Prop - the main Soviet theorist of fairy tales

I read Propp (who doesn’t know - the main Soviet theorist
fairy tale). At first I didn’t understand what he was getting at.
Some rituals, initiations, symbols, hints... Became
analyze, separate information from ranting. And
discovered the Morozov-Fomenko method at its best. Same picture:
if something looks like something, then it is it; if you need to find
confirmation of some idea - we are looking for something at least a little similar
all over the planet, and if we haven’t found it, we write: “this fact, to
Unfortunately, it was not reflected in literature."

Then I accidentally looked into S. Bondi’s comments to “Gabriiliad”
(for those who don’t know, it’s a vulgar work, valuable only because it
with anti-church notes). And I see the same thing! Listed FIVE
facts against Pushkin's authorship:

1. Absence of a manuscript, “its text is not entirely known to us.” 
authentic copies."

2. Written negative response from the commission in the Mitkov case. 

1. Not by me. 
2. The first time I saw “Gabrieliad” was at the Lyceum in 15 or 16 
year and rewrote it; I don’t remember where I took her, but I haven’t seen her since then 
her. 
3. I don’t have. 
(10th grade ALEXANDER PUSHKIN. Testimony in the case of "Gabriiliad" 
3 - 5 August 1828) 

3. Written negative response to a repeated request. 

The manuscript circulated among the officers of the hussar regiment, but from whom 
It was I who got it, I just don’t remember. My list was burned 
I'm probably in my 20s. 
I dare add that in none of myworks, even from 
those whom I most repent of have no trace of the spirit of unbelief or 
blasphemy against religion. The more regrettable for me is the opinion 
attributing to me a work so pitiful and shameful. 
(10th grade ALEXANDER PUSHKIN. Testimony to the St. Petersburg 
military governor August 19, 1828) 

4. A private letter, where Pushkin clearly indicated that the author is 
the late prince Dm. Gorchakov.

You call me to Penza, and look no further, I’ll go further, 
           Straight, straight east.
A [new p< ...>] got stuck on my neck. Before 
Gabrieliad finally reached the government; attribute it to me; 
they reported on me, and I will probably answer for other people’s mischief, if the book. 
Dm.  Gorchakov will not come from the other world to defend the rights to 
your property. Let this be between us. 
(A. S. Pushkin - P. A. Vyazemsky. September 1, 1828 St. Petersburg.) 

5. Letter to the king regarding the Gabrieliad, after which the king 
He didn’t punish Pushkin at all and never frightened him again
"Gabriiliada".

According to the commission’s note dated August 28, in which they were forwarded 
at the highest discretion, the poet Pushkin’s answers to questions, 
made to him regarding the famous poem of Gabrieliad, his 
The Imperial Majesty was pleased to command with his own hand: 
"G. Tolstoy to call Pushkin to himself and tell him in my name, 
that, knowing Pushkin personally, I believe his word. But I wish that he 
helped the government open,who could invent such an abomination 
and offend Pushkin by releasing it under his name." 
Commander-in-Chief in St. Petersburg and Kronstadt, having executed 
the above-mentioned handwritten mark of His Majesty, demanded 
from Pushkin: so that he, seeing such mercy towards himself 
Majesty, did not dissuade himself from explaining the truth and that Pushkin, 
after contented silence and reflection, he asked: is it allowed 
he will write directly to the Emperor, and, having received this 
satisfactory answer, I immediately wrote a letter to His Majesty 
and, having sealed it, handed it to Count Tolstoy. The commission decided not 
opening this letter, present it to His Majesty, informing and 
that Count Tolstoy informed the commission. 
(MINUTES OF THE COMMISSION MEETING Oct. 7, 1828. Secret. Cases III 
Branches, page 343) 

Pushkin said that he could not answer the interrogation, but since 
the sovereign allowed him to write to himself, then he asks that he 
They gave me an opportunity to talk to the Tsar himself. Pushkin was given papers, and he 
The governor himself wrote a letter to the king. As a result 
letters the sovereign sent an order to stop the persecution, because he 
he himself knows who is the author of these verses. 
(P.V. NASHCHOKIN according to BARTENEV’s recording. Stories about Pushkin, 42) 

