Cyprian of Carthage

Cyprian of Carthage (c.200-258).

Oxford Libraries lists 13 manuscripts. The earliest any of them date to is the 9th century. The majority of them date after the 11th century. [1]

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


[1] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

Isidore of Seville

Isidore of Seville (c.560-636).

Oxford Libraries lists about 74 manuscripts. The earliest any of them date to is the 9th century. The majority of them date after the 10th century. [1]

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


[1] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine of Hippo (354-430), aka Saint Augustine.

Oxford Libraries lists about 280 manuscripts. The earliest any of them date to is the 8th century. The majority of them date after the 10th century. [1]

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


[1] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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


“It seems that the text of De medicina
was lost or forgotten in mediæval Europe,
only re-emerging in the 15th century.”
– IML Donaldson [1, p.253]

F. Codex Florent., Laurentian Library, 73, 1. IX century and in parts defective.  A digital facsimile of this manuscript is available from the Digital Repository of the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana at this link. [2]

V. Codex Romanus, Vatican Library, 5951. IX century and in parts defective. [2]

P, Codex Parisinus, Bibliothèque nationale de France, 7928. X century; copied from V when this was less defective. [2]

J, Codex Florent., Laurentian 73, 7, copied by Niccolò de Niccoli from a very old codex now no longer extant. XV century. [2]

MS. Laud Misc. 724. 15th century. [3]

Arundel MS 166. British Library. 9th century. [4]

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


[1] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

[2] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

[3] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

[4] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

Justin Martyr

This article contains a list of literary relics which contains text attributed to Justin Martyr.

Oxyrhynchus Papyri 5129. Dated 4th century AD [1].

Parisinus graecus 450. Bibiothèque natinale de France [4]. Dated 1364 AD [1] or 1363 [4].

Add MS 82951. British Library. Dated 1541 AD [2].

Codex Ottobonianus graecus 274. Bibliotheca Vaticana. Dated 16th-17th century [3].

Princeton University Library lists 11 MSS dated:
14th century – 1
15th century – 1
16th century – 8.

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


[1] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

[2] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

[3] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

[4] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

[5] – Accessed 3 August 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

How To Do Provenance Research

How To Do Provenance Research

This article provides a concise “How-To” guide for conducting provenance research. What is provenance? Simply put, provenance is “the history of an item” [1]. Provenance research is that research which sheds light on the history of the ownership of any given item. This article focuses on how to conduct research for literary items, such as a book, a manuscript, a papyrus, etc….

There are 3 important things to identify for each item when conducting this type of research. The first is the identification of the owners. Who owned it and when? The second is the identification of locations. Where has this item been throughout history and when? The third is the identification of its names. What has this item been called and when?

“The majority of items contain holes in their chain of ownership. The reasons for gaps in the provenance of an item include lost documentation, lost oral history, and/or a sale without record. Even if records of ownership do exist, they might have “unclear, inadequate, conflicting, or incorrect information”. There’s also the possibility that a forger has faked evidence of ownership, which further complicates the matter of establishing provenance. [1]

Step One: Select an item to conduct provenance research for.
This item can be anything, but to give an example of what this looks like, let’s say I have selected the Parker Chronicle as my item. The Parker Chronicle is “…one of the most importantmanuscripts for our understandingof Anglo-Saxon history.

Step Two: Establish the item’s chain of ownership.
I think the easiest way to go about doing this is in reverse-chronological order, which means we work from the most recent owner to the oldest owner.
For the Parker Chronicle, its current owner is the Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, where they have it named Corpus Christi College, Cambridge MS 173. When and how did they obtain the Chronicle?
They obtained it from John Parker in 1593 when he brought a portion of his father’s library to the college. The evidence for this is in the Parker Register (CCCC MS 575).
John Parker acquired the MS in 1575 upon the death of his father, Matthew Parker (from whom the Chronicle takes its popular name).
Matthew Parker acquired the MS at an unknown time from his colleague Nicholas Wotton.
Where, when, and how Wotton acquired the MS is unknown.

It is important to include unanswered questions in your report so that other researchers can see what still needs to be answered. Including them also helps others understand what type of information is needed for their own reports. Fundamental questions are aimed at acquiring information for the three main points of identification (owners, locations, and names).

There is a serious need for more provenance researchers. A good number of the world’s most famous literary relics have never had their provenance investigated in a methodical fashion. The majority of the world’s literary relics have never been investigated. The only way this is going to change in the foreseeable future is if we get more people to devote time to studying and researching the provenance of these relics.

The chain of ownership of the Parker Chronicle (CCCC MS 173) can be written clearly and concisely like this:

From 1593 to present CCCC MS 173 has been in the possession of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge.

From 1575 to 1593, John Parker (1548-1617) was the owner of CCCC MS 173. Where was it being kept while he was the owner.

Sometime prior to 1575 until 1575, Matthew Parker (1504-1575) was the owner of MS 173. When did he become its recognized owner?

In the 16th century, Nicholas Wotton (c.1497-1567) acquired MS 173. From where did he acquire it? When did he acquire it? When did he officially bestow the MS to Matthew Parker?

There are many ways to obtain the information needed for provenance research. Offline methods of obtaining provenance information include going and inspecting the item you selected, reading physical books that mention it, going to libraries, and talking about it with relevant scholars. Online methods of obtaining provenance information include using search engines, browsing cites that publish scholarly articles, finding the institution’s website that your selected item is being held in, searching the internet archive, and again, communicating with relevant scholars. If you are researching manuscripts or fragments that have been digitized, sometimes the institutions in possession of those digitized items have already uploaded a brief summary of provenance. This can be found by locating the digitized version of whatever you are looking for online. For example, the Parker Chronicle is online, but it does not have a section specifically for provenance. Instead, you have to read the overall summary to gain some insight into what they claim the provenance to be.

