?10^14 to 2x10^15
grams were discharged, that is, on the order of 1,000
megatons of aerosol, which contained not less than 100
million tons of sulphuric acid. Plainly speaking, so
much sulphuric acid came out in 1260 that a little would
show up even now.
Such an abrupt impact on the
environment was not able to occur without very serious
damage for the flora and fauna.
The fact that nowhere are there any
records about a specific, gigantic eruption of a volcano
(and it clearly should have taken place in the inhabited
part of the Ecumene), speaks of the fact that this had
to be NOT a volcanic, but an extraterrial event, that
is, a catastrophe caused by an extraterrestrial
source.
From the end of the 14th century a natural climatic
fall of temperature actually began in Europe - as an
undulating attenuation of a cataclysm, which was
expressed in two minima - the Maunder, and afterwards
also the Sporer. In the
14th century,
seafaring in the Atlantic practically ceased due to
constant storms. From that same time, people began
to build levees and dams - as in Moscow, so it was in
Holland. The tides in the enclosed Adriatic
Sea were an order stronger than now. Traces of the
so-called "Dunkirk Transgressions" are well preserved to
this time in northern Germany - covered with the sand
and silt of the woods and countryside. There is no Aral
Sea on the maps of the 14th-17th centuries - it is
simply an arm of the Caspian, which because of this
is oriented length-wise not from the south to the
north, but from the west to the east. (According to the
information of the geographer A.V. Shnitnikov, the
Caspian Transgression fits exactly at the 13-15th
centuries.) And what is more, a huge lake existed at the
location of the Baraba Steppe, and the present Karakum
and Kyzylkum deserts were densely populated.
All of this may be explained by the
consequences of the Earth's relaxation after an impulse
excitation from the outside. The migration of rats and
the spreading of the plague in
the 14th century may be
looked at as a direct consequence of the
cataclysm. And not only one disease -
the common plague, but also the bubonic plague, and
tuberculosis, and scurvy and so on.
The "Time of the Plague" - as a
generalized description - ended in the middle of the
15th century.
In this connection, the designation itself of the
Middle Ages is typical too in 15-16th century sources.
The Latin expression "media
tempestas" (1469) is recorded for the first time, where
the word "tempestas" means not simply time, but "a time of tempest, a
time of cataclysms," (compare, for example, the English
tempest - "storm"), that is, it
communicates a clearly negative characterization of the
events of this temporary interval. Later the formulation
"media antiquitas" (1494) appears, that is, "middle
antiquity, that is, an interval approximately from the
middle 13th century
through the middle 15th
century is considered as the time of the "middle
antiquity." Later the expressions "media
tempus" and "medium aetas" (1531), that is, simply, "a
middle time, a middle epoch," were noted. And in 1596
alone - "saeculum medium," simultaneously with "medium
aevum" - as early as after the fact that the word saeculum "vek" was associated
with the notion "century." However, the expression "middle
ages" finally took on the modern meaning only at the end
of the 17th century.
It also relates to the notion of antiquity. The
word antique was noted in the French
language in the 13th
century. It is thought that it was made from the Latin
antiquus. But in Latin,
"antequos" means "until some kind of events." Until just
which events? The Italian word antico came into use in the
second half of the 15th
century. And here is what Vasari (1511-1574), the
greatest art historian and critic of the 16th century, who introduced in
turn the term "Gothic" writes: "This style was invented
by the Goths, because after that, as the ancient
buildings were DESTROYED and wars ruined the architects,
the SURVIVORS began to build in this style, raising
vaultings on lancet arches and filling all Italy with
the Devil knows what kind of
structures."
A catastrophe caused by an observed
extraterrestrial source, was unable not to leave traces
too in the mentality of mankind. An earthquake or flood
does not give directly grounds for connecting such
natural cataclysms with "divine punishment" - for this a
visual observation of cosmic and atmospheric phenomena
is needed - that is, a sign. In which connection, the
sign is perfectly unordinary:
It is not lightning, the northern lights, solar and
lunar eclipses which are observed not infrequently and
do not bear perceptible harm. Comets and
huge meteors come much closer to this role if their
debris reaches Earth.
In particular, danger which occurs
from the sky is the strongest religious motivation. In
this connection a phenomenal occurrence of a
prophecy is typical. If, let us say, the catastrophe
was connected with the disintegration of a comet passing
close by, then it was supposed to occur in not fewer
than two phases, and this explains a lot: those who have
survived a catastrophe and connected the appearance of a
comet with it have told their children and grandchildren
about it. One need not be a genius to grasp that a comet
that is going behind the sun, which unfurls a tail
sideways, opposite the start, has promised in so many
words to return. But when it returned, there were no
such catastrophic events as there had been the first
time, although the sky grew red and once again a torrent
of stone fell and so on. Therefore, the descendants
decided that the fears of the ancestors were too
exaggerated, and at the same time they simply put some
prophets to death ("witch-hunts" and the like.)
When the witnesses to the
catastrophe died out, the opinions of the descendants
were divided: some considered that the coming of the
Messiah had taken place, and they became Christians,
others decided that the scale of the catastrophe was not
that and they still had to await the Messiah - as the
Orthodox Jews were educated. A third, the least
literate, decided in general to do away with prophecy:
they declared that the last of the prophets - Mohammed -
will remain the last forever. But even subsequent
generations continued to break off relations: Moslems
split into Sunni and Shiite exactly on the grounds of
prophecy, and part of the Christians preferred to have a
permanently acting prophet in the person of the Roman
Pope.
The most paradoxical
is that the "ancient Jews" were split last - in the
18th century the Hasidic
movement arose, again on the grounds of the recognition
of Saddic prophets! Such a model of development of
present monotheism seems by no means groundless.
