AMPLISSIMO VIRO D. ACHILLI HARLAEO, Equiti, Senatus Parifiefis principi

Latin text of the book of I.Scaliger:
Pages 1-105
Pages 106-223
Pages 224-339
Pages 340-444

See comments in the book of A.T.Fomenko "Numbers against lies". Here we will take from the book only short information about Scaliger and Petavius.

Chronology of the ancient and medieval history in the form, in which we know it now, was created and mainly finished in a number of fundamental works of the XVI-XVII centuries, starting with the works of Joseph Scaliger (1540-1609) (Iosephus Iustus Scaliger) - "creator of modern chronology as a science" [72], p.82.A modern chronologist E.Bikerman calls him so. A medieval portrait of I.Scaliger is published on pic.1.1. This is an engraving from the book of Johan Mersius, see. [35], p.25. The main works of Scaliger on chronology are: 1) Scaliger I. Opus novum de emendatione temporum. Lutetiac. Paris, 1583, [1387]. 2) Scaliger I. Thesaurum temporum. 1606, [1387].

The work of I.Scaliger was finished mainly by chronologist Dionisius Petavius (1583-1652). His most popular work is - Petavius D. De doctrina temporum. Paris, 1627 [1337]. On pic.1.2, pic.1.3, pic.1.4 cover page of the book of Petavius Rationarivm Temporvm of 1652 edition [1338] and cover pages of the first and second volumes are shown.

Following the Scaligerian scheme in the XVIII century Russian history and chronology was "reviewed "by Gerhard Friedrich Müller (1705-1783). His portrait is shown on pic.1.5. More details about "activity" of Müller and his German colleagues read in a book "New Chronology of Russia", ch.1.

We here indicate the works on chronology of the XVIII-XIX centuries, containing considerable actual material [1155], [1205], [1236], [1275]. They are important for us, because they fixed the state of chronology in the epoch, close to Scaliger and Petavius. This means this material is more initial and not plastered with further cosmetic layers. By the way, a series of these and other equal works on chronology is not finished. As a famous modern chronologist E.Bikerman notes: "There is no full, replying to all modern requirements, research on ancient chronology" [72], p.90, comment 1.

That's why accepted today ancient and medieval chronology should be called VERSION OF SCALIGER-PETAVIUS. Sometimes we will call it just SCALIGER CHRONOLOGY. As we will see, in the XVII-XVIII centuries this was not the only one version. Famous scientists had doubts about its fairness.

In the basic works of Scaliger and Petavius of the XVI-XVII centuries an ancient chronology is presented as a table of dates without any ground. Church tradition is announced as its base. It is not surprising, as "FOR SENTURIES THE HISTORY REMAINED MAINLY A CHURCH HISTORY, and it was written as a rule by clergymen" [217], p.105.

Today it is considered, that chronology was based by Eusebius Pamphil allegedly in the IV century A.D. and blissful Hieronymus. On pic.1.6 we publish an ancient picture of Eusebius Pamphil Kesarian, dated 1455. By the way, Eusebius Kesarian is shown in typical medieval clothes of the Renaissance epoch. Most likely, because he lived not earlier than in the Renaissance epoch.

Although the Scaligerian history ascribes Eusebius to the
IV century, allegedly 260-340 years, [936], v.1, p.519, but his famous work "History from the beginning of the world to Nicene Council", - so called "Chronicle", - and also a work of blissful Hieronymus, were found only during the late Middle Ages. Moreover, as historians write: "the Greek original (of Eusebius) now exists only in fragments and is filled with free Latin translation of" blissful Hieronymus [267], p.VIII, Introduction. It is interesting, that Nicephorus Kallistos in the XIV century tried to write a new history of the first three centuries, and so to "repeat" "History" of Eusebius, "but he could do nothing but to repeat what Eusebius told" [267], �.XI. But as the work of Eusebius was published only in 1544, see [267], p.XIII that is much LATER than the work of Nicephorus, here a question appears: isn't a book of "ancient" Eusebius based on the medieval work of Nicephorus Kallistos?