How to effectively use the Google search engine:
When you go to Google for provenance research, search for the name of the item you are researching but include ” ” around the term. For example, when searching for the Parker Manuscript, my search entry would look like “Parker Manuscript”. This limits the results to only show results with those exact words. Adding other words outside of the quotation marks can help sway the results to a particular topic. For example, if I wanted books on the topic, I could search (“Parker Chronicle” books) or (“Parker Chronicle” pdf), and I would be more likely to find something like that than if I only searched for the name.

My favorite, and possibly the most open and largest, website that hosts scholarly content is Jstor. Jstor hosts a ton of scholarly articles and books which have been incredibly useful for me in my own research.

There are other sites where you can access scholarly content like Brill or Taylor & Francis Online, but in my experience, Jstor has the most free content and the cheapest paid content. Another way to effectively use the Google search engine is to include the quotation marks around the required term that you want and then add Jstor afterwards. This makes the results show Jstor articles that mention your search term, which sometimes can be more useful than using the Jstor search engine which they provide on their website. Also, sometimes Jstor articles are only pay to read but those articles are free elsewhere. If you find an article on Jstor or Brill or wherever that is only pay to view, try to copy and paste the title into the Google search engine to see if its available for free elsewhere.

The Internet Archive has also been useful to me. It has a ton of information that sometimes can’t be found anywhere else online. You can do the same thing on Google for the Internet Archive as you can for Jstor, where you search for (“Parker Manuscript” to pull up links specifically to the Internet Archive that don’t show up when you are using the Internet Archive’s search engine.

Get in touch with scholars who have looked into what you’re researching can also be useful. They might know more than what they included in the publication that alerted you to their existence, and might be willing to help assist you further in your own studies if they have the time.

Another option is to enter your item’s name into the search bar on the Ctruth website. I have published a number of articles pertaining to some of the most famous manuscripts in the world. I might have already collected the information you’re looking for. If I haven’t, contact me about it and I’d be more than happy to collaborate in order to increase the volume and quality of Ctruth content.

Provenance research is crucial to Ctruth’s mission of conducting research on chronology. Chronology is heavily based on literary sources, and without a clear view of what these sources are and where they come from, we cannot have a clear view of chronology. If you have any questions or comments, either leave a message on this article or contact me at

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


[1] – Accessed 2 August 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

The Great Moon Hoax

This is the Ctruth Article of the Month for August, 2020. The topic for the Article of the Month is voted on each month by Ctruth patrons. The topic for the August 2020 article is “hoax”. A special thanks goes out from the Ctruth team to the Ctruth patrons. Thank you for your pledges and your votes.

If you are not a patron yet, you can pledge here or by clicking the Patreon image at the end of this article.

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

“…one of the most imaginative newspaper hoaxes of all time, which, through a remarkable blend of early science fiction and a well conceived practical joke, tricked hundreds of thousands of readers in and outside of the United States and made a small New York-based penny paper the top-selling newspaper in the world.” – István Kornél Vida (2012) [1, p.431]

The Great Moon Hoax took place in 1835 and was conducted by the Cambridge graduate Richard Adam Locke (1800-1871) [1, p.431]. The newspaper publisher which he used for his hoax was The Sun, which was established in 1833 [2]. The Sun was being outsold by its competitors and the pressure was felt by Benjamin H. Day, The Sun‘s publisher. Him and Locke conspired to attract the attention of a wider audience in order to keep up with their rival newspapers. In the end, the plot to increase their wealth and viewership was a success.

The hoax gets its name from the story they published in 6 segments over the course of 10 days supposedly containing news about the astronomer Sir John Herschel’s spectacular discoveries on the surface of the moon.

The first article of the collection was published on August 21, 1835 and was titled “Celestial Discoveries”. Credit was given to the Edinburgh Journal of Science, which had been closed for 2 years, for publishing the astronomer’s research. The report stated that Herschel, using a new state-of-the-art telescope, “had already made the most extraordinary discoveries in every planet of our solar system; had discovered planets in other solar systems; [and] had obtained a distinct view of objects in the moon”. Locke did what he could to build the credibility of the story by giving a description of Herschel’s work, Herschel’s expedition, and the telescope. Locke reported that Herschel had determined whether or not the moon was inhabited, but didn’t say anything more on that in this publication [1, p.432].

The second article began by going into more detail about Herschel’s expedition, and included the disclosure of plant and animal life discovered on the moon’s surface.

On the third day, a species of biped beaver was discovered. “It carried its young in its arms like a human being, and its huts were constructed higher and better than those of many human savages” [1, p.433]. These beaver-like creatures were also familiar with using fire, as could be seen from the smoke pouring out of their huts.

On the fourth day the interest of the readers peaked with the description of human-like aliens spotted in the moon’s “Ruby Colosseum” valley. The report stated, “They averaged four feet in height, were covered, except on the face, with short and glossy copper-colored hair, and had wings composed of a thin membrane, without hair, lying snugly on their backs, from the top of their shoulders to the calves of their legs. The face, which was of a yellowish flesh color, was a slight improvement upon that of the large orang outang, being more open and intelligent in its expression, and having a much greater expansion of the forehead. The mouth, however, was very prominent, though somewhat relieved by a thick beard upon the lower jaw, and by lips far more human than those of any species of simia genus.” [1, p.433-4]

Herschel named these aliens Vespertilio-homo (man-bat). He noted that they were rational creatures that were capable of conversation, but also that they would mate in public.

On the fifth day the story reported the discovery of a temple which seemed to depict evidence of a past, or possibly future, catastrophe. The mystery of what was being depicted was meant to keep the attention of the readers. Given that the fourth day’s news was massive, Locke needed something new to keep his audience locked in.

