Annodnimccxc1

The Scaligerite historians suggest a reading of 1291, where M = one thousand, CC = two hundred, XCI = 91, while the combination D.N.I, is today considered to be the abbreviation of DOMINI. At the same time, the inscription can be read as follows:

Year (Anno) of the House (Domini) Great (M, i.e. Magnus) Two Hundred (CC) Ninety-One (X.C.I.).

i.e. "Year two hundred ninety-one from the accession of the Great House". The question is as follows: what date does this inscription correspond to, according to the contemporary calendar? The answer depends on which Great House was meant: if it were e.g. the dynasty of Habsburgs (Nov-Gorod?) at the end of the XIII - beginning of the XVI century, then this would be the fifteenth or even the sixteenth century. If some other mediaeval Reigning House was implied, the date shall be somewhat different.

Let us take another look at the tombstone of Rudolf Habsburg, q.v. in fig. 6.96 and fig. 6.97. Take notice of the way the name of Habsburg is written -the carved stone reads either Habasburg or Nabasburg. The first letter looks a lot like N. We have earlier come up with the idea that the name of Habsburg was derived from the name Novy Gorod (New City), which is confirmed by the inscription on Rudolf's gravestone since Burg is "city", and Nabas obviously "new". The old gravestone is probably conveying to us this origin of the name of the Habsburgs. Unfortunately, the letter N or H is badly damaged - all other letters of the inscription have survived except for the one most interesting to us. We shall recall that the Latin H and the Russian H (N) are identical.

In his Universal History, Oscar Jaeger presents a drawing of this famous inscription ([304], Volume 2, page 396). The dubious letter resembles the handwritten Latin N, and is by all means virtually similar to several other letters N of the same inscription whose origins are distinctly Latin. For example, in the word Anno = year, fig. 6.96, fig. 6.97. The contemporary author of the drawing in the book by O. Jaeger did actually lengthen the "tail" of letter N somewhat - most probably to be able to later proclaim it the Latin letter H, if desired.

By the way, historian Oscar Jaeger reports that some fragments of the tombstone of Rudolf Habs-burg were "renovated, possibly recently, when the whole memorial was restored by the order of Emperor Franz-Joseph" ([304], Volume 2,page 396). Thus, we find ourselves confronted by a phenomenon that we're already accustomed to. Something has been done to the memorial. The exact nature of these changes shall remain nebulous. However, we will demonstrate what such restorations looked like sometimes on the example of the famous Cologne sarcophagus of the Magi in Chronó. We shall see many initial images strangely "lost", others tendentiously altered. What if a similar fate befell the gravestone of Rudolf?

13.5.4. Recording of mediaeval dates was not unified everywhere even in the XVIII century

Let us return to the recording of date on the gravestone of Rudolf of Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?). Note the shape of letters in the inscription. The Latin letter M is written in much the same way as the Greek letter Q. There are some small circles over the Í2 and the letter C right next to it. There is no circle over the next C, or over the letter X. The circle does re-appear over the next letter C. These marks are absolutely certain to contain some information which might fundamentally change the meaning of the abbreviation letters.

This example illustrates the chaos that reigned in mediaeval timekeeping. There was no common, unified rule. Until the XVIII century, the same date could have been written down in sufficiently different ways.

Fig. 6.98. An inscription on a column standing in the middle of the German city of Bonn. The date (1777) is transcribed in a manner that we find rather peculiar nowadays. One sees that the unification of dates had not been achieved completely by the XVIII century. The photograph was taken by the author of the book in 1998.

Fig. 6.98. An inscription on a column standing in the middle of the German city of Bonn. The date (1777) is transcribed in a manner that we find rather peculiar nowadays. One sees that the unification of dates had not been achieved completely by the XVIII century. The photograph was taken by the author of the book in 1998.

f Ù ri )j ig a , #, i w .

" M ' "

íXv;I

Was this article helpful?

0 0
The Art Of Astrology

The Art Of Astrology

Get All The Support And Guidance You Need To Be A Success With Astrology. This Book Is One Of The Most Valuable Resources In The World When It Comes To A Look at Principles and Practices.

Get My Free Ebook


Post a comment