On pic.1.7 there is a picture of painters Cesare Nebbia and Giovanni Guerra, created allegedly in 1585-1590. As historians say, there is a scene, when "St. Jerome and his hand lion visited a library of Eusebius (Chronicle of whom St. Jerome translated) in Caesarea" [1374], p.45. But we see a typical medieval scene from the epoch of Renaissance or even of the XVI-XVII centuries. Shelves of the library are filled with the books of nearly the same look as books of the XVIII-XIX centuries, - in stiff cover with wide clasps. Most likely painters of the XVI-XVII centuries showed here recent medieval events and persons. And already later in the XVII-XVIII centuries chronologists of the Scaligerian school moved them "far to the past".

It is considered, that Scaligerian chronology is based on interpretation of different numerical data, collected in Bible. As a result of scholastic exercises with numbers appeared, for example, the following "basic dates", from which the whole chronology of the ancient history developed. For example, in the opinion of famous chronologist J.Asher (he was also called Ussery or Usher), the world was created in the morning of Sunday October 23, 4004 BC. [76]. Amazing accuracy. We should not forget that popular now "soviet" chronology is mainly based on the medieval scholastic biblical chronology. Modern historian E.Bikerman fairly notes regarding this issue: "Christian historians put world chronography to serve the holy history... Compilation of St. Jerome served as the base of chronological knowledge at the West" [72], p.82.

Although "I.Scaliger, THE FOUNDER OF MODERN CHRONOLOGY as a science, tried to restore the whole work of Eusebius, - but, as E.Bikerman notes, - dating of Eusebius, which often were GIVEN IN A WRONG WAY in manuscripts (! - �.F.), AT THE MOMENT ARE NOT VERY USEFUL FOR US" [72], P.82.

Due to significant uncertainty and doubtfulness of all these medieval calculations, "the date of creation of the world", for example, differs in different documents within a significant period. We will indicate only the main examples, taken from different primary source.

5969 year B.C. – Antioch, according to Theophilus, another version see below,

5508 year B.C. - Byzantian or so called Constantinopolitan

5493 year B.C. – Alexandrian, the era of Annian, and also 5472 year B.C. or 5624 year B.C.,

4004 year B.C. – by Asher, Jewish date,

5872 year B.C. – so called dating of 70 elucidators,

4700 year B.C. - Samarian,

3761 year B.C. - Judaic,

3491 year B.C. – dating of Jeronim,

5199 year B.C. – dating of Eusebius Kesariyskiy,

5500 year B.C. – on Hippolytus and Sextus Julius African,

5515 year B.C., and also 5507 year B.C. – on Theophilus,

5551 year B.C. – on Augustin.

Some of these dates are discussed in [72], p.68-69.

Fluctuation amplitude of this starting point of dates, which is considered fundamental for ancient chronology constitutes, as we see, around 2100 years. We presented here only some most famous examples, but it is useful to know, that there are around 200 (two hundred!) different versions of "the dates of creation of the world". On pic.1.8 we publish an ancient picture of 70 translators and interpreters of the Bible, named today "70 elucidators ".

A question about "correct date of creation of the world" was not scholastic, and for a reason got so much attention in the XVII-XVIII centuries. The thing is that most part of old documents dates events with years "from Adam" or "from creation of the world". That's why existing one thousand years differences in the choice of this starting point significantly influence on the dating of many ancient documents.

I.Scaliger together with D.Petavius for the first time used astronomical method for confirmation – but not for the critical check, - of late medieval version of the chronology of the previous centuries. So Scaliger, as modern commentators say, turned this chronology into a "scientific" one. This "scientific" cover turned to be enough for chronologists of the XVII-XVIII centuries, in order to believe a chronological network, which reached them and was already rather fuddy.

It is important, that the Scaligerian chronology was initially created within the frames of Western-European Catholic Church and was under its full control for many years. �.Oleynikov wrote: "Treating different data, collected in the Holy Scripture, the medieval theologists tried to calculate the age of the Earth. Having studied the text of the Bible, ARCHBISHOP Jerome came to the conclusion, that the world was created 3941 years before the beginning of the modern era. His colleague Theophilus – BISHOP of Antioch increased this period up to 5515 years. Augustin the Blissful added 36 more years, and Irish ARCHBISHOP James Asher, who was not indifferent to accurate numbers, supposed, that the world was created in the morning of October 23, 4004 A.D." [616], p.8. Many famous Western-European chronologists of the XVI-XVII centuries often got official church positions. For example, I.Scaliger (1540-1609) was a theologist, the founder of paleography Tischendorf (1815-1874) – was a doctor of theology, D. Petavius (1583-1652) – was Jesuit, an author of theological texts [82], p. 320, comment 5.