The final piece to the story was published on August 31, 1835. It included the discovery of a larger race of the “bat-people”, which was concluded to be a superior variety. The astronomers observing these aliens determined that there was a “universal state of amity among all classes of lunar creatures” [1, p.435].

The story was ended with a report that the telescope had caused a fire in the laboratory which took about a week to repair. By the time that the laboratory was restored to a functional state, it was no longer possible to observe the moon.

This hoax resulted in The Sun becoming “the top-selling daily paper in the world”. The Sun sold about 19,360 papers a day because of this hoax, in contrast to The London Times selling about 17,000 a day. Both American and European papers fell for it and commented on it, such as The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Daily Advertiser.

It was so sensational that Edgar Allen Poe commented on it, saying:

“Not one person in ten discredited it, and (strangest point of all!) the doubters were chiefly those who doubted without being able to say why — the ignorant, those uninformed in astronomy, people who would not believe because the thing was so novel, so entirely out of the usual way. A grave professor of mathematics in Virginia College told me seriously that he had no doubt of the truth of the whole affair!”

A former student from Yale commented saying:

“Yale College was alive with staunch supporters. The literati — students and professors, doctors in divinity and law — and all the rest of the reading community, looked daily for the arrival of the New York mail with unexampled avidity and implicit faith. Have you seen the accounts of Sir John Herschel’s wonderful discoveries? Have you read The Sun? Have you heard the news of the man in the Moon? These were the questions that met you every where. It was the absorbing topic of the day. Nobody expressed or entertained a doubt as to the truth of the story.” [1, p.436]

The story became popular among a number of people. There were missionary trips being planned by some religious groups to spread the Gospel to these bat-people moon creatures. One clergyman had asked his congregation for money to buy Bibles to deliver to the aliens. Multiple meetings were held in London at Exeter Hall by the philanthropist society in England to discuss “relieving the wants of the people of the Moon, and, above all, abolishing slavery if it should be found to exist among the lunar inhabitants”.

Over the following month, suspicion about the credibility of the story was rising. The Sun denied that the complete story was a hoax and Locke denied being its author. Locke however did tell his friends prior to the 10 day publication event that “If the story be either received as a veritable account, or rejected as a hoax, it is quite evident that it is an abortive satire; and, in either case, I am the best self-hoaxed man in the whole community” [1, p.437].

Locke’s story has gone down in history as one of the most infamous hoaxes.

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


[1] – Vida, István Kornél. “The ‘Great Moon Hoax’ of 1835.” Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS), vol. 18, no. 1/2, 2012, pp. 431–441. JSTOR, Accessed 1 Aug. 2020.

[2] – Accessed 1 Aug. 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

Historical Method

“Few periods have witnessed such active attempts to clarify the basic principles involved in the definition and depiction of history as the period that spans the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth.”
– Günther Pflug (1971) [1, p.1]

I am writing this in the 21st century, in July of 2020 to be precise. Two full centuries have passed between the end of the 18th century and the beginning of this one. While many discussions have taken place over the past few hundred years on how to define history and how to conduct historical research, I still see a need to increase the number of these discussions. Due to this perceived need, I am writing this article to briefly cover the basics of historical method.

“The task of defining history is not an easy one. A number of historians have attempted to define it but there seems to be little consensus as to which interpretation is best.”
– Donald Schneider (1963) [3, p.19]

The issue with defining history is mostly due to history most commonly being discussed in terms of human history. The broad definition of history provided by Oxford Languages is “the whole series of past events connected with someone or something.” Someone or something can be any person or object, be it Abraham Lincoln (someone) or Earth (something). There have also been challenges encountered in defining historical method.

Here are two definitions from recognized dictionaries followed by my own, simple definition:

Merriam-Webster defines historical method as “a technique of presenting information (as in teaching or criticism) in which a topic is considered in terms of its earliest phases and followed in an historical course through its subsequent evolution and development”. defines historical method as “the process of establishing general facts and principles through attention to chronology and to the evolution or historical course of what is being studied”.

I define historical method as “the culmination of rules and techniques used while conducting historical research”. People who investigate history rely on oral sources, textual sources, and relics. Oral sources are those spoken sources which have yet to be written. Textual sources can be anything written, such as books, manuscripts, and newspapers. Relics are those artifacts which lack an inherent narrative, such as human remains or human tools. The study of historical method is known as historiography.

“Vitally important to the development of any research project, methods are the means by which we conduct our research, how we locate and use primary materials, and for historians, how we recover materials for our histories.”
– Barbara E. L’Eplattenier (2009) [9, p.69]

What methods are available for people who want to investigate the past? The main method is known as source criticism. This method involves determining the validity of sources. The second method, which is to be employed after source criticism, is historical reasoning and argumentation. While the first method is concerned with collecting and establishing the facts of a given topic, the second method is concerned with establishing explanations and arguments based on the facts.

“The few articles on methods available to new researchers either lament the lack of methods in our field or offer overly simplistic advice – read widely in your field, have a good time, formulate a research question, or something of that nature.”
– Barbara E. L’Eplattenier (2009) [9, p.69]

“If all histories are constructions, then a methods section allows us to see the building blocks of that construction. We can see which section of the foundation is strong or weak, where we can build a wing, where we can add a door.”
– Barbara E. L’Eplattenier (2009) [9, p.74]

The current state of historical method is ripe with room for improvement. Technology has seen exponential improvements over the past 50 years (its 2020 now) and what was science fiction then is a reality now. The ways in which we store and share information have greatly changed too. These new developments allow us to communicate instantly with people all over the world and to publish our research for free for anyone to read, among other things. This means we can expand the house of history more effectively than ever before, but we need to communicate and research effectively as well. One issue with historical research is that a lot of it is hidden behind paywalls. Although, this is changing with time and more research is available for free now than ever before in known history.

“Only when a perplexing question has been identified and correctly stated does profitable study of history begin.”
– Carter V. Good (1942) [5, p.141]

“Indeed, it requires that all “facts” shall be subject to question, and the progress of historiography demands that the whole body of fact and interpretation shall be continually retested and re-evaluated.”
– Laurence Lee Howe (1950) [6, p.349]

Good and Howe’s statements highlight a fundamental of historical method (asking questions), and (in my experience) questions are too often ignored. There are a great deal of historians in our present age that refuse to question, or even respond to the questions about, established historical narratives. This is an issue that results in scholarship limited by the stubbornness towards exploring new routes of inquiry and an overall lack of development in historical thought, as the people who are best equipped for the journey into new realms of historical thinking are unwilling to venture into those realms.

“The fundamental question is what actually happened and how we know it.”
– Laurence Lee Howe (1950) [6, p.353]

“Many are the doubtful points in history, and it takes an ardent desire for truth and devotion to historical work to discover them.”
– Charles H. Wesley (1916) [7, p.334]

There are an incredibly large number of obscure spots in history. For example, the majority of records considered to be ancient and medieval have little to no information available pertaining to their origins. This does not bother nearly enough historians, as can be seen by the almost completely non-existent effort by historians to establish the history of the world’s most revered literary relics. Another issue is that these doubtful points are prime spots for the fakers of history to plant their false narratives, be it through faking texts or other means such as fake sculptures or coins.

“The problem of distinguishing the original form and meaning of documentary sources from later accretions after they are edited or interpreted or distilled by historians is the perpetual problem of all critical historical research.”
– Philip P. Wiener (1961) [2, p.532]

“The unease about method, of which one sees many signs at present among historians, is largely related, it seems, to the relations of proximity, of rivalry, and indeed of conflict that exist more and more between traditional history and the new social science.” – François Simiand (1985) [4, pp.163-164]

Wiener and Simiand both bring up issues in the use of the historical method. Wiener brings into view the issue with establishing what an original text might have said and meant. Aside from rarely ever having the original documents which later versions are based on, it can be problematic when trying to figure out what these missing documents might have meant. Simiand brings up differences between historians and how biases can present issues in scholarship.

“The fact that we have to go to history for the data – to become in a sense historians – does not alter the scientific end and does not relieve us from the utmost exercise of our mental powers in hypothesis, analysis, discriminating selection, synthesis, and clear and logical statement.”
– R. F. Hoxie (1906) [8, p.570]

Historical research depends on strong mental powers. A hypothesis is “a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation”. The investigation continues with analysis, the “detailed examination of the elements or structure of something”. Discrimination is to be exercised during the analysis so as to eliminate the information which is unreliable. Synthesis is “the combination of ideas to form a theory or system”. Clear and logical statements are a result of efficient research. If you practice all these steps and become proficient at them, making clear and logical statements will not be difficult for you at all.

“”It often seems to me,” [Froude] says, “as if history was like a child’s box of letters, which with we can spell any word we please. We have only to pick out such letters as we want, arrange them as we like, and say nothing about those which do not suit our purpose.” The intellectual frivolousness which permits one to look upon history in this way is incompatible with the love of truth, and there is but a step from arranging facts to falsifying them.”
– John Lancaster Spalding (1880) [12, p.280]

Froude exploited was is sometimes known as an availability bias, or an availability heuristic. It’s when a person makes a judgement using only the information available to them, instead of all the information that exists. This can be done intentionally, such as in Froude’s case, but also unintentionally, which would be done by someone thinking that they have all the information, when they really don’t. One way to easily avoid giving into this bias when conducting historical research is by keeping in mind that more information than what you currently have may be out there.

“Good history is both science and art; sound research is science and a masterful style of narration is art.”
– Carter V. Good (1942) [5, p.135]

“A more explicit kind of reflection on historical method comes up in the second half of the sixteenth century, when the genre of the ars historica rapidly gains a considerable popularity, first in Italy, but almost immediately also in other European countries.”
– Jacques Bos (2012) [13, p.135]

Bos’ comment stuck out to me because the current state of European history, and to a degree even world history, is heavily centered on Roman history. The strengthened interest in historical method and establishing history in the late can be seen exemplified in the man known today as the father of scientific (or modern) chronology, Joseph Scaliger. He was considered one of the most learned men of Europe, and in 1583, he published his Opus de emendatione tempore (Study on the Emendation of Time), a work which is still fundamental for today’s historical studies.

“…manuals on historical method, uninspiring as they may seem, offer in fact some fascinating insight into disciplinary polemics over the most fundamental of all questions: What is the goal our discipline must serve?”
– Herman Paul (2014) [14, p.172]

“The revolutionary importance of the philosophic historians must not of course be minimised even for a moment. They realised that an accumulation of facts does not make a history, and that the components of civilisation, such as law, religion and trade, are more important than diplomatic treaties or battles.”
– Arnaldo Momigliano (1954) [10, p. 453]

“Of all the progress which attended modes of scientific explanation during the nineteenth century, no single concept was developed, probably, which was comparable in importance for philosophical thought to the elaboration of the historical or evolutionary method.”
– George H. Sabine (1906) [11, p.17]

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


[1] – Pflug, Günther. “The Development of Historical Method in the Eighteenth Century [1954].” History and Theory, vol. 11, 1971, pp. 1–23. JSTOR, Accessed 28 July 2020.

[2] – Wiener, Philip P. “Some Problems and Methods in the History of Ideas.” Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 22, no. 4, 1961, pp. 531–548. JSTOR, Accessed 28 July 2020.