Purgatory is another religious notion, whose
origin one may connect directly with catastrophe. The
origin of the notions of "paradise" and "hell," as
interconnected alternatives in the idea of what happens
at the end of life, is fully natural. And here
"Purgatory" is the idea of a procedure, with the aid of
which the Supreme Being divides the "pure" and the
"impure": he who has endured trial - they are the pure,
those who have been lost were the impure, and for that
they are punished. The traditional
historiography says that the idea of "Purgatory" was
born in the 3rd century: (Jacques Le Goff. The birth of
Purgatory. The University of Chicago Press. Chicago,
USA. 1984) in the works of Clement, Origen and Cyrprian.
Saint Augustine (4th
century) in the treatise "The City of God" uses the term
"poenae purgatoriae" for the first time, from which also
arose Purgatory.
However, after this - all the way
up to the 12th (!)
century - the topic of Purgatory disappears from the
sources. in order to reappear for violent discussion by
the "fathers of the church," a list of whom is extremely
impressive and includes Albert the Great, Bonaventure
and Thomas Aquinas. It is thought that the canonization
of Purgatory occurred in 1274 at the Council of Lyons.
(At the same time the Pope supposedly in fact recognized
Purgatory as a canon as early as 1254 in his own
correspondence.) The apogee of the development of the
purgatory topic is Dante's "Divine Comedy." However, the
doctrine of Purgatory was introduced only in 1439 (!)
and was confirmed in 1562, inasmuch as Martin Luther
resumed the polemics about Purgatory at the start of the
16th century. (At the
same time, the Russian Orthodox Church never recognized
the existence of Purgatory!)
It also is significant that at the
turn of the 12th - 13th
centuries, in a sense a "French Jesus" appears on the
historical scene - Francis of Assisi (Latin Franciscus
Assisiensis, traditionally 1181/1182 - 1226), the
founder of an order of "destitute" monks - the
Franciscans, an advocate of the ideals of the "early
faith." The most zealous guardians of the teaching of
Francis of Assisi are the so-called "Spirituals," that
is, "non-money grubbers," who are called upon to feed on
only the "Holy Spirit."
The "Joachimites" -
the followers of another teacher - Joachim of Floris
(1132-1202) - also spread the "heresy" of the French
Jesus. He advanced the following ideas:
1) The TRINITY as the triune of
freedom, love and peace;
2) CHILIASM (from the Greek
"chilia" = thousand, and not from the Latin mille!), that is the future
coming of the "thousand-year" era of the "Holy Spirit."
(Where a certain MILLENIUM appears for the first time as
a measurement which extended traditional history,
"chiliasm" itself later was ascribed to those 1,000
years backwards and was condemned as heresy!)
The economic "foundation of
freedoms," in French Franchise Assise, fully was
able afterwards to be transformed into the "father of
the Roman Catholic Church," Francis of Assisi, whom they
called an Umbrian monk from the town of Assisi (or this
town was named after him later on), canonized and raised
in honor of him a memorial complex (traditionally in
1228), however, the biography of Saint Francis was
composed by the general of the Franciscan Order, Fra
Bonaventure only in 1290, when the social movement of
the "destitute monks" already had been placed under firm
control!
The movement for the purity of the
"early faith" reached its apogee in 1251 with the
publication of a book by Gerard of Borgo-San-Donino with
the title "Evangelium Aeternum." According to the calculations of
the Joachimites, Franciscans and Spiritualists, the
fateful 1260 was supposed to arrive soon.
Somewhat later the works of Peter John Olivi (1248-1298) appeared, who
understood the history of Christianity thus: on the
13th day, the child
Jesus was shown to the three wise men, in the 13th year he left his mother
and appeared in the temple, and in the 13th saeculum (cycle, generation,
epoch) after the death of Christ, Francis, who
established an "Evangelical order" was sanctified.
In parallel with this, repressive
structures arise which are created by the advocates of a
strict hierarchical church authority. The
fathers of the Roman Catholic Church, Albert the Great
(1206-1280) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) become the
ideologues of this trend, which prevailed in the second
half of the 13th
century.
Let us enumerate some other events
which are ascribed to the 13th century according to the
traditional historiography. In Western
Europe they smash the Cathars, who were
damned in 1215: in 1216, the order of
militant "God's Dogs" - the Dominicans - is created for
the struggle with the "heretics" (the aforementioned
Albert and Thomas have left the bosom of this order.)
The church's hirelings cruelly punish free peasants who
do not wish to pay tribute to the clergy (for example,
the Steding slaughter of
1234.) In response, in 1260 the militant
"Apostolic Brethren" headed by Gherardo Segarelli
appears which speaks out against the church's authority.
In Paris, Siger of Brabant preaches the
teachings of Ibn-Rushd (Averroes), generally denying God
as Creator (he was killed as a heretic in 1284.)
In 1261, the "Latin Empire" fell,
and in the same year Prince Daniel is born, starting
from whom Moscow started to rise in Rus. In that
same interval, the "first parliament" (1258-1264)
appeared in England.
Before the middle of the century,
the Jews who had appeared on the islands in
approximately 1210, enjoyed the patronage of the king,
which is why practically all
England was in hock to them by the middle
of the century, but in 1290, they banish them completely
from the islands. for 350 years!
In Northwestern
Europe the "new" Hanseatic
League of self-governing cities is formed
(finally formed in 1370.)
In the south in
Egypt, the Mamelukes came to power,
the "Reconquista" were victorious
in the Pyrenees, and the Arabs left
Europe (except Granada).
In the East, with the death of the
"heathen Khans" Batu and Mongke, a struggle begins in the
Horde for church influence on the military leadership,
which ends with the introduction by Uzbek of Islam in
1317, after which the Horde began to fall apart and
underwent other fundamental changes.
