Help on Tele2, tariffs, questions

The main point of the book is that most of our history, especially that which concerns more than a thousand years from the present time, is fiction. In fact, the history of mankind is much shorter, and it developed faster.

And this is not written by some Fomenko, whom they love to kick. A European writes. And even more than that - German. And even more - they have a whole scientific community there that researches this topic (made-up story) and publishes a serious scientific journal. And the German himself, Uwe Topper, a serious scientist, has been “in the know” all his adult life, traveled a lot, and touched everything he writes about with his own hands. And he has many predecessors, starting from the time of the revival. Yes, yes, historical fiction was already criticized during the revival.

The argument in the book goes something like this (using a fantastic example).

The official story reads: In the third millennium, humanity and its allies from Alpha Centauri desperately fought with laser swords against aliens from the Magellanic Cloud, as a result of which the aliens were driven away, Alpha Centauri was practically destroyed, and humanity helped its faithful allies rebuild. Criticism: Laser swords are clearly an invention of the fourth millennium, and could not have been used in the battle on Alpha Centauri. And the nature of the damage is more similar to the impact of ion emitters, which were used by the colonial armies of the Earth in the third millennium when conquering new planets against races that were less technically developed. Because highly developed races have anti-space defense systems that do not allow emitters to come within striking distance. And the aliens from the Magellanic Cloud, in the third millennium, most likely did not have hyperdrives of the required range; there are no finds confirming the existence of such engines, or they are of the nature of human technologies of the fourth millennium. Therefore, the reconstruction of events is as follows: the earthlings simply conquered the more poorly developed Alpha Centauri, subjugated them, and, in order to avoid further disputes, rewrote history, presenting themselves as allies. There was no war with the Magellanic Cloud, and it was very convenient to shift the blame for the destruction of Alpha Centauri onto the Magellonians, who are far away and have been in a brutal economic confrontation with humanity for half a thousand years.

The current "classical" version of the story began to be invented during the Renaissance, starting in the 15th century.
Before this, there was no history as a science, people did not care about the chronology and recording of historical events, there were myths and legends.
With the flourishing of the humanities, they began to add to the past and history. With scope and splendor, great achievements and ancient millennia. They forged everything - manuscripts, works of art, household items. Then it was something like a fashion, just as we are now overwhelmed with popular science fiction, but back then there was science fiction “back in time.” Moreover, it is motley, without a single plan, with a bunch of inconsistencies that official historians still cannot cope with.

Actually, the criticism of Topper and his comrades is based on this. Inconsistencies in manuscripts and forgeries of objects are revealed. The contents and events that took place during the “discovery” of the manuscript are analyzed. The dating, geography, and compliance with other sources in the content of manuscripts and documents are checked. And in view of the previous paragraph, a lot of inconsistencies are revealed, in some places there are generally empty spaces instead of dates that were entered retroactively. We didn't have time to enter it. Or, for example, if in the 15th century a manuscript from the 5th century is “discovered”, which confirms the views that had just begun to take shape in the fifteenth century, and these ideas have not been heard of for a thousand years, you begin to doubt the truth of this manuscript, especially if it is a copy, and the original, which is worth its weight in gold, is irretrievably lost. And in many ways, the “official history” consists of such fakes. The choice is personal, what to believe and what not, but it is simply necessary to familiarize yourself with the alternative.

Roughly speaking, there were no ancient empires - India, Egypt, China. All their millennia and achievements were invented at the suggestion of the same Europeans of the Renaissance, and the “ancient” manuscripts date back to the same fifteenth centuries.

Their history is short, like Europe's.

Antica is also largely fictional. Moreover, ancient Rome was separated from the times of the Renaissance not by a millennium and a half, but by a hundred or two years.

Christianity is no more than a thousand years old. Christianity was invented in Byzantium closer to the tenth century, from where it came to Rus' and Europe. Moreover, in Europe it was motley and scattered for a long time, and only by the 15th century did a unified Catholicism emerge. After which one and a half thousand years of Christian history were written into the past, with martyrs, with popes, and with the Catholic Church, supposedly coming from the apostles themselves. And church literature was rewritten and corrected more than once or twice to meet the requirements of the time; little has reached us from those initial fairy tales. Not only literature was corrected - various artifacts were adjusted to the requirements of the time.

The same goes for Judaism and Islam - they were invented around the same time - from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries. So there is no smell of any Jewish-Masonic conspiracies of ancient times. Jews did not invent Christianity supposedly to conquer pagan Rus'. The Arabs invented Islam for themselves, let them use it, the main thing is that they do not impose it on others, claims to the absolute truth of Islam are complete nonsense. By the way, modern Islam has become cruelly fanatical at the instigation of the West; before it was different...

An interesting point about the reconquest of Spain (reconquista), supposedly after the conquest by the Muslims. In fact, there was no conquest, everything happened peacefully, and the Spaniards brazenly conquered a piece of Spain because they liked it.

St. Petersburg.: 2004. - 320 p.