[3] – Schneider, Donald. “The Historical Method in the Teaching of History.” Peabody Journal of Education, vol. 40, no. 4, 1963, pp. 199–209. JSTOR, Accessed 28 July 2020.

[4] – Simiand, François. “Historical Method and Social Science.” Review (Fernand Braudel Center), vol. 9, no. 2, 1985, pp. 163–213. JSTOR, Accessed 28 July 2020.

[5] – Good, Carter V. “Some Problems of Historical Criticism and Historical Writing.” The Journal of Negro Education, vol. 11, no. 2, 1942, pp. 135–149. JSTOR, Accessed 28 July 2020.

[6] – Howe, Laurence Lee. “Historical Method and Legal Education.” Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1915-1955), vol. 36, no. 2, 1950, pp. 346–356. JSTOR, Accessed 28 July 2020.

[7] – Wesley, Charles H. “The Problems of Sources and Methods in History Teaching.” The School Review, vol. 24, no. 5, 1916, pp. 329–341. JSTOR, Accessed 29 July 2020.

[8] – Hoxie, R. F. “Historical Method vs. Historical Narrative.” Journal of Political Economy, vol. 14, no. 9, 1906, pp. 568–572. JSTOR, Accessed 29 July 2020.

[9] – L’Eplattenier, Barbara E. “An Argument for Archival Research Methods: Thinking Beyond Methodology.” College English, vol. 72, no. 1, 2009, pp. 67–79. JSTOR, Accessed 29 July 2020.

[10] – Momigliano, Arnaldo. “Gibbon’s Contribution to Historical Method.” Historia: Zeitschrift Für Alte Geschichte, vol. 2, no. 4, 1954, pp. 450–463. JSTOR, Accessed 7 Aug. 2020.

[11] – Sabine, George H. “Hume’s Contribution to the Historical Method.” The Philosophical Review, vol. 15, no. 1, 1906, pp. 17–38. JSTOR, Accessed 7 Aug. 2020.

[12] – Spalding, John Lancaster. “Mr. Froude’s Historical Method.” The North American Review, vol. 130, no. 280, 1880, pp. 280–299. JSTOR, Accessed 7 Aug. 2020.

[13] – Bos, Jacques. “Nineteenth-Century Historicism and Its Predecessors: Historical Experience, Historical Ontology and Historical Method.” The Making of the Humanities: Volume II: From Early Modern to Modern Disciplines, edited by Rens Bod et al., Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2012, pp. 131–148. JSTOR, Accessed 7 Aug. 2020.

[14] – Paul, Herman. “Manuals on Historical Method: A Genre of Polemical Reflection on the Aims of Science.” The Making of the Humanities: Volume III: The Modern Humanities, edited by Rens Bod et al., Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam, 2014, pp. 171–182. JSTOR, Accessed 7 Aug. 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

Petavius (1659) Book 1 Sources

Luckily for students of chronology today, Dionysius Petavius provided citations throughout his History of the World (1659). This allows us to see from where he was got his information.

Page 2

Gen. 1.

Page 3

August. 3. cir.
c. 20.
Prosper 2. de vita cont. c. 18.
August. 14.
civ. c. 17.
par. I. c. 19.

Rup. 2. de
Trin. c. 27.
Gen. 4.
Gen. 4. 14.
Gen 4. 26.
Gen 5. 22.

Gen 6.

Page 4

Gen. 7. 2.

Josephus 1.
auct. c. 4.

Page 6

Diod. 2.
Just. 2.

Diod. 2.
Just. 1.
Euseb. Chro.

Herodot. 2.

B. 9. de doct.
xenop. 25.

Page 7

Gen. 12. 10.
Gen 13.
Gen 14.
Gen. 16.3.
Gen. 16.16.
Gen 17. 1.
Gen. 18. & 19.
Gen. 17. 17.

Page 8

Gen. 21. 5.
Gen. 23. 1.
Joseph. 1.
Orig. c. 14.

Gen. 24.
Gen. 25. 20.
Gen 25. 26.
Gen. 25. 7.
Gen. 26. &c.
Gen. 29.
Gen. 30.

????. ??ud.
E?se???. prae.
pag. 227.

Page 9

Gen. 23. 28.
Gen. 35. 19.
Gen. 37. 2.
Gen. 47.
Gen. 47. 9.
Gen. 50. 25.
Exod. 1.
Exod. 2.
Acts 7. 30.
Exod. 3. 4?.

Euseb. 1.
de Dem. c. 4.
Epiph. Chry.
sost. Hom. 2. de

Ang. 18. civ.
c. 47.

Page 10

regnum init.

Castor apud

Apol. 2.

Paus. cor. 52.

Init. l. 2.
Apol. 2.

Euseb. &
??g. 18. civ. 6.
Herod. 1.

Scal. Graeca
p. 363.

Page 11

Vide 5.
l. 2. par. 2.

Vid. loc.
cit. par. 2.

Ex. 5. 6. &c.
Exod. 12.

Lib. 9. de
doct ????p.
Ex. 12. 52.
Exod. 14.
Ex. 19. 1?
Ex. ult. 1?
Numb. 12. ?
Numb. 13. ?

Page 12

Numb. 16.
Numb 22.
Numb. 20.
Numb. 25.
Deut. 34.
Josh. 4.
Josh. 6.
Josh. 10.
Josh. 12.

Page 13

Josh. ???.
Judg. t.

Josh. 16.
Judg. 3.

Page 14

Judg. 4. 5.
Judg. 6. 7.
Judg. 9.
Judg. 11.
Judg. 14. &c.
Judg. 14.

Page 15

Judg. 15.
Judg. 16.
1 Reg. c. 1.
1 Paral.
c. 6.
1 Reg. 4.
Act. 13.
1 Reg. 6.
1 Sam. 7.

Page 16

1 Sam. 8.
1 Sam. 9.
1 Sam. 11.
1 Sam. 14.
1 Sam. 16. 13.
1 Sam. 31.
2 Sam. 1.
2 Sam. 5.
4. 5.
2 Sam. 2. 8.
2 Reg. 4.
& 5.
2 Reg. 5.
1 Sam. 19.

Page 17

2 Sam. 5.
2 Sam. 6.
2 Sam. 11.
2 Sam. 12.
2 Sam.
2 Sam. 13.
2 Sam. 15.
Lib. 7.
cap. 9.
Lib. 5.
1 Reg. 2.
1 Reg. 2.
1 Reg. 3.

Page 18

Ex. Apollod.
lib. 1. Diod. 4.
Strab. 8.
Pausan. Conon
apid Phot.
Cod. 186.

Conon. apid.
Phor. lib. 27.

Page 19

Lib. 4. p.187
Graec. edit.

Page 18

lib. 8.

Page 19

Vide 9. de
doct. temp.
c. 16. & 18.

Paus. C??
rin. p. 58.

Page 22

Apol. 4.

Corin. p. 58.
& vid. 9. de
doct. Temp.
cap. 18.

Apollod. 2.

Strom 1.


Page 23

Paus. Co-
rinth. p. 58.

Page 24

Eusebius no-

Diod. lib. 4.
p. 192.

Hyg. f. 81.

Page 25


Conon. lib.
32. 37.


Apol. 1.
Hyg. fab. ?.

Page 26


Diod. 4.
p. 183.

Dion. Hal.
lib. 1.
Apol. 2. & 3.
1. 3.

Strab. 1. 5.
p. 153.
Dion. Halic.
1. 4. p. 14.

Page 27

????. 1. 3.

Cic. 3. de
Nar. deorum.
Herculis Po-
?????? gesta.

Lib. 4.
p. 151.

Diodor. 4.
p. 152.

Diod. 4. p.18
Hyg. fab. 14.
& 89.
Apoll. 1.
Diod. 4.
p. 146
Apol. 2.
Diod. 4.
p. 165.
Hyg. 89.
Diod. 4.
p. 170.
Euseb. Chro.

Page 28

Apoll. 1.
rum Expedi-

Vid. Hyg.
fab. 14.
Apoll. 1.
Rhod. Val.
Orph. &c.

Dion. 4.
Hyg. &c.

Page 29

Diod. 4.
p. 176.
Vell. 1.

Diod. p.179.
Apoll. 1.
Diod. Ibidem.

Diod. p.180.

Vell. 1.
Diod. 4.
p.183. plu.
The??. Apol. 3.


Hyg. fab. 4r.

Page 30

Clem. Alex. 1.
Diod. 4. p. 194.
Hig. 43.
Thes. vide. par.

Plu. Thess. Di-
od. 4. p. 163.
Diod. 4. p. 185.
Vetus Chro-
nol. apud.
Clem. Alex.
l. 1.
Arund marm.

Diod. 4. p.
185. Hig. 67.
Apoll. 3.

Apoll. 3.
Diod. 4. p.
185. Hyg. 68.

Apol. 3.

Clem. Alex. 1.
Diod. 4. p. 187.

Page 31

Paus. Acha.
p. 208.
Diod. 4. 187.

Diod. 4. 187.

Apollod. 3.
Diod. 42. p.

Virg. 3.
Aen. & Ser.
Varro. and
Greeks. apud.
Serv. ibid.

Serv. ad 3.
Aen. aut Troy.
Apoll. 3.

Serv, ad. 3:
Aen. auct.
1. de prog.
Apol. Diod.


Diod. 4. p.
Clem. Alex.
1. Stro.

Page 32

Auct. Troic.

Dyctris Cret.
Dares Phryg.

Velle. 1. 1. Hyg.
fab. 119.

Dictys 1.5.
Virg. 1. Aen.
Dares Halic.
1. Liv. 1.
Euseb. Chron.
1. de orig.
Halic. vide
par. 2. 1. 2.
c. 10.

Vide Lact.
sine 1. 1.

Aen. c. 7.
14. Met.
Dion. Halic.
1. Victor de.

Page 33

Dion. Halic. 1.
Liv. 1.
Aliter Conon
apud Phot.
cod. 186.
1. 46.

Ex Apoll. 2.
Diod. 1. 4.
p. 181. & seq.
Paus. Corin.
p. 60. ct alibi
Euseb. 5. de
praep. p. 124.

Page 34

In Heraclid.

Apol. 2.

Euseb. 5. de

Thucyd. 1.

Thucyd. ?
Schol?. 1. 1.

Thucyd ad
1. 1.

Thucyd. 1.
Vell. 1.
Eratost. apud
Clem. Alex. 1.
Strom. Apoll. 2.
Paus. init.
Apollod. 2.
Eliac. 1.

Page 35

Pausan. Mes-
sen. 113.

Paus. Cor.
p. 60

Paus. Eliac. 1.
p. 150. Stra-
bo. 1. 8.

Paus. Cor.
p. 56.

Paus. in
Eliac. 1. and
in Acha.

Paus. in Acha.

Corint. p 60.
Conon. 1. 39.
apud Phot.
cod. 186.
Suid. in voce

Page 36

Velle. 1.
Just. 2.
Paus. Acha.
p. 232.

Acha. p. 206.

Strabo. 1.13.?

Acna. p. 206.
Aelian. 1. 8.
Varr. c. 5.
Herod. in
vita Hom.

Page 37

Acha. p. 206.
Strabo 13.