It is obvious that everywhere a change of ideologies is
occurring. Religious monotheistic structures assume real
power. For example, Pope Boniface VII (1235-1303, ruled
from 1294) at first used to the maximum the Franciscan
movement, and afterwards destroyed their ideologists: in
particular, Segarelli was burned at the stake in
1300 - exactly, as the
Roman Catholic Church historians write, in the first
"jubilee" year declared in history by this same
Boniface. (Let us note that "1300 A.D." is an elapsed 13
hundred years, that is, their number is not too
precisely equal, and especially, is not "apostolic."
Further below, dates from the "birth of Christ" are
cited inside quotation marks," except for dates in
references.)
All these events have some central
temporal point, a turning point - all that same year
"1260." Despite the fact that traditional dating of
these events was established much later
than the 1260 catastrophe, the coming into being
of dating was vastly drawn out in time, and the change
of the nature of the events described BEFORE and AFTER
the catastrophe cannot fully conceal the fact itself of the
catastrophe.
"1260" is a key year which, per se,
can be the start of counting the modern chronology.
According to Joachim of Floris, exactly 12 saeculi = indicta = generations, that is
15x12 = 180 years from the ascension of Christ were
supposed to pass and the 13th started, that is, the
first in the coming thousand-year reign (era) of the
Holy Spirit, universal freedom, peace and love. (At the
same time, the "Passion" relates to the end of the
"11th" century.)
Moreover, in "1260" the third era-wave-"chilia" was supposed to
set in, inasmuch as the first two were characterized
according to Joachim of Floris as the "Era of the
Father" and the "Era of the Son." In other words, before
"1260," conceivable history had been continuing only 24
(= 2x12) generations, that is, 360 years from the start
of the "first wave" - approximately from "900."
As an illustration of the defined
chronological gap of 100-150 years after the catastrophe
of the 13th century in the geographic and demographic
plan (in the "Time of the Plague"), we shall examine the
appearance in the sources in the French language of
references about people who lived up to the present
(according to "Le Petit Robert.") It is extremely noteworthy. For
example, at the 1080 level, when the French
traditionally had become aware of themselves as French
(Franais, see that Gallic
they became much later: Gallican - 1355, Gaulois - since
the 15th c.), are
referenced: Allemand, Flamand, Normand, Danois (the
Danes), Saisne (Saxons), Romain (Romans), Arabe, Judeu,
Sarassin, Pers(ien), Espan (now - Espagnol, and at
that Hispanique is only since
1525). The "Easterners" are
Levant (but Levantine is only from 1575,
and Arameen is only since 1765!) Further: Hebreu - 1119.
Anglais, Maure (Mor), Dalmatique - 12th century. Grec - 1165,
Latin - 1160. Bourguignon is the
end of the 12th century.
Roman(s) = a common language - 1135.
Mamelukes: mamelos - 1192 (but
mameluk is 1611, the modern mamelouk is 1808.)
The Bolgars also are mentioned in
the 12th century. - as
the Bogre (1172, Bougre is 1450, Bulgare is from 1732!)
And the inhabitants of Crete are the Cretoise (1165).
At the beginning of the 13th century
- Egyptien (in which connection, this word is
also used in the designation of Gypsies) and the
Venetien are the Venetians. In the 13th century, the Druide (they
will call them Celts much later), Brabanon, Macedonien
and Tartarin appear. And right here the word "antique" -
"ancient" also appears. Then there is Italien (1265),
Assyrien and Indien (1284).
The Albigensians-Albigeois and the
Dutch-Hollandais are known from the 13th century (but at the same time, the word
Hollande is only from 1598, and the "ancient" Batavi are
from 1740!) In 1300, the Turks are mentioned for the
first time - Turc. And here for the first time the
Phoenicians also are noted: as Punicians (Punique, as
Phenicien is only in 1557!) The Scots (Ecossaise) are in
the 14th century. (1350).
Further, after a large gap: the
Goths are Gothique - 1440, the Serbs in the form Serve -
1441 (in the 16th century - Servien, now - Serbe.) The
Catalans (Catalan) - 1452.
The Hungarians: Hongre - 15th century, Hongrois - 1470.
Inhabitants of the modern Czech Republic, earlier Bohemia are Bohemien and
Morocco (Maroquin) - in 1490.
Here too is Suisse (the Swiss, in which
connection the "ancient Helvets" - Helvetique - is only
in 1636!) The main mass of medieval peoples
are in the 16th century: Basque, Portuguese (the
Portugese) - in 1500 (in which connection, the more
"ancient" Lusitanians-Lusitanien are only in 1584!) The
Austrians (Autriche) in 1515.
The Castillians (Castillan) in 1517, the Frisians
(Frise) in 1520, the ancient Belgie-Belgians - in
1528. Etruscans in 1534(!)
"The Lithuanians are Lithuanien" (that is the Russians
of that time) together with the Prussians (Prussien) and
the Georgians (Georgien) - in 1540.
Napolitain is 1549, Sicilien is 1550.
Ib'ere is in 1552, at first in reference only to
the aboriginals of the Caucuses and
North
Africa. At the same time, the Armenians are
Armenien (one of the peoples who are considered the most
ancient!) only in 1575. The Genoese (Genois) are in
1567. The inhabitants of
Slavonia are Slavon - 1575, and the
Savoy are Savoyard - in 1580.
(It is interesting that in particular at this
time the word which designates both the notion "Slavs"
and the notion "slave" - Slave - 1575 is noted in the
form Sclave - 1573.
That is, slavery as a concept, from the point of
view of the French - this is in the 16th century!)
In the second half of the 16th
century the rest of the northern and eastern community
also appear: Czechs-Bohemien (1558), Irish - Irlandaise
(1567), Norwegians-Norvegien, Chinese- Chinoise (1575),
Japanese-Japonaise, Swedes-Suedois, Muscovites-Moscovite
(Russian - Russe only in 1715! At the same time the
Scyths-Scyhien - 1580, in the form scytic - somewhat earlier in
the same century), Poles-Polonais - 1588.
At the same time Hellenes
and Chaldeans came to light (1580).