The famous German critic of historiography and chronology, prolific writer and expert on the East Uwe Topper in his book “The Great Deception. The Fictional History of Europe" fascinatingly and clearly demonstrates the mechanisms of constructing church and secular history and stretching chronology in Europe and the Middle and Far East. A meaningful analysis of ancient documents and works confirms the theory of A. T. Fomenko and G. V. Nosovsky, according to which the true history of Europe has nothing in common with the one we knew until now.

Format: doc/zip

Size: 3 65 KB

/Download file

Format: pdf

Size: 1 0.9 MB

yandex.disk

CONTENT
Introduction
Preface
Note
Chapter 1. THREE ACCUSERS
Gardouin
Linguist Baldauf
Kammeier and the "Wide-Scale Operation"
Chapter 2. MARTYRS
Motto: “Ave, Deo, morituri te salutant”
Ignatius of Antioch
Chapter 3. HUMANISTS
German nun Roswitha von Gandersheim
Erotic ass Apuleius
Nikolai Kuzansky
CONSPIRACY?
Tacitus and his Germany
Chapter 4. IN THE WORKSHOP
Highest flourishing
Forger on the Papal throne
Marcus Aurelius, Christian Emperor
Fundamentalist Erasmus of Rotterdam
King Arthur as a historical character
Chapter 5. RECONQUEST OF SPAIN
Antonio and his "Critique of Fictional History"
In a better society
"First Church" in Spain
Fake headstones?
Gothic coins
Chapter 6. FATHERS OF OUR HISTORIOGRAPHY
Julian the African
Eusebius of Caesarea
Interim balance
Orosius and Gregory
Beda the Venerable
On the edge
Chapter 7. THE BIRTH OF PURGATORY
Augustine
A look into the past
Saint Patrick
Conversion
Chapter 8. Heretics and pagans
Arianism
Paganism
Language
Art
Chapter 9. WHEN DID THE BIBLE ARISE?
Old Testament
New Testament
First result of analysis: mysteries
Rapprochement
Time calculation
Chapter 10. KEY WITNESSES
Torah
Qumran scrolls
Septuagint
Maccabees
Gospel
Gospel Harmony
In the East
Biblical Latin
Formation of the canon
Manuscripts
Chapter 11. EARLY ISLAM
Peaceful expansion of Islam
Time of occurrence
Chapter 12. DEFENSE STRATEGIES: EUROPE AND CHINA
Rome in China
Exposing an Undetectable Forgery
Astronomy: an outpost of Christ and European historicism
A fictional "history" of the imagined Tang Dynasty
Chapter 13. PROTECTION STRATEGIES: SELF-CLEANING
"Iconoclast"
Jesuit Germont
Bollandists
Bottom line
Afterword to the Russian edition
Footnotes

Instead of a preface

“Hypothesis and scientific theory. In general, theory– a model certified by logic in the form of concepts, assumptions, statements and conclusions.

But at the same time, we can also deal with an untested model, that is hypothesis.

The hypothesis is already consistent, but has not yet been confirmed by experience. It is the germ of a future scientific theory and will either be confirmed and become such, or refuted and discarded.

To confirm a hypothesis and transform it into a scientific theory, it must satisfy certain requirements:

– be logical and internally consistent,

– explain the vast majority of facts in the field for which it is designed,

- allow verification by repeated experiment or multiple observations..."

In the first lines of my letter, I will compliment professional historians - they are very familiar with these rules for confirming hypotheses and successfully apply them in practice. It looks like this: when some inquisitive non-historian sucker, dumbfounded by the number of inconsistencies and contradictions in official historical treatises, begins to point his finger at them, historians make a bow with their lips and invite the non-historian sucker to tell “what would be correct?”

He, flattered by the attention of the “scientific men,” begins to gush with his own (mostly, of course, amateurish and vulnerable) assumptions, which professional historians brilliantly smash using precisely the scientific approach to testing hypotheses. After this, the non-historian is pompously included in the historical fringes, and professional historians, laughing at the latest victim, loudly declare:

Once his Loch's hypothesis turned out to be so unsuitable, which means our– the professional-historical hypothesis automatically becomes the only one a reliable historical fact, for lack of a better...

Dear non-historians! Don't be fooled by this cheap bait. You are being bred like rabbits. Professional historians (like professional thimble-makers), subjecting other people's hypotheses to a completely scientific study, will never dissect their own inventions using the same method.

Therefore, the only and most correct way to communicate with them is to ask questions, carefully recording where and when your “Why?” the voice sounded “About the head!”, because this is the answer that is the most popular and most universal response of modern historical science to the sincere curiosity of users.

Ask questions to historians, gentlemen and comrades! Don't limit yourself to the ones they ask and answer themselves. Be sure to ask your questions according to your specialty, and I guarantee that not a single “comedy club” will amuse you more than the answers of these historical professionals...

The third point of confirming historical hypotheses looks especially funny - about verifying conclusions by repeated experiments or multiple observations, especially since today computer modeling makes it possible to replace many experiments “in the field”. Although this method of proof would be most fair for armchair historical theorists with armchair doctorates.