And not a single fact is in favor. Moreover, these facts are diluted with chatter
about the fact that Pushkin, they say, was embarrassed, hid, obscured. I'm watching
the text of the poem itself. I see: “eye-on-eye”, then on two neighboring oneslines “everything” without emphasis (once - it happens, but here - on
adjacent lines!), then rhymes: “courtiers” - “submissive”,
"lips" - "teeth". If this, excuse me, is Pushkin, then I am the Brothers Grimm.
I was not satisfied with a superficial inspection - I am these glitches
I searched through Pushkin’s electronic PSS for word weaving. How
and it was to be expected, such lameness Alexander Sergeevich did not
used. There were only “courtiers” - “submissive” ones, but there were
in... "Tsar Nikita". The latter is also vulgarity of the obscure
origin. In the Pushkin manuscript there is an initial (decent)
fragment - to the words "Too prim censorship." Which part
opus belongs to Pushkin - unknown. Apparently this fragment
(the indicated rhyme is not included in it). This is evidenced by
further clumsy rhymes, such as “will teach” - “will accustom”,
"worse" - "tighter".

There is a study by Guryanov V.P. "Pushkin's letter about
'Gavriiliada'", where the author defends the authenticity of what arose in 1951
year of Pushkin’s letter to the Tsar (this letter is not published in the PSS). So,
What does Guryanov tell us?

The letter was found in the Bakhmetev fund by a student of the Moscow
Archival Institute Savin V.I. On a half sheet in folio
(in folio - this is approximately A3 or even larger) from the very top
(i.e. the beginning is obviously missing) it is written:

──────────────────────────────── ──────────────────────────────── 
Being questioned by the Government, I did not consider myself obliged 
admit to a prank, soas shameful as it is criminal. - 
But now, asked directly on behalf of my Sovereign, I declare, 
that Gavriliada was composed by me in 1817. 

Submitting myself to the mercy and generosity of the king, I am 

Your Imperial Majesty's loyal servant 
Alexander Pushkin. 

October 2, 1828. St. Petersburg 
──────────────────────────────── ──────────────────────────────── 

The handwriting of the letter copies Pushkin’s handwriting, and even the signature
copied. At first the letter was believed to be original, but after
criticism given by B.V. Tomashevsky (non-Pushkin spelling,
dubious style, lack of beginning, dissimilarity of details
handwriting), the researchers reconsidered their position. Unknown
graphologists compared the manuscript of one of the Bakhmetevs with a letter,
without a signature, and found similarities in handwriting, but with a clear
imitation of Pushkin's handwriting in writing. T.G. Tsyavlovskaya, N.Ya.
Eidelman and V.V. Tomilin improved this result by finding
It is unknown where Al’s manuscript is. Bakhmetev with signature. (All these
The researchers allowed themselves to count as if from handwriting
several lines of counterfeit can be clearly identified
counterfeiter.) Accordingly, Alexey is declared the author of the copy
Nikolaevich Bakhmetev (1798-1861). Having set out a number of conditions that
had to be observed so that Pushkin's real letter
(destroyed) got to Bakhmetev, Guryanov gracefully bypasses
questions about WHY Alexey Nikolaevich needed it
copy, imitatehandwriting, especially copying the signature. And why
cut off the beginning. Tomashevsky, quoted by Guryanov, writes:

"The very presence of only half a leaf seems to be explained 
because in the archives it is easy to find a half-sheet of antique paper, but 
it is difficult to obtain a whole untouched leaf. Meanwhile, completely 
it is not clear what could have been at the beginning of the letter, since this 
the entry fully includes all possible contents of the response 
Pushkin". 

Guryanov could only answer this in this way:

"Obviously, one appeal could not take up the entire page in 
folio, even if Pushkin began his letters and 
petitions not from the top of the page, but from the bottom. On the first page 
undoubtedly, there should have been some text on the merits 
letter, to which a response followed in the surviving part." 

What is the text of the letter, dear V.P., if everything
being set out in the part we have?

Guryanov’s assumption that Bakhmetev only rewrote
most importantly, raises the question even higher: if Bakhmetev
he was in a hurry because he didn’t rewrite the entire letter, then why did he
bothered to copy your handwriting and signature? If the handwriting
Tsyavlovskaya and Eidelman were able to explain with the help of (unknown
science) the phenomenon of unconscious imitation during correspondence, then
the signature remained a mystery. In this situation, M.I. Yashin
preferred to consider the letter not a copy, but a forgery,
made by Bakhmetev.

Guryanov alsobypassed the question of why in this supposed copy
in Pushkin's letter the word "Gavriliad" is not written with an "ii"
(although Pushkin wrote through “ii”), and “loyal” - not through
"dd" (in Pushkin's real letters it is always "dd"). Even if
the original was written in French (which is not a fact), then why
Bakhmetev needed to translate him if he was worried about
preserving handwriting and even signature?