Somewhat later the Sardinians-Sarde
- 1606, the Albanians-Albanais - 1612 and the Uzbeks in
the form Usbeke - 1613, Uzbec is from 1765, and now
Ouzbek. In the middle of the 17th century -
Croatians-Croate. Algerien - 1677, inhabitants of
Siam (Thailand) - Saimois - 1686.
Ethiopians - Abyssin - 1704 (although the word abysse "chasm" is from
1080). The
Congolese-Congolais in the form Congois - 1721, the
Ukrainians-Ukrainien - 1731, the Czechs in the form
Czekhes - 1762 (Tcheque - 1842), Finns- Finnois - 1772,
Koreans-Coreen - 1797. Estonians-Estonien -
in 1819, Slovenes-Slovene - 1825, Rumanians- Roumain -
1836, Slovaks-Slovaque - 1841, Latvians-Letton -
1845.
It is typical that the affiliation
of peoples with parts of the world in the modern meaning
(besides Australia) is noted in the 16th century: Asiatique,
African, Americain - 1556, Europeen - 1563.
The vanished 100 years from the
point of view of the appearance of new references is
clearly striking: from the middle of the 14th through the middle of the
15th century. If the
reference itself of the Scots is considered an isolated
point (having in mind a possible delay with their
reference relative to the English), then two groups are
formed: those mentioned through the 13th century inclusive (ending
with the Turks) and the rest, mention of whom appears
from the middle of the 15th century. And it is
significant that the mention of some "predecessors" of
today's peoples appears later than the mention of them
themselves - the Batavi, the Frisians, Helvets,
Etruscans, Phoenicians, Aramites and so on.
Now about the religious and
monotheistic component. The word "catholique" is noted
for the first time in the 13th century in the form
"chatoliche"! It really had to be used in order to
reflect the Greek "katholikos." And the word "orthodoxe"
- in 1431. And this is similar to the truth - it is the
time of the Ferrara Council. It is funny, however, that
"chatoliche" has something suspiciously in common too
with chteau (castle), 1175 (from castels 1080), that is "one
sitting in a castle".or in a tent, that is chtelain, 1190 -
"castellan" - a stock keeper who controls
property. The Polish name of a Catholic temple
also is typical - kosciol, that is, the same as
"castle-castel."
And with which "non-believers",
infidels, did the French crusaders fight? They did not
know the word "mosque" (musquette, from the Arabic Masdjid, that is, a place for
prayer) before 1351 (today's mosque'e generally is from
1553). It is typical that in the Rumanian language
"mecet" not only is in essence a mosque, but even a
Turkish cemetery and a spiritual consistory (!) in
general, that is, an administrative and housekeeping
service in the institution of any Christian Church. They
did not note minarets (minaret) until 1606, muezzins - in
the form maizin - until 1568 (today's muezzin is from 1823).
Imam (in the form iman) is from 1559.
And even the notion itself of a "Musulman"
appeared with the French only in the 16th century
(from the Arabic "muslim" = true
believer, fidel)
It already has been said that the
word "Saracen" (sarrasin) was noted in the French
language simultaneously with the word "synagogue"
(1080), although, according to traditional history,
these same Saracen-Moslems (!) intruded on the
territory of France as early as the 8th century. At the same time,
this word from the Arabic is "charqiyin," that is,
literally: "eastern". that is, Saracens are EASTERN
people with regard to the Arabs themselves!
Now we turn to how the presently
adopted dating was formed. Here is a fragment of history
of the papacy (S. Lozinskiy): "Owing to internal
dissensions, Rome from the end of the 9th century went through a
time of severe crisis, during which the papal crown went
from one pope to another, depending on who was the
stronger. In "877," Pope John (VIII, traditionally
pontiff in "872-882") was even in the prison of one of
the feudal rulers, and after his freedom he left
Rome and tried to convoke a council in
France for the punishment of his
"oppressors." It did not happen: The pope wrote "we
expected. the light, but received the darkness." This
John, according to a chronicler from
Fulda, became a victim of his own
personal policy: they gave him poison, and since he
didn't die right away, the blow of a hammer on the skull
put an end to his mortal existence. That was the first
in a long line of murderous events in the middle ages of
"God's deputy on earth."
We note that during this time,
there is not in a single source any mention about the
start of a new "Great Indiction," according to which the
Roman Catholic Church now lives and which was supposed
to begin exactly in "877" - if they had known by that
time that the preceding, "Constantinian," had begun in
"345." But they clearly still didn't know this then. But
you see, this is the basis of the calculation of the
Easters!
The further history of the papacy with its
depravity and murders by no means reflects neither the
earnest piety ahead of the future, it would seem, great
holiday - the "millennium" (that is, the 1,000 years
from the birth of Christ), nor the awe of the coming of
a new "thousand years of Christ" - all the way to the
selfless devotion of the hermit Pietro Damiani
("1007-1072") and the Pope-Reformer Gregory (VII,
Hildebrand, traditionally pontiff in "1073-1095). But
the distain for the "millennium" is typical not only for
the Roman Catholic Church: the "newly converted" Kievan
Rus (traditionally, Christian from "988") also in no way
celebrates this event.
Here is a characteristic example. A Papal Bull
dated by historians and archivists from 1002 after the
birth of Christ is considered the oldest original
document of the richest archive of the city of
Dubrovnik (Croatia). However, the year after the
birth of Christ in the text of the Bull is not entered -
there is only "indictum." In that way, the direct dating
of the Bull is absent, inasmuch as the indicta are
repeated every 15 years, and the Bulls, which
traditionally relate to the 11-13th centuries, are dated in
accordance with the Popes of Rome. And, for example, the
referenced Bull is date according to Pope Benedict VIII.