For example, last week I had to build wooden scaffolding together with the builders and move it several times along a low (7 meters at the ridge) hangar. After this, I would sincerely wish to gather all historians of the ancient and Middle Ages, give them the opportunity to build a siege tower - the kind they draw in school textbooks, and drag it to any fortress of their choice, from where all interested users of historical phantasms could would enjoy the “repeated experiment and multiple observations”, and at the same time throw stones at the experimenters and pour plenty of cool water on them from above, because they deserve it...

You can also suggest assembling a stone-throwing machine, which (according to historians) ancient and medieval engineers riveted in the hundreds, and once riveted, get out of it somewhere and destroy at least something, well, at least some set of logs or bricks.. For those who are especially curious, I enclose experiments by non-historians on the same topic:

No, of course, you can build another grandiosity:

Now try to evaluate the combat capabilities of this monster as a whole, in conditions of, so to speak, a real battle, when, with active opposition from the enemy, you need to a) try to collect, b) try to move b) try to hit.

But it’s precisely from such crap that according to historians, the evil Mongol-Tatars threw the squad of the brave Evpatiy Kolovrat in an open field (Read “The Tale of the Ruin of Ryazan by Batu”, V.G. Yan “Batu” or just Wikipedia). These same Mongols riveted dozens of such things in the middle of winter, besieging ancient Russian cities, dragging them with their own hands to the city walls and almost punching a squirrel in the eye out of them....

But I honestly don’t mind! I only propose that we allow only those historians who have personally done the following to write and speak about stone-throwing weapons of mass destruction in the Mongol hordes:

– I took part in assembling such a thing in the middle of the forest in 20-degree frost (like the Mongols) using tools available in that era.

– Fun and with a song, I rolled such a thing up to the walls of some real fortress (uphill, of course, fortresses were not built in ravines...).

– I brought some projectiles there for throwing.

– I destroyed at least some tower with these shells (at least an inactive civil water pumping station that was being demolished).

And nothing personal. Exclusively a craving for science, which, it turns out, is achieved by experimental repeatability. Well, it’s also purely curious: is the draft power of all historians taken together enough for this simple task?

What can we say about crude engineering?! Let's talk about the creative and sublime. For example, about the mountains! Hannibal's crossing of the Alps It will be very suitable... Eh! What kind of people they were! Not like the current tribe, heroes, not you... Why, “not you”! Alexander Vasilyevich Suvorov will also be rather weak against them, because... no, this must be quoted:

“Finally, the Carthaginians reached a cliff, where the path narrowed even more, and the steepness was such that even a light warrior could only descend after much effort, clinging to bushes and roots with his hands (Livy XXI 36, 1). This rock, steep by nature, due to a collapse went down like a sheer wall to a depth of about a thousand feet (Cf. Polybius, III, 54, 7).

The Carthaginian horsemen who came to this place stopped, not seeing any further path in front of them, and when Hannibal asked why the stop, he was told that there was an impregnable rock in front of the army (Livy XXI 36, 2-3). A detour was impossible, and the road was slippery due to ice and mud (Livy XXI 36, 4-8).

Then Hannibal led the soldiers to make a path in the rock. He lit a huge fire. When the fire burned out, the Carthaginians poured vinegar on the hot stone, turning it into a loose mass (Livy XXI 37, 2). Thus, Hannibal blew up the rock with vinegar (Pliny the Elder. Natural History XXIII 1, 57, and also Cf. Juvenal X, 151-153).

Then, using iron tools to break the rock, cracked by the action of fire, the Carthaginians made it passable, softening its excessive steepness with smooth turns, so that not only pack animals, but also elephants could descend. In total, 4 days were spent at this rock, and the animals almost died of hunger during this time (Livy XXI 37, 3−4) ... "

I want to see it! No, not Hannibal. I want to see a bunch of historians blowing up a thousand foot rock with bonfire And vinegar... No, again, I don't mind. But to begin with, it would be right for historians who want to preach such historical “truths” to be thrown into these very Alps and allocate some rock and an elephant for experiment... No, I feel sorry for the elephant... Let them train on their scientific supervisors.

Those who repeat Hannibal’s bold experiment - go straight to the pulpit - to tell how it happened, because then he will have the right... For practice is the criterion of truth, and a scientific experiment is an indicator of scientificity, until it goes into investigation on charges: “ For cruel treatment of scientific supervisors..."

If it seems too cruel to readers to violate historians through experimental verification What they have written in their dissertations and textbooks can be limited to such a torture instrument as a calculator, on which you can offer to check what they have written for consistency.

For example, calculate the number of man-hours required to mine ore, smelt iron and forge weapons from it for... How many were there in Batu’s army? According to the most conservative estimates 150 000 ? (Plano Carpini talks about 600 000 )...

In a separate column, add up cubic meters of bricks, firewood, water for open hearths and forges, tons of ore, delivery kilometers of all these industrial batches, which also translate into man-hours of the Mongolian military-industrial complex, each of which costs food calories, which again needs to be produced by someone, deliver, prepare...

