§ 4. Overview of an origin of main works of the antiquity
In the light of all said above, it becomes necessary to examine history of finds and publication of ancient works more attentively.
Works of Plato
Everyone knows the name of PLATO, but beside experts just a few know that even "in the early 15th century, humanists still didn't know Plato at all and nevertheless, following the words of Cicero, they usually rebelled ardently against any doubt in the exaltation of his philosophy" ( p. 147). Humanists didn't know Plato neither in the originals, nor in the translations. The first translation of several dialogues of Plato was given by Bruni in 1421 but the originals that he used did not reach us (so one might ask: did these "originals" really exist?).
Plato became widely known as late as 1482, after Florentine philosopher Marcello Ficino brought the Latin manuscript of Dialogues to the publisher Venet, declaring it his translation of the Greek manuscript. After publication of the Ficino's manuscript, readers immediately noticed a great number of anachronisms in it. The second edition of Ficino's "translation" was published in Florence in 1491, and the third, possibly cleaned from anachronisms, was published in 1517 in Venice.
Ficino did not present the Greek manuscripts to anyone and never, until his death, neither they were found by his heirs. The manuscripts disappeared without a trace (like Bruni's manuscripts).
As late as 1512, i.e. 30 years after the first edition of Plato, Venetian Cretan named Mark Mazur presented the Greek text of the works of Plato. This text was immediately printed in 1513, and then, with constant correction, it was repeatedly reprinted throughout the entire 16th century.
The Greek text of Mazur is inherent with such a pronounced variety of style that to date there isn't a single dialogue that all the experts on Plato would consider authentic. Among 38 dialogues, 9 are considered fake by all the researchers. Researcher Ast, one of the first and the most authoritative researchers of Plato, was recognizing mere 14 dialogues. Other researchers (Zocher, Schaarschmidt, Iberweg), acknowledging the dialogues rejected by Ast, deny others. Apparently, the record is held by Schaarschmidt who considered mere 9 dialogues credible, including ones rejected by Ast and Zocher (see  for details, pp. 127-128).
However, apparently, the most natural explanation did not occur to anyone: intending for faster production, Mazur entrusted the translation of Ficino's Latin text into Greek not to one, but to several persons at the same time.
It is significant that most of the references to the name of Plato among the "ancient" Greek authors became known as late as upon appearance of Ficino's translations.
It is also noteworthy that one of the main successors and followers of Plato was the Alexandrian philosopher PLOTIN, and during the Renaissance the Greek Byzantine PLETON was the distributor of their ideas in Europe. Could a phonetic similarity of the names Plato - Plotinus - Pleton be random?
We will return to Pleton in ch. 18.
Works of Cicero
A similar situation appeared for the Latin classics.
For example, consider the treatises of Cicero that came down to us in two handwritten versions: "incomplete" and "complete" (see , pp. 387–388). We are informed that with the fall of the ancient culture, the treatises of Cicero lose their popularity and this is why, for example, the treatises "On the Orator" and "Orator" survived as a mere single manuscript with many lost pages. Here is how the history of variants of Cicero is described in the notes in :
"When the period of "dark ages" of the early Middle Ages goes and the surviving monuments of the ancient literature begin to be copied again in European monasteries, this defective manuscript of the treatises "On the Orator" and "Orator" become source for an entire family of copies; they all have one thing in common - omissions (sometimes very large, half a book or more) in places where sheets were lost in the archetype. This is "the incomplete option"; its archetype has long perished, but the text is still partly amenable to reconstruction from the oldest and the best copies - the Avranshan one, the Harleian one, the Erlangen one (these copies allegedly date back into the 9th – 10th centuries AD - Author).