But the point is, that there is no number "VIII" in any
form in the text of the Bull - there is just some kind
of pontiff Benedict, and the circumstantial dating
"according to the Popes" was done much later than the
writing of the Bull itself. If one is to date the Bull
according to material in comparison, let us say, with
materials on which are written papal documents of the
start of the 15th
century which are found in that same archive, then the
Bull can relate successfully not to the time of Benedict
"VIII," but to the time of Benedict "XIII."
(True, in 1409 this Benedict was deposed at the
council in Pisa, but the deposed "antipope" resisted for
yet a long time, until they finally dismissed him in
1417 - at the
council in Constance.)
And the English churchmen already are using the
"Dionysius tables" and the first date after the birth of
Christ in England appears right at "675"! And the
chronicler, the Venerable Bede, in "731" already is
using dating from the birth of Christ, and the fist
document of the papal chancellery with
dating from the birth of Christ appears only in
"1431"! Thus it turns out that the English are
more pious than all the Roman popes in 700 years
combined.
It is thought that the
first official document in
France with dating from the birth of
Christ appeared in "742." But from the end of the 9th century until the second
half of the 11th, there
were no such documents anywhere! And no kind of
millennium is noted besides. They begin to compile lists
of the kings and registers of popes only in the 14th century. The numbering
which appeared at the same time of those of the same
name often is confusing - look at one story
alone of "Pope Joan" (supposedly a former pontiff either
in the middle of the 9th
or at the start of the 11th century), who emerged, as is
thought, in the middle of the 13th century: this pope herself
was still happily counted among the popes in the lists
of the 16th century too, until in the 17th century the
humanists forced the Roman Catholic Church to remove
this shameful page from their and in any case sham
history.
At the same time, no one had yet
mentioned this female pope in the 10th-12th centuries. However,
according to the traditional history, in the first half
of the 10th century a certain "Marusia" ran the affairs
of the Roman Catholic Church - Morozia Theophylact, who lived with Pope
Sergius and gave birth not only to the future Pope John
(XI) from him, but also Alberic, the son of whom, that
is, Marozia's grandson, was named. Octavian, and he
afterwards is also a pope, John (XII). This isn't just a
joke - it is simply an adventurous romance: that is, literally,
"Roman history."
The hijra era
of the Moslems, as is thought, was introduced during the
time of the Caliph Omar near the middle of the 6th century. In the
20th century they
suddenly discovered an Egyptian papyrus with dating of
the 22nd year of hijra
("644/645" A.D.) and an epitaph with the date of the
31st year of hijra
("652/653" A.D.) That is, the datings
preserved according to the hijra are earlier than the
datings according to the birth of Christ! At the same
time, the written fixation of the first suras of the
Koran is the start of the 14th century (according to
N.
Morozov - in "1318." According to an
assumption of V. Polyakovskiy - in "1321," during the
coordination of the calendars, inasmuch as the start of
the lunar and solar calendars practically coincided in
this year in particular.)
Leonard da Vinci directly writes in
his diary at the start of the 16th century that Mohammed
prayed. to Jupiter, that is, at first he was a heathen.
Then, according to the chronicle of Giovanni Villani,
published in that same 16th century, Mohammed sides
with one of the Christian sects and only later with the
aid of a certain apostate
monk, Sergius Georgius, organized his own spiritual
pursuit. The historian Mikhalon Litvin writes
approximately the same thing in the 16th century.
And in the Koran there is a direct
reference to the Gospel (Sura 57:27): "Then We sent other messengers to
follow in their footsteps; and We sent Jesus, son of
Mary, and GAVE HIM The GOSPEL; and We filled the hearts
of his adherents with kindness and compassion. But
MONASTICIM THEY PRACTISED." In other words, the apostles (=
those who followed Him) are noted in the Koran, but
their "Acts" are not. There are fragments of the
Protogospels and the Apocrypha, but not of the
canonical Gospels.
According to traditional history,
the monastic orders arose not earlier than the turn of
the 11-12th centuries.
(the St.
John, Cistercians, Templar,
etc.)
All the history of the
Benedictines, the order of which is considered in
existence since the 5th
century, is imaginary, the order's structure was defined
only in "1128.") Per se, until the 12th century there was not even
a notion of "order" as a structure. (The word "order"
itself designates "sequence," just as does the word
"horde." It is not an unorganized crowd.)
Further, in that same Sura of the
Koran: "We ordained it not for them - We
ordained only seeking Allah's accord, though they did not foster it as
they should have." What does it mean here? The quoted
sura of the Koran is called the "iron." The only
monastic order which was destroyed
officially before the middle of the 14th century is the order of the
Knights Templar (that is, the keepers of the Temple) in
"1312" (in fact - in "1307"):
for refusing to submit both to the kings and to
the Pope of Rome. Namely, all
metallurgical and weapons production was under the
control of the richest order of the Knights Templar
(according to the official version founded in "1118"),
which had a branch ("brotherhood") around all of the
Ecumene. The Temple of Solomon, alongside of which was situated
the headquarters of the Knights Templar - is today the
Mosque of Omar. The very same during the time of which,
as is thought traditionally, the hijra was
introduced.
We see that immediately after the
destruction of the Knights Templar in the "14th" century in the
traditional historiography there follows also the
appearance of the Islamic Vulgate (the prototype of the
Koran) in the time of Sultan Osman, and the acceptance
of Islam in the Horde in the time of Khan Uzbek
("1317".) And immediately after this follows the
"Avignon Captivity of the Popes" ("1309-1377") with all
the popes and antipopes, a multi-papacy muddle - all the
way until the real appearance of the papal chair in
Rome in "1377," not at the
Vatican, as it still didn't exist, but at
Lateran! (By the way, Petrarch openly called this
captivity not "Avignonian," but
Babylonian.) Pope Pius (the
Second) called himself Roman Pope N 9 - and he was
right...