And then divide this array of non-core (for nomads) costs by the total number of the then population. I assure you that at this point many of the dissertations that have already been written and defended will end, describing the exciting action of Mongolian superheroes, without, however, taking into account either the social economy, or geography, or logistics, and let’s be honest, they even ignore the force of gravity.. .

So, learning to ask historians questions! Let them (and not the questioner) look for answers that suit us, and we will check these answers again on the calculator. At the most interesting point, we will ask you to conduct an investigative (crossed out) historical experiment, the negative result of which should be the same as in any case of fraud for the purpose of appropriating someone else’s property, to which it is high time to include truthful information about our past.

The thesis that Christianity is a European creation that arose no earlier than the 10th century AD, with all its obviousness and a huge number of supporters, still needs some clarification. It will be given below and, of necessity, will be quite brief: for a more detailed presentation of it, we would need to involve material in a volume many times greater than the modest size of this publication, including the history of the Christian church, the history of antiquity and the early Middle Ages.

Three outstanding thinkers of different eras and peoples were not afraid - each in their own time - to challenge official historiography, established ideas and all the “ordinary” knowledge that was drummed into the heads of many generations of schoolchildren. Perhaps not all of their modern followers know the names of these predecessors, at least not all of them mention them.

Gardouin

The first was Jean Hardouin, a Jesuit scholar who was born in 1646 in Brittany and worked as a teacher and librarian in Paris. At the age of twenty he joined the Order; in 1683 he headed the French Royal Library. Contemporaries were amazed at the breadth of his knowledge and inhuman efficiency: he devoted all his time to scientific research from 4 o’clock in the morning until late at night.

Jean Hardouin was considered an indisputable authority in the fields of theology, archaeology, the study of ancient languages, numismatics, chronology and philosophy of history. In 1684 he published the speeches of Themistius; published works on Horace and on ancient numismatics, and in 1695 he presented to the public a study of the last days of Jesus, in which, in particular, he proved that according to the traditions of Galilee, the Last Supper should have taken place on Thursday, and not on Friday.

In 1687, the French Church Assembly entrusted him with a task of colossal scope and significance: to collect materials from all Church councils, starting from the 1st century AD, and, bringing them into line with the changed dogmas, prepare them for publication. The work was ordered and paid for by Louis XIV. 28 years later, in 1715, the titanic work was completed. The Jansenists and adherents of other theological movements delayed publication for ten years, until in 1725 the materials of the Church Councils finally saw the light of day. Thanks to the quality of processing and the ability to systematize material that is still considered exemplary, he developed new criteria for modern historical science.

Simultaneously with the main work of his life, Hardouin published and commented on many texts (primarily “Critique of Pliny’s “Natural History”, 1723). But, despite the fact that the impeccable lifestyle and scientific achievements of the Jesuit scientist earned him fame and respect in the educated strata of society , - his criticism of the written heritage of antiquity caused fierce attacks from his colleagues.

Back in 1690, analyzing the “Epistle of St. Chrysostom to the monk Caesar,” he suggested that most of the works of supposedly ancient authors (Cassiodorus, Isidore of Seville, St. Justin Martyr, etc.) were created many centuries later, that is, fictitious and falsified. The commotion that began in the scientific world after such a statement was explained not only by the fact that the harsh verdict of one of the most educated people of that time was not so easy to refute. No, many of Gardouin’s colleagues were well aware of the history of falsifications and most of all feared exposure and scandal.

However, Hardouin, continuing his investigation, came to the conclusion that most of the books of classical antiquity - with the exception of the speeches of Cicero, the Satyrs of Horace, Pliny's Natural History and Virgil's George - were falsifications created by monks of the 13th century and introduced into European cultural literature. everyday life The same applies to works of art, to coins, to materials from Church councils (until the 16th century), and even to the Greek translation of the Old Testament and the supposedly Greek text of the New Testament. Citing numerous evidence, Gardouin showed that Christ and the Apostles - if they existed - should have prayed in Latin. The theses of the Jesuit scientist again shocked the scientific community, especially since this time the argument was irrefutable. The Jesuit Order imposed penalties on the scientist and demanded a refutation, which, however, was presented in the most formal tones. After the scientist's death in 1729, scientific battles between his supporters and more numerous opponents continued. Passions were heightened by the found working notes of Gardouin, in which he directly called church historiography “the fruit of a secret conspiracy against the true faith.” He considered Archon Severus (13th century) to be one of the main “conspirators”.

Gardouin analyzed the writings of the church fathers and declared most of them to be forgeries. Among them was Blessed Augustine, to whom Hardouin dedicated many works. His criticism soon became known as the "Gardouin system" because, although he had predecessors, none of them examined the question of the reliability of ancient texts so insightfully. After the death of the scientist, official Christian theologians recovered from the shock and began to retroactively “recapture” the fake relics. For example, the Epistles of Ignatius (early 2nd century) are still considered holy texts.

One of Hardouin’s opponents, the learned Bishop of Hue, stated: “For forty years he worked to discredit his good name, but he failed.”