In the 14th - early 15th centuries the Renaissance greatly revived an interest in the rhetorical treatises of Cicero. The surviving manuscripts "On the Orator" and "Orator" are being copied more and more often, and the annoyance at their incompleteness erupt more and more. It reaches the point when around 1420 the Milanese professor Gasparino Barcicca, the best expert on the rhetoric of Cicero of that time, took up a risky work: for connectivity, he was going to fill in gaps of "the incomplete version" with his own additions. But before he could finish his work, a miracle occurred: in a distant Italian town of Lodi, an abandoned manuscript was found with full text of all the rhetorical works of Cicero - "Old Rhetoric" ("Rhetoric to Guerenius"), "New Rhetoric" ("On Finding" ), "On the Orator", "Brutus" (completely unknown previously), and "Orator". Barcica and his students pounce on a new find, decipher its old (probably 13th century) typeface in their struggle and finally make a easily readable copy. Other copies are taken from this copy, and together they complete "the full version" of the text of Cicero; it is based on the following manuscripts: "Magliabecci's Florentine", Vatican's "the Ottobonian" (the only one including all three treatise in a row) and "the Palatine" - all three date back to 1422-1425. But meanwhile, the irreparable happens: the archetype of this option, the Lodi manuscript, is abandoned. Nobody wants to struggle over its difficult text, and as it is not needed anymore it is being sent back to Lodi where it goes missing: nothing is known of its fate since 1428. European philologists still mourn this loss to this day "(, pp. 387-388).
And this is how the manuscripts of Marcus Tullius Cicero - the famous Roman orator and politician - were "found"! We can only congratulate professor Barcicca and his students with their successful operation. "Manuscripts were multiplying, along with copies of "the incomplete" and "complete" version, mixed copies also appeared, introducing amendments to one version from another. With invention of the typography, manuscripts are replaced with printed editions: around 1465 the first printed edition of "On the Orator" treatise was published in Subiac, in 1469 the first printed edition of all three treatise together wass published in Rome. For several centuries, manuscripts of "the full version" were taken as the basis of publications, as the most coherent and convenient... "(, p. 388).
The story of "the discovery" of Cicero's manuscript "On the State" is also instructive. It turns out until the early 19th century this treatise was known only in the form of its references by other authors and in individual quotes that could be found in other writers.
"In the Renaissance, connoisseurs and admirers of antiquity, starting with Petrarch, searched for this work of Cicero in all the bookstores of Europe and went with this purpose even to Poland, but for long all these attempts were unsuccessful. As late as the early 19th century (sic! - author), Angelo May, scientist, cardinal and prefect of the Library of Vatican, found a palimpsest (i.e. a manuscript on parchment from which the original text was erased and a new one was written). This palimpsest contained a significant part of the first and second books of the treatise, as well as excerpts from the third, fourth and fifth books; Palimpsest did not preserve a single passage from the text of the sixth one. May published a manuscript in 1822, including fragments and quotes cited by the ancient authors, and also providing this publication with his own comments... "(, p. 159).
Book of Suetonius "Life of 12 Caesars"
This book was very popular in The Middle Ages, however its available copies "ultimately originate from a single antique manuscript that survived "the dark ages" of barbaric invasions and was at disposal of The Charlemagne's Royal academy. Einhardt was introduced to Suetonius with this manuscript when about 818 AD he was writing his "Life of The Charlemagne", recreating biographical plans of Suetonius diligently(isn't "Suetonius" just Einhardt's different nickname? - Auth.). Later this manuscript was stored in the famous Abey of St. Bonifatius in Fulda and copies were being made from it... Neither Fulda's manuscript nor its early copies could reach us..." (), page 281).
Turns out, this book's oldest and best copy appear to be a copy that historians ascribed to 9th century, called "The Memmian codex" named after a French diplomat who owned it in XVI century. All the rest of copies are dated not earlier than XI century AD (, p. 281).
Initial printed editions of Suetonius consideererd to be two Roman editions of 1470 and Venetian one of 1471. "They were based on late, imperfect manuscripts..." (, p. 281).