A universal struggle for power with
strong religious overtones breaks out also at the same
time - here too is the destruction of the Capetians, and
the coming to power of the Osmans in Turkey, and the
insurrection of the Zealots in Greece, and the Hundred
Years War, and the insurrection of Wat Tyler in England
and the "Ciompi" in Italy, and battles at Kulikovo and
Kosovo Fields and so on. And all this occurs against a
background of that very universal plague. Naturally, in such
conditions the acceptance of a single open-ended
chronological scale and the coordination of calendars in
the 14th century was
difficult.
In this connection, the legendary
story is curious of "Cola di Reinzo" - Nicola di
Lorenzo, who at first opposed one of the popes and led
an uprising of the "popoplano" - in "1347," that is, at
the height of the Plague (!), and then on behalf of
another pope, in "1354," they welcomed him to Rome as a
victor and there and then. they put him to death. We
note that "Nikolai" is Greek, and is a "victor of the
peoples," so it is possible the legendary "Nicolaites,"
who are denounced in the Gospel, are in actual fact
followers of "the popular tribune Nicola". And we shall
add that Petrarch in his own sonnets numbers 3 and 78
speaks about 6 April "1327" as the date of the
Crucifixion.
It is significant, one and the same
interval of time - 430 years - is indicated in the Old
Testament as a time of the "Egyptian captivity" before
the Exodus of Moses (Exodus 12.36) and in the New
Testament (Galatians 2.12) - as the time from the Exodus
of Moses to Christ. It is not inconceivable that between
Moses and the Christ-Messiah there was no particular
difference, and the figure cited simply reflects the
continuance of history, which really is known by the
middle of the "14th" century. In the Koran it speaks
about the fact that Jesus on his mother's side was the
nephew of her brothers Moses and Aaron, that is, one
generation separated them. And they called Moses'
father-in-law, a priest of the "Midianites," that is of
the "inlanders," Jethro (Exodus 3.2), that is in Greek
"God bearer." Approximately at this time the demarcation
of the recognized and unrecognized "coming of the
Messiah" begins.
And only approximately by "1430"
does a series of events occur which consolidate society.
Firstly, the rights of the popes were limited by the
council after the stormy administration of John XXIII
("1410-1415"), true, since "1958," the Roman Catholic
Church no longer considers him a pope.
Secondly, the Roman Catholic Church
made short work of the "Hussite Heresy" (we note that now the Russian Orthodox Church
no longer finds any ideological differences between the
Protestant teachings of Huss and Orthodoxy.)
Thirdly, Sultan Mehmet (I,
Mohammed), finally was through with his rival brother
Musa (Moses, "1413"), by which in fact the construction
of the Osman empire was begun.
In China the great and powerful
emperor Zhu Di, who had destroyed the authority of the
"Mongols" and who gathered for his coronation, according
to the Chinese chronicles, all who had earned his
attention (from the Persian shah to the Eskimos).
besides the remote kings of England, France Spain and
Portugal, the Roman pope and the Byzantine emperor, was
crowned.
Subsequently, no less impressive
meetings of the world's strong took place: On the one
hand, in the East of Europe - in Trakai, on the jubilee
of Vytautas-Alexander, on the other hand, in
the West - at the wedding of Philippe Le Bon and
Isabella de Portugal, where the founding of the Order of
the Golden Fleece was announced (on the pluvial of the
order were embroidered the portraits of all of its
cavaliers - sovereigns from Japan to
Gibraltar.)
The apogee of the temporal
consolidation is the Ferraro-Florentine ecumenical
negotiations (from "1431") and the creation of the union
("1439.")
In the West, this
became the real basis for the production of a single
open-ended method of counting the years and the
beginning of the expression of a traditional history.
Only at this time did the Latin notion of Anno Domini finally absorb into
itself the idea of chiliasm. And instead of "from the
coming of the Lord's thousand-year era" there appeared
"the year from the incarnation of the Lord a thousand.
such-and-such." Thus the idea of chiliasm gave birth to
more than a thousand year space for the writing of
history.
Here is what Bernard Guenee writes, referring to
the works of Jean Mielot (Jean Mielot, ibid., pages
369-370): "In 1409 at the end of the 'Golden
Legend,' which he had completed several years earlier,
Nicola de Custura, a canon in Senlis, outlined in Latin
on the reverse side of a sheet 3 decades of
chronological inscriptions, to which, very likely, for
him all world history had been reduced. At that same
moment, Thomas Marest, a former student of a
Paris university.
cites the continuance of some time segments which
mark the history of the world from its creation to the
birth of Christ. This somewhat chronological data show
how the knowledge of the clerics who were somewhat
interested in history, was restricted.
In the Orient, the lunar calendar
remained popular, in which Mohammed's flight from
Mecca to Medina was adopted for the counting point
- the same as the Old Testament exodus of the "true
believers."
There simply was no term "Julian
calendar" before the 16th century. The "Byzantine"
accounting, as also other attempts at a
method of counting the years "from
the Creation" continued to compete with the "new eras"
(from the birth of Christ and hijra): the "Byzantine" accounting lasted
in Russia until "1700"), the "Usher" Judaic calendar
existed in England along with the Christian until the
middle of the 18th
century. The concordance of the "Byzantine" accounting
with the Christian calendar (which Kepler in "1601"
still called the "era of Dionysius"!) happened even
later than the Gregorian reform - approximately by
"1620," inasmuch as only then was the present difference
of the years from the Creation until the birth of Christ
adopted - 5,508 years, and not 5,500 as it was before
this.
The unified "Julian cycle",
proposed by Joseph Scaliger and named by him in honor of
his own father (Julius Caesar Bordoni, the founder of
classicism) represents the product of the duration of
the lunar cycle (19 years), times the duration of the
solar cycle (28 years) and times the length of the
indictum (15 years) 7,980 = 19?28?15 years. This cycle
begins 706 years before the Creation, and even now has
not ended. But this artificial technique has allowed the
expression of the traditional chronology's framework by
means of a compromise between the interests of the
church and secular authority which were struggling for
supremacy as early as the whole 17th century.
