Chronologies Comparés sur le Progrès Post-Diluvien

Je base cet essai sur deux sources. Une source française pour les chronologies conventionnelles des gens parmi les scientifiques qui renient le catastrophe du Déluge et qui renient les basculements drastiques du niveau de carbone quatorze. Elle s'appelle, série 1000 infos, titre L'Histoire du Monde Ancien. L'autre source est un diagramme par Tas Walker. Il se trouve sur ce message ci:

BiblicalGeology blog : A preliminary age calibration for the post-glacial-maximum period
http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/preliminary-age-calibration-for-post-glacial-maximum-period/

Et il s'agit du troisième diagramme.

Avant de se plaindre qu'il y a des conséquences peut-être même absurdes, à savoir de poser la domination celte de l'Europe du Nord plus que 200 ans plus tard (après 400 av. J. Chr. au lieu des communément acceptés 650 av. J. Chr.), faut aller à sa propre admission là-dessus:

This is a ‘back of the envelope’ calculation provides an initial estimate for the sorts of corrections that need to be made, but we would need to consult more reliable sources and obtain other information in order to refine and test the curve.

Il n'a donc pas essayé de donner une correction complête, mais de donner un estime initial du genre de corrections qu'on devrait faire aux calculations d'âge des uniformitariens. Pour le début de cette chronologie, que je tire de l'Histoire du Monde Ancien, je ne donne pas ses corrections, car pour les CMI un âge carbonique de 20.000 - 50.000 ans avant le présent correspond assez bien aux temps du Déluge de Noé. Tellement moins de carbone quatorze y avait-il à cette époque là.

• Chauvet 62.000/60.000 av. J. Chr.
• Arnhem Land 50.000+/50.000 av. J. Chr.
• Lascaux 31.000/29.000 av. J. Chr.
• Patates douces selon traces d’amidon, Papouasie 30.000 / 28.000 av. J. Chr.
• Les Vénus (Villanova etc.) 25.000/23.000 av. J. Chr.

20.000 avant présent selon les uniformitariens = 4000 avant le présent, 2000 av. J. Chr. Selon la récalibration de Tas Walker. C'est là que débute son diagramme. Dans le suivant, je donne donc les chiffres un peu péniblement tirés par moi du diagramme en parenthèse à côté:

• Pergouset 14.000/12.000 av. J. Chr. (3950 / 1950 av. J. Chr.)
• Mésolithique débute 14.000/12.000 av. J. Chr. (3950 / 1950 av. J. Chr.)
• Châtaignes d’eau et haricots au nord du Viêtnam 13.000 – 9500 / 11.000 – 7500 av. J. Chr. (3925 – 3850 / 1925 – 1850 av. J. Chr.)
• Jéricho 11.000 / 9000 av. J. Chr. (3875 / 1875 av. J. Chr.)
• Néolithique au Proche-Orient, blé rouge et orge 10.000/8000 av. J. Chr. (3850 / 1850 av. J. Chr.)
• Çatal Höyük 9000 – 7500 / 7000 – 5500 av. J. Chr. (3825 – 3625 / 1825 – 1625 av. J. Chr.)
• Charrue tirés par des bœufs et arrivée des Sumériens en Mésopotamie 7000 / 5000 av. J. Chr. (3800 / 1800 av. J. Chr.)
• Temple d’Éridou 6900 / 4900 av. J. Chr. (3800 / 1800 av. J. Chr.)
• Granges souterraines de Ban-Po, Chine, 6800 / 4800 av. J. Chr. (3800 / 1800 av. J. Chr.)
• Canaux d’irrigation Samarra/Choga Mami, Irak frontière d’Iran 7500 – 6750 / 5500 – 4750 av. J. Chr. (3790 – 3750 / 1790 – 1750 av. J. Chr.)
• Cuivre/Or en joilleries etc. Turquie/Iran 6000/4000 av. J. Chr. (3750 / 1750 av. J. Chr.)
• Hache bois/cuivre Balkan ?/Iran 6000/4000 av. J. Chr. (3750 / 1750 av. J. Chr.)
• Mégalithes 6000 – 3500 / 4000 – 1500 av. J. Chr. (3750 – 3100 / 1750 – 1100 av. J. Chr.)
• Mésopotamie, les premiers cités p. ex. Uruk 5500/3500 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr.)
• Charettes avec des roues solides en bois, Sumer, 5200 / 3200 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr.)
• L’âge de bronze en Proche-Orient/Balkans/Asie de Sud-Est 5500 – 5000/3500 – 3000 av. J. Chr. (3725 – 3700 / 1725 – 1700 av. J. Chr.)
• Chine, Indus, l’Égypte, Babylone ont des vastes systèmes d’irrigation et l’Indus une civilisation simultanément en 5000 / 3000 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr. – ou 3700 / 1700 av. J. Chr. – moi et la lecture des diagrammes ! )
• Stonehenge 4950 – 3600 / 2950 – 1600 av. J. Chr. (3600 – 3200 / 1600 – 1200 av. J. Chr.)
• Révolution césarienne des lugals en Mésopotamie 4900 / 2900 av. J. Chr. (3600 / 1600 av. J. Chr.)
• Ur atteint une population de 250.000 habitants, Mohenjo-Daro et Harappa chacune 35.000 simultanément en 4500 / 2500 av. J. Chr. (3550 / 1550 av. J. Chr.)
• Sargon d’Akkad invahit la Sumérie 4350 / 2350 av. J. Chr. (3500 / 1500 av. J. Chr.)
• Rétablissement du pouvoir sumérien à Ur 4150 / 2150 av. J. Chr. (3450 / 1450 av. J. Chr.)
• La civilisation de l’Indus décline pour faire place aux Aryens 3750 – 3500 / 1750 – 1500 av. J. Chr. (3250 – 3125 / 1250 – 1125 av. J. Chr.)
• Bronze en toute Europe et Asie 3500/1500 av. J. Chr. (3125/1125 av. J. Chr.)
• Hittites utilisent le fer 3500 – 3200/1500 – 1200 av. J. Chr. (3125 – 2950 / 1125 – 950 av. J. Chr.)
• Celtes dominent l’Europe de Nord 2650/650 av. J. Chr. (moins qu’il y a 2400 ans … probablement une erreur, ça donnerait plus tard que 400 av. J. Chr.)
• Fer en Chine 2600/600 av. J. Chr.
• Noks en Afrique font le fer 2400/400 av. J. Chr.

J'ai supposé que la domination des Celtes se laisse dater d'avant 400 av. J. Chr. par des sources litéraires. Peut-être que j'ai tort et qu'Hérodote (etc.) ne confirme pas cette vue conventionnelle, dans ce cas, ça se pourrait que la correction de Tas Walker tienne. Mais là j'ai cessé de marquer pour les dernier trois la correction d'après le diagramme de Tas Walker.

Le livre L'Histoire du Monde Ancien a aussi des dates évolutionnistes pour les présumés ancêtres des hommes, et fait appel à la méthode de potassium-argone. Une méthode pour laquelle Tas Walker a donné une réfutation assez complète ailleurs. Je n'ai donc pas trouvé la peine de corriger péniblement d'autres dates que celles que j'ai considérées comme calculées à partir de la méthode carbone quatorze.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Cleophas of Emmaus
25-IX-2014

What did Cornelius a Lapide REALLY write about the work of the Fourth Day?

New blog on the kid : 1) Inanimate Balls of Fire are Not Fighting, 2) With Angelic Movers, No Need for ETs, 3) HGL's F.B. writings : Me and Sungenis Answering Same Q, 4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : What did Cornelius a Lapide REALLY write about the work of the Fourth Day?

I am now perusing the pages of an 1891 edition of Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii a Lapide.* Now, there is a problem with the access of the original text here. The work of Cornelius a Lapide seems to have been used as a wiki. You see, Cornelius lived 18 December 1567 – 12 March 1637, and Schelling lived 27 January 1775 – 20 August 1854. Cornelius, like myself, was not claiming to be a prophet, just erudite. However, as we go to his commentary on the work of the Fourth Day, we find:

Nostro certe tempore intelligentias motrices non cogitabat ille philosophus (Schelling), qui, quum astra appellavit animalia rationabilia, animalia beata, Deosque immortales stultitiae profecto, non vero sapientiae amicum se ostendit. In our time that philosopher (Schelling) did not think there were intelligences moving [the celestial bodies], who, when he called the stars rational animals, blessed animals and immortal Gods, in fact showed himself the friend of folly and not of wisdom.

Be it noted, that the previous lines have stated that the position of St Thomas - angels move heavenly bodies but are not their souls, and the text actually compares the angels moving stars to an auriga driving the cars, the biga, the two horse drawn cars - was always tolerated by the Church.

Be it noted that whoever in 1891 added a comment on Schelling to the text of Cornelius thought that Schelling should have preferred to consider stars driven by angels to considering them as blessed rational immortal animals which one could call Gods. And, I agree of course.

That said, the exact text of Cornelius a Lapide is not extant in the 1891 edition. Someone has been editing it as a wiki with added lines of text. I am very sure Cornelius was not writing about Schelling.

In the previous sections we have also learned that the position of Schelling was - excepting the qualification "Deos immortales" that of Philo Judaeus, Maimonides, Origen, St Jerome, and there is a discussion whether this position of Origen was or was not condemned by the Vth Council. What is certain is that it is regarded as a different position than the one of St Thomas. Which was always tolerated by the Church - i e never condemned.

If I hit a living body, its soul feels pain. If I hit a car its driver feels no pain - that is how different "animated stars" are from "stars driven by angels".** And it is only the "animated stars position" which has received censorship in the Catholic Church. By Vth Ecumenical Council perhaps, and certainly by Stephen Tempier bishop of Paris in Laetare Sunday of late 1276 (past December into start of March) or early 1277 (according to our later custom of saying it started already January 1:st).

Meanwhile, as Catholics are telling me I am taking a very unlikely option and a very unthomistic one, and naturalism must remain the philosophy of science and the astronomic method must be atheistic and anangelistic in order to remain science, one Krauss seems to be very close to embracing the position of Schelling. You know that guy who said "a star had to die, so that you could live" - meaning sulphur and iron and other necessary elements larger than hydrogen and helium wouldn't be in your body unless there had been a supernova earlier on.

And they think that it is I who am a threat to orthodoxy? Who dey kiddin?

Since the time when that writer who continued the commentary of Cornelius a Lapide as if it were a wiki said that many theologers were taking the angelic movers option as it seemed necessary for the philosophy of that time, but now the movements of all celestial objects "optime explicentur" (are explained very well) "simplicibus legis a Deo impositis" (by simple laws imposed by God), this overestimation of the intellectual superiority of gravitational explanations has been rocked by more recent discoveries. And, actually, I think that writer - quite distinct from Cornelius a Lapide, of course, though his text is found intermingled with the older Jesuit - was deeming it explained very well by two reasons: he was being sloppy in the assessment of how well or ill proven the modern explanation was, and he was feeling a social stigma if he were to defend the older doctrine. You see, in a previous session he had spoken about "rotationem terrenam" - rotation of Earth - and he was publishing his work in the Paris of the Third Republic where the Foucault Pendulum had given a false sign and wonder about Earth rotating. Parisiis means "in Paris" and 1891 in Paris is that particular context. One in which Heliocentric and astro-mere-corporal freemasons dominated the scene.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Ember Saturday
after Elevation of the Cross
20-IX-2014

PS, in Judges V, where the text of Cornelius has not been tampered with, he endorses angels moving the stars. Even in the Paris 1891 edition. I checked. See Tome III. The comments to that verse would to a modern literary sensibility evoke "fantasy novels". As I said elsewhere, these are more realistic than science fiction. None of the comments are coherent with stars being simply what modern astronomers tell you and not even angelic movers to them.

* Content list for tome I, each link making a pdf download:

Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii A. Lapide.
Tomo I Tabla de Contenido
http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080014741_C/1080014741_T1/1080014741_T1.html

And here is the overall link:

Comentaria in scripturam sacram / Cornelii A. Lapide.
Parisiis: Apum Ludovicum Vives, Bibliupolam Editorem, 1891.
http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080014741_C/1080014741_C.html

The Internet version is graciously provided by Universidad Autónoma de Nueva León. (Non hay dos nombres o apellidos A. Lapide, peró "a Lapide" quiere decir "de la piedra", como "de la Barca" constituye un solo apellido.)

** The text - by Cornelius a Lapide or someone later - gives this precise example as a criticism of how St Thomas deals with Platonics and their claim stars have souls. St Thomas had argued they meant no more than they had movers.

Sonnet 18 - Shakspear's Hail Mary (or one of them)

Sonnet 18 set to lovely music
September 5, 2014 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/09/sonnet-18-set-to-lovely-music.html

"But thy eternal summer shall not fade" ... Indeed, the Blessed Virgin was called to Heaven after decades of living when Her Son was gone. Nunc hiems ... (Nam enim hiems transiit) imber abiit et recessit. Surge amica mea at veni. Her eternity and resurrection and glory is already ongoing and never ending.

"So long as men can breathe or eyes can see" ... ecce enim ex hoc beatam me dicent omnes generationes, ... all generations must praise Mary as Blessed (Luke 1:48), just as all generations must give Glory to God (Ephesians 3:21).

"So long lives this," - not the sonnet as uncautious readers might think, but an Ave (of which the sonnet is a translation).

"and this gives life to thee." - Indeed, "Ave Maria" must have sounded about the same in Hebrew as in Latin and the Hebrew meaning of it is "life to thee Mary".

Just a little confirmation of a thesis not my own discovery, that Shakspear was a secret Catholic.* They also say he painted his famous portrait over an icon of Our Lady, to protect it from vandalism.

Mark Shea was asking a good question, though an ignorant one. Or rather the question was good because it was an ignorant and therefore innocent one:

"I wonder why somebody hasn’t attempted to set all the sonnets to music? Seems like a natural."

But one did! Sonnets and madrigals back in the Renaissance were given standard musical melodies. Writing a sonnet back then was not just a question of writing in such and such a form, but also of writing to a preset tune, at least in some parts of the Italian music life.

And according to the thesis I read, Shakspear had actually been in Italy.

However, I do not know if there was a set melody for sonnets in English music life. Nor if Shakspear's sonnets were actually sung to such a melody.

Maybe David Gilmour knows?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Zacharias the Prophet
and my own 46:th birthday
6-IX-2014

* When I read it in a mail distributed magazine of German SSPX, I got the impression the research had been done by a woman. Here it seems it was done by a Jesuit:

Shakespeare's Secret Faith (by Joan Frawley Desmond)
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/shakespeares-secret-faith

"Father Peter Milward, the author who began researching this subject a half century ago."

Imagine Someone Said: Apollonius Rhodus Wrote Iliad and Odyssey

OK. Here is the theory and if someone feels there is a spoof going on, be assured, there is.

Apollonius Rhodus with a Pagan Greek condescension to Jews got worried they had brilliant literature like Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Book of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings. Since Greeks obviously had nothing like it, he pondered on how to fix this. He single-handledly invented the Hexameter (by taking the first line of a distich and repeating it instead of changing between it and the second part). He invented a language in which the augment in e- (usually) for past tenses was optional, where baino could just as well have bê as ébe for past tense aorist, where masculine and neuter genitives of second declinsion end in -oio, where to fit the Hexameter you have a third declinsion genitive basilêos instead of basileôs, where either Ionic or Æolic forms trump the Attic ones.

He then invented a story or more probably assembled diverging and contradictory half memories of long forgotten wars, wrongly localised in Troy (where there had never been any city ever, and no war either), and set out to tell this story in the language he invented, in the Hexameter verse he invented (a bit like Tolkien writing Quenya verse, but more as if he had instead invented an extra dialect of Anglo-Saxon - or even between Anglo-Saxon and Frisian - and written the Beren and Luthien ballad from beginning to end in it, ensuring only just enough identity of words to safeguard understanding of English readers, by making non-English* words either very common or very rare). When he felt he had something going, it sorted itself out ino two long poems, one showing Ulysses beside Agamemnon and Achilles - fabled heroes of a fabled war - and the other showing Ulysses beside Nausikaa and Penelope, beside Telemachos and Nestor, beside Circe and Calypso, beside Polyphemos and Antinoos, fabled characters of fabled voyages and searches and and of a fabled homecoming. The religious outlook which takes the Olympian gods with some playfulness is obviously far too advanced for Homer, if there had been such a person, since this fabled poet was supposed to live centuries before Æschylus, whose outlook was more primitive and awe-stricken before the gods. This question of the development of religious outlook is of course the best proof ever that this theory is ... as right as it is.

Apollonius Rhodus manages to pull off that Homer really lived and wrote the Iliad and Odyssey, he even somehow (!) manages, though Homer was not heard of till his time by anyone, and though Alexandria was knowledgeable about Greece, that all Greece had honoured Homer and cited his poems all along. And that nearly everyone (excepting poets) had been referring to Homer all along. To this end he also manages to forge all manuscripts surviving past him of very many writings, inserting passages referring to Homer which are of course totally spurious. The Tragedians start geting Genitives in -oio. The Historians start discussing the Wooden Horse. Plato's discussion about poets suddenly in Apollonius' Alexandria starts including a reference to Homer as the obvious King of the Poets. Nobody catches him at this play. Everyone who had never heard of Homer before one inconspicuous geek of a scholar engaged in collecting and correcting manuscripts handed them a manuscript of Homer, everyone suddenly agrees he had enjoyed Homer all of his life, and his father and grandfather had done so before him. There is just ONE little ironic man who vents a suspicion very indirectly (aren't we modern critics subtle to detect the suspicion anyway!) by saying that epics like those could only be written back in Homer's days. Apollonius Rhodus falls into the well set trap and agrees to write an Epic. His third Epic, Argonautica (agree he had good practise writing Iliad and Odyssey before it!) is then penned under Apollonius' own name. Easy as pie.

This is what everyone believes about the Homeric question, right? Not. No, not quite so. Not about Homer. But someone has suggested something similar about the Books of Moses and giving Ezra the credit for literary achievement and the discredit for a similar dishonesty. And especially the question of how Ezra (or some less known character in his time) could convince not just his fellow Jews, but also Samarians the Pentateuch had been written by Moses if noone had heard of it before. This is approached with as much "of course this happened" and as much vagueness about how exactly that was pulled off.

And - excepting the conservative, that is Christian, presumable minority - Biblical Scholars are buying this kind of stuff!

How about them taking a cue or two from the real Homer Scholars (not the fake one I impersonated right up to two paragraphs ago)? They no longer doubt there was one Homer, or possibly two ones, one for each Epic. They have taken some help from archaeology and from Schliemann and Dörpfelt to see that the Trojan War actually took place and the localities of Ithaca actually exist. With a little less prejudice from Enlightenment "philosophers" who without any scholarship** tried to launch Homer studies on as stupid and sceptic lines as Liberal Biblical Scholars still use, we might even be discussing if Polyphemus was of a type seen also in Goliath of Gad and Og of Bashan. This way Academic Biblical Scholarship would be gaining some respect from me. As it is, the Biblical Scholars that do have my respect are often reduced to a "fringe" socially.

Alas this reform of Biblical scholarship seems humanly speaking far away. Finkelstein and Silberman are doing archaeology and calling David and Solomon fabled characters. What if they took a cue from Dr. Mark Woolmer? He could for instance tell them Saul was in Tell Amarna letters called Labaya. Oh, sorry, forgot, they are Jews, they do not argue with Goyim, least of all Christians! But I really did see one of them cited in a discussion as "Filkenstein." Considering the liberties this history denier takes with history, well, he nearly deserves it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Rosa of St Mary,
called St Rosa of Lima
29-VIII-2014

* Non-Modern English he would of course say, since he was using the terminology in which Old English meant Anglo-Saxon, much of his life.

** Philosophers think about what must be true. Philologists consider what, according to textual evidence, including textually recorded text reception, was. There is a place for either, but Wolf was doing what the Philological Method is good for and using the Philosophical Method instead. And even he was not as radical against Homer as my spoof on Liberal Biblical Scholarship.

Myths about Getting Published (links)

Donna L Martin's ON THE WRITE TRACK : 5 Common Myths About Getting Published, Part One MYTH #1...YOU HAVE TO HAVE A DEGREE IN WRITING, PART TWO MYTH #2...YOU NEED AN AGENT TO GET A FOOT IN THE DOOR, PART THREE MYTH #3. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A HUGE PLATFORM BEFORE YOU CAN BECOME AN AUTHOR, PART FOUR MYTH #4...LARGE TRADITIONAL PUBLISHERS ARE THE ONLY PUBLICATION PATHS A SERIOUS AUTHOR CAN TAKE, PART FIVE MYTH #5...ONCE THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED YOUR WORK IS DONE.

Elena Maria Vidal on the Axel von Fersen Accusation against Marie Antoinette (links)

The Fersen Legend Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, In Literature

Rus' matters.

Rus' matters. · Nearly Ten Years Ago I Was Probably Wrong About Fatima · What Does Vladimir Mean?

I sometimes feel that if Portuguese does not make the difference between Rus' and Rossia, Our Lady at Fatima by consecration of "Russia" might have meant Rus' rather than Rossia. Of course, she might have meant both.

Now, there are different accounts on how Moscow came to be some kind of centre for The Russias, but there is basically one account on what happened at the ocnversion of Kiev. And that its immediate result was Sviataja Rus' or Sv'ataja Rus' depending on your preference for spelling the palatal element of a previous consonant before the a*.

There seems to be a disagreement on how originally Russian the Muscovites are. The story I had been told in academia in Sweden was basically this: Novgorod was a Hinterland of Kiev, later Suzdal and Moscow was a Hinterland of Novgorod. Even later than that it led the liberation from the Golden Horde.

If you do not know what Hinterland means, imagine the Highlands in comparison with the Lowlands in 1500, or Kentucky as compared with Virginia in 1800.

Note that this neither refutes that Muscovites have one part of the heritage, nor confirms that they should have the major part of it.

You see, while Kievan Rus' was free, Novgorod was at first like a minor colony to it. Then it seem Novgorod got conquered by the Golden Horde and Kiev (with so many other towns in Rus') by Lithuania, when it was in a very expansive mood. Gedimynas is unparalleled as a conqueror in Lithuanian history. One or two generations after him, the thitherto Pagan gradduke of Lithuania married, after baptism, the Queen of Poland. So, the capital of Kiev was as much Krakow, ultimately, as the capital of Novgorod was something like Ulan Bator, or whatever.

Then Czars of Moscow start to make war with Poland. Kiev is torn from Poland, nevertheless Ukraine for some time resists the domination of Muscovy. By then Muscovy had been for some time, at least seemingly in practise, independent of the Golden Horde.

Which is more purer Russian? Certainly Ukraine. Ukraine is Russia, original version, Novgorod perhaps and Rostov - Suzdal - Moscow certrainly, you get Russians coming there and you get Finns living there before becoming Russians. This was, however, already happening in the time of St Vladimir the Great.

So what are the other criteria?

Political independence?

After they had separated Kievan Rus' retained political independence a bit longer, Alexander Nevski had abaondoned it to the Golden Horde before 1300, but Kievan Rus' to "Vyeliki Knyaz Kgidimin", in other words Gedimynas, after 1300.

Who regained political independence from either Pagans or anyone first after that?

From Pagans - Kievan Rus'. The inheritors of Gedimynas became Christian very soon, but the Golden Horde was a yoke thrown off later.

These internal struggles allowed the northern vassal state of Muscovy to rid itself of the "Tatar Yoke" at the Great stand on the Ugra river in 1480.

So, it was 1480 for Muscovy, but as to no longer depending on Pagans, it was a Century earlier for Ukraine:

Jogaila, later Władysław II Jagiełło (c. 1351/1362 – 1 June 1434) was Grand Duke of Lithuania (1377–1434), King of Poland (1386–1399) alongside his wife Jadwiga, and then sole King of Poland. He ruled in Lithuania from 1377. In 1386 in Kraków he was baptized as Władysław, married the young Queen Jadwiga, and was crowned King of Poland as Władysław II Jagiełło. In 1387 he converted Lithuania to Christianity.

On the other hand, while Ukraine ceased to depend on a Pagan in 1387, it remained a dependent on someone, first Poland, then Russia, up to the Russian Revolution, excepting brief spells of unsuccessful independence under Mazepa, the ally of Charles XII and the enemy of Peter the Great.

Now, what about religion?

When St Vladimir the Great converted and was baptised, he got his bishops from Constantinople, but from a Constantinople in Communion with Rome. Ukraine is divided if the Communions with Rome or Constantinople matter most. Muscovy was, as soon as showing any independence of Kiev, probably already very Anti-Roman.

What about language?

Is Ukrainean older or younger than Great Russian? BOTH are actually as written languages centuries younger than the earliest language written there. Slavonic - both Church Liturgic and Secular usages - had been encoded as to spelling, words, morphology, syntax, when a Missionary from Thessaloniki studied a nearby Bulgarian dialect in order to make his Mission in Moravia, which later was anyway Christianised the Latin way. That was the language officially written in Kiev as well as Suzdal when Suzdal was still a province of Kiev. Or a province of Novogorod which was a province of Kiev.

Probably the Russian language from back then was the same in both Kiev and Suzdal, or roughly so. But since it was hidden by Slavonic, I am not sure we know when it starts to diversify. For my part, I do not know when earliest traces of either start showing up in Slavonic texts. Of course, when a Slavonic text spells Gedimynas like Kgidimin, this might indicate that G was pronounced like in Ukrainean the H. A real and hard G was hard to come by. Was this an innovation which did not reach to Suzdal? Or an older state, and had Suzdal already a real G? I do not know, and I do not know if anyone does.**

In cities like Kiev and Lvov, you have names which have diversified. Ukraine keeps the soft V at the end, Moscow has for centuries kept it in spelling, but pronounced V as F at the end of words. On the other hand the vowels are better preserved in Moscow, since ie has become yi in Ukraine (Kyiv) and o has become i (Lviv). This latter point brings us to how come they say Ivan in Moscow? In Serbia they say Yovan, logically Moscow would say Yovan as well. It is in Ukraine that Yovan becomes Yivan = Ivan. So, Great Russian, for that one name, has the Ukrainean form.

So, linguistically the jungle is more or less inextricable which of the two shall count as "older" or "younger" brother. Religiously, it depends on which side you take in the 1054 conflict. Political independence as well as origins of Ruthenity, Ukraine takes a pretty clear precedence at first, but a disputed one later, depending on whether you consider the Polish Sovereignty as comparable to the Russian one or to that of the Golden Horde - which again depends on your religion.

To an Orthodox claiming Alexander Nevski did right to resist the Teutonic Order, I would suggest that: so did the Poles and Lithuanians, in 1410.

Any real Pope° should, as soon as possible, in union with all bishops in the world, consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And, I might suggest, leave it to Her, which of the two major Russias she means to have whatever kind of precedence over the other and perhaps over the third, the Bielorussians. Or if they could all come together as equals. Or whether, by now, it would mean Ukraine rather than Moscow and Minsk.***

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou/Paris
St Dominic of Guzmán
4 - VIII - 2014

* You could theoretically also spell it Svyataya Rusy - but Rus'/Rusy is one syllable whichever way you spell it. It is yod as a slight glide, not as a full even unaccented vowel. But the spelling I gave is much more Slavonic, at least to judge by the use of Polish/Latin alphabet.

** As in: I have not yet checked whether this question is resolved or debated. A professional Slavonic Linguist would obviously know.

*** Minsk is Capital of Bielorussia. "Ukraine rather than" = Ukraine alone. The consecration asked for in Fatima has been very long protracted.

° The problem is, I do not think the one most widely recognised is the true one. Check with Pope Michael.