CH. 1.3.1.1, VOL. 1, HISTORY: FICTION OR SCIENCE?

Posted on October 1, 2020 by Stephen Sorensen

This article contains my analysis of Fomenko’s History: Fiction or Science?, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Part 3.1.1. Chapter 1 is titled “The problems of historical chronology”, part 3 is titled “The veracity of the Scaliger-Petavius chronology was questioned as early as the 16th century”, part 3.1 is titled “Who criticized Scaliger’s chronology and where”, and part 3.1.1 is titled “De Arcilla, Robert Baldauf, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson, Wilhelm Kammeyer”.

Not all of the sentences from the selected reading are listed as claims. Some were not relevant for this article, which attempts to establish a grade for the core claims of Fomenko’s narrative.

I established 8 possible points for this part. Out of the 8 points, I have determined 7 (87.5%) to be supported or contradicted. Out of the 7 points, I have determined all of them (100%) to be supported.

As of right now, Fomenko’s grade on this part is: 100% (7/7), which is an A+.^[7]

Fomenko’s overall grade is shown on the overview article: Examining Fomenko’s New Chronology.

Fomenko’s Claims:

Claim 1: “The doubts regarding the correctness of the consensual version aren’t a recent phenomenon.”

Claim 2: “N. A. Morozov wrote in particular that “the Salamanca University professor de Arcilla had published his works Programma Historiae Universalis and Divinae Florae Historicae where he had proved that the entire history of the Classical Age was mediaeval in its origin.”

Claim 3: “This is exactly the same point of view that was shared by the Jesuit historian and archaeologist Jean Hardouin (1646-1724), who considered the Classical literature to have been written in monasteries during the preceding XVI century…”

Claim 4: “The German Privatdozent Robert Baldauf wrote his History and its Criticisms in 1902-1903…”

Claim 5: “proving that not only ancient history, but even that of the early Middle Ages, is a forgery of the Renaissance epoch and the subsequent centuries with the use of nothing but philological arguments” ([544], volume 7, pages VII-VIII, Introduction).”

Claim 6: “The main conclusion that Edwin Johnson had arrived to over his many years of chronological
research, was formulated thusly: “We are a lot closer in time to the Greeks and the Romans than what the
chronological tables tell us” ([1214], page XXX)”

Claim 7: “His principal works were published in the late XIX – early XX century ([1214] and [1215]).”

Checking the Narrative:

Claim 1:

Claim 1 is supported. I have a list of doubters here, people who question/ed history.

Claim 2:

Claim 2 is supported.^[2] However, I will note that Morozov is the only source of information about de Arcilla and doubts have been raised about whether or not de Arcilla ever existed.

“However, we regrettably failed to have found any of his works. The Salamanca University could not give us any information about them, either.”
– Fomenko, Vol. 1, History of the New Chronology^[3]

Claim 3:

Claim 3 is supported.^[2],[4] While the ideas attributed to Hardouin and de Arcilla differ in their contents, they are both about antiquity being largely forged in the middle ages.

Claim 4:

Claim 4 is supported^[2], but I haven’t been able to review Morozov’s volume 7 to verify the part about philology. I can split this into two parts, claim 4.1 and 4.2, but I’m going to wait until I can review Morozov’s work. Basically 4.1 is supported but 4.2 is undetermined.

Claim 5:

Claim 5 has two parts. 5.1 is that ancient and medieval history is a Renaissance forgery and 5.2 is that this was argued with nothing but philological arguments.

5.1 is supported but 5.2 is undetermined because I haven’t been able yet to review Morozov’s work or the entirety of Baldauf’s.

Fomenko uses #544 as the citation for this claim, which is “Morozov, N. A. Christ. History of Humanity in the Light of Natural Scientific Studies.Vols. 1-7. Moscow-Leningrad, Gosizdat, 1924-1932.Vol. 1: 1924 (2nd edition 1927),Vol. 2: 1926,Vol. 3: 1927,Vol. 4: 1928, Vol. 5: 1929,Vol. 6: 1930, Vol. 7: 1932. The first volume was published twice: in 1924 and 1927. Kraft Publications in Moscow made a reprint of all seven volumes in 1998.”

Claim 6:

Claim 6 is supported.^[5] Here is the quote which I found that is basically the same as the one Fomenko gave:

“We are therefore not so far removed in time from the Greeks and Romans as our Chronological table teaches.”
– Edward A. Petherick commenting on Edwin Johnson’s research, p.xxx

#1214 is “Johnson, Edwin. The Rise of English Culture. Williams and Norgate. London-New York, Putnam, 1904.”

Claim 7:

Claim 7 is supported. His works were published between 1887 and 1909.^[6]

#1215 is “Johnson, Edwin.The Rise of Christendom. London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co. Ltd., 1890.”

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

References:

[1] – http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-001-030.pdf. Accessed 22 Sept. 2020.

[2] – http://members.westnet.com.au/gary-david-thompson/page9bb.html. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020.

[3] – History, Fiction Or Science?: Chronology 1. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020.

[4] – http://hoaxes.org/archive/permalink/jean_hardouins_theory_of_universal_forgery. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020.

[5] – The Rise of English Culture. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020.

[6] – https://jefdemolder.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-history-criticism-of-edwin-johnson.html. Accessed 30 Sept. 2020.