The restoration of real events
earlier than the "17th"
century and the extension of a continuous chronology
represents deep down an extremely not-simple problem.
But a partial reconstruction, nevertheless, seems
possible if the catastrophic year of "1260" is taken as
a reference point.
The 12 cycles-generations-indicta,
counting backwards from it, give the "time of the Lord's
Passion" "1260" is 12x15 = 1,260 - 180 = "1080." However
one counts the "birth of Christ" from here, it would not
fit either at "0," or at the year "1000," because there
still is neither a "first millennium" nor documents with
dates "from the birth of Christ" around this point UNTIL
the assumed birth of the prototype of the Savior near
the real year "1050," and the imaginary documents with
the earlier datings "from the birth of Christ" are
absent more than 100 years before this.
Now is the very time to recall
"Zhabinskiy's sine curve." Aleksandr M. Zhabinskiy
("Another History of Art, Moscow, Veche, 2001) has shown
convincingly that graphic art was developed continuously
from the "9th" through
the "17th" centuries,
with a single glitch - right in the "13th" century, and "ancient"
art is the result of an imaginary chronological
reflection of the middle ages in the past. The
"starting" level of this "sine curve" is exactly the
traditional "9th"
century. The extent of the fundamental ascending half
period of the "sine curve" is from the "9th" through the "17th"
centuries. According to the "Byzantine" sharp curve, the
"sine waves" of the "9th-11th" centuries duplicate
exactly the real "13th-15th" centuries (the remaining
offshoots - the "Egyptian," "Roman," Indochinese,"
"Ancient Babylonian" - are derived from these two key
positions.) In other words, all
"ancient" history of our civilization, which is
reflected in graphic art, numbers only 300-400 years to
the middle of the traditional "13th" century.
The history of the written language also is
confined to this same period: according to the equation
of civilization's pace: hieroglyphic writing is the turn
of the "9th-10th" centuries (according to
the interval of a civilized event - the year "900" 100
years), writing in letters - the end of the "11th"
century (according to the interval of a civilized event
- the year "1080" 80 years.) In other words, there
simply were no written sources of OUR civilization
earlier than the "9th" century.
In the real history of our
man-caused civilization (the Technogenesis epoch) two
stages, in the first approach, can be examined: The
"pre-catastrophic" approximately from the traditional
"9th" century through
the middle of the traditional "12th" century, and the
"post-catastrophic" - from the second half of the
traditional "12th"
century and up to the present time.
Thus, below the "12th" century it
simply is not suitable to talk about a Technogenesis
epoch. Any civilization before this could only be
"naturally economic." Essentially, we even see this in
the example of the aboriginals of
South
America, Africa, Australia, Oceania and the Far North.
One may conceivably connect the
turn of the "9th"
century with the "Dardanelles flood," that is the bursting of
the Dardanelles strait and the flooding of the
Sea of Marmora and the Black
Sea. This correlates with the
conclusions of the work of the hydrobiologist, V.V.
Polishchuk, regarding the changes of the flora and fauna
and the deposits of the Black
Sea. On the basis of the analysis of a
sharp change of the nature of the sedimentary deposits,
Polishchuk concluded that the level of the Black Sea
before this catastrophic wave was approximately 12
meters lower than now, then the water rose by 80 - 100
meters and stayed thus for approximately 20 years, after
which the level of the water began to do down to the
modern level. In accordance with the traditional
chronology, this event was dated as the 8-7th centuries
B.C. (V.V. Polishchuk. On the Significant Late Holocene
Rise of the Level of the Black Sea and the Origin of Northern
Elements in its Fauna. Hydrobiologic Magazine. Volume
XX, No. 4, 1984; V. V. Polishchuk. On the Boreal
Elements of the Fauna of the Black
Sea Basin. Hydrobiologic Magazine. Volume
14, No. 4, 1978). Some archaeological data also support
this hypothesis (M.I. Artamonov. The Role of Climatic
Changes of the 8th-7th Centuries B.C. in the
Transmigration of Cimmerites and Scyths to Asia
and their Return to the Steppe of Eastern Europe in the
6th Century B.C., in the
book: "Ethnography of the Peoples of the USSR.
Leningrad, Science, 1971, pages 45-60).)
Datings in these works are naturally traditional and not
absolute. Taking into consideration
"Zhabinskiy's sine curve," according
to which the "8th" century = the "11th" century, and the
"7th" century = the "10th" century, the Dardanelles
Flood can be ascribed to the "9th" century.
The proposed concept allows a
somewhat different interpretation also of the results of
the mathematical and statistical work of Anatoliy T.
Fomenko, leading to the construction by him of the
"Global Chronological Chart." Tradition history
according to Fomenko up to the "13th" century is composed of a
combination of six main elements, which are duplicated
with shifts of 330 - 360, 1,000 - 1,050 and 1,750 -
1,800 years. One of the main elements of the Global
Chronological Map (T) in principle is distinguished from
the rest by the fact that it marks the "splicing" of the
others. In light of the concept being examined, this is
not a wave, but a catastrophe - "1260."
All three chronological shifts
discovered by Fomenko are not astrological, which
confirms the conclusion made by A.B. Verevkin about the
fact that "astrological" shifts do not have a real
prototype. A shift by (330)-360 years reflects a real
continuance of "pre-catastrophic Technogenesis"): the
years "900" - "1260." A shift by 1,000-(1,050) years is
a creation of a "chiliastic" concept, finally adopted in
the "15th" century (the
"1439 Union"). A shift by
1,750-1,800 years is the total of the chiliastic shift
and the fundamental ascending half period
of Zhabinskiy's "sine curve" (the "Scaliger-Petavius"
scale.)
Arabic numerals and the ability for
complex calculations appeared at the turn of the "12th-13th" centuries.
