MYSTERIOUS DUPLICATE CHRONICLES INSIDE THE "SCALIGER-PETAVIUS TEXTBOOK"
A graphic representation of the global chronological map takes up an area of several dozen square metres. Various duplicate detection procedures (as described above and in , , -) were applied to the material on this map. In particular, values of coefficients p(X, Y) were calculated for different pairs of chronicles and texts X, Y covering long time intervals. Numbers c(a, h) for different dy nasties a and by and coefficients e(a, fo) measuring proximity of map-code flows for dynasties a and b have been calculated, and map-codes of ancient maps examined. As a result, we unexpectedly discovered pairs of epochs that the Scaligerian history thought to have been different and independent, but which appeared to possess extremely small coefficients p(X, Y), c(ay b)y etc. - i.e. such as a priori dependent chronicles, dynasties or map-codes would have. An example to explain this:
We discovered an identification of the history of "antique" Rome for the period of the alleged years 753-236 years b.c. with the history of mediaeval Rome for the period of the alleged years 300-816 years a.d. Therefore, this chronological shift is of about 1050 years. Now, more precisely: Example i.
1) The mediaeval epoch (A, B)y allegedly covering the period of 300-816 a.d., is described, for example, in a fundamental work by F. Gregorovius entitled History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Volumes 1-5, St. Petersburg, 1902-1912. We used this text as "mediaeval chronicle X". In Chroni, Appendix 6.1 we present a partition of the work  into fragments in accordance with the chronological instructions by F. Gregorovius. We also present the distribution of per annum volumes here.
2) The "ancient" epoch (C, D)y allegedly spanning the years 1-517 from the foundation of Rome, is de-
scribed in "chronicle Y" that we compiled from two following texts:
2a) Roman History by Titus Livyy Volumes 1-6, Moscow, 1897-1899, describing events allegedly spanning the years 1-459 from the foundation of Rome. After that, the text of Livy comes to a sudden end. His subsequent books are considered lost. In Chroni, Appendix 6.2, we present distribution of per annum volumes in the books by Titus Livy. In doing so, "year zero" of Livy must be identified with approximately the year 300 a.d. of F. Gregorovius.
2b) To fill up the end of the "ancient" period (C, D) allegedly from year 459 up to 517 from the foundation of Rome, we used a relevant part of a contemporary monograph - Essays on History of Ancient Rome by V. S. Sergeyevy Moscow, 1928, OGIZ. In doing so, we relied on the strong dependence of the book by Sergeyev on the one by Livy that we discovered, with the coefficient of proximity p = 2X10-12. See fig. 5.9 and fig. 5.10 in Chroni, Chapter 5.
The calculation of the coefficient p(Xy Y)y where X stands for books by Gregorovius describing mediaeval Rome, and Y is the sum of books by Titus Livy and Sergeyev describing the "ancient" Rome, shows that p fX, Y) = 6X10"11 - a very small value. If we discard Sergeyev's text and compare text X' = the part of Gregorovius' text allegedly from 300 to 758 a.d., and text Y' = the part of the Roman History by Livy allegedly from year 1 to 459 from the foundation of i i ,
Fig. 6.1. The peak correlation of the volume functions for the "ancient" Titus Livy and his description of the "ancient" Rome () as compared to that of the modern work of F. Gregorovius () describing Rome in the Middle Ages.
Rome, then calculation yields p(X\ Y') = 6X10"10. This is another very small value.
Both results indicate dependence between the two epochs described in different places of "the Scaligerian textbook" - namely, the "ancient" epoch and the mediaeval one. To be more precise, we have discovered a dependence between the original sources describing them. This dependence manifests itself explicidy and is of the same nature as that between texts describing events known to be "the same", fig. 6.1, fig. 6.2 and fig. 6.3. The chronological shift which identifies the "antiquity" and the Middle Ages is one of approximately 1050 years.
We have similarly compared the graphs of per annum volumes of the book by V. S. Sergeyev () which describes "antique" Rome in years 1-510 from the foundation of the City, and the book by F. Grego-rovius ([ 196]) which describes mediaeval Rome from allegedly 300 a.d. to allegedly 817 a.d. The result is represented in fig. 6.4, fig. 6.5 and fig. 6.6. The correlation between the principal peaks on both graphs is clearly visible, indicating a strong dependence between these texts. This result was fairly predictable, since, as we have already seen, Sergeyevs book is a fairly faithful follower of "ancient" Titus Livy. The chronological shift here is one of approximately 1050 years.
Comparison between per annum volumes of the "ancient" work by Titus Livy and the mediaeval work by C. Baronius () yields a similar result - namely, the dependence between the descriptions of "antique Rome" and "mediaeval Rome". We examined the book by Baronius Deeds, Ecclesiastic and Secular; from the Nativity to 1198.- Moscow, 1913. Printing house of P. P. Ryabushinsky. (Baronius, Annates ecclesiastici a Christo nato ad annum 1198.) This work was first published in 1588-1607 in Rome, in 12 volumes. In Chroni, Appendix 6.3 we provide the distribution of per annum volumes in the work of Baronius as calculated by us.
The fundamental"ancient" work by Titus Livy, in several volumes, describes the Regal Rome, or the First Roman empire in our terms, and the "ancient" Roman republic. In general, Titus Livy spans the time interval from year 1 to 380 from the foundation of the City. The Scaligerian conversion of dates yields an interval of the alleged years 753-373 b.c.
The first part of the mediaeval work by C. Baronius
Was this article helpful?