Excerpts from composition "On famous people" by Suetonius, too, appear quite late. "...A large fragment was preserved, covering an entire book of "On grammatics and rhetors" except the end. This fragment was in IX century collection from the monastery of Herzfeld in Germany (among others, collection contained "Germany", "Agricola" and "Dialogue on orators" by Tacitus, then a composition of Suetonius was following and the manuscript was cut short there). This manuscript was discovered in Germany by Poggio Bracciolini in 1425 and driven in Italy by Enoch of Asculan around 1458. The manuscript of Herzfeld didn't reach us (just a few sheets from the part with Tacitus got preserved) but about 20 its copies remain, made in Italy in the XV century; these are ones serving to establish a text of "On grammars and rhetors"..." (, p. 337). We'd like to remind (look prg.1) how so called "minor" compositions of Tacitus mentioned here differ greatly in their style from his "major" creations ("History" and "Annales"). It caused a doubt in their authenticity in as early as XVI century ( look , vol 2, p 217-218).
All other excerpts from books of Suetonius appear citations from compositions of other authors.
The majority of historians treat information reported by Suetonius negatively. He's accused in "not understanding the history", lacking critical intuition, using beforehand false and tendetious sources, desire to retell absolutely improbable anecdotes and songs etc. etc. (look  p 263).
"Unfortunately, following the common custom of the antique historians, Suetonius avoid direct indication of sources. Nevertheless among his references he does mention over 30 authors some of whom (Actorius, Nazones, Julius Marat, Julius Saturnin, Aquilius Niger) are not mentioned anywhere else" (, p 277). That's why an authenticity of these references cannot be verified, which could possibly be the intent. However as soon as these "new names" were spoken, seekers like Poggio Bracciolini were already in their full right to "search" and of course "find" more and more of new "authentical exemplars by previously unknown writers".
What's intresting is how according to Suetonius (and Dio Cassius, too) Pompeii, damaged by an earthquake, was restored by emperor Titus and still existed in Hadrian and Antonine.
By the way, restored Pompeii is also designated on so called "Patinger's parchment roll" combined of parchment pieces glued together and published in Venice in 1591. That roll was "found" just a hundred years prior by Conrad Zeltner around 1490 ( look  p 315).
"History" by Titus Livy
We mentioned TITUS LIVY previously in §1. It is stated how he was allegedly born in 59BC and used 75 (!) books written a generation earlier by Valery Antiates whose name according to Morozov (look  p 259) means "Crested Man of Muscle" (and name of Livy himself mean "Venerable Libyan"). These books, they say, disappeared without a trace later, except for a few quotes in compositions by latest authors.
"Would it be worth the effort for me to write the history of The Roman People since the capital's founding? I don't know it for sure and even if I would I wouldn't dare to tell. The thing is, such initiative as I can see is both old and tried by many, and on top of it new writers appear constantly, thinking: either bring in something new on the factual side, or surpass grim ancientry in an art of an expression. However I, too, to an extent of my wits, would enjoy serving for immortalization of deeds of the first nation in the world. And if my name would remain in shadow among such a crowd of writers, I will comfort myself with glory and greatness of my competitors" (quoted from  p 260-261).
We are being assured how with this vitious speech, in I century BC "Venered Libyan" wrote 144 (!) books on Roman history "Since the capital's foundation". A mere 35 books reached us, dividing into 3 groups, each of them supplied with a special prologue and differing from other groups quite substantially.
First 10 books (The First Decade) contain history of The Rome from its foundation till year 410 of its existence (i.e. 292 BC according to the Scaliger's chronology who established this date in XVI century). This decade is completely distant from the rest, differing in absolutely not describing any omens or miracles that other decades are teeming with. The Second Decade (books 11-20) considered lost so count goes further on since 21st book all the way till 40th. These are The Third and The Fourth Decades containing history of The Rome since -217 till -176.
"These were the only ones (30 books) to be included into first publication of Titus Livy around 1489, printed in Rome from a lost manuscript of an origin, unknown for me. Later in Hessen, in a town of Lorsche, in a Benedictine monastery, they "discovered" a manuscript containing 5 more books (41-45) considered continuing The Fourth Decade, containing "history of romans since -176 to -165" according to the very same chronology of Scaliger and Petavius. That manuscript is now stored in The State Library of Vienna. There aren't any other manuscripts of the latest books" ( p 265-266).