The verdict of another critic, Henke, is more correct: “Gardouin was too educated not to understand what he was encroaching on; too smart and vain to risk his reputation frivolously; too serious to amuse his learned colleagues. He made it clear to his close friends that his goal was to overthrow the most authoritative fathers of the Christian Church and ancient church historiographers, and with them a number of ancient writers. So he questioned our entire history."

Some of Gardouin's works were banned by the French parliament. One Strasbourg Jesuit, however, managed to publish in London in 1766 “An Introduction to the Criticism of Ancient Writers.” In France, this work is prohibited and is still a rarity.

Gardouin's works on numismatics, his system for recognizing counterfeit coins and false dating are recognized as exemplary and are used by collectors and historians all over the world.

Linguist Baldauf

Next was Robert Baldauf, at the beginning of the 20th century - privatdozent at the University of Basel. In 1903, the first volume of his extensive work “History and Criticism” was published in Leipzig, in which he analyzed the famous work “Gesta Caroli magni” (“Acts of Charlemagne”), attributed to the monk Notker of the monastery of St. Gallen.

Having discovered in the St. Gallen manuscript many expressions from everyday Romance languages ​​and from Greek, which looked like an obvious anachronism, Baldauf came to the conclusion: “The Acts of Charlemagne” by Notker-Zaika (IX century) and “Casus” by Eckehart IV, a student of Notker the German (XI century ), are so similar in style and language that they were most likely written by the same person.

At first glance, in terms of content they have nothing in common with each other, therefore, it is not the copyists who are to blame for the anachronisms; therefore, we are dealing with falsification:

“The St. Gallen tales are remarkably reminiscent of reports considered historically reliable. According to Notker, with a wave of his hand, Charlemagne cut off the heads of tiny, sword-sized Slavs. According to Einhart's annals, at Verdun the same hero destroyed 4,500 Saxons overnight. Which do you think is more plausible?

There are, however, even more striking anachronisms: for example, “Tales from the Bath with Piquant Details” could only have come from the pen of a person familiar with the Islamic East. And in one place we encounter a description of water ordeals (“divine judgment”), containing a direct allusion to the Inquisition.

Notker even knows Homer's Iliad, which seems completely absurd to Baldauf. The mixing of Homeric scenes with biblical ones in The Acts of Charlemagne leads Baldauf to even bolder conclusions: since most of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is closely related to the romances of chivalry and the Iliad, it can be assumed that they arose around the same time.

Analyzing Greek and Roman poetry in detail in the second volume of History and Criticism, Baldauf cites facts that will make any inexperienced lover of classical antiquity shudder. He finds many mysterious details in the history of classical texts that “floated out of oblivion” in the 15th century and sums up: “There are too many ambiguities, contradictions, and dark places in the discoveries of fifteenth-century humanists in the monastery of St. Gallen. Isn't this surprising, if not suspicious? It's a strange thing - these finds. And how quickly what you want to find is invented.” Baldauf wonders whether Quintilian was not “invented” when he criticizes Plautus as follows (vol. X, 1): “the muses had to speak the language of Plautus, but they wanted to speak Latin.” (Plautus wrote in vernacular Latin, which was absolutely unthinkable for the 2nd century BC.)

Did copyists and falsifiers practice their wit on the pages of their fictional works? Anyone familiar with the work of the “Knights of Charlemagne” with their “Roman” poets from Einhard will appreciate how funny they joke about classical antiquity!

Baldauf discovers in the works of ancient poets features of a typically German style, completely incompatible with antiquity, such as alliteration and end rhymes. He refers to von Müller, who believes that Quintilian's Casina-Prologue is also "elegantly rhymed."

This also applies to other Latin poetry, says Baldauf and gives striking examples. The typically German end rhyme was introduced into Romanesque poetry only by the medieval troubadours.

The scientist's suspicious attitude towards Horace leaves the question open whether Baldauf was familiar with the works of Hardouin. It seems incredible to us that a venerable philologist has not read the criticism of a French researcher. Another thing is that Baldauf in his work decided to proceed from his own premises, different from the two-hundred-year-old arguments of the learned Jesuit.

Baldauf reveals the internal relationship between Horace and Ovid and to the question: “how can one explain the obvious mutual influence of two ancient authors” he himself answers: “to some this will not seem suspicious at all; others, reasoning at least logically, assume the existence of a common source from which both poets drew.” He further refers to Wölfflin, who states with some surprise: “the classical Latinists did not pay attention to each other, and we took for the heights of classical literature what in fact are later reconstructions of texts by people whose names we may never know "

Baldauf proves the use of alliteration in Greek and Roman poetry, cites the example of a poem by the German Muspilli and asks the question: “how could alliteration be known to Horace.” But if a “German trace” is found in Horace’s rhymes, then the influence of the Italian language, which had already been formed by the Middle Ages, is felt in the writing: the frequent appearance of the unpronounceable “n” or the rearrangement of vowels. “However, this will, of course, be blamed on careless copyists!” – Baldauf ends the passage (p. 66).