In conclusion, Guryanov boldly dates the poem to the spring of 1821, not
referring to nothing:

"When explaining to the emperor, the poet, of course, does not forget about the limits 
possible frankness and declares the year of birth of the "Gabrieliad" 
1817, while the poem was written in the spring of 1821. 
Pushkin wanted to emphasize that he wrote this poem as a young man." 

So, here are the arguments that, with the help of Vit Karetny (almost
all P’s arguments are his merit) were found on the topic
authorship of the Gabrieliad. Before the number I indicate in favor of which
version the argument works: P - version with the authorship of Pushkin
1821-22, G - with the authorship of the book. Dm. Peter. Gorchakova (1758-1824),
X - with the authorship of an unknown person, not Pushkin, but maybe
Gorchakova. Counterarguments are in quotes. Don't be surprised that one
and the same argument is presented for confirmation
opposite versions. "Any evidence can turn out differently
side," as Sherlock Holmes said.

P1. Outline of the poem: 'Having called upon the Holy Spirit, Gabriel reveals to him his 
love and calls him to be a pimp...Gabriel is in love... Satan and 
Maria...'. 
"Why S.M. Bondi published it in PSS 1937 and changed his mind
published in PSS 1974, although the poem itself and preparations for others
poems published there? The easiest way to assume is that Bondi
noticed that this entry is not at all the plan of Gabrieliad.
This is a different story based on the same gospel motive! I myself am only
many months after compiling this list I guessed
check compliance. The first point directly contradicts the poem.
The second one can only be pulled by the ears - about Gabriel’s falling in love with
the poem does not say (according to the text, he fulfills God’s task, however
Mary was so delighted with Gabriel that he later
repeatedly enjoyed her love). Three remaining words, one
of which 'and' can hardly be called the PLAN OF THE POEM."
P2. Parallel - verses 113-116 with the verses 'One love is fun 
cold life' (1816). 
“Pushkin doesn’t repeat himself that much, which means a) in the poem
Pushkin's borrowing from 'Gavriiliad', b) in 'Gavriiliad'
borrowing from Pushkin, c) poem and 'Gabriiliad'
borrowed from something third (apparently from Guys)."
P3. S.S. Petrovsky from St. Petersburg to Sobolevsky July 12, 1822. 
"Petrovsky had no text and knew only rumors; similar rumors
walked back in 1820 (F.N. Glinka. Removal of A.S. Pushkin from
St. Petersburg in 1820); now in St. Petersburg there was no one
Pushkin, who can somehow refute the rumors."
PCHa. Pushkin to Vyazemsky September 1, 1822."A poem of a mystical kind - 'Song of the prophetic Oleg' (since further
the text of the letter reads 'I became a courtier')."
PCb. Vyazemsky to Turgenev December 10, 1822 (if the previous argument 
not about 'Gabrieliad'). This letter is quoted by M.P. Alekseev (Po 
about the publication by V. Bryusov, 1919) and M.A. Rakhmatullin 
(http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/JOURNAL/RUHIST/PUSHKIN1.HTM): 
'P.A. Vyazemsky wrote to A.I. on December 10, 1822. Turgenev: , and especially brought 
the lines of the poem he liked. - Ostafevsky Archive of Princes 
Vyazemsky. Book P. Correspondence of the book. P.A. Vyazemsky with A.I. 
Turgenev. 1820-1823. St. Petersburg, 1899. P. 287.' 
"The prank is probably 'Message to the Censor'. If Alekseev and
Rakhmatullin found in this letter explicit lines from the Gabrieliad,
they wouldn't miss a chance to quote them. In addition,
It’s suspicious that the word “beautiful” is not in Alekseev’s quote,
but in Rakhmatullin’s quote there is.”
P5. Summoning Pushkin in the case of V.F. Mitkova. 
"Mitkov's courtyard people did not mention the name in their reports
Pushkin. Mitkov, having attributed the poem to Pushkin, was able to justify himself by saying that
who collects the works of this poet."
P6. A copy of Pushkin’s letter to the Tsar on October 2, 1828, apparently made 
Al. Nick. Bakhmetev (1798-1861). 
"A forgery imitating Pushkin's handwriting and signature, not
observing the form of address to the Tsar and Pushkin’s spelling
('Gavriiliada' instead of 'Gavriiliada', 'loyal' instead of'loyal subject'); According to Guryanov (putting forward
dubious assumption that a personal letter to the king after
the end of the case was not only known by its contents to a number of persons,
but it also changed hands!), Bakhmetev was close to a member of the Provisional
Supreme Commission P.A. Tolstoy is also a relative
D.P. Gorchakova. So Bakhmetev had an opportunity to find out
about the story with the letter, and the reason for writing a fake is to
show personally to everyone who mentioned Gorchakov badly in connection with
'Gabriiliada'. If not Bakhmetev, then from 1921 to 1951 it could have been a forgery
produced by anyone, especially beneficial to the student who found it
V.I. Savin - for his thesis."
P7. A.H. Golitsyn according to Bartenev: 'Pushkin's denial. 
Recognition'. 
"Perhaps this is recognition of the authorship of the deceased (important review
prince: “there is no need to condemn the dead”), and on that day Pushkin
I wrote down: 'Oct 2. letter to c le cadavre' (le cadavre -
corpse). However, it is no less possible that A.N. Golitsyn simply DID NOT KNOW
(and should not have known) the contents of Pushkin’s personal letter to the Tsar and
I considered this letter a confession."
P8. Vyazemsky's will on a copy of the publication (Berlin, 1870) 
poems by Pushkin (M.P. Alekseev. Regarding the publication by V. Bryusov): 
'in the library of the book. Vyazemsky on a copy of "Poems" by A.S. 
Pushkin (Berlin, 1870) the following inscription was found, made by him 
hand: '".

