16 Comments
User's avatar
Sol Sön's avatar

Interesting analysis, though the timing is messed up. The actual burning down of the ancient libraries and rewriting of history begun in in the 14 century. Same time is the one of the beginning of the real dark ages, which begun with the burning of libraries, books, the people reading them, and of course the witches.

Although some of the new texts where written in the thirteenth century, they actually begun in the fourteenth century by rewriting the Greek mythology and inserting stories of human sacrifices into every mythology, along with false stories of empires at war and of insane and genocidal horrors which never happened, and all to justify the the horror which themselves preached and worshiped.

You may be interested in learning something about the Bock saga, which is a story which predates every other story or mythology on the planet.

https://bocksaga.substack.com/p/enter-the-bock-saga

Expand full comment
Me Stuff's avatar

Never heard of it! Thank you.

Expand full comment
Amaterasu Solar's avatar

Given the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet - who have been behind the scenes for millennia - toy with thing to satisfy Themselves... I can give very good probabilities that there was never a "dark age."

Thanks for this examination!

Expand full comment
Palamambron's avatar

This piece made me recall a book I recently perused, which is an account from the time period in question. I'm not saying the missing 300 years theory is wrong, just that we have some accounts from that era, or perhaps this book is dated incorrectly: https://archive.org/details/jewishprincedomi0000zuck

Expand full comment
Alamo Dude's avatar

There is one clear fact we can count on from Historical Linear Time. There is a forwards only ratchet. If this was a random chaos atheist universe, then linear time would be randomized. Jumping backwards, forwards, pausing, randomly. So we can relegate Atheism, and Fence Sitting Clock Maker God 🥚nog-schtick~ism to the shelves with Flat Earthism.

What about pseudo science Religion Scientism’s “God of the Gaps” some day over forwards only moving linear time, some how Science will have “all the answers”. Except whoops, real science already proved the validity of Infinity. Even uber atheist Hawking proved it. So by definition, Science can never box in Infinity with ending boundaries halting Infinity. By having “all the answers”. Not only that, also per Hawking, that means linear time can’t have an Omega ending. Rather, it is a möbius we enter, like Pi. With an infinite spiral. Of course there also can be no Center(s) of our universe. With out definitive boundaries to define a center. So Hawking and others chasing one is the ultimate 🌈 chasing money grant grift. And since Hawking claimed all the lights would go out when he died. And they all stayed on instead, including the lights in our dreams, we now know scientifically that atheists are Not the center of our universe. Just like the earth and sun are not. Because a center of Infinity is a mirage.

Pray or be prey, 🙏🙏🙏🧐

Expand full comment
Stegiel's avatar

https://chronologia.org/en/index.html

Created finally in the XVI century A.D. and accepted today chronology and history of the ancient and medieval world, evidently contains big mistakes.

Many outstanding scientists understood it and discussed during a long period of time. But it appeared to be a difficult task to build a new, non-contradictory concept of chronology.

Starting from 1975 a group of mathematicians, mainly from the Moscow State University, were engaged in the development of this problem. Interesting results were received and published both in scientific periodical print and in separate monographs. We underline, that new concept of chronology is based, mainly, on analysis of historical sources WITH THE METHODS OF MODERN MATHEMATICAL STATISTICS and vast COMPUTER CALCULATIONS.

The task of chronology is to put in order the events into proper way on a temporary scale based on the available information. This task naturally fits into the field of applications to modern mathematical statistics, theory of information. The methods of humanities, one of which is history, are not enough for solving chronological issues. New chronology imposes another psychological picture of perception of the antiquity. Now the word "antiquity" should be connected with XV-XVII centuries A.D. that is with the events, distant from us on 300-400 years. Expression "high antiquity" should now relate to the XIII-XIV centuries A.D. And the words "the highest antiquity" – are already the XI-XII centuries A. D. BEFORE THE X-XI CENTURIES A.D. THE EPOCH OF SILENCE OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS COMES. (See the book RECONSTRUCTION).

Our analyses of the chronology and history opened a striking circumstance. Based on the applied by us mathematical methods it was proved, that the Scaligerian chronology, and therefore also the Scaligerian history of the "antiquity" and the Middle Ages, is totally wrong. Moreover, it appeared that our history right up to the end of the XVI century was consciously falsified at the epoch of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskiy

Expand full comment
Palamambron's avatar

From a history of music perspective, there are some periods where we don't have anything or very scant composition: 1695-1708. England is known as a country without music from 1695 (death of Purcell) until Benjamin Britton (the modern age). The early classical music of Europe is so different from the late baroque that I consider time line inaccuracy to be a possibility.

Expand full comment
Stegiel's avatar

https://notanothermusichistorycliche.blogspot.com/2016/06/what-happened-to-english-music-between.html#:~:text=Purcell%27s%20early%20death%2C%20at%20the%20age%20of%20thirty-six%2C,and%20then%20Britten%20emerged%20some%20two%20centuries%20later.

I’ve written a few posts about the classical music canon and the way in which music history has emphasized composers to the exclusion of other factors. This sentence, penned by Phillip Huscher, demonstrates some of the problems with these conventions. The canon doesn’t include any English composers from roughly 1700 to 1900, so one might deduce that nothing important happened with English music for about 200 years. In fact, even in the 19th century, England earned the nickname “das Land ohne Musik” (“the country without music”) because of this perceived lack of composers. Notice that the nickname originated in German—it comes from a time when German-speaking areas were asserting their cultural superiority, especially in music. But this cliché is not historically accurate.

First of all, there were several English composers who wrote music between Henry Purcell and Edward Elgar: William Boyce, Samuel Sebastian Wesley, John Stainer, William Sterndale Bennett, Cipriani Potter, Henry Hugo Pierson, and Arthur Sullivan (as in “Gilbert and Sullivan”), just to name a few. Most of them produced religious music, which goes a long way to explain their absence from the canon. Other than some works by Bach, the canon almost completely ignores religious music, particularly in the case of England, where the official state religion is an eponymous denomination without much sway in the rest of Europe. Religious music thrived in England, which undermines the claim that “a specifically English musical style” wasn’t developing during this period.

There are other factors that worked against these composers, as well. English culture had a particular moral suspicion toward music, which meant that it didn’t gain nearly as much respect or support as an art form as it did in, say, Germany. “Musician” was not regarded as a viable profession for English gentlemen, certainly not as respectable as “banker” or “engineer” or “barrister,” so few were encouraged to pursue it as a career. Not only that, but English music lovers tended to prefer music by foreigners, to the point where some English musicians adopted German or Italian stage names just to be taken seriously.

The two most popular composers in England between Purcell and Elgar were both German: George Frideric Handel in the 18th century and Felix Mendelssohn in the 19th century. Mendelssohn was a frequent visitor to Britain, but Handel spent most of his career in England and eventually became a citizen. Both composers influenced English music, initiating stylistic trends. Even though these trends were inspired by foreign-born composers, they shouldn't be excluded from the “English musical style.” To a listener from the 18th or 19th century, a Handelian oratorio would definitely sound more “English” than “German.”

My biggest problem with Huscher’s sentence, however, is that he puts an entire country’s musical culture on the shoulders of a few individuals. It sounds like Purcell really screwed England over by dying early (Gee, thanks Purcell!). Then, somehow, Elgar single-handedly developed a national style, reviving English music. Once again, it’s the Great Men who receive credit for changes that involved many people and larger cultural forces. The canon narrows our focus to just two people (well, three: Benjamin Britten gets a shout-out because he uses a theme by Purcell in his Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra), overlooking two centuries’ worth of interesting history.

To give you a sense of what English music sounded like before Elgar became famous, here's John Stainer's “God So Loved the World” from his oratorio The Crucifixion. It comes from 1887, so it's at the very end of the alleged gap described by Huscher. You can hear that the English style had indeed come a long way since the Baroque music of Purcell.

Expand full comment
Palamambron's avatar

My last post was about the Death of Purcell, his last will and testament: https://palamambron.substack.com/p/the-last-will-and-testament-of-henry?r=q3id2 I'm not a music history Phd. I'm interested in your commentary.

Expand full comment
Stegiel's avatar

I am quite distant from scholarship. Though I read. And I will read your post with interest.

Expand full comment
Palamambron's avatar

My primary interest in music is listening. I was a music comp major in another lifetime, it seems now, and a percussionist focusing on tympani. I’ve been researching Purcell lately, but I haven’t been satisfied that anyone has captured the political moment of the 1690s, and what was really going on with the Orange Revolution.

Expand full comment
Stegiel's avatar

I liked the thesis of poisoning and a forged or altered will.

Expand full comment
Stegiel's avatar

Pictoral art I suspect caught it. Which leads us to a singular painting by Pieter van der Meulen, The Entry of King William Into Ireland. It has played in Northern Irish history. Purchased by the Unionist government of Ulster in 1933, it originally hung in the Great Hall of Stormont. After shifting locations several times, eventually the Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley (of all people) hung it in his office. It is presumably the only picture of the Pope in glory that Dr. Paisley ever liked.

The Entry of King William Into Ireland, Pieter van der Meulen. (c) Northern Ireland Assembly; Supplied by The Public Catalogue Foundation.

Expand full comment
Paul's avatar

History is indeed reconstructed but not 300 years at that time; the material history of the Vikings in Britain in these centuries is overwhelming. This is the wrong target for your usual good aim Betty.

Expand full comment
Me Stuff's avatar

I am just asking questions. Ain’t nuffin wrong with that.

Expand full comment