| View previous topic :: View next topic |
|
|
|
 |
|
So I've read some of Fomenko's thoughts on English history from here: [link deleted for virus warning]
1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved in [1],[24] that Roman history of that time reflects real events from 9-13th cc. A.D.
2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.
3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th cc. in Byzantine empire. |
I think the summary is that large chunks of English history are actually Byzantine history - just that the names and places were changed to sound more English.
So I suppose the corollary is that there was no Anglo-Saxon invasion. Given that, it would not be plausible to suppose that there were Anglo-Saxon monks and Anglo-Saxon scriptoriums in England. Correct? And no Anglo-Saxon language being used anywhere in England?
There is a list of Anglo-Saxon manuscripts on wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_poetry#Extant_manuscripts
So even if these are fabrications from 1700-ish, where did the forgers find the Anglo-Saxon language? I thought that there was more or less no trace of Anglo-Saxon on the continent.
Surely they didn't go through the trouble of inventing a language just to sell antiques.
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It is certainly fascinating reading one bunch of scholars filleting another bunch of scholars in a way they think grinds their axe when it is really helping us with ours! I'll leave Ishmael to take up the detailed cudgels if he wishes but two things leapt out, one major and one minor, just from a quick run through of the opening sections.
1. It is clear that the entire authenticity of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle must now come under investigation (I do not mean to claim it as a forgery, but it's now provisionally prime facie). Just a passage like this should have us salivating.
| It should be mentioned that manuscripts A and E are again "associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with certain persons from 16th century - Archbishop Parker (1504-1575) and Archbishop Laud (1573-1645). |
But we must beware! I spotted this 'gaffe'
| Manuscript E: The Laud (Petersburg) Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153 |
and smiled to myself, "The imbeciles! This is the Peterborough Chronicle which someone has 'translated' and then someone else has taken for fact."
But, as it happens, this is a very important version of the Chronicle for me personally since it happens to be the smoking gun for THOBR [the Peterborough Chronicle suddenly switches from Anglo-Saxon to strangulated English in about 1120] so I started having a think. Maybe this really is a St Petersburg document and it is English scholars that have been led astray. This would be hugely significant because
1) the Peterborough Chronicle is the only one that stretches into the post-Anglo-Saxon period (ie after the Anglo-Saxons have all died out) but
2) St Petersburg has previously been fingered by us as a Mecca for high-class forgeries, and what better 'document' to offer than a unique version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that goes further into the twelfth century than all the others. This might also explain the ropey nature of the "English" since it was tacked on by the forger.
Exit smoking gun but still....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| [the Peterborough Chronicle suddenly switches from Anglo-Saxon to strangulated English in about 1120]. |
You're referring to the Caedmon poem, where an illiterate cowherd miraculously spouts a paeon of praise, religiously copied down by the abbess Hilda's scribes. (Apart from the unlikelihood of the story itself, the name Caedmon doesn't appear in any other context; Cadmus, on the other hand, crops up in Milton's Paradise Lost amongst others, he was the legendary founder of Thebes and married to Harmonia with obvious musical connotations; the first wedding celebration where 'the gods brought gifts').
| Maybe this really is a St Petersburg document and it is English scholars that have been led astray. |
Yes, well, we've already commented on Fomenko's patriotic proclivities.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| You're referring to the Caedmon poem, where an illiterate cowherd miraculously spouts a paeon of praise, religiously copied down by the abbess Hilda's scribes |
No, I know nothing about Caedmon except what you have posted previously. I mean the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that was (I suppose one must now say allegedly) copied and then written up by the monks of Peterborough Abbey.
PS Anyone who's bursting to be useful might look up the Peterborough Chronicle and see what really does happen around 1120... actually and what the experts say. I've got a feeling that several paradigms are hooked precariously onto this fracture point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | Manuscript E: The Laud (Petersburg) Chronicle (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153 |
and smiled to myself, "The imbeciles! This is the Peterborough Chronicle which someone has 'translated' and then someone else has taken for fact." |
To what do you refer? I am not the least familiar with this material. Could you take some time to go into further detail? What is this Chronicle and how is it "taken for fact", and by whom?
1) the Peterborough Chronicle is the only one that stretches into the post-Anglo-Saxon period (ie after the Anglo-Saxons have all died out) but
2) St Petersburg has previously been fingered by us as a Mecca for high-class forgeries, and what better 'document' to offer than a unique version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that goes further into the twelfth century than all the others. This might also explain the ropey nature of the "English" since it was tacked on by the forger. |
Getting some faint memories of a previous discussion now.
So what you are saying is that there was an original Anglo-Saxon document, the reliability of which is unknown, but forgers in St Petersburg Russia added to it to create a *new* document. They added to it, not in Anglo-Saxon but in English.
Is this the notion you're advancing here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
I have prepared a reply to your message but it is on my other computer. Will post shortly.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| So what you are saying is that there was an original Anglo-Saxon document, the reliability of which is unknown, but forgers in St Petersburg Russia added to it to create a *new* document. They added to it, not in Anglo-Saxon but in English. |
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle's reliability as a historical record is questionable but not its overall authenticity; there are several versions of varying date but the Peterborough Chronicle was continued after 1120, when it was destroyed by fire, up to 1154 when Stephen, the last of the Norman kings, died. The reference to Petersburg is confusing, well it confused me anyway; Peterborough was a 'burg' at the end of the tenth century after a defensive wall was built around the minster, the town's name was changed to borough at some point in the twelfth century. The Peterborough or Laud MS is in the Bodleian at Oxford, perfectly plausible since Laud was Chancellor of Oxford University and donated his collection of MSS. to the university. There's nothing untoward implicating 'Russian forgers'.
Wiki says: When copying from Winchester, they preserve the orthography and syntax of late Old English, and when they get to events for which they have no copy text the language abruptly changes to a newer form. Given that the loan would have taken place just before the continuation, the change in language reflects either a dramatic attempt at greater vernacular by the continuation authors or a significant and quick change in the language itself as Norman influences spread. Or maybe the scribes are using the language which comes naturally to them when the source petered out?
There are two continuations, 1122-1131 and 1132-1154, and the tone is distinctly anti-Norman, though not anti-Stephen; you can almost see the monks wringing their hands. (Not perhaps surprising that it was written in 'English' rather than Latin, very much on the side of the natives.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| When copying from Winchester, they preserve the orthography and syntax of late Old English, and when they get to events for which they have no copy text the language abruptly changes to a newer form. |
This is considered the Smoking Gun of Orthodoxy. "Look," say the academicks, "we can actually see Anglo-Saxon changing into English...you cannot get better evidence than that."
Actually you cannot get worse evidence since the fact that the language changes overnight is proof positive that there must be two different languages lying side by side. But note the weaselly way this unfortunate circumstance is finessed. "A newer form" clearly suggests that Anglo-Saxon had been changing all the time but only a very early and a very late form has somehow got recorded in the Peterborough Chronicle. They don't mention that there are no other forms. But then they make a virtue even of this because by saying "When copying from Winchester, they preserve the orthography and syntax of late Old English" they are clearly inferring that the Peterborough monks were deliberately using an archaic form of Anglo-Saxon. Which is bollocks. All Anglo-Saxon is the same (save for tiny regional and temporal discrepancies) over hundreds of years.
| Given that the loan would have taken place just before the continuation, the change in language reflects either a dramatic attempt at greater vernacular by the continuation authors or a significant and quick change in the language itself as Norman influences spread |
Duh? This is to explain changes that were, according to the direct evidence of the Peterborough Chonicle, virtually overnight. Strewth, are there no limits to Norman genius?
| Not perhaps surprising that it was written in 'English' rather than Latin, very much on the side of the natives.) |
Which natives are you referring to? There are at least three sets:
eleventh century Anglo-Saxons
eleventh century English-speakers
sixteenth century English government propagandists.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TelMiles
In: London
|
|
|
|
If this Peterbro' manuscript is taken as authentic and it suddenly switches from Anglo-Saxon to English, then surely common sense says that they started writing in English because they didn't know how to write Anglo-Saxon, save for the loan words.
_________________
Against all Gods.
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| If this Peterbro' manuscript is taken as authentic and it suddenly switches from Anglo-Saxon to English, then surely common sense says that they started writing in English because they didn't know how to write Anglo-Saxon, save for the loan words. |
I agree with you. It infers that the monks didn't speak Anglo-Saxon, so common sense says they were 'English', whatever that means. They certainly weren't Norman, though the abbots and ecclesiastical bigwigs were French presumably, so quite a lot of leeway in those scriptoria.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6th century: Dutch
7th
8th
9th century: Italian, French, German, Bulgarian
10th
11th
12th century: (English,) Spanish, Polish, Hungarian, Galician-Portuguese
13th century: Swedish, Turkish, Czech
14th century: Norwegian
15th century: Albanian, Finnish
16th century: Romanian |
These dates (mentioned in the THOBR thread) are approximately when some of the European vernacular languages became written.
I believe that Fomenko thinks that written history began roughly in 1000 AD. But then why the need for Latin? Wouldn't the development of Latin have to be pushed up to around 1000, and then all of these other dates pushed up as well, in order for there to be a need for Latin?
Does he ever mention in any of his books that, in his framework, the time period for Latin to turn into the Romance languages must be even shorter than orthodoxy claims?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| EndlesslyRocking wrote: | | Wouldn't the development of Latin have to be pushed up to around 1000, and then all of these other dates pushed up as well, in order for there to be a need for Latin? |
The "need" for Latin isn't spurred by the existence of other written languages of course. According to the "pidgin" idea, Latin is developed to facilitate communication between peoples who speak a variety of closely related languages.