G1. Letter from Pushkin to Vyazemsky, September 1, 1828. 
"Not detailed secret instructions (letters to others
friends, apparently, did not survive); or the letter is intended
for the secret police (but then we should not trust many letters
Pushkin)".
G2. Counterargument to P7. A.H. Golitsyn according to Bakhmetev: recognition 
authorship of the deceased (important review from the prince: “there is no need to condemn 
dead'), and on that day Pushkin wrote down in hismanuscripts 
''Poltava': '2 Oct. letter to ts le cadavre'. 
"1. Pushkin himself could be named dead here;
2. 'Le cadavre' is not necessarily Gorchakov."
G3. H.S. Selivanovsky. 'Let's remember another Russian writer, 
who suffered the same fate is Gorchakov, the author of the G, 
stupid... poem, printed and translated by him from French. 
I did not happen to have it in my hands; but, as far as I've heard, in it 
there were poetic places. Someone told me that professor 
Merzlyakov once read it all to a friend and burned it in 
ovens'. {Bibliographic notes, 1858, N 17, pp. 518-519} 
[M.P. Alekseev. Regarding the publication by V. Bryusov] 
"Selivanovsky's notes 'need critical examination'."
G4. Syllable D.P. Gorchakov was confused with Pushkin: 'With sufficient 
G.'s persuasiveness is attributed to the translation of J.'s poetic tale. 
Lafontaine  (), for some time 
considered one of Pushkin's early works." 
[http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=721] 
"?"

And this confusion is natural - take a look at the excerpts from Gorchakov:

Give me, muse, a balalaika, 
I want to rip off the ode 
And into the poetry gang 
I intend to record myself. 
{Poets of the 18th century / Comp. G.P. Makogonenko, I.Z. Serman. L.,
1972. T. 2. P. 416}. A Compelling Argument for Attribution
This ode to Gorchakov was recently given by V. Stepanov (see: Stepanov
V.P. Unpublished works by D.P. Gorchakova. - XVIIIcentury Sat.
16. L., 1989. P. 116-117). [M. Shruba. BARKOV AND MIKE //
Questions of literature. - M., 1996, No. 4.
http://www.philology.ru/literature2/shruba-96.htm]

That the fool blinds the crowd with the glitter of gold, 
That the dowry only values the bride, 
That a man with ability walks without a place, 
And with patronage - the position is stupid, 
That the merchant got the assessor’s money with money, 
That Suslikov sees joy only in punch. 
[http://www.rulex.ru/01040628.htm]

...in my native country 
There are thousands of magazines, but not a single book... 
[http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=721]

                        More details about P1:

PSS 1993-1998, reprint of the anniversary edition of 1937. Plan
"Gabrieliad" is in the 2nd section of volume IV, where
options and other additional materials. There's also a link to
source: Public Library. Lenin, Moscow, fund
Pushkin's notebooks, notebook N 2365, sheet 27. (As indicated in the PSS
1993 after PSS 1937, but this Chisinau notebook dates back to 1948. 
[http://feb-web.ru/feb/pushkin/critics/zsp/zsp-260-.htm?cmd=2] 
is stored not in PBL (Moscow), but in IRLI (St. Petersburg) and has a different number: 
IRLI (PD) N 831.) Editors of the 1937 edition: Bondi (chief), 
Vinokur, Gudziy, Izmailov, Tomashevsky. Commentator and editor
"Gabriiliads": Tomashevsky.

Bondi is the same Sergei Mikhailovich Bondi who
commented on the 3rd volume (with “Gabriiliada”) of the 1974 PSS (see above
- just from thesecomments I started the story). In 1974 he
Already, apparently, he has changed his mind about bringing this plan.

A facsimile of the plan appeared in a separate edition of the Gabrieliad
book in the series "Library 'Chimes'", Kyiv, 1918. Commentators
Alekseev call this publication “a collection of unverified or
knowingly false facts." Also in 1918, Bryusov mentioned the plan.

                        More about G1:

According to version P, there are one of two options:
a) the letter is an instruction for Vyazemsky on how to respond to
interrogations.
b) the letter was written with the expectation of being read by secret police.

So, first option a). Pushkin has experience of being under
interrogation, and therefore can well imagine interrogation
Vyazemsky (based on which interrogation Pushkin allegedly
wrote this letter).

Commission: What can you say about the authorship of the poem 
"Gabriiliad"? 
Vyazemsky: I know that it was written by Prince D.P. Gorchakov. 
Commission: How do you know this? 
Vyazemsky: From A.S. Pushkin. 

The conclusion is in option a) Pushkin is an idiot.

Now option b). Pushkin imagines another challenge to
interrogation He can quite predict what awaits him there (Pushkin in
this time I was really preparing for interrogation, in the manuscript
"Poltava" has a corresponding entry).

Commission: In your letter dated September 1, 1828 P.A. Vyazemsky you 
raise an absurd accusation against the late Prince D.P. Gorchakova, 
as if he wrote an obscene and blasphemous poem 
"Gabriiliada". OnOn what basis are you spreading such rumors? 
Pushkin: The prince said it himself. 
Commission: Tell us under what circumstances your accident happened 
such a frank conversation with him... 

And Pushkin got into trouble (no matter what tales he told about these
circumstances, then the commission has every right to follow
"third option").

Another option (instead of "he said it himself"):

Pushkin: I heard from N. 

The commission calls N for questioning, N denies this testimony, and
Pushkin is in trouble again. Added to the charge of blasphemy
accusation of libel.

Third option:

Pushkin: I heard from the late Y. 
Commission: What a pity we can’t ask him; we'll have to 
interview your friends, because Staff Captain V.F. Mitkov 
showed that he has been collecting your poems for a long time and is completely 
I'm sure the poem is yours. 

And Pushkin got into trouble again.

It turns out that Pushkin with this letter only labeled himself
another accusation from which he himself cannot defend himself.
Conclusion - in option b) Pushkin is an idiot.

But in versions D and X, Pushkin does not turn out to be an idiot:

Pushkin: I found this out from Z between August 19 and September 1 of this 
year. 

The commission summons Z for questioning, he confirms this, and Pushkin
free

As you can see, the authorship of Pushkin is not so certain, and to assert
it is possible only with reservations, and not according to the methods of the Soviet
historical science. This science has shown its insanity very well
in TSB, where, say, for almost every fanatical sect,even the most poorly illuminated in primary sources, it is argued that
it was a movement of the exploited masses, to which later
such and such layers joined, etc.

Works with the same dark history as
"Gabriiliad" should not be placed in the main part of the collection
essays, and in the section “Dubia”, that is, “Doubtful”.

P.S. It was because of this material that I hesitated for a long time to fart in 
light ACNews #47. After running it on three sites 
(SU.BOOKS, SU.HISTORY, Gorodetsky forum] I received sufficient 
confidence in the completeness of coverage of the topic, although for a detailed analysis 
I really miss, for example, the early articles of Bryusov and 
Tomashevsky. If I get access to them, I will try 
continue this interesting conversation. 

Another analysis of the same topic can be read here (author - Ninel 
Epatova): 
http://www.proza.ru/texts/2002/07/02-115.html 
This is an article against Pushkin's authorship. 

And here is a sample article for Pushkin’s authorship (here are given 
interesting materials on the Mitkov case): 
http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/PAPERS/NYE/NEWCLOUD.HTM 
Author - Nathan Eidelman. 