This is the most important source on the history of The Ancient Rome and we've yet to discuss it many times over. Just a remark for now how Poggio's involvement with its discovery is at the very least alarming (just as Poggio's involvement with a discovery of Suetonius).
Book "On architecture" by Vitruvius
In 1497 in the monastery of Monte-Cassino they discovered a book "On architecture" by MARCUS VITRUVIUS POLLION whose name in Morozov's translation (look  p 652) means "Deceased glazier-hallowmaker". Style of the book is so unique that researchers of the book came to a conclusion that either author's knowledge of classical Latin was poor or he wasn't always sure what he's writing. Composition of Vitruvius consist of 7 large books and excerpts of the 9th, all dedicated not just to architecture but also hydraulics, applied mechanics, gnomonics, mentioning inventors of a sundial and a clepsydra etc. Information on an astronomy is also present.
Book of Vitruvius is opened with following dedication (quoted from  p 623-624):
"When I think, oh augusta sovereign, how by a power of your own mind you have become the owner of the universe, how all the nations in the world, seeing Your invincible bravery, conquering Your enemies for You and covering with glory ones being under Your power and issuing everyone's worship to You, and how only by a wisdom of Your reign Roman people and senate hope to approve a silence they are using, then I am left uncertain, can I really carry up to You this my composition on architecture?
But imagining a great caliber of Your mind, I hope how my rank that given me a certain fame in times of the sovereign, Your parent, will also keep similar mercy for me in Your times..."
Not to mention an author's manner of writing, mention of sovereign parent was confusing all the researchers of all times who were attributing an author into an age of Octavian August who according to an information of all the historians, was not a royal son.
This is not the only thing in a book of Vitruvius that look strange from a traditional history's viewpoint. For example, astronomical part of this book specify periods of heliocentrical (!) rotation of the planets with impossible precision. Turns out, an architect Vitruvius living in I century AD has known times of heliocentrical rotation of the planets better than Copernicus and for example for a period of Saturn he was mistaken by a mere 0,00007 fraction of its true (established by modern science) period (Mars had an imprecision of 0.006, and Jupiter had it 0.003). All of this was calculated 1500 years prior to Copernicus even though an idea of heliocentrical period is only possible within the framework of a system of Copernicus.
Impossibly anachronistic are words of Vitruvius (in a beginning of our era!) about musicians marking dies and semitones on their string instruments when historians of the music tell us how all of these concepts and notation were used after The Middle Ages only.
In  (p 622-662) all the paradox in a book of Vitruvius is explained in detail, demonstrating that it was compiled out of several sources of later origin, not earlier than an epoch of Lorenzo Medici (1449-1492). Its author lived in times of Copernicus and composed astronomical part of his book using latest calculationary data, unknown for Copernicus who lived far away.
One can only guess who was the true author of a study of Vitruvius. Unwillingly, giant figure of Leonardo da Vinci come to mind, not just a great artist but also encyclopedically educated engineer and an architect (he built a series of buildings in Milano and left us boundless multiplicity of projects and chematics). Leonardo was 45 the year when a book "On architecture" written from Vitruvius Pollion's name was released, and he lived in Italy. Copernicus and Leonardo were almost a contemporaries; considering how fractured were scientists in those times, Copernicus could be unaware of a material to calculate periods of planetary rotation as precise as Leonardo did it in Milano in 1497 whose book could be left unread by Copernicus as one of irrelevant subject. Identification of Vitruvius with Leonardo can explain, in particular, poor Latin in "Vitruvius" as all the biographers of Leonardo make notion that Leonardo's knowledge of Latin was surprisingly poor. Though it's not impossible that an author of composition of Vitruvius wasn't Leonardo. But he almost undoubtedly belong to Leonardo's circle of people.
In Greek literature, the most authoritative historian writers are considered HERODOTUS, THYCIDIDES and PAUSANIAS. We'll talk Herodotus and Thycidides later in their own places so let's observe compositions of Pausanias now.
