Lives Journal 9

Branko J. Hribovshek








It is very easy to take »Tacitus´s« Germania as genuine – or as a forgery. It is much harder, actually practically impossible, to prove its authenticity, than to prove it to be a forgery. This is probably an additional reason to ignore completely any critical work. Germania is listed to have been »discovered« with Dialogues and Agricola in Fulda by Poggio Bracciolini and allegedly recovered by Enoch of Ascoli, as generally reported (Krebs).

J. W. Ross [16] actually proved that Tacitus's Annales are forgery. As already said, he accused Poggio Bracciolini as the most possible culprit.

I do not like the word »forgery« ... but I will keep it.

If Annales and according to Hochart, also Histories are forged, the same is due for all Tacitus's works, also Germania, Dialogues and Agricola. The later is already declared to be disapproved by the modern archeological findings.


Let me quote just a part of the sentence from Birgitta Hoffmann's lecture on »Archaeology versus Tacitus' Agricola«: [33]

... what is wrong with the text? Is Tacitus actually lying?

And somewhere later :

And we should perhaps also recall that the Roman writer Tertullian wrote about 100 years after the completion of the Agricola:

»Cornelius Tacitus, however,who, to say the truth, is most loquacious in falsehood«.

Tertullian and especially Tertullian's writings are also very questionable ... but here we are confronted with the same problems, concerning the authenticity of classics, with an addition of the emotionally strong religious bias ... and why is Tertullian not quoted as a proof of the authenticity of the Tacitus's works?

It is a little bit intricate to read Ross or Hochart – they are very loquacious, their sentences very long, explaining broadly – but it is just the style of the written word in their time. I will try to abridge Ross' text, keeping the essence of the narrative, but not loosing the style ...

Above, concerning Poggio, I already extensively used Ross' arguments and comments, here I cite mostly the general ones.

Cited are just the parts, which are clear from the standpoint of the common sense and do not need any especial reader's knowledge to comprehend them, but on my opinion suffice to prove that allegedly Tacitus's works are not genuine Roman texts.


[16] Ross, Book I, Chapter I, i:


... Tacitus is raised by his genius to a height, which lifts him above the reach of the critic. He shines in the firmament of letters like a sun before whose lustre all, Parsee-like, bow down in worship. Preceding generations have read him with reverence and admiration: as one of the greatest masters of history, he must continue to be so read. But though neither praise nor censure can exalt or impair his fame, truth and justice call for a passionless inquiry into the nature and character of works presenting such difference in structure, and such contradictions in a variety of matters as the History and the Annals ...


[16] Ross, Book I,Chapter II, i:


... In beginning the investigation, I shall proceed on the assumption that it is a modern forgery of the fifteenth century, having as grounds for this assumption that it was the age when the original MSS. containing the work were discovered; that the existence of those MSS. cannot be traced farther than that century; that (which is of vast consequence in an inquiry of this description) it was an age of imposture; of credulity so immoderate that people were easily imposed upon, believing, as they did, without sufficient evidence, or on slight evidence, or no evidence at all, whatever was foisted upon them; when, too, the love of lucre was such that for money men willingly forewent the reputation that is the accompaniment of the grandest achievements of the intellect. Take, for example, the noble art of printing; for inventing it any man of genius might reasonably be proud. ... But who, for a certainty, knows the inventor of printing? or the country of its origin? Was it Holland in the person of Coster of Haarlem? Or Germany in the person of Mentel, the nobleman, of Strasburg? Or Guttenberg, the goldsmith, of Mayence? ...


[16] Ross, Book I,Chapter II, ii:


... The temptation was great to palm off literary forgeries, especially of the chief writers of antiquity, on account of the Popes, in their efforts to revive learning, giving money rewards and indulgences to those who should procure MS. copies of any of the ancient Greek or Roman authors. Manuscripts turned up, as if by magic, in every direction; from libraries of monasteries, obscure as well as famous; from the most out-of-the-way places,¡ª the bottom of exhausted wells, besmeared by snails, as the History of Velleius Paterculus; or from garrets, where they had been contending with cobwebs and dust, as the Poems of Catullus. So long as the work had an appearance of high antiquity, it passed muster as an old classic; and no doubt could be entertained of its genuineness, if, in addition to its ancient look, it was brought in a fragmentary form.

We have no history of the last six fragmentary books of the Annals¡ªat least, up to this time; though I shall give it towards the end of this inquiry; ...

It is not important if Ross actually found the real culprit of forgery in Poggio Bracciolini. Essential is his analytical method to prove the forgery in the concept of its historical background.


Manuscripts turned up as if by magic ... Nicolò Niccoli, Poggio's lifelong friend and passionate collector of codices, possessed himself some 800 pieces. The richest libraries of the monasteries could have then an order of magnitude of 1000 codices. This amount of codices was able to check an experienced manuscript hunter in a couple of days. So it is practically impossible that even by the first visit, some manuscripts would not be noticed by the manuscript hunter . Therefore the hunters named the most out-of-the-way places, where the forgotten manuscripts awaited their rediscovery.


Corpora lente augescent cito extinguuntur.

Bodies grow slowly and die quickly. (Tacitus)


And not only the bodies – the manuscripts also!


This places were actually very improbable as the discovery sites. Just to produce a parchment from the skin of an animal was a relatively expensive matter, then to invest the time to scribe or transcribe the text, – and then to dump it somewhere and forget ... This somewhere was actually the place where a parchment wouldn't survive even a couple of years – humidity, mustiness, mice, dust, temperature, insects ... and it should there rest at least a century or more, forgotten. The parchment, if still usable, was usually cleaned and overwritten with a new text.

Where from came the originals to be transcribed? In dark ages, in the monasteries in which the manuscripts should be later found, which at the time of authors did not even existed? Were they brought from Constantinople? Perhaps were they hidden somewhere in Rome? Perhaps from Toledo transcribers? If they were transcribed, why then hidden?


Ross, continued, but abridged by me, on this subject:


[16] Ross, Book II, Chapter IV, i:


The suspicion becomes all the stronger with the fact before us that the literature of the ancient Romans was totally extinguished in Europe in the very opening centuries of the Christian era; and that their language would have been also lost had it not been preserved till the age of Justinian (527-565) by the pleadings and writings of the leading lawyers; ...


... it being excessively questionable whether monasteries ever really conserved, to any, even the least extent, the interests of human knowledge ...

... But even if the works of the ancient Romans were preserved by the monks in their convent libraries, that was only till the approach of the last quarter of the sixth century. Then came the dark period of the conquest ...

... during that period literature became entirely extinguished, for two whole centuries (568-774) in demolishing monasteries and destroying books as in leveling fortresses and ravaging cities ...

... the revival of learning during the age of Petrarch and the Father of modern Italian prose, Boccaccio, in the middle of the fourteenth century. Thus for eight hundred years there was a moral eclipse of all that was excellent in human knowledge in Italy and the whole West of Europe ...


[16] Ross, Book II ,Chapter IV, iv:


... We can easily understand how the valuable works of the Greeks and Romans, ... were safest and longest preserved in their respective countries, and that, therefore, they could have been found, sooner than elsewhere, in Greece and Italy; but after those countries had been thoroughly ransacked, it is not so clear to comprehend how it should follow that their works were to be just as rapidly and easily found in other, and those barbarous countries, nay, indeed, more rapidly and more easily. ...


... If those works had remained in civilized hands, centuries would not have elapsed without the world being cognizant of their existence; the learned could not have lost sight of them; the select few would have transmitted copies from generation to generation; but when they passed into the possession of unlettered men living in barbarous countries, they would then be altogether hidden from view; such people would treat them as swine treat pearls; spurn them; not keep them in libraries, but throw them away as useless lumber into cellars, pits, dark holes, dirty passages, dry wells; fling them away as refuse into dustbins or upon dung heaps. Nearly as much says Bracciolini by these shadowy phrases: »in darkness«; »in a blind dungeon«; »in a dirty dungeon;« »in dismal dungeons,« and »in many dens,« as for instance, »for the sake of finding books that were kept by them in their convents shut up in darkness and in a blind dungeon«

... He had rescued renowned authors out of the dismal dungeons in which, against their will and without being used, they had been kept concealed (for they were shut up in many a den and foul dungeon . ...

Books thrown away in such places must be regarded, when recovered, as found by the purest accident; hence it was at once comprehensible how they had remained unknown to the world for hundreds of years; for who would think of looking for books in such places?


Yet it was precisely in such places that Bracciolini and his companions looked for the books that they wanted; what is still stranger, they always found in such queer places the exact books they were in search of. It was so, for example, when they recovered the books in the monastery of St. Gall; the books were not found where, Bracciolini admits, they ought to have been, on account of their excellence, on the shelves of the library, but where slugs and toads are more frequently looked for and found than books and manuscripts, in an exceedingly dirty and dark dungeon at the bottom of a tower and one of these books, Quintilian, though described as »sound and safe,« is also described as being »saturated with moisture and begrimed with mire,« as if it had been made dirty expressly for the occasion of the recovery ...


[16] Ross, Book II, Chapter IV, v:


... This kind of reasoning, when admitted, throws the door open to fraud and forgery;


... How came these books into such places? Who took them from Italy, Greece, or other enlightened parts of the globe? If some learned monk, made abbot or prior of a convent of Germany or Hungary? or some equally learned priest sent as bishop to Christianize the heathen in still more barbarous lands in the North in a far distant age, why should succeeding monks, fonder, be it granted, of ploughing and reaping than reading and writing, treat as refuse books which, though not deemed by them of any value, as far as their own tastes and inclinations were concerned, they, nevertheless, knew were held in the very highest esteem by the studious in more civilized parts; and that these studious people, understanding the language in which they were written, and considering their contents most precious, would willingly give in exchange for them at any time not large, but enormous sums of money?


These are questions that cannot be answered with satisfaction: they seem to give the highest coloring of truth to what has been suggested, that there was a wholesale forgery of these books; and one is almost inclined to give Father Hardouin credit, for being quite right, when he expressed as his belief that, perhaps, not more than two or three of the ancient Latin classics were really written by the old Romans.


These »classic« manuscripts are actually the main mark of the renaissance and it is interesting, why actually emerged the renaissance?

The Church in its beginnings destroyed systematically the Roman literature as the heathen writings, The Bible should be enough if somebody felt the need for reading. More than officially six hundred years later – slowly rose the interest on Roman classics, many interpreting it as the answer on the dullness and intellectual emptiness of the oppressive Church's behavior and teachings. But there were also the members of the high clergy, which promoted the search for the old literature. These were the times in which to The Church inconvenient people or those declared as heretics, were conveniently tortured and then burnt on the stake »just« to save their souls. Therefore it was officially declared that the interest in classics was the interest for the classic aesthetics, art, perhaps wisdom, and not in the long past beliefs.

But I think that it was mostly due to the fact that The Church was slowly loosing its absolute might and power – there is no need for any especial proofs of the situation. For the people, which considered themselves as the heirs of the great Roman Empire, was the promotion of the classic art and history the confirmation of their claims for the leading political role at that time. Among the new emerging powers in Europe, the papacy tried to keep or to promote its superiority over any worldly power. It was actually the situation similar to that later with Germania. It was the reflection on the »glorious« past to evoke and reaffirm the weakened self esteem, to show others again the own supremacy. The competition of the local chieftains and the rich citizens, who will posses more, better and more renown manuscripts was just »en vogue« and a matter of prestige (... would willingly give in exchange for them at any time not large, but enormous sums of money?), well serving the genuinely interested admirers and discoverers of the classic artifacts.






... Exit Poggio ... Enter Aenea Silvio Piccolomini ...


With these words Krebs »freed« Poggio of burden to have »obtained« Germania from the monk of Hersfeld and »burdened« Piccolomini with the further destiny of Germania (p 74,79).


Piccolomini did somehow obtained Germania, which was according to Krebs and others, allegedly recovered, as said, from Fulda by Enoch from Ascoli. But very probably was Germania MS never in Fulda ...


Poggio's son Jacopo »provided evidence« (p.74), so Krebs, that his father in fact not obtained the Germania – which evidence, is his letter enough, and how ? If he knew at all about Germania, he was surely not a fool to endanger his inheritance ...


The fact is that Poggio and Aenea Silvio Bartholomeo named Piccolomini were personal acquaintances.


Perhaps was the young Piccolomini as the student of Filelfo – one of the at the time Florentine humanists – already introduced to Poggio. A letter of Piccolomini to Giovanni Aurispa in 1431 testifies on some introductions to the humanists [34] p.23.


If not, was very probably the young Piccolomini by taking the post of secretary to the bishop Domenico Capranica in 1431, accompanying the bishop to the Council of Basel (1431-39), hardly known to Poggio.

Piccolomini stayed mostly in Basel till 1435. At that time was Poggio also in Basel as the secretary of the Pope Eugenius IV, later following the Pope to Florence. But Poggio as the Pope's secretary was surely well known to young Piccolomini. They both had the similar humanistic interests and prosperous Piccolomini surely didn't pass later unnoticed by Poggio, especially due to Piccolomini's invectives against the Pope Eugenius IV. In the year 1435 was Piccolomini sent by Cardinal Albergati, Eugenius IV's legate at the council, on a secret mission to Scotland. Poggio dwelt in England from 1418 – 1423 and was probably also consulted in the case of Piccolomini's mission.

Returning from the mission Piccolomini sided with the Antipope Felix V, and was so in the party opposite to Eugenius IV. He went, after the Antipope Felix V stepped down, but, very probably just moved out of sight to avoid the possible »consequences«, to Strassbourg and then to Vienna on the court of the Emperor Frederik III.

If not earlier, Poggio learned him then as an opponent to be kept under the scrutiny.


According to Poggio's invective against Antipope Felix V, belonged Piccolomini as a supporter of the Antipope to (Shepherd p. 407):


... For who is ignorant of the character of that tumultuary band of most debauched men ? Who does not know what sort of people, how nefiurious, how abandoned, how wicked, were assembled in that sink of iniquity ?- apostates, fornicators, ravishers, deserters, men convicted of the most shameful crimes, blasphemers, rebels against God and their superiors. ...


Piccolomini surely red this invective, as said, wrote also his own, but did he ever forgot its contents ? ...


They both surely met again in 1445, when Piccolomini returned to Rome, safe due to »diplomatic immunity« and apologized to Pope Eugene IV – »confessing« that he was mislead on the wrong way, to false truth, young, inexperienced, following the bad examples – and was pardoned and went as Pope's mediator to Germany.

The pope is crowned as the »Father of kings and princes, ruler of the world«, so it was worth to »evolve« from Saulus to Paulus, to recognize »the Truth and the Right Way with God's help« as well to remorse humbly past sins.

His further steps in the Church hierarchy were bishop, cardinal and at last pope. The most of his biographers, especially German, are full of praise for him, his pious turn ...


... At last the silence was broken by Roderigo Borgia, »I vote for the Cardinal of Siena«, he said ...[35]


... the Cardinals followed and Piccolomini was in the year 1458 elected to Pope.


Piccolomini in Bulla retractationis 1463 – Poggio was then already dead [36]:


... in ignorance ... in error ... revoking ....Aeneam rejicite, Pium recipite ...


... reject Aenea, receive Pius ... he confessed officially his past mistakes, full regret, but with the new vigor – to avoid any loss of authority due to his former deeds ...

Med drugim si je prisluzhil celó slavilno pesnitev.[36a]


Piccolomini was a very ambitious and actually a very dangerous man – an opportunist and a conformist. Enough for Poggio to be very cautious and conciliate concerning Piccolomini, who named him »auri cupidissimo« (Walser p.199) – an avaricious man.

Poggios fate was actually something similar to Piccolominis. Poggio was at the time of Council of Constance in the service of the Pope John XXIII (according to some sources XXII). After the Pope's abdiction – Poggio remained somewhat loyal to his old »chief«, but tried to get the job by the new Pope. Not succeeding, he went to England employed by Cardinal Beaufort, as mentioned already – actually also moving out of the direct sight of Rome, perhaps avoiding also possible troubles. Both struggled hardly from the poverty to obtain and to attain their positions ...


According to their mutual correspondence, they were both cordial to each other, but if they were friendly, they were no close friends (Walser p.297). Poggio has him written an exceptional letter of congratulation on the event of the election to Pope Pius II, outstanding from the till then usual cordiality, titled: Sanctissimo ac beatissimo domino nostro pape Pio.


Poggio learned already long ago, when, to whom and how much to bend his back.


Poggio surely knew Piccolomini's preoccupation with Teutons. Very probably he passed Germania to Piccolomini – when and where can be only speculated, but it should have been before Piccolomini wrote his, by Germans so famous and cherished, letter(s) to bishop in Mainz, actually to his secretary Martin Mayer (1458).


What would be Poggio's reason to do this? Was he, »auri cupidissimo«, richly paid? Maybe he hoped to keep the good relations with Curia – Piccolomini's influence grew and Poggio was experienced enough to estimate his further rise. After the death of Pope Nicholaus V left Poggio his office in Vatican and took the position of the Florentine chancellor (1453). Later (1456) he wished to return to Vatican. In Vatican stayed his at the time worst adversary Lorenzo Valla, who was held as an »acute grammarian« and allegedly criticized Poggios literary style. Poggio also knew that Valla was earlier accused of heresy by debunking a letter of Christ to Abgarus as a forgery. For Poggio he was a dangerous man. Piccolomini would be very welcome as his ally in Vatican.


As a manuscript of a suspicious provenience, was Germania somewhat less safe to be generally put on the market and for the locals was also just not interesting at all. Not so for Piccolomini.

It is possible that Piccolomini knew Germania's source, maybe he »reformulated« or even »added« something to the manuscript or very probable even asked Poggio to do so – it had just to serve his political goals. This assertion can be made, as Piccolomini allegedly »discovered« Jordanes Getica and in Getica is the reference to Annales of a certain Cornelius ([27] Europa p.180, Book 29, 96).


Ross on the subject ([16] Book I, Chapter I, ii):


It is generally supposed that Jornandez,-whose works are so valuable for their history of the fifth and sixth centuries of our aera, -when speaking, in the second chapter of his History of the Goths, of one »Cornelius as the author of Annals,« is speaking of Tacitus, -it not being till 1533, that Beatus Rhenanus first gave those books the name »Annals« Then how could Jornandez, who lived in the sixth century, have known any writings of Tacitus by the name of »Annals«, when that title was not given to them until the sixteenth century?


Sylvius Aeneus Piccolomini was also humanist, linguistically educated. On the court of Frederik III was he crowned with the »ever verdant laurel leaves« crown of the poets ([34] Ady p. 73) and he was doubtless capable to »correct« Jordanes with an insertion. He fathered two (surely) to twelve (gossip) children – he wrote erotic, sometimes designated as pornographic, texts – his novel »The tale of two lovers« was till the middle of the 20th century a forbidden reading in the catholic female schools – and maybe still nowadays.


But he will be ever rememberd as the father of actually a whole nation – he is the one, as Krebs reports (p.81):


... Piccolomini used Germania to identify Germanen and contemporaneous Germans as the same people at two different moments in history ...


In his work, later named De Europa [64], Piccolomini rarely criticizes the powerful, their wars, their murders, their robberies, their plunders, their rapes ... but they are mostly designed as wise, noble, educated and good Christians. Especially the German nobility was at his heart, he didn't like the French, the Slavonic nations – designed as the very wild ones, but he mostly condemned the wild Swiss, they were surpassed in his view perhaps only by Turks.

His political »wit«, his ambivalence between his personal and his official preferences shows a contrast to his personal experiences and feelings, mostly bending his back not only to powerful, at best illustrated with Cecilia M. Ady's ([34] p. 109) remark:


... it was the sympathy which he met with among the non-Teutonic peoples ...


naming his educated acquaintances, mostly Slavs and Hungarians, but not Teutons – with whom he made quite a bad experience in Bavaria (reported in letters, ([35] Boulting, p. 117):


... no more hard-heated camp than the court of a prince. There envy, jealousy, calumny, hatred, enmity, infamy, insult and ceaseless torment take up their abode ... One cannot spit [by lunch] comfortably, but one must needs soil the clothes of a neighbor ...


He wrote on Vienna:

....The students give themselves over to pleasure they are gluttons and wine-bibbers, they prowl the streets at night and attack citizens, their minds are wholly taken up with light women . ...

... Neustadt is a city of monks and Jews ... Styria, Carinthia and Carniola are inhabited by barbarians ... ([35] Boulting, p. 119).


In these lands he lived and held the bishop's seat ... but they are Slovenian lands, and the Counts and Dukes of Celje disliked he especially – the rare powerful he criticized.


On Leipzig:


For there is a custom at the gatherings of the Saxons to give the place of honor to

those who can swill the most, and they call the pastime a drinking match.


The rows above read as a gossip, but Krebs in his Negotatio Germanie ([39] p. 20) states the similar in this complicated sentence:

... Enea Silvios und seiner oratio fördert signifikante Differenzen zutage; und wieder anders ist das Bild Deutschlands in Enea Silvios Briefen an seine zumeist italienischen Korrespondenten. Aus ihrem jeweiligen Kontext gelöst und zum Deutschlandbild des Autors hypostasiert, widersprechen die Bilder einander derart, daß der Versuch einer verbindlichen Aussage über das Deutschlandbild Enea Silvios schlechterdings scheitern muß; jedoch innerhalb ihres argumentativen Kontextes machen diese Bilder Sinn, weil sie als Argument das jeweilige Beweisziel zu erreichen helfen. ...


and concludes that the Piccolomini's controversial depiction of Germany just suit to serve as argument of evidence to reach the goal of the given context ... actually an application of Machiavellism before Machiavelli..


In De Europa he mentioned the tale that the Franks were fathered by noble Trojans, somewhere else that they are the offspring of Scythes ([27] p. 226), the Saxons were fathered by brave Macedonians – I refer this just to remember on allegedly his people's migration ideas, especially the Slavic ([27] Books 16-21), as it is one of the basic notions from this book, endorsed by German historians. Further, the wild Swiss made from the corpses of the foes the banks and the tables, where they sat and devoured the hearts of their enemies – just the same as the Syrian insurgents with the Assad soldiers nowadays.


He did not mention the Translatio sancti Alexandri, the report on the conversion of Saxons to Christianity, describing the transport of the relic ( the body of the St. Alexander from Rome in Saxonia, in the 9th century), the gift of the Pope Leo to emperor Lothar. But he reports on bleeding hosties ...(on Saxonia, [27] Book 32, 113, p.197)


In De Europa ([27] p. 58, Book I , 4) even one of seldom serious reproaches to Germans, almost excusing the Hungarians for the slaughter of the German traders:

... For the Pannonic nations there is nothing more inconvenient that the trading with Germans, who drag all the gold out of the region.


No passage of his book better illustrates his (official) friendly relation to Germans as his admiration (private?) of count Albrecht, his personal acquaintance. I cite it in German – I am just not capable to translate it in the original amicable pathetic style ([27] p. 232, Book 39, 138, ff):

... In dieser Provinz hatte Friedrich, Markgraf von Brandenburg ... vier Söhne: Johannes, Friedrich, Albrecht und den anderen Friedrich ...

... Albrecht zog fast alle Fürsten Deutschlands auf seine Seite, als er Nürnberger angriff; die Städte schickten den Nürnbergern Hilfe. Es war ein schwerer und grausamer Krieg, in dem so mächtige Gegner zwei Jahre lang mit erbittertem Hass stritten.Sie sollen neun Schlachten geschlagen haben, acht davon vollendete Albrecht als Sieger, nur in einer unterlag er als Besiegter und war erst mit dem Frieden einverstanden, nachdem er die Äcker beraubt, die Gehöfte zerrüttet, das Vieh weggetrieben, die Landbewohner getötet hatte und Proviant und Geld den Streitenden fehlten. Dann wurde auch über den Frieden gesprochen, und zwar nach dem Willen Albrechts. Dieser Albrecht nahm, wie sie sagen, von Kindesbeinen an dazu erzogen, in Waffen an mehr Schlachten teil, als andere Herzogs seines alters von Schlachten gesehen oder gelesen hatten. Er führte Krieg in Polen, er kämpfte in Schlesien, er schlug in Preussen Lager auf, er warf seine Feinde in Böhmen nieder, er machte Feldzüge nach Österreich, er holte sich Beute aus Ungarn, kein Winkel auf dem Boden Deutschlands, den er nicht bewaffnet betreten hatte; er führte unzählige Kriege an, er vernichtete die wildesten Feinde, er eroberte die bestbefestigten Städte. Bei Zusammenstossen fing er als Erster den Kampf an, als Sieger kam er als Letzter aus der Schlacht; beim erobern von Städten erstieg er oft als Erster die Mauer; von zahlreichen Nachbarn zu Duellen aufgefordert, lehnte er niemals ab, und immer warf er den Feind nieder. Bei kriegerischen Spielen, bei denen man sich mit der Lanze misst, wurde er als der Einzige von allen ermittelt, der niemals von Pferd geworfen wurde und der alle, die gegen ihn los rannten, abwarf. Aus Turnieren ging er immer als Sieger hervor. Siebzehn Mal eilte er, allein bedeckt mit Schild und Helm, im Übrigen nackt (wie es bei den Deutschen eine besondere Art des Duells ist), gegen seine auf gleiche Weise bewaffneten Gegner zu, mit scharfer Lanze, wobei er keinen Schaden erlitt, währen er selbst die Gegner immer vom Pferd werfen konnte. Wegen dieser Taten wurde er nicht zu Unrecht der »deutsche Achill« genannt, an dem nicht nur die Kriegskünste und die Tugenden eines Feldherrn mit einziger Anmut strahlten, sondern auch der Adel seiner Herkunft. Der hohe Wuchs und die Schönheit seines Körpers, die Grösse seiner Kräfte und seine beredte Sprache machten ihn bewundernswert und fast göttlich.


In short, ... Albrecht agreed to peace after he plundered the fields, destroyed the farms, took away the cattle, killed all the peasants ...

... He conducted war in Poland, he fought in Schlesia, he camped in Prussia, he defeated his enemies in Bohemia, he made campaigns in Austria, he looted in Hungary, there is no corner in the German land, where he did not armed stepped in, he conducted countless wars, he destroyed the wildest enemies, he captured the most reinforced towns. He started as the first in the fight, returned as the last from the battle ...

... Seventeen times he returned from the duel, which he fought riding naked on the horse, having just the helmet, shield and lance, victorious ... therefore he was named »the German Achilles« ...

... he was not only charmingly splendid in the arts of war, in the virtues of commander-in -chief, but also in the nobility of his descent. Admirable were his high stature and the beauty of his body, the might of his strengths and his eloquent speech had made him almost god-like ...


The one of the German national icons is his sword »Das Kurbrandenburgische Schwert«, which he got from Aenea, the Pope Pius II, with the words:


Nimm das heilige Schwert als Geschenk von Gott, mit dessen Hilfe du deine Feinde niederschlagen mögest. Pius Pontifex.


or in English:


Take the holy sword as the gift of God, with his help thou may defeat the enemies. Pius Pontifex.


Did Aenea Sylvius Piccolomini really admired Albrecht? As a Pope he named him »almost god-like«, revealing his soul's deepest pain. He himself was »der Giftzwerg« – »the poisonous dwarf« as in German speaking lands nickname the very ambitious guys of small stature as he was, crowned as the king of poets, at the time valued less than a cleaner of stables.

Perhaps he just flattered Albrecht – as a good and very skilled politician of naturally Machiavellian attitude, he wanted Albrecht to fight the Turks. To organize the forces to fight the Turks was his the very last great wish with which he died.


Pope Pius II : »... Ich freue mich, dass unser Jahrhundert mit einem so grossen Mann geschmückt wird, ... « – ... I am delighted that our century will be decorated with such an eminent man, ...


On Eric of Stettin [what Piccolomini heard of [40]]


... He was a handsome man with golden hair, fairly large eyes, a glowing complexion and a long white neck. He dressed unostentatiously and covered his white neck with a linen scarf, albeit fastened with a golden buckle. Alone and without any assistance he could jump onto his horse without touching the stirrups. Every woman who saw him,and especially the Empress (Barbara of Celje), was aroused by desire.


But as Eric was and is Albrecht just the master sample of a noble Germanic warrior – perhaps is also somewhere to be found his description as a blond, blue-eyed giant ...


But, this text is just one of his German-philic descriptions, which corresponds excellently to the notions of Germani in Germania's text. And, the very first introduction of Germania to the public was made just by Piccolomini. Did he father also some of Germania's contents?


Even nowadays has Piccolomini a unique position as the originator of the »Europäische Gedanke«,

a notion of Europe, which he wanted to be united in a struggle to resist the Otomans ...[41].






Let me list the most prominent. They all have at least indirect relation to the authenticity problem of the classic manuscripts. They are not referenced by the official scientific community.


Isaac Newton (1642-1727) was one of the first if not the first, who should be today called a revisionist, maybe even a conspiracy theorist – as he tried to revise the official chronology , based on Scaliger's work Dissertatio de crucifixione Domini iz leta 1583 (Joseph Justus Scaliger, Dutch hist. 16Th century). But he passed astonishingly well; his work on chronology was classified as his occult studies and more or less benevolently put aside. His work is only indirectly related to the problem of the classic manuscripts.


His contemporary Jean Hardouin (1646 – 1729) [42], French classical scholar, is already mentioned with the negative touch in Wikipedia as the »the originator of a variety of paradoxical theories« : The most remarkable, contained in his Chronologiae ex nummis antiquis restitutae (1696) and Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum, was to the effect that, with the exception of the works of Homer, Herodotus and Cicero, the Natural History of Pliny, the Georgics of Virgil, and the Satires and Epistles of Horace, all the ancient classics of Greece and Rome were spurious, having been manufactured by monks of the 13th century ... and he was perhaps right, save the named century!


Almost in the same breath is named also as Hardouin's »modern heir« the Russian mathematician Anatoly Timofeevich Fomenko [42]. He is a supporter of drastically revising historical chronology: ... whose conclusions being based on proprietary methods of statistical textual analysis and computational astronomy are even more radical, but considered to be pseudo scientific ... (so Wikipedia)

Fomenko, an international renown mathematician, specialist in statistics – his »methods of statistical textual analysis« are declared as »pseudo scientific« – by whom (?) – but the methods and the problems which he tackled are not seriously discussed, just his reinterpretation of historical events disapproved, naturally with the official interpretation.


To Fomenko, it has to be mentioned that the statistical analysis of texts is regulary used to test the scientific articles on the suspicion of plagiarism, as well as the students' works (diplomas, exercises and seminaries) on high schools. This is the single use of the lexico-statistical and data mining methods, which in this case bothers only plagiarists and not the official science. The opposite is valid with the »official« statement that Tacitus can not be falsified, in the middle ages the assumed plagiarist did not have the corresponding computer methods on disposal to fit so perfectly the art, stile and content of the classic works (this opinion is to be found in some discussions on the authenticity of texts on the early Christians).


As the next modern »revisionist and conspiracy theorist« is declared the German historian and publisher Heribert Illig [43]. His hypothesis proposes that periods of history, specifically that of Europe during the Early Middle Ages (AD 614–911), are wrongly dated, or did not occur at all, and that there has been a systematic effort to cover up that fact (so Wikipedia). Accordingly is for Illig i.e. CharlemagneKarl der Grosse just a myth. Naturally it is not mentioned that Illig based his findings on the official fact (from Monumenta Germaniae Historica) that more than twenty thousand chronicles allegedly written in the questionable period are falsified – written hundreds of years later and that the archeology shows no strata between Roman period and the Middle Ages ... etc. Naturally all disapproved, but with no explanation of the problems shown.


A little bit softer is condemned Mario Alinei [44], the author of Paleolithic Continuity Theory.

Wikipedia: ... this article lends undue weight to certain ideas ...

... is distinctly a minority view as it enjoys very little academic support, serious discussion being limited to a small circle of scholars ...


Clear a small circle of scholars. It is ignored by majority because the hypothesis contradicts to so cherished Gimbutas's Kurgan hypothesis of the origin of the Indo-European people – refuted already by Renfrew [45]. The Kurgan hypothesis is considered to be in a way »supported« by Germania. Alinei refutes also the officially »beloved« Slavic migration theory, and this is just enough to be »totgeschwiegen«.


Completely, especially in the west, is ignored the book »Veneti First builders of European Community« by I. Tomazhich, J. Shavli, M. Bor [46], actually is the title of the original »Veneti – nashi davni predniki« (Veneti – our ancient Ancestors), in which are introduced the archaeological, toponomastic and lingual proofs that Slovenians and Slavs are the ancient autochton dwellers of the Europe. These facts support Alinei's theory, refute Slavic migration theory in 6th century and are so in total opposition to the official history »narratives«. As mentioned above, these facts do not suit the past and the contemporary European, actually western politics. The book is in official circles »totgeschwiegen« as there are also no counterarguments to be found, all reactions were completely emotional. In Wikipedia are the book contents misnamed as »Venetic theory«, informing incorrectly that the theory contradicts to the Slavic origin of Slovenes.

Wikipedia ... interpretations have also been completely rejected by scholars ... showing the danger of the amateur linguistics ... given only the references of official (institutional) Slovenian history circles.


I mentioned these as the most prominent »revisionist« examples – they all contradict to the official interpretation of history, to a great extent based on »classic« manuscripts, among them is Germania on one of the most prominent positions, serving now as before the contemporaneous politics.

I do not want to mention especially the emotionally strong religious bias concerning the evaluation of the other classic works ...


And – did you notice an especial west-east cline in the general western validation of the authors:


In the West:

to early stage of the scientific development,

none of these writers have won general acceptance,

were hushed, 


In the Central (Western) Europe: 

highly controversial,

minority view enjoys very little academic support, 


In the East:


amateur linguists...


But back to the manuscripts. John Wilson Ross [17] is only impeached that he published his book anonymously, but there is full name reference of te book's dedication to author's brother, no counter arguments to his considerations were given.

Polydore Hochart [18] was condemned by Walser: Die Phantasien von P. Hochart: L'authenticite des annales usw. 1891 u. Nouvelles considerations au sujet des Annales usw., Paris, Thorin 1894, zu widerlegen erscheint überflüssig – The phantasies of P. Hochart ... to debunk is superfluous.

Leo Wiener [19] is completely hushed. Similary to Ross and Hochart,

Wiener compares and analyzes extensively various narratives from various classic sources as Jordanes, Paulus Diaconus, Tacitus etc. Here can I give just his valuations of some of these sources – therefore the selection seems here somehow the unrelated mix and half told, but gives the general impression on the detailed analysis.


on Jordanes ([19], p.67):


... In the Getica there is a reference to Jordanes' origin,but when we consider that the very introduction to the work is a bold forgery ... According to his statement, he, although »agrammatus«, that is, with out knowledge of letters, had been a notary of Gunthiges ... although, according to his own statement, he himself was a Goth. He also says that he wrote his book in the year 551 ...

... Thus we get the positive and incontrovertible proof that Jordanes wrote his Getica after 711 ...


... The hodge-podge method of the forger, Jordanes or his predecessor, in concocting a Gothic history, has already been made clear ...


Let me mention also Wiener's deduction of the Arabic origin of certain words and names. Among them is »Haliurunnae« – name of the witches:

p. 90

... OHGerman alruna has preserved only the meaning »mandrake«, In OHGerman we have helliruna »necromantia,« as though it were composed of hella »hell« and runa »mystery,« and similarly, in ASaxon, helirun, hellrun »sorcerer.« ...

... We shall later meet these witches, or magic women, in other forgeries, such as Tacitus'



Wiener on the name Finni:

p. 96

... also meant »swamp,« the whole combination exactly fitting the description

of the extreme north. Thus there arose a tribe of unknown before. It is, again, probably

Finni, utterly no accident that the Finnish name of Finland, Suomi, should be derived from a Finnish word, suo »swamp«. ... But the Arabic word gave rise to Goth, »fani«, OHG. fenna »mud,« ONorse fen »quagmire.« In its form vanga, fanga it gave Ital. fango, Fr. fange, etc.


on Tuiscon:

p. 208

... The forger, who was a Goth resident in France, or, far more likely, in Switzerland, knew the current name for »German,« preserved in the oldest French sources as tiesche, tiesque, thyos, ties, etc., and which given in LLatin, among others, as tutiscus, hence, in Oltalian, tudesco, now tedesco.

Obviously he pronounced it tuisco, and so created his eponymous hero, Tuiscon. From this Tuiscon he derived the eponymous heroes for the tribes that he knew from history, the Suevi, Vandals, and Teutons. From the Annales of Tacitus, 1.56, and 11.25, he knew of the Marsi, and from the same source he knew of Arminius, the fierce is king. Thus Herminon and Marsus became descendants of Tuiscon.


On Ammianus Marcellinus :


... As Phrygia could have arisen only from the Syriac »arrow of salvation,« it is clear that we have here at least an interpolation, if not a downright forgery. We shall find a still worse forgery in Ammianus later on.It is certainly curious that not a word was ever written about Ammianus before the sixteenth century,except a short reference to a sentence from the fourteenth book in Priscianus, XI. 51, and that the work of Marcellinus, which Poggio claimed to have found at Hersfeld or Fulda, should almost begin with that sentence, for he claimed to have found Marcellinus only beginning with book XIV. It looks as though Poggio used the sentence in Priseianus as a basis for his fabrication ...


On Translatio:


... From the confusion of »pyramid« and »mighty ruler« has arisen the myth of the Irminsul of the Saxons. The account is contained in the Translatio S. Alexandri, written by Ruodolf and Meginhard in 851 ...


On Velleius Paterculus:


... No one, so far as, I know, has doubted his authenticity,but all we know of Velleius is based on a lost copy, which was used by Beatus Rhenanus in his editio princeps, published in the beginning of the sixteenth century. No one before him ever heard of Velleius or mentioned him, except once more Priscianus, VI. 11, and the scholiast of Lucan, IX. 178. There can be no doubt of the existence of the works of Velleius Paterculus before the tenth century, but we have no means of ascertaining whether there were not any interpolations made after the story of Arminius had found vogue ...


On Germania


... Later on I shall show how the forgery known as Tacitus' Germania was written in the eighth century and was based on a work of Pseudo-Berosus, itself a forgery, as preserved and annotated by Annius of Viterbo. Here I shall only adduce as much as is necessary to prove that the Arminius story in Tacitus,Strabo, and other writers is a bold forgery of not earlier than the eighth century ...


... the confusion of Aretia with the Magna Mater, Cybele a confusion which, as we shall see later, led the forger of the Germania to create a special deity for the Germans ...

... These chapters (of Germania), as well as the next few, are based chiefly on Caesar's description of Gaul. The description of the duces is based on that of the equites among the Gauls, whose main occupation is war and who gather around them their clients and followers, in proportion as they exert military power ...

... The story about Veleda, Albruna, and Ganna,of the woods.who are given as German women who told fortunes,belongs to the Arabic period, that is, it arose only in the eighth century . ...

... for Veleda is the Arab. o-Uj valldah xap&evoc, »young woman.« There can be no doubt, therefore, that we have here an account from an Arabic or Spanish source, where Veleda is made to be Celtic, instead of Jewish. We also find Veleda in the Siluae of Statius, ...


... but as all the editions go back to one copy, supposedly found by Poggio at St. Gall, and are all interpolated, ...


... it is quite useless to quote this occurrence of Veleda in support of its genuineness. This leaves us all alone with Tacitus ...


... If we now turn to the Germania, we find the unicorn of Caesar's account turned into a nation, the Naharvali. We see at a glance that Narharvalus is nothing but the Narwhale, the sea-unicorn of the Germanic languages. The mahl-arez or mahl-arig, which in Fredegar was used to explain the etymology of Meroeus, here turns up in the form of naharvalus.

The borrowing of the story in the Germania from Caesar is so obvious, as not to need even the forger's slip, Naharvali »the unicorns«, in order to prove it. But the forger was such a fool or such a scoundrel that he gave himself away in still another way. He took Caesar's »sunt item, quae appellantur alces« to be a continuation of the story about the narwhale or unicorn,and went on to say that the name of the divinity was aids, »ea vis numini, nomen aids.« Stupidity, it would seem, could go no further, but the forger man aged to perpetrate still another unspeakable insipidity.


The jointless elk, like the unicorn, is transformed into a Germanic tribe. »The Semnones are ambitious to be thought the most ancient and respectable of the Suevian nation. Their claim they think confirmed by the mysteries of religion.« ...


p. 273ff

... This may have added to the forger's continuation in the Germania about the Germans, who sing their songs, called barritus, ...

... This whole description is cribbed out of Vegetius, De re militari, where it says that the battlecry, which is called barritus, ...

... Ammianus, too, took a liking to the word. He tells the story of the Cornuti and Braccati of the Roman army, who raised the barritus, in order to frighten the Alamanni. This barritus begins with a whisper ...

... That this account of Ammianus is a forgery, together with the account in Tacitus, is shown by the fact that both confuse barritus with barditus, ...

... The hodge-podge borrowing by the forger is illustrated throughout the Germania. A few examples

will suffice. In chapters VII and VIII the forger says that the kings were chosen on account of their

nobility and the leaders on account of their bravery,but that no one could punish, except the priests, ...


Wiener concludes:


The utter worthlessness of the Germania is patent,beyond any possibility of defence. Only the mentally blind will defend it, even as the nineteenth century forgeries, such as the notorious Koeninginhof Manuscript, still find advocates. It is sad to contemplate that Germanic history and allied subjects are based on the Germania and the Getica, two monuments of conscious fraud and unconscious stupidity, the result of the first flower of Arabic romance, which led to The Thousand and One Nights.


To follow Ross' , Hochart's and especially Wiener's deductions, one has to be a real authority on classics as well of the classic languages, so here just short citing of the understandable examples for the average citizen, myself included .


The professor Leo Wiener was hushed. But just his work – as an irony on the »official« meaning – gives a little more credibility of a certain authenticity – yes!


Walser, who believed that Poggio's findings are genuine, on Poggio's visit to Cluny ([29] Walser, p.50):


... back for contempt, with which treated them the contemporary owner of the venerable codices. Because they let the marvelous inheritance go to waste as well as their own monastic rule ...

... As already Boccaccio from the decayed Books of Montecassino abducted Tacitus, so Poggio and his companions pulled from the tower of the St.Gall monastery or under the trash of the French abbeys many noble prisoners out ...


... The immediate discovery reports are unfortunately sparse: they consist from just one letter from Poggio, Cincio and Bartolomeo da Montepulciano. Further information provide the occasional remarks in the Bracciolini´s and his friend´s epistolary ...


... Till now was all broad discussion limited to Poggio´s discovery report of the solely known expedition to St. Gall and all other travels were just shortly mentioned, until Remigio Sabbadini sharp-witted the messages examined and with the certainty four Bracciolini´s expeditions ruled out.


The first Poggio´s discovery were two unknown Cicero´s speeches, which he found in the Burgundy Abbey Cluny. The library of monastery owned several precious Cicero´s manuscripts, under them one venerable volume from at least 8th century containing five speeches. They were Orationen pro Milone, ...


... Why came Poggio in the distant Burgundy, as there were many other monasteries in the vicinity? Very probably this travel ca be connected with the close ties, which John XXIII maintained to the Duke of Burgundy, of Bologna and of Constance ...


May be, but the monastery of Cluny collaborated closely with the Toledo school of translators; the later seemed to be completely ignored as the possible source of the medieval manuscripts, copies of the classics, in all references to Poggio. But Poggio surely knew for it.

As the translators were Arabs, Jews and Christians, professor Wiener actually pinpointed with his analysis the moments in history in which at least some, albeit by contents unreliable and plagiarized, references to the questionable works possibly existed earlier and were so not just written in 15th century.


With pleasure I offer to »Faustian souls« a lifeline – named »nostratics« – the theory of the common origin of Indoeuropean, Ugro-finnic and Semitic languages. This theory enables to avoid the Arabic source of the names, pretty meaningless in Wiener times.


And something more – Fomenko and Illig actually more confirm then oppose the authenticity of the old manuscripts.

Fomenko showed that the manuscripts are in fact the repetition of the small number of the authentic scripts, problem is to pinpoint the originals and what in them corresponds to the real history ...

And Illig had, with the »elimination« of the Dark Middle Ages, brought the old Roman world closer to documented middle ages and so provided the arguments for stronger beliefs in the authenticity of the old scripts. The manuscripts and their copies were possibly able to survive much shorter time, without the unknowns of the Dark Ages, already preserved in the just constructed monasteries following directly on the Roman period.






... quando etiam sapientibus cupido gloriae novissima exuitur.

... when even the wisest desiring the fame, cast off all.



As quoted already above, Leonardo Aretino praised Poggio:


... The memory of your services will never be obliterated. It will be recorded to distant ages, that these works, the loss of which had been for so long a period a subject of lamentation to the friends of literature, have been recovered by your industry ...


and J. W. Ross on Tacitus


... Tacitus is raised by his genius to a height, which lifts him above the reach of the critic. He shines in the firmament of letters like a sun before whose lustre all, Parsee-like, bow down in worship ...


Not at all so ... Poggio got never a proper credit ... positive or negative, let it be on your taste ...


The fact is that it is not at all important what a character was Poggio – a good, a bad, a crank, ... an avaricious, a pious or something else – important are just his deeds. It is actually nowadays pretty irrelevant if he found genuine Roman texts, if he wrote them himself or if he forged them from other questionable sources.

He has done an extraordinary work, becoming exceptionally important as well for the western culture, history, even the science – considering the Indo-European research and linguistics, albeit in a wrong way – and also for the legitimation of the western oriented politics through all the last centuries.

Actually he gave the West precisely the stuff the West longed for and needed it. As the deepest irony, he has not get the proper credit for his work – the praised are probably fictitious Romans, he himself was and is described in a mostly negative manner.

Due to impact of his works, he should be known to every moderately educated European, but he is barely known even to the humanistic educated people.

There were only his critics, which gave him full credit – like Ross – who is that wonderful man – or Hochart, who named the Renaissance the Age of Poggio, and his biographers, especially Shepherd.

Poggio showed an exceptional civil courage, unusual specially for the age in which he lived, actually risking to be burnt on the stake.

Perhaps was his sole satisfaction the money he got for his »discoveries«, as the whole »divination« went to the more or less from him probably invented characters ...

For a master of his caliber actually a very frustrating experience, in spite of the real respect which showed him his fellow contemporary humanists.

For his family, as well for his legitimate and illegitimate children, which he allegedly all accepted, allegedly he fully took care of.

Considering the importance and impact of his work, his near to be anonymity, his negatively depicted personality, he can be compared to his almost »exact« opposite case, the famous physicist Albert Einstein, as allegedly his work had and still have the epochal influence and impact on the contemporary global civilization.

Yes, they real selves, the personalities, very probably can not be compared as the characters are immeasurable, but their public status and the impact of their work and deeds can be compared.


It is a malevolent pleasure to show in this comparison the »Absurdistan« of the human civilization and culture on the so called highest intellectual level.


Einstein is known almost to everybody, at least in the West. He enjoys the reputation of an unmistakable genius, great humanist, noblest character, the modest personality. To refute some of his work is almost dangerous, the risk is to be declared unscientific, all that he has allegedly done was till now almost untouchable. His universal geniality is praised repeatedly ...

But »his« famous works are not so his as it is generally reported ... and even most of the physicists do not know what exactly he has actually done. He explained the foto-effect and he got therefore the full credit with the Nobel prize. As far as are concerned the relativity theories is his work mostly a recollection of the works of other mathematicians and physicists, whom he did not even referenced. Over the head, which is mostly »responsible« for the general relativity theory, he broke a kitchen chair – his wife, Mileva Mariæ from Serbia, was a competent mathematician helping Albert, a good physicist, but an incompetent mathematician. His defenders say, he got the same result as the others, but on a different way, some critic pundits do keep him as the greatest plagiarist of all times ...

He divorced his wife very probably due to the racist causes – allegedly his Jewish family disliked the Christian-ortodox Mileva and pushed him to marry his cousin. But he gave Mileva the Nobel price money for the divorce, never asking more for his illicit daughter, given anonymously to adoption, and his sons from marriage, all by Mileva.

His scientific engagement practically expired with the divorce – he was active actually in public relations, letting to be promoted and promoting more or less himself as the person of the current fame.

He showed a deficit in the civil courage distancing himself from the famous letter of atomic bomb promotion and spent his time producing the »scientific garbage« – this designation is by me – as reported physicist John Dyson, who canceled a meeting with him in Princeton to avoid the silliness of discussion on his newest work.

It is amusing, how to Poggio as well to Einstein »officially« was nowhere assigned the designation to be forger or plagiarist; the first one presented his works as someone else´s, the second one has decorated himself with the someone else´s deeds, the first one is actually almost unknown, the second one immenselly glorified, to the first one was assigned the worst, to the second one the noblest character.

The famous Einstein's works are less real Einstein's works as the Poggio's works would be Poggio's, even if proved as the real genuine works of the Roman origin.

But at least one work of Poggio, the famous Germania, and Einstein himself, they both have a something strikingly common – they are handled and cherished almost religiously, they are rised to myths – their promoters defend them jealously, they allow no compromise and they are merciless to the adversaries.






La vérité historique est souvent une fable convenue. – Napoleon Bonaparte.


This is especially true in the case of Tacitus, especially in the case of the manuscript Germania.

Even the most superficial but unbiased check of the facts shows that the majority of the classic texts, which are claimed to be found in some dust, humid, forgotten corners of the medieval monasteries, are actually forgeries – there is no need of any especial knowledge, just the common sense. This is also the main reason for the »scientific community« that any serious analysis as that of Ross, Hochart or Wiener is just ignored and not met with the counterarguments.


As Wiener sadly states: ... It is sad to contemplate that Germanic history and allied subjects are based on the Germania and the Getica, two monuments of conscious fraud and unconscious stupidity, ...

and can be actually completed: If Germans do not have all from A to Z to be proud upon, they have at least from B as Bach, Beethoven, Bethe ... and Gauss, and Goethe ... over Hahn, Hilbert, Heine, Herder, ... , and Schieller, ... , to Wagner, Wegener ... to Z as Zweig more than enough ...

Those from »yesterday«, the Faustian souls, they naturally this do not know, but there is even more and more of these from »today«, to which are this predecessors an example to cherish.


There is also an amusing and silly grotesque political problem – the emperor Charlemagne – Karl der Grosse – is declared to be the first European, building Europe with the fire and sword as the »Heilige Römische Reich Deutscher Nation«. Therefore the Karlspreis should be also supplemented by the Pris Napoleon and the Hitler's Award – English title should be used to be European as both previous are not English – they tried to build Europe in the same way, with the similar consequences! Maybe, also Piccolomini's Award is to be instituted for his European orientation, in Italian as Benedictione Pii ...


It is an irony of the history – the Faustian souls' most cherished »facts« of the German history – Tacitus's Germani, the emperor Karl der Grosse and the Slavic migration are just myths, fairy tales, invented by the despised Felachian soul itself. The nickname of the another despised Felachian soul Germani, a derogatory Roman name for hostile Rhetians, the Proto-Slavic tribes, all this was lovingly endorsed by Faustian souls as their own.

Tacitus and especially his Germania, the emperor Karl der Grosse and the Slavic migration will be defended by Germani till the last Germanus, the Faustian soul.

But they needn't to bother. As long as the official history narratives will serve western politics they will be promoted as a Big Lie against the most sound counterarguments ...




Translated from Slovenian by author




Viri / Sources


[33] Birgitta Hoffmann: Archaeology versus Tacitus' Agricola, a 1st century worst case scenario;

A lecture given to the Theoretical Archaeology Group conference, held in Dublin, 15th December, 2001.

[34] Pius II, Aeneas Silvius Piccolomini, The Humanist Pope, by Cecilia M. Ady, Methuen & Co. LTD., 1913.

[35] Aeneas Silvius, Orator, Man of Letters, Statesman, and Pope; by William Boulting; Archibald Constable and Co., LTD.; London 1908, str. 243.

[36] Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini als Papst Pius II.; Prof. Dr. Anton Weiss, Graz, Ulr. Moser's Buchhandlung (J. Meyerhoff) 1897.

36a Pfizer Gustav: Der Welsche und der Deutsche Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini (Pabst Pius II.) und Georg von Heimburg: historisch-poetische Bilder aus dem fünfzenten Jahrhundert; Stuttgart 1844.

[37] E. Walser: Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance, herausgegeben von Walter Goetz, Heft 14: Poggius Florentinus, Leben und Werke, von Dr. Ernst Walser, Privatdozent an der Universität Zürich, Druck und Verlag von B.G.Teubner - Leipzig Berlin 1914.

[38] Germania Enee Silvii in qua candide lector continentur: gravamina germanice nationis; confutatio eorundem cum replicis; de concilio Constantinensi & Basilensi; describuntur hic urbes, civitates, ecclesie, episcopatus, abbacie, principatus &principatus & nobilissime familie; Strassburg 1515.

[39] Christopher B. Krebs: Negotiatio Germaniae - Tacitus' Germania und Enea Silvio Piccolomini, Giannantonio Campano, Conrad Celtis und Heinrich Bebel. Hypomnemata 158. Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben. Herausgegeben von Albrecht Dihle, Siegmar Döpp, Dorothea Frede, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, Hugh Lloyd-Jones, Günther Patzig, Christoph Riedweg, Gisela Striker. Göttingen 2005 (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).

[40] De Viris Illustribus; Two texts by Eneas Silvius Piccolomini on Denmark by Michael von Cotta-Schönberg1, str. 5, English trans. Of reviewed anthology: Michael v. Cotta-Schønberg, To tekster af Æneas Silvius Piccolomini om Danmark. In: Umisteligt – Festskrift til Erland Kolding Nielsen. Edited by John T. Lauridsen and Olaf Olsen. Copenhagen, the Royal Library, 2007, pp. 55-74.

[41] Fabian Fischer: Das Europabild des Humanisten und Papstes Enea Silvio Piccolomini/Pius II.

LMU-Publikationen / Geschichts- und Kunstwissenschaften Nr. 25 (2007).

[42] A. T. Fomenko: Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating; Volume II: The Analysis of Ancient and Medieval Records by A. T. Fomenko. Moscow University, Moscow, Russia – Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Boston London 1994.

[43] Heribert Illig: Wer hat an der Uhr gedreht; Ullstein Verlag, München 2009.

Heribert Illig: Das erfundene Mittelalter; Econ Verlag, München 2000.

[44] Mario Alinei: Origini delle lingue d’Europa; Il Mulino, Bologna, 1996, 2000; The Paleolithic Continuity Theory on Indo-European Origins. <>

[45] Colin Renfrew: Anatolian hypothesis.

[46] Shavli J., Bor M., Tomazhich I.: Veneti; Editiones Veneti, Wien, Boswell 1996 (prevod slovenske izdaje Veneti – nashi davni predniki, Maribor 1989).



Viri / Sources (I)


[9] Rudolfus von Fulda: Translatio sancti Alexandri;

Nicolaus Ellenbog: PASSIO SEPTEM FRATRVM filior.. sanctae foelicitatis.

Translatio sancti Alexandri. Passio Sancti Theodori martyris; Ottobeuren 1511.

[16] John Wilson Ross (1818-1887): Tacitus and Bracciolini.

The Annals forged in the XVth century.

Originally published anonymously (?) in 1878.

(Anonimously with dedication: I dedicate to my esteemed and estimable brother Robert Dalrymple Ross – op. B.J.H.)

[17] Polydore Hochart: De l'authenticitè des Annales et des Histoires de Tacite;

Paris, Ernest Thorin Editeur 1890.

[18] Leo Wiener: A History of Arabico-Gothic Culture;

Volume III, Tacitus's Germania & other Forgeries;

Innes & Sons, 129435 N. Twelfth St., Philadelphia, Pa., MCMXX.

[19] FAZ – Frankfurter allgemeine Zeitung, 18. Oktober, 2008, No. 244 / Str. Z3.

[27] Enea Silvio Piccolomini: Europa; Herausgegeben von Günther Frank und Paul Metzger; Melanchton-Akademie Bretten, Uebersetzung von Albrecht Hartmann; Verlag Regionalkultur, 2005.

(Melanchton, pravo ime Philipp Schwarzerdt, nemshki reformator najblizhji Luthru – op. B.J.H.)

[28] The Life of Poggio Bracciolini. By The Rev. W. M. Shepherd, LL. D., Liverpool. Printed by Harris Brothers, For Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman. London. 1837.

[29] Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte des Mittelalters und der Renaissance; herausgegeben von Walter Goetz, Heft 14: Poggius Florentinus, Leben und Werke, von Dr. Ernst Walser, Privatdozent an der Universität Zürich; Druck und Verlag von B. G. Teubner; Leipzig Berlin 1914.





junij 2013




Slovenian (gajica)

Slovenian (bohorichica)