Jean Hardouin

the peculiar case of 
Jean Hardouin

Our western history is to say the least, very problematic. That notion is not new. Quite a few literate man came after a long career into the subject to this verdict. One of such was Jean Hardouin. 

Jean Hardouin was a Jesuit living in the 17th century, who counted amongst the great church and council historians in France. At the end of an already long an celebrated career he gradually became convinced that most literary Greek items of the Renaissance were faked. 

Of course it is good to understand that at first he had a motive to arrive at such conclusions. The Renaissance was a precursor of the Reformation and a necessity for the Reformation to occur at all. From this point of view any sources which reformers as Luther, Calvin etc. used were by necessity suspect. Even Augustin didn't escape Jean Hardouin's attention merely by the fact that it was Luther's main source. 

Even though any catholic airing such views in his days would run into severe problems with the authorities, Jean Hardouin never had any problems like that, merely through the fact that his dogmatic view was thoroughly catholic and in fact the idea that there was only one source of authority in the Roman Church, namely that of the Pope, sustained his ideas. 

Yet, even though he was the main chronologist of the Church councils of this day, he was of the opinion that the Council of Trient was the first real council the others merely being spurious regional meetings called by civil authorities and not the Pope. 

The source of the fraud, according to Jean Hardioun,  was a small impious crew of manuscript and coin fakers, often in monasteries, under the authority of Frederic II in the 13th century and Philip II in France in the 14 century and later under the influence of the Medici Doges.

'There existed then an understanding of both civil and religious authority to not expose each others tampering with the antiquity of each others jurisdiction'. In other words they were faking the roots and age of their civilisation. 

Would it be possible to undertake such an enterprise? Jean Hardouin was convinced that as a matter of fact the total library of the Church fathers and ancient Greek writers was extremely limited and could very well have been fabricated within one generation. Thorough study of the Church fathers had convinced Jean Hardouin that they were merely repeats of the same subject and he went as far as to say that even the opponents of the Church (Montanists, Arianism etc.) were faked. 

Nevertheless when in the 16th century finally bible reading became a normal practise and precisely because it was previously forbidden was a cool thing to do, from 1300 until 1500 bible reading was limited to sections read in Church ceremonies and it is exactly during this period that the canon became established. The gospels again were more widely known and there were many of them. Knowledge about the old testament though was extremely limited at the time. 

There definitely are markers, which show at precisely which time the bible was written. The gospels for instance convey a society exactly as the new capitalist culture which arose in the 13th-15th century. The idea of nation hood arises frequently in the Old Testament psalms, but the concept was hardly known before 13th-15th century. A. Fomenko has in his 3rd volume of Chronology definitely convincingly calculated the exact horoscopes used in literature, art  of  'antiquity' and the bible and they all lead to the 13th-15th century. His 3rd volume is his most scientific solid book and conveys research already initiated by his parents. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

What motive would Frederic II have had? 
When I read through his biography on Wikipedia I noticed that something essential was missing. Namely exactly during the years that allegedly the Mongols through Batu Khan had brought the whole of Eastern Europe to their knees, Western Europe allegedly occupy themselves with petty quarrels between the Emperor and the Pope and German princes and the Emperor. 

Events become a lot more clear if you investigate the idea that Frederic II was a whole lot more oriented towards the East as is acknowledged. The whole of Europe sees him as a traitor, who 'without fight' during the sixth crusade more or less gets Jerusalem given to him by the Sultan. And it is even related that this Jerusalem didn't have any walls at all. As the new Jerusalem as Frederic II would like it to be. 

The same attitude allegedly Frederic II had shown in exactly the years before towards Batu Khan. There was no fight, but an extremely diplomatic understanding between Batu Khan and Frederic II. 

He would become his falconer.

Moreover during and due to the Mongol conquests there had been a major shift in the upper European Nobility. All modern royal lines vanish into obscurity around this period, with the royal wifes having origins from the North of the Caucasus. These were exactly the families involved in the Renaissance. They took the opportunity of the newly important literature from Byzantium and further East, to rewrite them and conceal their own origins. Moreover by in the late Renaissance giving Europe a whole new Art, including a whole new allegedly Greek Art, they could portrait Europes origins as old and white. But in fact Europe had many colored people up to this period. 

There is of course more. Allegedly Innocent IV had written a letter for the election of a new Great Khan  sending William as Ruysbroeck as his envoy. But this is way too soon and would make the voyage of Carpini and William of Ruysbroeck towards the same election. 

It is obvious that the conflict between Innocent IV and Frederic II is of a later date and there is a shift of approx. 50 years and some popes have been inserted at a later date. All of them living in Northern Italy and not in Rome. We may well assume that Innocent IV and Innocent III were much closer together. And Frederic's relation with Innocent III was better as that with his successor. 

That is of course if Innocent III did not exactly die but left after the foundation of Western Papacy had been set and we are convinced of exactly that. And Frederic II as Batu Khan's falconer had much to with it. 

Then of course a lot of re-writing of historical and genealogical records would have been needed at exactly this time. 

Frederic IIs birth in a
Mongol dome tent under
the banner of the white and blue Horde

And of course it does explain Frederic II's behaviour towards the Church and the Pope in particular. Frederic II then knew very well that the Pope, behind all rhetoric, was not more than a very local Western fief lord, sustained by forces the Pope himself could not exactly have fully understood and largely at odds with the geographical  power structure at exactly this time. The world at large was owned by the East. And Frederic II and a few initiates seemed to have been the only ones to have grasped it. 

Also do note that from this time until 1500s the Roman Emperor had very little to with the city of Rome. The king of the Romans allegedly lived in Germany. As such the weapon of the Eagle looked Westwards. Frederic II then was Emperor of the Western block of the empire and in name the protector of the three Western power blocks England, France and Spain.

Such a division existed also over the large east-west section across Eurasia. Europe, the white and blue Hordes and the Mongol Great Khanate.