Pausanias whose name, from Morozov (look  p 408) mean "Quenching the longing", owns 10 books of "Description of Ellada or Travels in Greece" dated II century BC. characterized an importance of Pausanias' books as follows:
"There isn't ancient writer to whom we'd owe as much as we do to Pausanias in a knowledge of the ancient Greece, its religious life and art. One can without second thought say how without him, entire Greek states would be absolutely unknown for us. Some religious customs and forms of belief are reported by him alone and history of the Greek art would hardly exist without him" (look  p 408).
Pausanias present indirectly in any modern composition on the classical Ellada. This is a guide to the ancient Greece. Author read anything we can currently find in the classical literature, either summarising or directly bringing up almost any the evidence of the classical authors (adding even more of his own). Pausanias quoted about 160 "ancient" authors (in particular, Aristophanes, Sophocles, Eskhiles, Herodotus, Thycidides, Plato etc.) and he does so from their printed edition.
Pausanias' division of Greece into Attica, Korinthica, Laconica, Messene, Ilida, Ahaia, Arcadia, Beothia and Thecida draws one's attention as it completely match a division of Greece during XIII century feudal Latin states. Absolutely nothing is known about life of Pausanias. Initially historians believed Pausanias completely but as an archeology was developing and real archeological material kept being accumulated, more and more doubt in an authenticity of Pausanias began appearing.
In the late XIX century an archeologist has published a book titled "Pausanias - a guide" in which he compared description of Pausanias to other authors, found a huge amount of contradictions and oddities and summarised his research in the following words:
"Pausanias reveal neither talent or honest work. Just like current foreigner's guides, he was an ignoramus of the worst kind... Verbal tradition, being his main manuals, couldn't possibly be of unfeigned kind, and this uncertain ground is a foundation for the composition that's supposed to be the book of books of the classical archaeology. So let's cheer this discovery up and also let's cheer up how science of the monuments of The Ancient Greece isn't actually based on a mere whim and highhandedness of some Syrian or Majanin of latest times and of very doubtfull talent who worked from hearsay, but instead let's cheep up how this science retreat into much earlier century, when they were still collecting and researching with direct desire to serve the truth" (look  p 410).
What does it mean actually to accuse antique author (like Pausanias or Suetonius) in his "ignoramus"? Not more or less than an information reported in his book diverging an idea of the antiquity reached by the present day. That's why accusation of such kind appear a strong evidence for an apocrypha. To figure out actual time of a book's writing one has to find a moment in the Rennaissance in which an information on the antiquity contained in a book was matching an opinion of the era.
In ( p 408-426) in which the book of Pausanias was observed in detail it was shown how Pausanias appear to be a very late author, quite unskilled in covering a moment of his book's creation, most likely compiled after the age of Rennaissance.
We will list less authoritative authors just shortly (without any special order and detail) also adding some later authors in a bulk.
Compositions by JOSEPH FLAVIUS ("Judean War", "Judean Ancientries", "Life", "Against Appionus") were initially published in 1470 in Latin (corrected edition - 1524) and only as late as 1544 in Greek (language in which Flavius himself wrote them allegedly). One's attention is drawn to the Latin variant of early seven books of "Judean War" greatly different from the canon (and considered its "transposition"). It was published in 1510 but traditionally attributed just a tad above the 4th century. Sixth book of "Judean War" is known in its Syrian translation ("transposition?") named "Fifth book of the Maccawians". Apocryphal "Fourth book of the Maccawians" also used to be attributed to Flavius ( v15 p 302-311). Strange contradictions in compositions of Flavius caused a doubt about their authenticity long ago. In Morozov's opinion (, p 281-293) a number of statements of Flavius (for example his statement on Jewish monogamy that was actually established as late as 1030) as well as a general style of his compositions point out their Middle Ages origin clearly.
Compositions of EPIPAHIUS THE CYPRIAN (for example his latin book "On weights and lengths") were picked up as late as 17th century AD not long before their publication in 1622 in Paris ( p 324).
Compositions attributed to SULPICIUS SEVERUS (for example his "Holy history") allegedly deceased in 429AD were picked up as late as 1668 ( p 329).
Compositions attributed to OROSIUS deceased in 5th century AD allegedly are picked up and published as late as 1471 AD in Augsburg ( p 330).
Writer APPIANUS ("History of Rome" in particular is attributed to him) considered deceased in Alexandria during Antonine Pius and his attributed compositions were picked up and published as late as 1551-1557 AD in Paris ( p 334).
ORIGEN considered deceased in Alexandria in 254 AD and his attributed compositions began to be picked up in 17th century ( 335).
ATHANASIUS THE GREAT (Athanasius of Alexandria) considered deceased in 373 AD and his attributed compositions were searched up by Monthocon as late as 17th century and published in Paris in 1698 ( p 336).
AUGUSTINE considered deceased in 430 AD and his attributed compositions were picked up as late as 17th century AD and published in Paris in 1689-1700 ( p 339).
TERTULLIAN allegedly deceased in Caracalla's and his attributed compositions were picked up and published in Paris as late as 1616 AD ( p 338). By the way, Tertullian reported (also ironically confirmed by Mucius Felix) how 2nd century pagans used to accuse Christians in their worship of a donkey head. It's intresting how in 1856, soon after Oblair's 1853 publishing of Tertullian's compositions containing that message, a drawing was found in "The Palace of The Caesars" (currently stored in The Kircher's museum in Rome) portraying donkey-worshipping Christians. For some reason this drawing remained undiscovered all the way till an information about donkey head worship was published.
Handwritten excerpts from ANTHIM's "Urban chronicle" (dedicated to the history of the Athens) were found in Anagyrian monastery of Athens as late as 1800 ( p 146).
Compositions by gnostic VALENTINE THE PHILOSOPER allegedly deceased in 160 AD are known only from their exposition in polemics written to him by IRINEUS, a bishop of Lion, allegedly deceased in 202 AD, and compositions of Irineus himself are known only from a publication of Erasmus of Rotterdam released in 1526. It is totally unknown where Erasmus got them from.
An origin of jewish manuscripts is, too, covered with a dark of the unknown.
Even though rabbis provide a detailed description of The Talmud's creation in 1st-5th centuries AD, actually the earliest complete manuscript of so-called The Babylonian Talmud is dated into 14 century (a thousand years later!). The earliest manuscripts of particular Talmudic treatises belong to 1112 (stored in St. Petersburg) and 1184 (stored in The library of Hamburg). There is an opinion though that a manuscript of The Pesahim treatise that is more ancient to an extent, is stored in Cambridge ( v 14 p 718).
AQUIBA BEN-JOSEPH, "the father of the Talmudic judaism" that allegedly lived in 1-2 centuries AD is considered to have compiled "The Aquiba book on letter arrangement" in that he explained sense and meaning of graphical elements of the jewish letters. But even the most orthodox-minded "The Jewish Encyclopedia" was forced to acknowledge that "The book itself does not give the slightest indication of the time of its compilation" ( v1 p 634) informing that the first edition of the book apeared in Mantuia as late as 1613.
"The book of Eldad-Hanani" full of fantastic fabrication and allegedly written by 9th century jewish traveller, was booming in The Middle ages. The majority of readers was reading this book with a complete trust. And if some sceptic was showing his doubt, he was told how the famous scientists of Kairuk used to issue a quiery to Zemach, a rector of The Academy of Buhr, as early as 890, asking him if they are supposed to trust that book and rector answered that its author "can be relied on" ( p 261). Of course that kind of reply would make it at the very least impolite to express a doubt on this book's authenticity and its attribution into the 9th century.
One would expect from compositions of clerical nature to be traced into the depth of centuries with greater reliability. However, the situation with them is the same as with secular works.