Caesar's Notes on the Gallic War are also “literally teeming with stylistic anachronisms” (p. 83). About the last three books of the Notes on the Gallic War and the three books of Caesar's Civil War, he says: “They all have the same monotonous rhyme. The same applies to the eighth book of “Notes on the Gallic War” by Aulus Hirtius, to the “Alexandrian War” and “African War”. It is incomprehensible how different people can be considered the authors of these works: a person with the slightest sense of style will immediately recognize them as the same hand."

The actual contents of the Notes on the Gallic War make a strange impression. So, Caesar’s Celtic Druids are too similar to Egyptian priests. "Amazing parallelism!" - exclaims Borber (1847), to which Baldauf remarks: “Ancient history is full of similar parallelisms. This is plagiarism!” (p. 84).

“If the tragic rhythms of Homer’s Iliad, end rhymes and alliteration belonged to the usual arsenal of ancient poetry, then they would certainly be mentioned in classical treatises on poetic craft. Or did outstanding philologists, knowing about unusual techniques, keep their observations secret?” - Baldauf continues to sneer.

In conclusion, I will allow myself one more lengthy quotation from his work: “The conclusion suggests itself: Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Pindar, Aristotle, previously separated by centuries, came closer to each other and to us. All of them are children of the same century, and their homeland is not ancient Hellas, but Italy of the 14th-15th centuries. Our Romans and Hellenes turned out to be Italian humanists. And one more thing: most Greek and Roman texts, written on papyrus or parchment, carved on stone or in bronze, are ingenious falsifications of Italian humanists. Italian humanism gave us a written recorded world of antiquity, the Bible and, together with humanists from other countries, the history of the early Middle Ages. In the era of humanism, not only learned collectors and interpreters of antiquities lived - it was a time of monstrously intense, tireless and fruitful spiritual activity: for more than five hundred years we have been walking along the path indicated by humanists.

My statements sound unusual, even daring, but they are provable. Some evidence I have presented in the pages of this book, others will emerge when the era of humanism is explored to its darkest depths. For science, such research is a matter of primary importance” (p. 97 ff).

As far as I know, Baldauf was not able to complete his research. His scientific plans, however, included the study of later editions of the Bible. Therefore, there is no doubt that in Baldauf’s manuscripts, if they were ever found, we will encounter many more shocking surprises.

Kammeier and the "Wide-Scale Operation"

The third prominent prosecutor was Wilhelm Kammeier, born “between 1890 and 1900” (Nimitz, 1991). He studied law and worked at the end of his life as a school teacher in Thuringia, where he died in the 50s in complete poverty.

The field of application of his research activity was written evidence of the Middle Ages. Every legal act, he believed, be it an act of donation or confirmation of granted privileges, satisfies primarily four basic requirements: it makes it clear who issued this document to whom, when and where. A document whose addressee or date of issue is unknown loses legal force.

What we take for granted was perceived differently by people of the late Middle Ages and early modern times. Many old documents do not bear the full date; the year, or the day, or neither is indicated. Their legal value is therefore zero. Kammeier established this fact by thoroughly analyzing the collections of medieval documentation; for the most part he worked with the multi-volume edition of Harry Bresslau (Berlin, from 1889 to 1931).

Bresslau himself, who took most documents at face value, states with amazement that the 9th, 10th and even 11th centuries were a period “when the mathematical sense of time among scribes, even those who served – no less, in the imperial chancellery, was in its infancy ; and in the imperial documentation of this era we find countless proofs of this.” Bresslau further gives examples: from January of the 12th year of the reign of Emperor Lothar I (respectively, 835 AD), the dating jumps to February of the 17th year of the reign of the same monarch; events run their course only until March, and then - from May for two and a half years, dating supposedly represents the 18th year of reign. During the reign of Otto I, two documents are dated 976 year of the incarnation instead of 955, etc. The documents of the papal office are full of similar errors. Bresslau tries to explain this by local differences in the counting of the beginning of the new year; confusion of the dates of the act itself (for example, donation) and the notarial record of the act (drawing up a deed of gift), psychological misconceptions (especially immediately after the beginning of the year); the negligence of the scribes, and yet: a great many written testimonies have completely impossible dates.

But the thought of falsification does not occur to him; on the contrary: a frequently repeated error confirms for Bresslau the authenticity of the document. This is despite the fact that many of the dates are obviously backdated, sometimes in such a way that they are simply incomprehensible! Bresslau, a man of encyclopedic education, who, with the diligence of a mole, rummaged through a mass of material, worked through tens of thousands of documents, was never able to evaluate the results of his scientific search and, having risen above the material, see it from a new angle.

Kammeier was the first to succeed.

One of Kammeier’s contemporaries, Bruno Krusch, who, like Bresslau, worked in academic science, in “Essays on Frankish Diplomacy” (1938, p. 56) reports that he came across a document in which letters were missing, and “in their place there were gaping gaps." But he had previously encountered letters where empty spaces were left for names “for later filling in” (p. 11). There are many fake documents, Krush continues, but not every researcher is able to spot the forgery. There are “ridiculous forgeries” with “inconceivable dates,” such as, for example, the charter of the privileges of King Clovis III, exposed by Henschen and Papebroch back in the 17th century. The charter provided by King Chlothar III to Béziers, which Bresslau considers to be quite conclusive, Crusch declares “a pure fake, never disputed, probably for the reason that it was instantly recognized as such by any understanding critic.” Krush unconditionally classifies the collection of documents “Chronicon Besuense” as falsifications of the 12th century (p. 9).

