Chapter 8.
THE EPOCH OF THE XIII CENTURY
21. IN THE EPOCH OF THE REFORMATION AN IMAGE OF THE 'SHIP OF FOOLS' WAS CREATED, WHICH ALL OF EUROPE WAS INDUCED TO LAUGH AT. THE REFORMERS RIDICULED THE HORDE EMPIRE.
In the epoch of Reformation in Europe there was created a dramatic image of the 'Ship of Fools' [KAZ]. Of course in society the theme of the 'intelligent people and the fools' was widely discussed. But only in the epoch of Reformation this theme was elevated to 'national importance'. It was instilled into the public consciousness in the form of an allegory. Allegedly in 1494 a book by Sebastian Brant 'The Ship of Fools' was published. Where Brant sometimes is 'speaking of a 'ship of fools' and sometimes about the entire 'FOOLS FLEET'. [93:1], p.683.
The book is well illustrated and not just by anybody, but by A.Durer himself. However, we have shown that the works attributed to him were most likely created a hundred years later, in XVII century. But nevertheless the illustrations for 'The Ship of Fools' were made by remarkable masters.
The book by Brant itself was chosen only as an excuse to publish a large number of the woodcuts on a topic concerning 'The Ship of Fools'. As they have little in common with the contents of the book, their meaning was reflected in the captions.
The book owes its resounding success to the woodcuts. It is clear now what 'fools' were held up to ridicule. The Great Empire, its institutions, its Christian Orthodox Faith, the Cossack = Israeli troops - which still had garrisons in Europe of XVI-XVII cc. The rebels and provocateurs still feared them. That is why they veiled the satire without pointing directly at the target of their abuse, as if they invited mockery of 'fools in general'. Indeed, there are plenty of fools around us – the 'progressive writers', the destroyers of the Empire kept saying. Officially it was difficult to accuse them of insulting the Empire. As soon as anyone was summoned to the local Imperial court (which was incidentally already submerged in the atmosphere of unrest) and told that mockery of the Hordian army for example, was unacceptable, the reformers would then evasively answer: - We didn't have anything like that in mind. This is the way we castigate 'fools in general'.
The empty rhetoric was calculated. The books, etchings, brochures, the propaganda leaflets all successfully played their role. Stealthily embedded scepticism and thinly masked appeals to defy the Empire were actively spread amongst the population. Shattering the former unity, cultural affinity, language and religion. The attempts of the remote central power to obstruct all of this would only whet the appetite of a part of the Western population towards the 'forbidden fruit' and met with the resistance of the Western governors, already infected by the idea of the revolt. It was possibly then, when this rule was firmly embedded in people's minds: if something is being forbidden, it means it is interesting. The subtext was as follows: We, the Hordian governors, so to speak 'ban' you from reading the rebellious slogans against the Empire, printed by ourselves. In fact this is the 'correct literature'.
The war against the state was concealed with the motto of 'fighting stupidity'. They counted on the fact, that they won't oppose the metropoly of the Empire if some of the Western officials would begin fighting such an obvious vice as stupidity. As it became clear later on the rebels were slowly eroding the foundations of the state. They were trying to sink the 'Ship' of the Empire. To start with they declared it the 'Ship of Fools'. The called the Empire itself – 'foolish'. And therefore there was no point in keeping it. Let the majority of the population of Europe still be faithful to the Imperial idea, all the same the Kingdom should be split.
The image of the Ship as the symbol of the Empire sailing across the rough sea of events and controlled by the czars-khans – the 'helmsmen of the Ship' appeared probably in as early as the XIV-XVI cc. Today they sometimes speak of a Ship of a state led by the firm hand of the Ruler. About a wise helmsman who stands at the helm of the Ship. About the worthy people who firmly stand at the wheel.
'The Ship of Fools' was a GREAT SUCCESS. THE SATIRE WAS REPUBLISHED MANY TIMES AND WAS TRANSLATED INTO FOREIGN LANGUAGES… The Book served as an EXAMPLE to the other satirical and didactical works of so called 'LITERATURE ABOUT FOOLS' SPREADING IN GERMANY IN THE XVI CENTURY' [93:1], p.10.
When the Empire was split and the subversive appeals like 'The Ship of Fools' had lost their edge, they decided to properly obscure the former rebel-rousing meaning. At first subtly and then with increasing volume they were arguing that 'The Ship of Fools' was just a mediaeval joke, a collection of caricatures used by the wise authors to scourge human vices. Purporting that they were educating people in the spirit of honour
and dignity. The descendants of the reformers soon forgot the past meaning of the propagandist pogrom actions and began to study them in the scholarly works as some odd expression of 'folk customs'. Here, for example, in the XVI-XVII cc. the Western Europeans all of a sudden and for no apparent reason took a fancy to contemptuously urinating over the Ottoman crescent. This custom even passed into a proverb. Why so?
The content analysis of 'The Ship of Fools' reveals some interesting facts. It appears that it is possible to lift the veil off the true essence of things by engaging the materials of the mediaeval carnivals which at first glance have nothing to do with it. Today we are being told that allegedly the Western European carnivals of the XVI-XVII cc. were regular celebrations where people simply relaxed and had fun. However, it was not like that at all. At least in the beginning. You can judge for yourself.
Apparently in the epoch of the Reformation 'The Ship of Fools' was declared to be a symbol of Hell! They were urged to take it by storm in a deadly assault [415:1], p.152-156. I.e. the 'Mongol' Empire was denounced as 'Diabolical', as the 'Empire of Evil'. Under such slogans they began to perform the propagandist shows, and then after the collapse of the Empire – the cheery carnivals as a token of the liberation of Russia from the Ottoman Empire. 'The Ship of Fools' as a symbol of Hell is depicted on a great many pictures [KAZ], ch.2.
Incidentally, Martin Luther after all was probably the supporter of the 'Mongol' Empire, though today they reckon he was one of the reformers. His ideas and popularity was probably skilfully used after his death, having distorted and directed it to their own ends. In response to orgiastic political carnival in allegedly 1539 'Luther in his pastoral message from Wittenberg described Schembartlauf (carnival – Author's note) as A PARTICULARLY UNGODLY SHOW EXPRESSING DISREGARD TO THE GOSPELS AND THEREFOR UNDESIRABLE TO GOD. The historians note the remarkable role of the carnival of 1539 in the history of Schembartlauf. It involved not just the CURRENT RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL ASPECT, but also an incredibly spectacular and skilful decoration of the SHIP and the entire procession' [415:1], p.153-154.
Who was placed onto the 'Ship of Fools', symbolizing the Empire? Here is the answer: 'In the buffoon house which stood on the sledge runners of the 'hell wagon' in 1520 there were … a dancing devil, fools, women (according to a different account – a devil, a TURK-PAGAN, a jester and a naked woman)'[415:1], p.149. The organisers paraded the naked women, so it was more interesting for the crowd to watch and to gather as many spectators as possible. The main characters were intended to be the 'Turks-pagans'. They were pointing their Reformist finger at the truly 'evil people' – the Ottomans and the Hordians, who had to be banished from Europe.
So, the Ship of Fools = Hell Wagon was STORMED and seized in battle during the Western orgies. Thus, they attached politico-military meaning to the Ship = Hell. The Reformers were open and didn't hide the purpose of the propaganda which was to take up arms and destroy the 'Mongol' Empire.
Considerable funds were invested in the exuberant execution of the show - lessons. Talented directors, artists, actors, writers and politicians were summoned. Supposedly it was becoming dangerous to avoid such ideological farces. They could have accused you of 'sympathy to the Empire'. As the result these gatherings were steadily growing.
Following the collapse of the Empire the show-lessons became unnecessary. They had already played their destructive role. That is why they were abolished. 'Instead of the pagan Schembartlauf in 1649 there was introduced a special Christian day of penitence, fasting and prayers… Some element of Schembartlauf survived in the contests and the processions of the various guilds, but as one unit it was never revived… But as early as in the XVI, XVII and XVIII cc. there still continued to be created the illustrated chronicles of Schembartlauf , WHICH COMMEMORATED ITS MISCHIEFS AND GLORY FOR ETERNITY AND WHICH HONOURED THE PATRICIANS OF NUREMBERG' [415:1], p.156.
It's all clear. The weapon which fulfilled its destiny and became unwanted was sent to a museum and was vaguely called 'sweet mischiefs and glory' purporting that they were only enjoying themselves and had some fun. Now we shall celebrate our recent past, now we have successfully burnt 'the Hell Wagon'. The Empire collapsed 'by itself' anyway. We had nothing to do with it.
22. HOW THE 'CORRECT ART' WAS CREATED.
We showed that the reformers of the XVII-XVIII cc. sometimes used the well-known names of the old artists and writers of the epoch of the Empire in order to, after the ruin (or purposeful destruction) of their works, which were declared 'wrong', attribute these reputable creators to the later 'correct masterpieces' which were already created in the spirit of Scaligerian history. They did this to the works of the artists Albrecht Durer and Raffaello Santi (Raphael), cartographer Gerardus Mercator, etc. [7v]. Something of the kind was done with the playwright 'William Shakespeare' [ScHEK].
After clearing the XVI century in particular of many authentic originals, the reformers were compelled to inhabit it with phantoms. Employing 'Durer', 'Raphael', 'Mercator', 'Shakespeare' as an example… it turns out that several groups of anonymous authors worked, amongst whom there were some very talented ones. 'Ancient works' were created away from the public eye, the dating of which were deliberately moved back into the past. Anonymity was important for the success of the project. They surrendered their authorship (but not the money) for the idea which they considered very important. They created a list of 'their own geniuses', wrote 'true biographies', painted 'true portraits', declared the findings of the 'priceless relics' (a lock of hair of a great writer, the 'authentic' alabaster death mask, etc.). A big propaganda campaign was launched. Stories about 'our true geniuses' were injected into the school program and popular literature. The artists created paintings 'on the required themes', the composers created operas and oratorios. Using the modern language 'the correct authors were hyped up in any possible way'. A whirlpool of advertising was bubbling around them. They were turned into the symbols of reformation used in the ideological struggle. As well as for the 'correct' education of young people.
The newly formed Western elites which emerged from the rebellion and take-over strived to proclaim and reinforce their independence and significance as soon as possible. Not only in politics, but in fine art, literature, music, science and the military arts. Having created a required 'foundation', they immediately declared Western Europe to be the 'centre of absolutely everything'. The works were generously paid for. The money was available as after the collapse of the Great Empire the provinces stopped paying tax to Russia-Horde and the Ottoman Empire – Attamania. Besides, vast riches were moved out of Russia during the Times of Troubles in the XVII century.
Today researchers here and there stumble across the traces of this backstage activity of the reformers. For example in the case of 'Shakespeare'. But not understanding the core of the matter any longer they count the discovered facts of mystification or falsification merely as separate and isolated against the background of 'on the whole true history'. It is incorrect. The problem is much deeper. This very problem we are exposing.
23. THE METHOD OF WORD-MATCH BETWEEN THE LANGUAGES: WE DISCOVER WORDS FROM DIFFERENT LANGUAGES SIMILAR IN SOUND AND AT THE SAME TIME SIMILAR IN MEANING.
After we have reconstructed the framework of the true chronology using the mathematical and astronomic methods it is interesting to look at the evolution of the languages and writing. In the 'Mongol' Empire the main languages were Slavic and Turkic. The national language was Slavic. After the collapse of the Empire the reformers decided to create new languages in the splinter regions in order to be independent of the metropolis linguistically as well.
Before then in the XVI-XVII cc. the new rulers summoned the special people who were assigned to 'invent the new languages'. That's what the science of linguistics was created for. At that point it served a practical purpose. However the hastily created languages ('ancient' Latin, 'ancient' Greek, French, English, German, Spanish, Italian, etc.) inevitably formed the basis from the Slavic language in its broadest sense. The reformers simply did not have different material. Therefore the invented languages were to bear the 'Slavic stamp' on them. In [7v2] we provided various evidence of this. Earlier the 'Slavic traces' were either ignored or played down, as the people in the XVIII-XX cc. were used to inaccurate chronology. The very thought of 'ancient' Latin originating from the Slavic language was impossible. The new chronology removes this taboo.
What methods did the reformers-'linguists' use? We have discovered several techniques. They turned out to be quite simple. We will list some of them.
# In the old times the spelling of some of the Slavonic letters was not yet established, even their position on a line was not fixed. The same letter, Ш (Russian letter 'Sh') for example could be spelled in different ways: on its side (it would turn into E or Э), turned upside down (it would become 'm' or handwritten 'te'). In the different regions of the Empire there also existed slightly different ways of spelling of the same Slavonic letters. At that time it didn't cause any difficulty in reading, as the population had a good command of the Slavonic language and the varying orientation of the letters did not get in the way of people understanding each other or the written texts. The linguists 'froze' many of these diverse spellings of the letters and announced them to be 'ancient' and having nothing in common with the Slavonic ones. The tradition of reading the old texts in Slavonic was thus broken. The next generation of young people who were taught in the reformist schools in a new way did not know anything about the previous rules of reading. Their parents would pass away and the carriers of the old linguistic heritage gradually disappeared. Thus the young people were quickly re-taught. And their children were certainly growing up in the atmosphere of the new reading rules. Many old texts became incomprehensible and were forgotten. For example the Et-ruscan inscriptions. You don't need a long time for such a 'progressive reform'. Just one or two generations.
Later on, when by the XIX century the openly political task of creating the 'new languages' was achieved overall, the linguists lost their national status of the reformers. In the XIX-XX cc. their role was reduced to merely preserving the newly invented languages. The linguistic science concentrated on solving their domestic issues. In the XIX-XX cc. they began the 'reconstruction of the history of the ancient languages' erroneously dating their origin (Latin for example) into the deepest antiquity. Having forgotten that all of this took place relatively recently, just 150-200 years ago.
# Another 'reformist technique' of the XVII-XVIII century is clearly seen from the example of the French language. The population was forced not to vocalize some of the letters or combinations. A present-day example: instead of Peugeot you ought to pronounce 'Pego'. As a result the spoken text became different from the old original. Such 'progressive technique' was effective as it submerged into oblivion the former Slavonic sounding of many old words.
# Previously they used to have two ways of reading: left to right (as the present-day Europeans do) and right to left (as the Arabs and the Jews do). The reformers used it proactively. In many cases they changed the direction of reading. As a result the old Slavonic words became difficult to recognise.
# According to the Russian custom the affirmative nodding of the head meant and means now agreement and the shaking of the head left and right means denial. In the epoch of the Reformation they changed the meaning of those gestures on the territory of Bulgaria and now they nod to disagree and shake their head when agree.
We discovered various parallelisms between the SLAVONIC LANGUAGE AND LATIN. At present there are nearly 3570 Russian words in our Vocabulary of Parallelisms. Apparently at least nearly 3500 of the 'semantic groups' of the Latin words, around 2700 groups of the English words and around 1170 groups of German words originated from them. We paid particular attention to Latin which is today considered to be the foundation of many Western-European languages. Altogether there turned out to be 15800 words in our Dictionary which are presently thought to be foreign (Latin, English, et.). I.e. a total of nearly 15800 'foreign' words originated from 3570 semantic Slavonic groups in the Middle Ages. Therefore on average, approximately 4 'foreign' words originated from each Slavonic group (15800: 3570 = 4,4).
Such an amount of primary words – around 2800 or even 3570 semantic groups, which ended up in our Vocabulary – was apparently quite sufficient for the meaningful communication between people in Mediaeval Times. That said such parallels go well beyond our discoveries.
The comparison principle which we suggested as the basis for our Dictionary of Parallelisms, is rather simple, although most likely, is quite new. We searched for the words SIMULTANEOUSLY SIMILAR IN MEANING AND SIMILAR IN SOUND, i.e. we suggested a 'method of semantic equations'. Let us specify our idea.
FIRSTLY: Looking through, for example, the Russian-Latin dictionary, we were looking for Slavonic words and Latin words, which would MEAN THE SAME THING, i.e. would HAVE THE SAME MEANING, which are usually given in the dictionary as translations of this Russian word. In other words, the 'parallel' Slavonic and Latin words should be APPROXIMATELY SIMILAR SEMANTICALLY and SOUNDING SIMILAR. We have then also processed the Latin-Russian dictionary. I.e. moving step by step through the Latin words we analysed their Russian translations, finding the parallels –SEMANTIC SIMILARITY AND AT THE SAME TIME SIMILARITY IN SOUND.
SECONDLY: having discovered the words-synonyms (Russian and Latin and vice versa Latin and Russian) which HAD THE SAME MEANING AND AT THE SAME TIME CLOSE IN SOUND, we compared their spelling, i.e. the letters and the sounds expressed by them. As a result those transitions which at some point transformed Slavonic words into Latin became more apparent. At the same time it became clear which sounds exactly transformed into which sounds, which letters 'turned upside down', which of them 'mirrored' each other, etc. As a result we often succeeded in reconstructing the transformations of the Slavonic words into Latin.
In other words, by 'equating' two words 'semantically', i.e. a Russian word and a matching Latin word, we acquire a 'semantic equation', from which we can clearly see which transitions of sounds and letters took place. The method of the semantic equations is useful when analysing the origins of many modern languages from the Slavonic root in the epoch of the XIV-XVI cc.
Some of the parallelisms were noticed by the linguists earlier, but the Scaligerian chronology which virtually banned such comparisons prevented them from assessing them and carrying out work on a full scale, similar to ours.
We paid special attention to the Slavonic-Latin parallels. As the Latin roots are present in many European Languages. THUS HAVING ESTABLISHED THE ORIGIN OF THE 'CLASSICAL LATIN' FROM THE SLAVONIC ROOT, WE ALSO AUTOMATICALLY PRESENT A NUMBER OF SLAVONIC ROOTS IN OTHER WESTERN-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES.
24. THE SLAVONIC LANGUAGE AND LATIN.
It follows from the New Chronology that writing emerged more or less simultaneously with the creation of the languages. People communicated with each other not only verbally, but also in writing. The conversationalists perceived the words not only by the way they sounded, but also through their spelling. However at that time the lettering could get mixed up. This distorted the words and the sounds. People were unfamiliar with 'suffixes', 'prefixes', 'roots', etc. then. They perceived the word AS A WHOLE, the way it sounded. Only later in the XVII-XIX cc. there emerged the linguistic theories which studied the 'constituent parts' of the words.
A LARGE NUMBER OF THE SLAVONIC-LATIN matches we have discovered is of a particular importance. As both historians and linguists claim in unison that Latin is extremely ancient. Purporting that at the time, when the 'most ancient' Romans were exquisitely discussing mathematics, poetry and the fate and fortunes of the universe in the silver-tongued Latin, the rest of Eurasian peoples (with the exception of the even more 'ancient' and exquisite Greeks) still lived cooped up in the cold caves by smoking fires. Exchanging awkward gestures and guttural sounds. Allegedly there was no mention of any Slavonic languages, let alone any Slavonic writing. This picture is fundamentally incorrect.
The linguistic theories of the origins and evolution of the languages are entirely based on the presupposed and known Scaligerian chronology. With the change of the chronology the 'theories' also radically transform. Using its own internal methods the linguistics fails to determine not only the absolute dating, but in the majority of cases – even the relative ones.
Thus in the Latin-Russian dictionary we analysed every Latin word and all the Russian translations-synonyms. Usually there are several of such translations. In a large number of cases directly amongst them we would discover a Russian word, the distortion of which sometime before had led to a corresponding Latin word. Notably, WHEN COMPARING THE RUSSIAN ORIGINAL AND ITS LATIN REFLECTION (which had the same meaning and similar sound), we discovered the typical transitions of the consonants. Such distortions can be attributed to the variation in the spelling of some letters. In the XIII-XVII cc. There were several alphabets in use, where the same letters-consonants were depicted generally in the same way, but their position on the line sometimes varied. A letter 'p' could be written as 'b', 'q', 'd', which later led to the transition of the sound 'p' into the sounds 'b', 'q', 'd'. Following the solidifying of the new Western languages originating from the Slavonic language, such variations 'ossified' and were recorded in the textbooks.
Here is an example. The Latin word 'mixtio' means 'mixture', 'mixing'. Its Slavonic original word was probably 'мешать' (sounds 'meshat', means 'to mix' in Russian). Comparing МЕШАТЬ and its Latin reflection MIXITO we discover that the Russian letter 'Ш' (Sh) transitioned here into the Latin 'X'.
Another illustration. The Latin word 'moenia' means 'city walls', 'fortification', 'tower', 'wall'. This prompts an idea that the Slavonic original here was the word 'ТЫН' (sounds like 'TYN' in Russian), where incidentally the Russian word 'СТЕНА' (sounds like 'stena', means 'a wall') originates from. When comparing ТЫН with its Latin reflection MOENIA we see that the Russian T transformed here into the Latin M. It is clear why. As the Russian 'т' spelled the same way as 'm', i.e. in a form of three sticks with a bar above, which is virtually identical with the Latin 'm'. In such form the consonant 'm' (the Russian 'т' with three sticks) became a part of some Latin words.