Their world view was based on the absolute belief in inviolability of things, which were told by church chronological version. That's why they addresses, even in the Early Modern Period, - to the data of other sciences just as to lawyers to defend one or another their a priori supposition, based on the Western-European church chronology, later renamed into a scientific one.

Deification by Western Church chronologists of the activity of their predecessors of the XV-XVI centuries – religious authorities – fully excluded the possibility of any, even minimal critics of the basics of chronology.

I.Scaliger, for example, even couldn't have a "heretical" thought to double check the chronological material of the church fathers (Eusebius and others), as "Scaliger calls this work of Eusebius (here it is told about "Evangelic preparation" - �.F.) DIVINE" [267], p.VIII, Introduction. Certainly worshipping to the authority of predecessors, chronologists were sore about the outside critics. I.Scaliger brightly expressed his position about true scientific critics with the following episode. "A famous philologist Joseph Scaliger, an author of highly appreciated in a scientific world chronology became a patient quadraturist " [458], p.130. We remind, that quadraturists were people, who tried to build a square with compasses and ruler, which would be equal in area to this circle. This mathematical task was impossible to solve, as proved in geometry. But I.Scaliger published a book, where he stated, that he established a "real quadrature", that is solved the task. "Although the best mathematicians of the epoch – Viete, Claudius... to prove him, that... reasoning is not correct, - everything was useless" [458], p.130. The issue is that from the wrong "evidence" of Scaliger it was going, that perimeter of a regular 196-angle is more than the length of an OUTLINED around it circle. This is of course nonsense. Nevertheless, "Scaliger and his followers strongly confirmed their opinions, didn't accept others... replied... with abuse and contemptuous epithets, at the end of all after announcing all geometers absolute boors in the field of geometry" [458], p.130.

It is possible to imagine, how these people reacted on the attempt of critical analysis of the established by them version of chronology.

Few people know that Scaliger and Petavius brought chronology to "perfection", t� "absolutely accurate dates" – indicating year, date, month and sometimes even hours for all main events of the history of mankind. Modern monographs and textbooks for some reason indicate only the years of events by Scaliger - Petavius, shyly missing month, date and hour of the day. This is an evident step back, which deprives chronology, calculated in the XVII-XVIII centuries, of former shine and fundamental nature.

By the XIX century total amount of chronological material grew so much that induced a priori respect at least already with its scale. So chronologists of the XIX century so their task only in the clarification of several details.

In the XX century the issue was considered nearly solved and ancient chronology froze in the form, in which it came from the works of Eusebius, Jerome, Theophilus, Augustine, Hippolytus, Klement Alexandrian, Asher, Scaliger, Petavius. For a person of our time a thought, that for around three hundred years historians followed a wrong chronology, seems awkward, as it comes into collision with already existing tradition.

Nevertheless as far as chronology developed, specialists found serious difficulties, when they tried to coordinate many chronological data of ancient sources with already established Scaligerian version. So, for example, it was found, that Jerome makes a one hundred years mistake in description of the events of HIS TIME [72], p.83.

So called "Sasanian tradition" separates Alexander the Great from Sasanians on 226 years, and modern historians increased this interval up to 557 years [72], p.83. Here the break reaches over 300 years.

"The Jews also give only 52 years for the Persian period of their history, although there are 206 years between Cyrus II and Alexander the Great (according to Scaligerian chronology - �.F.)" [72], p.83.

The basics of Egyptian chronology also reached us, after passing through a filter of Christian chronologists: "A list of kings, composed by Manetho, is available only in extracts of Christian authors" [72], p.77. Not all readers may be know, that "EAST CHURCH AVOIDED TO USE THE ERA OF CHRISTMAS, AS CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE DATE OF BIRTH OF CHRIST CONTINUED IN CONSTANTINOPLE UNTIL THE XIV CENTURY." [72], p.69.