Herod in
vita Hom.
Aelian. 1. 8.
Varr. c. 5.

Cyril. 7.
Con. Jul.
Vide Eus. 1??

2 Sphaer.
p. 83.

Strabo 5.
Vell. 1.
Euseb. Chron.

Page 38

I. 2. de div.

Polyb. 4. p.
271. and 304.
Vide 1. 9. de
dost. temp.
c. 31.
Corint. p. 47.

Herod. 1. 5. c.
Aristot. 5.
Poll. c. 12.

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


[1] – Accessed 29 July 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

Glossary of Fomenko’s New Chronology

Enquête-Code (Written Biography):
Fomenko laid out 34 points of investigation that can be used to create a biography for an historical figure. These can each be marked as EC1 to EC34.
Page [1]: 57-59.

The F-model:
A corollary of local maximas between volume graphs vol X(t) and vol Y(t). A corollary to the basic hypothesis of 4.3.1. [1, p.51]
The hypothesis – “Though, with time, the amplitude of the volume graph for the surviving textual stock decreases gradually (since ancient texts get lost and destroyed), more remains from those years ci whose events were described by contemporaries in a considerable number of texts.” [1, p.43]

“Namely, the years of local maxima ri(X) should be close to those denoted by ri(Y) for any two historical texts X and Y describing one historical epoch (A, B) in the history of the same region Γ.
In other words, the volume graphs vol X(t) and vol Y(t) must attain local maxima, i.e., form peaks, approximately at the same points (years) in the time interval (A, B).” [1, p.43]

Page [1]: 43, 51.

Generation Chapter:
“In short, we call a fragment of a text describing the events of one generation “a generation chapter”.”
Page [1]: 146.

The K-model:
A statistical hypothesis… A corollary to the basic hypothesis of 4.3.1. [1, p.51]
The hypothesis – “Though, with time, the amplitude of the volume graph for the surviving textual stock decreases gradually (since ancient texts get lost and destroyed), more remains from those years ci whose events were described by contemporaries in a considerable number of texts.” [1, p.43]

Page [1]: 43, 50, 51.

Laws of Information Density Conservation:
“The laws of information density conservation permit us to introduce a formal procedure to date the events described in texts with lost or unknown dating.”
Page [1]: 39, 52.

Law of Information Density Conservation:
Page [1]: 42.

Local maxima:
The point where “The height of the function at “a” is greater than (or equal to) the height anywhere else in that interval.” [source]
Page [1]: 42.

The Map-Code:
Explained on page 11.
Page [2]: 11.

Method for Comparing the Sets of Informative Functions for Two Historical Epochs:
Explained on pages 60 and 61 in [1].
Page [1]: 60-61.

Method for Dating Historical Events Described in Chronographic Texts:
Explained on pages 9 and 10.
Page [2]: 9-10.

Method for Discovery of Dependent Historical Texts:
Page [2]: S2.

Method for Duplicate-Discovery/Duplicate Discovery Method:
Explained on pages 151 and 152 in [1].
Page [1]: 151-152.

Method for Duplicate Recognition:
“In the experiment which I performed, the discovery of such double peaks of the frequency graph (which corresponds to the duplicates) occurred as follows. Let aij be an element of the matrix K{T}, placed in the ith row and the jth column. Consider the matrix {ααβ} consisting of the elements ααβ, where αi and βj, i.e., part of the large matrix K{T} bounded by the ith row and jth column. We construct the averaged frequency graph Kijav(t) for it by averaging the values positioned in the matrix {ααβ} on the diagonals parallel to the principle one. We now assume that the ith and the jth columns of the frequency matrix K{T} correspond to two duplicates X(i) and X(j), i.e., T = i or T = j. Then the averaged frequency graph of Kijav(t) has the form represented in Fig.17, i.e., it possesses two maxima.
Then, by marking all those elements aij (where i < j) in the large matrix K{T} for which the averaged graph of Kijav(t) has such an anomalous form, we discover those chapters which may be duplicates. It was required in concrete computations that the averaged graph of Kpqav(t), where p = i + s and q = js, on the average should be monotonically decreasing if the positive integer s is sufficiently small compared to the difference ji.” [1, p.81]
Page [1]: 79, 81.

Method for Finding the Chronologically Correct Order of Chapters in a Historical Chronicle/Method of Chapter Ordering:
“We now describe the method of finding the chronologically correct order of chapters in a historical text X (or in a whole set of texts). Number all the chapters of the text X in a certain order, e.g., in which they occur in the text itself. We then determine the graph of K(T0, T) described above for each separate chapter X(T0). The number of these graphs will equal that of the chapters in the text X. All these values K{T} (for the variables T0 and T) are naturally organized into a square matrix K{T} of order n × n, where n is the total number of chapters in the text.” [1, p.77]

“This method of chapter ordering permits us to date ancient events.” [1, p.79]
Page [1]: 77, 79.

Method for Ordering Texts in Time:
“The present method permits us, for example, to discover a chronologically correct order for individual textual chapters and duplicates on the basis of the collection of proper names mentioned.” [1, p.145]

“The method also permits us to date events.” [1, p.150]

Page [1]: 145, 150.

Method for Restoring the Graph of the Primary and Surviving Information Stock:
“Construct the informative functions ƒi(t, Y) and consider the set of all absolutely dated texts X. We also construct their informative functions ƒi(t, X) and assume that we can choose X with some ƒi(t, X), or at once their whole set, close in the sense of smallness of the coefficient d to an informative function ƒi(t, Y). In other words, d(ƒi(X), ƒi(Y)) is “small” (i.e., it is close to the values of the coefficient d(ƒi(Z), ƒi(V)) for surely dependent pairs Z and V.” [1, p.52]
Page [1]: 52.

Method for Text Ordering and Duplicate Recognition:
“The method of text ordering and duplicate recognition is also applicable to the list of reciprocal citations in any closed collection of historical and other texts.” [1, p.81]
Page [1]: 81.

Methods for Ordering and Dating Old Geographic Maps and Descriptions:
Page [2]: S4.

Numerical Dynasty:
The “sequence of numbers represented as an integral vector a in the space Rn“. The sequence of numbers is obtained from a real dynasty. Two chroniclers writing about the same real dynasty could, due to differences in chronicling, produce two differing numerical dynasties (based on the original real dynasty).
Page [1]: 68.

Primary information stock:
The total amount of textual information.
Page [1]: 42.

Principle of Amplitude Correlation/Amplitude Correlation Principle:
A – “If texts X and Y are dependent, then their volume graphs vol X(t) and vol Y(t) must correlate strongly within their poor zones. On the other hand, there may be little or no amplitude correlation within their rich zones when the graphs are superimposed.”
B – “If texts X and Y are independent, then their volume graphs must be independent within their poor zones.”
Page [5]: 192, 198.

Principle of Maximum Correlation/Principle of Correlation of Maxima/Maxima Correlation Principle/Maximum Correlation Principle:
A – “If two texts X and Y are dependent, then their volume functions exhibit “splashes” that are essentially simultaneous, i.e. the local maxima of vol X(t) and vol Y(t) correlate.”
B – “If two texts X and Y are independent then the local maxima of their volume function do not correlate.”

“The volume graphs for the chapters of two dependent texts X and Y which describe the same period (A, B) and the state Γ must attain local maxima, or form peaks, simultaneously, i.e. years described in X and Y in detail should be close or coincide. Conversely, if two texts X and Y are known as undoubtedly independent and describe either different periods (A, B) and (C, D) of the same length or different states, then their volume graphs reach local maxima at different points if we let (A, B) and (C, D) coincide.” [1, p.141]

“The graphs of undoubtedly dependent texts form peaks almost simultaneously, and the peaks are not correlated on graphs of undoubtedly independent texts”.

Page [1]: 47, 141, 142-143.
Page [5]: 188.
Page [3]: 668.

Principle of Frequency Damping/Frequency Damping Principle:
“In numbering the chapters chronologically correctly (i.e., chapters describing the same events), with duplicates being absent among them, each graph of K(T0, T) vanishes to the right of the point T0 itself and decreasing monotonically to the right of T0.” [1, pp.76-77]

“In the correct enumeration of chapter generations, the author of the text, while proceeding from the description of one generation to another, also describes other historical figures, namely, he does not speak at all of the personages of the generations (since they have not yet been born) belonging to those prior to a generation numbered To; then, in describing To, the author speaks of the historical figures of this generation more, since the described events are related to them most; and, finally, proceeding with the description of subsequent generations, the author mentions the prior historical figures still less and less, since new events with new historical figures drive out the dead.” [1, pp.146-147]

“In the chronologically correct enumeration of chapter generations, each graph of K(To, T) should vanish to the left of To, attain an absolute maximum at To, and then gradually dampen.” [1, p.147]

Page [1]: 76-77, 146-147.

Principle of Frequency Decay/Frequency Decay Principle:
Page [5]: 189.

Principle of Frequency-Duplicating/Frequency-Duplicating Principle:
“Thus, if the chapters of the text, which in general are numbered chronologically correctly, contain two whose frequency graphs have the form approximately in Fig. 17, then they are probably duplicates and should be identified.” [1, p.80]
Page [1]: 79, 80.

Principle of Map-Improvement:
“A sequence of maps is ordered chronologically correctly if and only if each graph of L(T0, T) is of the form shown in Fig.39, i.e., vanishes to the left of T0, attains an absolute maximum at T0, and falls monotonically to the right.” [2, pp.12-13]
Page [2]: 12-13.

Principle of Monotone Information Loss/Monotone Information Loss Principle:
“The farther we move in time from the epoch [A, B] of interest, the fewer documents from this epoch usually remain and the less we can learn about it.”
Page [5]: 188.

Principle of “Regard-for-Information”/“Regard-for-Information” Principle:
“The regard for information varies inversely with its volumes.” Chroniclers are forced to give full attention to poor texts than rich texts, as there is less to draw from a poor text than a rich one.
Page [5]: 192.

Principle of Small Distortion/Small Distortion Principle:
“If two numerical dynasties are sufficiently close (in the sense of the measure λ), then they indeed represent the same real dynasty of kings, i.e., they are merely two different versions of its description.
Such numerical dynasties will be called dependent. On the contrary, if two numerical dynasties represent two real dynasties of kings, known a priori as different, then the numerical dynasties are much different from one another (in the sense of the measure λ). Such numerical dynasties will be called independent.”
Page [1]: 68, 69.

Real Dynasty:
Let n represent “consecutive authentic rulers”, and the “true rule durations” of those rulers be “p1, p2, …, pn”.
Page [1]: 68

Statistical hypothesis (theoretical model):
“is a hypothesis that is testable on the basis of observing a process that is modeled via a set of random variables.” [source]
Page [1]: 50, 68.

Stream Deviation Coefficient (SDC):
The coefficient λ.
Page [1]: 60.

Surviving information stock:
The remaining amount of textual information left over from the primary information stock.
Page [1]: 43.

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


[1] – (1994). Accessed 26 July 2020.

[2] – Accessed 26 July 2020.

[3] – Statistical estimation of chronological nearness of historical texts (1986). Accessed 26 July 2020.

[4] – Accessed 27 July 2020.

[5] – (1990). Accessed 26 July 2020.

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

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

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

%d bloggers like this: