by
Damien F. Mackey
“Petrarch wrote "On Famous Men", a
series of biographies.
He, as it were, 'repeated' the work of the
'ancient' Plutarch's – 'Parallel Lives'.”
A. Fomenko and G. Nosovskiy
Petrarch is a highly important figure as a virtual
founder of the Renaissance:
Francesco Petrarca (Italian: [franˈtʃesko
peˈtrarka]; July 20, 1304 – July 19, 1374), commonly anglicized
as Petrarch (/ˈpiːtrɑːrk, ˈpɛtrɑːrk/), was an Italian
scholar and poet in
Renaissance Italy, who was one of the earliest humanists. His rediscovery of Cicero's letters
is often credited with initiating the 14th-century Renaissance.
….
Mackey’s comment: For a new angle on Cicero, see my:
Ptolemy IX “Chickpea” and Cicero “Chickpea”
The Wiki article continues:
Petrarch is often considered the founder of Humanism.[1] In the 16th century, Pietro
Bembo created the model for the modern Italian
language based on Petrarch's works, as well as those of Giovanni Boccaccio, and, to a lesser extent, Dante
Alighieri.[2] Petrarch would be later endorsed as a
model for Italian style by the Accademia della Crusca.
That radical pair of Russian mathematicians, A. Fomenko
and G. Nosovskiy, whose historical revisions will often go right over the top,
do have some interesting things to say, though, about Petrarch, who they
believe was the same as Plutarch (How it
was in Reality): http://chronologia.org/en/how_it_was/05_30.html
37. PLUTARCH AND
PETRARCH.
The researchers of
Petrarch's work point out an oddity which is incomprehensible to them. Petrarch
wrote many letters to his contemporaries. And in his Latin correspondence
Petrarch strived - allegedly on purpose - TO OBSCURE THE REALITY OF THE MIDDLE
AGES BY SUBSTITUTING IT WITH 'CLASSICAL ANTIQUTY'. When addressing his
contemporaries, he used the ancient nicknames and names – Socrates, Laelius,
Olympius, Simonides, etc. meaning that he wrote the way as if he 'lived in an
ancient time'. We are told that he Latinised his letters on purpose, so they
take assumed the form of antiquity. Even when talking of his own era, he
'disguised' it under the elegant drapery of the 'classically ancient'.
…. today it is necessary to seriously consider a theory purporting that Petrarch purposefully disguised the Middle Ages as 'the classical antiquity'.
Petrarch wrote "On Famous Men", a series of biographies. He, as it were, 'repeated' the work of the 'ancient' Plutarch's – 'Parallel Lives'. It is likely that PLUTARCH is simply another nickname of PETRARCH. As a result of the activities of recent chronologists Petrarch 'divaricated' on the pages of the chronicles. One of his reflections under the name of 'Plutarch' was moved into the deepest past. Approximately 1400 years back, as in the cases with Poggio Bracciolini and Alberti ….
Almost all the characters of PETRARCH are public figures of 'classical' republican Rome: Lucius Junius Brutus, Publius Horatius Cocles, Camillus, Titus Manlius Torquatus, Fabricius, Quintus Fabius Maximus, Marcus Porcius Cato Major, Scipio Aemilianus Africanus, etc. Most likely, Petrarch - aka Plutarch – simply wrote the biographies of the personalities of his epoch. Only later the editors of the XVI-XVII cc. reviewed these life descriptions and shifted them into the deep past. ….
And again, they write:
How
Petrarch created the legend of the
glorious
Italian Rome out of nothing
….
In 1974 the world celebrated 600 years since the death of
Francesco Petrarch (1304-1374), the first prominent writer of the Middle Ages
who, according to Leonardo Bruni, “ had been the first who… could understand
and bring into light the ancient elegance of the style that had been forlorn and forgotten before” ([927]). The actual personality of Petrarch is
nowadays perceived as mysterious, vague and largely unclear, and reality often
becomes rather obfuscated. But we are talking about the events of the XIV
century here! The true dating of the texts ascribed to Petrarch often remains
thoroughly unclear.