If Latin is related to Italian, I assume Fomenko would make its development quite late -- sometime during or after that Avignon Papacy (1300). As you know, Fomenko suggests the time in Avignon bridges the period of the Universal Church, based in Constantinople, and the rise of the rival Catholic Church, based in Italy.
I suspect the historical dispute between pope and anti-pope in Italy and Avignon is actually a mix-up of what happened after the Popes set up shop in Italy, recognizing that Constantinople had been permanently lost to the Turks. It was the Orthodox Church in the East which, in response, chose to elect its own Pope (called anti-Pope in the West), not a renegade group of Cardinals in Avignon.
This was indeed the true "Western schism" -- the origin of the schism between west and east.
The introduction of Latin may have been an attempt to limit the influence of the Eastern Popes in the West.
What then was the origin of "Ancient Greek"? Likely Fomenko would suggest it was a creation of the Crusader States in Asia Minor -- and we might apply the pidgin model to explain the need for it.
| Does he ever mention in any of his books that, in his framework, the time period for Latin to turn into the Romance languages must be even shorter than orthodoxy claims? |
I haven't yet even begun volume three.
I must say that I still don't "accept" Fomenko's model, though I do indeed suspect it is more right than wrong. I will say though that it sure makes the investigation of history truly exciting again and it makes a hell-of-a-lot-of sense on a macro level (and I have made some further "discoveries" that are perhaps even more shocking).
But the first time Fomenko is encountered -- the brain recoils! It's like reading a nonsense rhyme. Claims are made that seem utterly inconceivable. Yet the more time one spends with the thesis, the more it all starts to fall into place -- and what a shocking world it is to find yourself suddenly living within.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure if it was clear above but I thought that in the Fomenko universe, written Italian would predate Latin.
| Ishmael wrote: | | The "need" for Latin isn't spurred by the existence of other written languages of course. According to the "pidgin" idea, Latin is developed to facilitate communication between peoples who speak a variety of closely related languages. |
If something was needed to facilitate communication, why wouldn't those in power just declare their own language a lingua franca? Why make up Latin?
| Ishmael wrote: | | The introduction of Latin may have been an attempt to limit the influence of the Eastern Popes in the West. |
Why not just use Italian or French to limit the influence of Eastern popes? Is Latin more likely to have an influence-limiting effect? Latin could be considered elite, but it is not obscure like thieves' cant.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| EndlesslyRocking wrote: | | I'm not sure if it was clear above but I thought that in the Fomenko universe, written Italian would predate Latin. |
Can't be sure of that as the dates for written Italian are no longer secure. However, I personally have no objection to that scenario.
| If something was needed to facilitate communication, why wouldn't those in power just declare their own language a lingua franca. Why make up Latin? |
Not prepared to speculate as yet. The dates for written Italian are no more secure than any other.
| Why not just use Italian or French to limit the influence of Eastern popes? Is Latin more likely to have an influence-limiting effect? Latin could be considered elite, but it is not obscure like thieves cant. |
Mick argues that phonetics, when invented, required artificial language. This may still be correct if written Italian is not as old as believed. But we don't know enough right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Mick argues that phonetics, when invented, required artificial language. This may still be correct if written Italian is not as old as believed. But we don't know enough right now. |
This is the test case, if not the smoking gun. Italian (please correct me if I'm wrong) is now a completely phonetic language. In other words every letter written corresponds one to one to a given sound except that a comparative handful of extra sounds (like the ch in ciaou) have to be denoted by convention.
I say that this means Italian is not a natural language. In other words you would never find this "in the wild" where every language has, in practical terms, an infinite number of sounds and therefore would need an infinite number of letters in its alphabet to denote them. This is what I think probably happened in the case of Italian
1. 1000 BC Everybody in the Italian peninsula talking a variety of rustic Italian we would scarcely recognise (nor would they given the local varieties)
2. Some people in Latium (Central Italy), seeing how successful the Greeks and Phoenicians had been, created 'Latin', a simplified version of the Latium variety of Italian, ie reducible to about twenty plus sounds for which they also invented a unique alphabet.
3. The nobs eventually spoke as well as wrote Latin, the mobs spoke and didn't write Latium Italian (but could very often speak Latin a bit).
4. Gradually the need for Italians to talk to one another across the dialectical divide led to the rise of Vulgar Italian, which tended to use the familiar (to many people) Latin sounds and eschewed the local idiosyncratic sounds.
5. Eventually, by the time of and thanks to Petrarch, this version had become completely based on the Latin sounds (not, note, the Latin language) and once the economies-of-scale of printing kicked in, this version ruled the entire Italian roost.
6. Some Italian academic tossers came along and got the whole thing wrong.
7. M J Harper came along...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