                             * * *

As I write, some jerk upstairs is drilling something. They say that
repair them. It's been under renovation for two years now. All these repairmen are needed
send somewhere into the wilderness to have bridges repaired, since they
I really like this process. And those assholes who turn up the music
one hundred decibels, let it beworking in a mine with a jackhammer. After all
They enjoy it when their ears get clogged. Freaks.

Several days passed. In my house, a chandelier fell from the ceiling.
Along with a hook - so now you can hang a new fig. Neighbor
from above pretends to be a lamb, supposedly not guilty.

I went to the bookstore in the hope of finding at least something worthwhile
purchases. Found nothing. The stark contrast between the Internet,
where primary sources lie in a prominent place like mountains, and a store,
where primary sources appear only on holidays, and on prominent
Fomenki’s works lie in the mountains. I came across some essay
about the "history of the Internet". If you think they are mentioned there
Spectrum sites or at least demoscene.ru, then you are mistaken.
But the author found a place, for example, for stories about some
virtual Vasya Pupkin. The author still mentioned Krotov, but
for some reason he called him a security officer and attributed propaganda to him
Satanism. I looked for Winnie the Pooh editions. Found several: one
successful, with illustrations by Ernest Sheppard (which, apparently,
the very first), and not just any, but colored ones! Got a clumsy one
English-language edition - with a cut-off preface. Critical
Of course, there is no publication. I also came across "Vitya Maleev" with
illustrations by Chizhikov. Again - in color! Of the lucky ones there is
Koran with Arabic text in insets and "Alexandria" in the form
photocopies of a manuscript from the 17th century. More "Orthodox"
encyclopedia" deserves the rightto exist. Her, of course,
We haven’t finished writing it yet, but the level is high. True, for such a price
It's easier to hang yourself. I leafed through the Orthodox waste paper, but still didn’t
I found the Creed in Church Slavonic. On another rack
they threw out several more volumes of Tsepkov’s chronicles and hung them on the side
Tsepkov advertising. "Voskresenskaya", in principle, can be bought,
because no one has scanned it yet. In Tsepkov's publications
spelling, for some unknown reason, has been brought to the modern level, but
you can use it. The Tsepkov pointer helps. Rhetorical
question: why bother putting together an index - wouldn’t it have been easier?
post it in electronic form, where can I automatically search? No
answer. And at the same time Tsepkov mentioned that the publication is not cheap
costs. Electronic would not cost a penny, but it had
would have an unlimited circulation. In contrast to this, whose fate is
only collecting dust on the shelves of wealthy collectors. In general
it’s not clear why these paper mugs are published - their
the publisher could earn money by spending the same time on something
useful. I was surprised by the appearance of A.Ya. Zhivoy on the science fiction shelf.
Of course, there is no Pavel Shumil - for burdock-readers and not
there is such an author. (I'm learning English and recently translated
the story "Cat's House", but so far I haven't found an Englishman who could
to find errors.) The Strugatskys’ drafts appeared. Two new
books by Umberto Eco. One of them is about Joyce for some reason: this
nonsense from Ecoexpected. An entire shelf is filled with one book.
"The Da Vinci Code"! This "Code" opens with a page with "facts"
which will cause laughter to those who know that the order of knighthood
under the name "Priority of Sion" did not exist at all in nature,
and the legend about the crusader origin of the Freemasons is an invention
18th century (Chevalier Ramsay (Chevalier Ramsay at Llorente), speech
1737 before the Grand Lodge of France, published by de la Tierce,
1743 [Cath.Enc.]). However, few people understand now, because
Baigent stands on the same shelf with Tacitus. Overall better
forget about this garbage dump altogether and go, say, to
www.vostlit.info, miriobiblion.narod.ru, www.shard1.narod.ru,
xlegio.ru, www.folio.by.ru, hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/chrons.htm or
titus.uni-frankfurt.de. This kind of literature is not sold in stores.
- Apparently, it is not in demand among moronoids.

Still, the next day I went again and bought 2 volumes
Resurrection Chronicle for 496 rubles. After all, a rarity. Maybe
I'll scan it. In total, I already have 14 volumes of PSRL out of 42, two more are in
Internet, you need to download it.

/77 did not work for two days - the voice on the phone said something like
"Subscriber is temporarily unavailable." And yesterday I was able to get through, but...
10M soap... Some bastard sent me a bunch of invoices for vodka
in 300 KB jpg. Impossible to pick up, had to ask
boss to erase (although apparently I could abandon the file via
Argus).