Already an eminent poet, Petrarch entered the second period
of his life – the period of wandering. In the alleged year of 1333 he travelled
around France, Flanders and Germany. “ During his European travels, Petrarch
became directly acquainted with scientists, searching the libraries of various
monasteries trying to find forgotten
ancient manuscripts and studying the monuments to the past glory of Rome” ([644], page 59). Nowadays it is assumed that Petrarch
became one of the first and most vehement advocates of the “ ancient” authors
who, as we are beginning to understand, were either his contemporaries, or
preceded him by 100-200 years at the most.
In 1337 he visited the Italian Rome for the first
time ([644], page 59). What did he see
there? Petrarch writes (if these are indeed his real letters, and not the result
of subsequent editing), “Rome seemed even greater to me than I could have
imagined – especially the greatness of her ruins” ([644]). Rome in particular
and XIV century Italy in general had met Petrarch with an utter chaos of
legends, from which the poet had selected the ones he considered congruent to his
a priori opinion of “the greatness of Italian Rome.” Apparently, Petrarch was among
those who initiated the legend of “the great ancient Italian Rome” without any solid basis. A significant amount of real mediaeval evidence of the correct
history of Italy in the Middle Ages was rejected as “erroneous.” It would be of
the utmost interest to study these “mediaeval anachronisms” considered preposterous
nowadays, if only briefly.
According to mediaeval legends, “Anthenor’s sepulchre” was
located in Padua ([644]). In Milan, the statue of Hercules was worshipped. The
inhabitants of Pisa claimed their town to have been founded by Pelopsus. The
Venetians claimed Venice to have been built of
the stones of the destroyed Troy!
Achilles was supposed to have ruled in Abruzza, Diomedes in Apulia, Agamemnon
in Sicily, Euandres in Piemont, Hercules in Calabria. Apollo was rumoured to have
been an astrologer, the devil, and the
god of the Saracens! Plato was considered a doctor, Cicero a knight and a troubadour, Virgil a mage who blocked the crater of the Vesuvius, etc.
All of this is supposed to have taken place in the XIV
century or even later!
This chaos of information obviously irritated Petrarch, who
had come to Rome already having an a priori idea of the “antiquity” of the
Italian Rome. It is noteworthy that Petrarch left us no proof of the “antiquity
of Rome” that he postulates. On the contrary, his letters – if they are indeed
his real letters, and not later edited copies – paint an altogether different
picture. Roughly speaking, it is as follows: Petrarch is convinced that there
should be many “great buildings of ancient times” in Rome. He really finds none of those. He is confused and writes this about it:
“Where are
the thermae of Diocletian and Caracalla? Where
is the Timbrium of Marius, the
Septizonium and the thermae of Severus? Where
is the forum of Augustus and the
temple of Mars the Avenger? Where
are the holy places of Jupiter the
Thunder-Bearer on the Capitol and Apollo on the Palatine? Where is
the portico of Apollo and the basilica of Caius and Lucius, where is the
portico of Libya and the theatre of Marcellus? Where are
the temple of Hercules and the Muses built by Marius Philip, and the temple of
Diana built by Lucius Cornifacius? Where
is the temple of Free Arts of
Avinius Pollio, where is the theatre of Balbus, the Amphitheatre of Statilius
Taurus? Where are the numerous constructions erected by Agrippa, of which
only the Pantheon remains? Where
are the splendorous palaces of the
emperors? One finds everything in
the books; when one tries to find them in the city,
one discovers that they either disappeared
[sic!] or that only the vaguest of their traces remain”. ([644])
These countless inquiries of “where” this or the other
object might be, especially the final phrase, are amazing. They indicate
clearly that Petrarch came to Italian Rome with an a priori certainty that the
great Rome as described in the old books is the Italian Rome.
As we are now beginning to understand, these books were most probably referring
to the Rome on the Bosporus.
However, in the early XIV century or even later, it was ordered to assume that
the ancient manuscripts referred to Italian
Rome. Petrarch had to find “field traces”
of the “great Roman past” in
Italy; he searched vigorously, found nothing,
and was nervous about this fact.
However, the letters attributed to Petrarch contain traces
of Roman history that differs considerably from the history we are taught
nowadays. For instance, Petrarch insists that the pyramid that is now
considered “the Pyramid of Cestius” is really the sepulchre of Remus ….
Could Petrarch have been correct? Really, Scaligerian
history doesn’t know the location of the grave of the “ancient” Remus. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment