t+SO

Fig. 6.4. The peak correlation of the volume functions for the modern book by V. S. Sergeyev describing the "ancient" Rome ([767]) as compared to that of the modern work of F. Gregorovius ([196]) describing Rome in the Middle Ages.

chapter 6 i the construction of a global chronological map | 2ö1

chapter 6 i the construction of a global chronological map | 2ö1

Fig. 6.7. The peak correlation of the volume functions for the "ancient" Titus Livy and his description of the "ancient" Rome ([482]) as compared to the description of the mediaeval Rome by Caesar Baronius (Baron, or Barin? [the archaic Russian word for "Master", or "Gentleman"] ) ( [50] ).

Fig. 6.7. The peak correlation of the volume functions for the "ancient" Titus Livy and his description of the "ancient" Rome ([482]) as compared to the description of the mediaeval Rome by Caesar Baronius (Baron, or Barin? [the archaic Russian word for "Master", or "Gentleman"] ) ( [50] ).

is dedicated to the Second and the Third Roman empires, i.e., an epoch allegedly from the beginning of a.d. up to year 400 a.d.

Both books are divisible into per annum fragments, i.e., pieces describing exacdy one year each, see Chroni, Appendix 6.3. By calculating the volumes of each of such "chapters" we obtain a sequence of numbers - the volume function for a given book. Then we draw a volume graph for each book by year, showing the degree of detail in covering each year. Let us compare the volume graphs for the "ancient" Titus Livy and the mediaeval Caesar Baronius, superposing graphs one on top the other. We identify Titus Livy s year 1 from the foundation of the City with Caesar Baronius' year 17 a.d.

Comparison between the graphs of Livy and Baronius is shown on fig. 6.7, fig. 6.8, fig. 6.9 and fig. 6.10. The graphs are explicitly "similar". Namely, notwithstanding the different quantity of local maxima in the two graphs, whenever a peak or a close group of peaks appear on Livy's graph, a pronounced "hump", formed by several closely situated peaks, unmistakably raises on Baronius' graph. Roughly speaking, the "humps" on Livy's graph and those of Baronius occur more or less simultaneously.

Application of the empirico-statistical procedure described above confirms that local peaks on both graphs do correlate well - that is, the chronicles by the "ancient" Livy and the mediaeval Baronius are dependent. In other words, they apparendy describe the same period in the history of the same region. Simply speaking, "ancient" Rome and mediaeval Rome are probably "the same thing". The thing is, certain sources "remained in place" and were later named mediaeval. Others were artificially shifted deep into the past and named "ancient" afterwards. In general, both tell the same story.

Thus, the chronological shift identifying "antiquity" and the Middle Ages is approximately 1050 years.

Then all (A, B) and (C, D) epochs appearing to be abnormally close from the viewpoint of coefficient p(X, Y) were marked on the global chronological map. Let us name such epochs p-dependent. We depict them with identical symbols on the chronological map. Let us reiterate: when we speak about the "dependence of historical epochs", in no way do we mean that certain actual periods in the history of civiliza tions are "dependent", repeating one another. We have found no data of this kind. We only assert dependence of certain chronicles, actually describing the same historical period but erroneously placed in different epochs in the "Scaligerian textbook."

Was this article helpful?

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.

## Post a comment