(Fibonacci, "1180-1240".)
Those very calculations of open-ended time began
only after the
catastrophe: not earlier than the "14th" century. There could not be any dating "from the Creation,"
"from the birth of Christ," or "from the hijra" before
this. To go beyond the limits of the continuance
of a real "pre-catastrophic" stage of the development of
our civilization (approximately 360 years) with the
comparison of the various undated chronicles without
additional contrivances (the "chilia") was simply
impossible. And this forced the chroniclers of that time
to the acceptance of the chiliastic concept.
Apparently, the "Diocletian Era,"
fortified by the change of ideology from pagan to
monotheistic, became the first attempt for the creation
of an open-ended design taking into consideration the
added "millennium" (in the traditional history, the
Diocletian/Constantine change, the real prototype of
this change - is at the turn of the traditional
"11-12th" centuries.)
And the letter "i," which stands before the subsequent
figures with the designation of the year fully could
designate from the beginning the abbreviation from
"initio" (that is, start), later it is an
abbreviation for Jesus, and from the "16th" century -
simply "1," that is, the chiliastic "thousand
years."
The "third chilia is the era of the
Holy Ghost," that is 12 generations from the catastrophe
of "1260," terminated exactly at "1440." And the
transition of Western Europe to dating from the birth of
Christ with the inclusion of a millennium occurred in
"1400-1440," in which connection it was caused
exclusively for political reasons. This marked a new
stage in the creation of a traditional chronology, which
received the strongest means of asserting the ideology:
its circulation in the form of printed works. The
introduction of the Moslem "hijra era" occurred even
later, most likely during the time of Suleiman (I, "Kanuni.")
This stage ended approximately in
"1520," with the formation of the new western "catholic"
empire of Charles V and with the coming to power of
Suleiman (I), who united, per se, the whole eastern part
of the former empire. After this, an intensive process
of the formation of national states and the writing of
their own history begins. This also required the
creation of an open-ended universal chronological scale,
which was put together by the middle of the "17th" century.
Further, the historiography has
redacted all sources in accordance with the already
established chronological framework. Naturally, at the
same time, the historiographers
both were besmirching that which did not conform, and
they fabricated that which was lacking, and they
repeatedly re-wrote anew that which was fabricated by
the predecessors. At the same time, real events
both of the "pre-catastrophic" and of the
"post-catastrophic" stages either were expunged or were
dispatched to the distant past. The main thing that the
traditional historiography did by the "18th" century in
the creation of a universal open-ended chronological
scale:
1)
it tried to erase the catastrophe
of "1260" fully from the memory of mankind, isolating it
as the "Great Plague," seeing that epidemics broke out
repeatedly;
2)
it concealed the lack of any kind
of chronological information about our civilization
until the traditional "9th" century. At the same time,
the Great Flood was ascribed to very remote times and
became completely legendary.
The fear of God was placed above
the fear of natural phenomena. And the open-ended
chronology assured both the legitimization of the powers
that be as "anointed by God" and the "historical
antiquity" of this very authority.
The very real consequence of the religious events of the
Technogenesis epoch can look approximately thus:
1)
the "pagan times" the turn of the
"9th-10th centuries- the middle of
the "12th century. It
includes the conventional "pagan period of the
Ecumenical Empire" - that is, the assimilation of the
Ecumene and the establishment of relations between
groups of people, who were assimilated both the same way
as the adjacent territories, and the origin of the idea
of "God" as the supreme judge - approximately from the
middle of the "11th"
century;
2)
"monotheism": after
the catastrophe of "1260." This is the appearance of the
"Mosesites," the "Apostolic Brethren," the
"Melchites-true-believers-Orthodox" - that is,
of the early Christian sects, the origin of the
Moslems is the start of the "14th" century, the Roman
Catholic Church is the end of the "14th" century, the struggle for
the predominant religion in the Empire is conditionally
to "1453," the religious demarcation and split of the
Empire and the formation of "nationally religious"
states is the end of the "15th" - start of the "17th" century.
At the same time, "Protestantism"
is a movement against the appropriation by the clericals
of the supreme authority. From this point of view, the
seizure by Mehmet (II) of Tsargrad is a
victory namely of "Protestantism," the Moslems at that
time were an ordinary sect. Religious tolerance in the eastern
part of the Empire was maintained fully until the middle
of the "18th" century, despite the introduction of
Shariat in "1630," but in Siberia and the Far East it is maintained to this time. It
is typical that the notion of "Jew" in the New World
appeared for the first time only after the purges of the
Inquisition with the second wave of emigration at
the end of the "16th" -
start of the "17th"
centuries (inasmuch as "non-Christians" did not have the
right to emigrate to America as free people), and, for
example, beyond the Volga - only in "1634" with the
first settlers from Poland and Lithuania, that is, after
the formation of the "Philaret Russian Orthodox Church"
in "1627."
The catastrophe of "1260" initiated
the rapid scientific and technical progress of our
civilization. The maximum to which this catastrophe,
having disrupted the continuous chain of civilized
events, could extend in general our history is nearly
250 years in addition to the interval of approximately
7,500 years, which was cited in the previous article
("Civilizing Events"). This, by the way, coincides with
the glacial data about an even earlier powerful global
"acidic" catastrophe nearly 7,800 years ago.
And it is no accident that the
civilized development of America, which was separated
from contact with the Old World approximately for
200-250 years and "once more was opened up" to Europeans
in the "15th-16th"
centuries, remained, per se, agrarian. And it is no
accident that Western European medieval giants of
thought - the fathers of civilization of the type of
Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Roger Bacon and Thomas
Aquinas appear immediately after the catastrophe in the
traditional history. A "New Time" in the history of
civilization is coming according to the classical
concepts of H. Weiss.
At the same time, a chronology (1) also is
starting, according to which up to now mankind has been
living. |