Studying the first volume of Pertz’s “Collected Acts” (1872), Krush praises the author of the collection for discovering, along with ninety-seven supposedly genuine acts of the Merovingians and twenty-four allegedly authentic acts of majordomos, almost as many forgeries: 95 and 8, respectively. “The main goal Any archival research is to determine the authenticity of written evidence. A historian who has not achieved this goal cannot be considered a professional in his field.” In addition to the forgeries exposed by Pertz, Krush calls many of the documents recognized by Pertz as originals as such. This has already been partially pointed out by various other researchers. Most of the falsifications not recognized by Pertz, according to Krush, are so obvious that they are not subject to serious discussion: fictitious place names, anachronisms of style, false dates. In a word, Kammeier turned out to be simply a little more radical than the luminaries of German science.

Several years ago, Hans-Ulrich Nimitz, having again analyzed Kammeier's theses, concluded that the factual material collected by the modest teacher from Thuringia is capable of awe-inspiring any sane representative of academic science: not a single important document or serious literary work of the Middle Ages exists in the original manuscript. The copies available to historians are so different from each other that it is not possible to reconstruct the “original original” from them. The “family trees” of surviving or cited chains of copies lead to this conclusion with enviable tenacity. Given that the magnitude of the phenomenon excludes chance, Kammeier concludes: “Numerous supposedly 'lost' originals never actually existed” (1980, p. 138).

From the problem of “copies and originals” Kammeier moves on to an analysis of the actual contents of the “documents” and, among other things, establishes that the German kings and emperors were deprived of permanent residence, being on the move all their lives. Often they were present in two places at the same time or covered vast distances in the shortest possible time. Based on such documents, modern “chronicles of life and events” contain information about the imperial chaotic throwings.

Many official acts and documents lack not only the date and place of issue, but even the name of the addressee. This applies, for example, to every third document from the reign of Henry II and to every second from the reign of Conrad II. All these “blind” acts and charters have no legal force and historical accuracy.

Such an abundance of counterfeits is alarming, although a limited number of counterfeits would be expected. Upon closer examination, Kammeier comes to the conclusion: there are practically no genuine documents, and forgeries are made in most cases at an extremely low level, and sloppiness and haste in the production of forgeries do not honor the medieval guild of forgers: anachronisms of style, spelling, and inconsistency of fonts. The common reuse of parchment after scraping off old records is contrary to all the rules of the art of forgery. Perhaps the repeated scraping of texts from old parchments (palimpsest) is nothing more than an attempt, by “aging” the original canvas, to give greater authenticity to the new content.

So, it has been established: the contradictions between individual documents are insurmountable.

To the question about the purpose of producing countless materially worthless forgeries, Kammeier gives, in my opinion, the only logical and obvious answer: the falsified documents were supposed to imitate “History” by filling the gaps with ideologically and ideologically “correct” content. The legal value of such “historical documents” is zero.

The gigantic volume of work determined its haste, uncontrollability and, as a result, negligence in execution: many documents are not even dated.

After the first errors with contradictory dates, they began to leave the date line blank, as if the compilers were waiting (and did not wait) for some kind of unified reference line to appear. The “Large-Scale Operation,” as Kammeier defined the enterprise, was never completed.

Kammeier's highly unusual ideas, which now seem to me to be based on the correct basic idea, were not accepted by his contemporaries. Continuing the investigation he began and seeking clarity should be the most important task of all historians.

Understanding Kammeier's discovery prompted me to undertake research, the result of which was the firm conviction that, indeed, from the time of the early humanists (Nicholas of Cusa) to the Jesuits, a conscious and diligent falsification of history was carried out, devoid, as already said, of a single precise plan . A terrible change has occurred in our historical knowledge. The results of this process affect each of us, for they obscure our view of actual past events.

None of the three above-mentioned thinkers, not initially realizing the true scale of the action, was forced to gradually, step by step, examine, and then, one after another, reject the documents of antiquity and the Middle Ages that they considered authentic.

Despite the fact that forced renunciations, prohibitions by state or church authorities, “accidents,” and even constrained material circumstances contributed to the erasure of evidence of historical accusations from scientific memory, there have always been and are new truth-seekers, including among historians’ own ranks -professionals.

Fragment of the book "The Great Deception. A Fictional History of Europe" " Uwe Topper

Vasily Makarovich Shukshin

Fictional stories

These are not stories, these were preparations for stories. I knew from experience that the preparations needed to be written down in more detail, otherwise I myself would forget what I wanted to write the story about. And I began to write down more for each future story. And when a lot of these preparations accumulated and I re-read them, I saw that I had nothing more to tell, I told everything that I wanted to tell.

Narrator

A certain storyteller appeared. Yes, he lies so smoothly, so smoothly. They rushed to write him down, and he had a bid: four rubles for one poetic piece.

And I'll take a look...

For a long time, a man wandered through life, suffered, drove him... And he had a great desire to get a job somewhere - so that he could look at the bustle from the window. Got settled... (Where?)

How I was kicked out of the technical school (he croaked like a rooster in class, but didn’t open his mouth - for a long time they couldn’t figure out who it was. When they found out, they were especially offended and angry). And also high-heeled shoes (Germans). She had nothing to wear, so she gave her her shoes.

How to put together a joke

About the moon... One person was getting some kind of piece of paper (certificate), got exhausted, tired, angry and “wrote” a joke: “They fly up to the moon, and then they ask: “Do you have a certificate from your place of residence?” He told me - they shrugged their shoulders - they heard much more interesting things.

Scary story

A man did the same thing for 50 years: he worked in the same factory, ate in the same canteen, slept on the same bed at home (with bumps), went to the same toilet... And in the end he went crazy. All.

Dialogue with a fellow countryman

- Well: honored?

- Honored.

– Don’t you look like a people’s person? Not enough? Well, nothing, nothing - don’t be upset. What do they say? Like, weak?

- Well, how are you?

- Never mind. What are we!.. We are small people. So you’re not cut out for the people, they say? Here are the dogs! What a pity for them!

- And you... can’t be full?

- What full?

- Well, to the fullest... To really. No? Well, nothing, nothing - everything will be fine.

In the wolf's wake

Memories from childhood. How they walked from B. in winter (Schuya, Zharyonok, I) home. We got lost on the steppe and followed a wolf's trail to our home.

How I went to grandma Shukshikha (she was 4 years old) and sang obscene ditties - so that they would feed her.

Character

The man is a complete idiot. When he gets up in the morning he grumbles, he goes to bed and he grumbles. He is always dissatisfied with everything, grunts, hates everyone. They say character.

Looking for a woman

Once a week a man comes and tells how he is “conquering” Moscow. “And then I say to myself: “Listen, Ivan...” Small, with a big forehead, he began to go bald... He learned to slightly protrude his lower jaw. Loved reading poetry.

The young man got a great job somewhere. But they so unscrupulously pushed others aside, they squealed so much, saying that “here, now he’s settled,” that the young man... upped and left the warm place. I was proud of myself. But someone evil and smart remarked: “If everything had been quiet, he wouldn’t have gone anywhere. They were screaming!”

Last kilometers

Freed, he goes home. In the compartment. Fussy, obsequious. And suddenly he says something terrible - trustingly:

“I’ll sew him up, the bastard.” At night I meet him somewhere and stab him in the side. And no one will know.

How the living are buried

We talked about how there are many cases where people are buried alive. And they started to remember the incident: a man, demanding money to get over his hangover, acted out a suicide scene. It's so rude and funny. But it turns out that many are buried alive.

Don't judge!

The guy, a young man, got angry at the aunts and old women, rushed to accuse them, and so convincingly - according to the commandment of Christ. Scared me. But for a short time, then they began to sneeze him.

Birthday

The bitch gave birth to 8 puppies. They spread out and it began to rain. And she is on a chain and cannot collect them. The owner's boy and girl collected them, half-frozen, thawed them on the stove, and they came to life. It's a mess. And the bitch comes into the yard and whines. And where they will go next, no one knows. Something sad. They'll drown. Why did they appear?

Coachman, don't drive the horses

The fat, ugly aunt tells how beautifully and wildly she lived in her youth. Nepmanka, or something. You won't understand. He sits on watch at night. He likes to take a glass of vodka and then he tells. He's probably lying.

Conversations

A young boy, Yura Neverov, was accidentally killed. The father felt sad and talked to him in the bathhouse (to a non-existent):

- Here, son, we’ll wash with you. Don’t feel sorry for her, don’t feel sorry for the water. There's a lot of it.

And then he came home to the hut, sat down on the bed, and roared like a woman. My son, 18 pellets in the forehead.

“I asked him: Slava, son, tell me how it was?” Didn't say. He shook all over and turned white.

- I was scared...

- How was it?

- Ten steps... The most evil charge flies.

- Or maybe he was nearby.

- No, then I burned it...

And then we talk about death.

Then - about life.

- There are three sisters, but to live... Why not live?

Again about death.

- And it’s her own fault, she did it herself... She had abortions. God punishes. (This is a woman talking to herself.) And as God’s punishment: 1. My son was accidentally shot. 2. The second son, the eldest, separated from his wife.

- What will he get for this?

And the end of the conversation about ducks:

- Well, Polevskys, they hover anywhere. And I planted this one - I didn’t plant it like that yet, I planted it close to the stove... Lady.

End of introductory fragment.

Text provided by LitRes LLC.

You can safely pay for the book with a Visa, MasterCard, Maestro bank card, from a mobile phone account, from a payment terminal, in an MTS or Svyaznoy store, via PayPal, WebMoney, Yandex.Money, QIWI Wallet, bonus cards or another method convenient for you.