"The clerical history" by SOCRATES SCHOLASTIC covering a period from Constantine I till Theodosius Jr. (i.e. approximately from 325 to 425 AD) was discovered as a Latin manuscript as late as in the early 16th century and its Greek "original" was discovered by its new publishers even later. Nobody knows where all these manuscripts resided in a course of 1200 years ( p 72). In a full accordance with a typical routine of those times that we've noted already, after publishing of the Scholastic's composition, a manuscript of his study vanished, nobody knows where to, and nobody and never seen it anymore.
Earliest reliable intelligence about "The Clerical history" by EUSEBIUS PAMPHIL whose name according to Morozov means "Pious Anylover" ( p 870) we've got (not even in Greek but in Latin) from as late as early half of the 16th century and style of his books match these late times. Initially, the Greek text was published in 1544 in Paris. Different Latin edition, a fresh translation by Christophorson commented by Souffrid Pier was released in 1612. From this edition they translated it into German, Dutch, English and French. In the present day, edition by Valesius considered the most authoritative, released in Cambridge in 1720.
Eusebius appear among base sources not only on the history of Christianity of three early centuries AD but also on political and dynastical history of those times even though his compositions were exposed to a violent criticism numerous times and as a whole considered unreliable now. For example J. Burkhardt, 19th century German historian, once called Eusebius "first from start to finish unscrupulous historiographer of an ancientry" and wrote: "After numerous distortions, concealments and fictions found in him he can't possess any right to figure in a role of a positive source. In a similar manner and on top of it one can stack knowingly allowed fogginess of expression, intentional bombast, countless ambiguity of this writer..." ( p 259).
Same opinion is repeated by soviet historian J.A. Lenzman: "...one has to keep in mind how Eusebius frequently didn't stop before clear falsification of his sources" ( p 42).
Again we encounter an accusation addressed to an antique author about his dishonesty and ignorance.
Basically nothing is known about life of Eusebius. Socrates Scholastic (whose book, we'd like to remind, was discovered simultaneously with a book of Eusebius) report that life of Eusebius was described by AKAKIUS, his pupil and successor on the egyptian throne. However this biography "didn't get preserved" and a mere short intelligence is present, scattered among various very late authors.
Feather of Eusebius owns colossal amount of books of very different nature ascribed to it: "The Lovetruthian" (Filalith), "Gospelian preparation" in 15 books, "Gospelian proof" in 10 books, previously mentioned "Clerical history" in 10 books, "On Palestinian Christian martyrs", "Message to Cesarian flock", "The book on names of places mentioned in The Holy Scripture", "Laudatory word to Constantine The Great", "Two books against Marcell, bishop of Ancir", "Clerical theology" in 3 books, "Life of Constantine The Great" in 4 books etc.
At the same time with quite an orthodox books Eusebius was allegedly writing books "putting believers in temptation" and so left unpublished: 3 books "On imaginary disagreement of Gospels" whose manuscripts are stored in Sicily, 4 books of "The Old Testament's prophetical equilogues on the Christ" whose manuscripts are stored "The Imperator's Library of Vienna" in town of Basil (?-tr) etc.
One has to ask: can one trust messages about all these different compositions belonging to a feather of the very same author?
In  (p 870-903) arguments are brought up for rather late origin of all the books of Eusebius. We won't repeat all these arguments here and will just point a confusion that Eusebius allegedly allowed for in calendar matters.
The C.E. Era is considered (further on, prg 5 unit 6) to be established by Dionisius Jr. as late as 6th century and was put to use even later. But how can one explain its universal use by Dionisius (look up for example the end of book 7 in his "chronicle" directly speaking of year 305 "from the birth of our savior")?
In the unit XIII of that book Eusebius bring up text of letters exchanged by Jesus Christ and Abhat, the Edean king, "suffering with a disease, terrible and incurable with human means" who approached Jesus with a request of being healed. Further on Eusebius tell us how Phaddeus, a pupil of Christ sent "by a word of the Savior", has healed Adhar and committed many other miracles.
However this remarkable episode is now completely absent from "the holy history" by both clerics and secular researchers. The thing is, Eusebius dated it with year 340! (We request reader to memorize this date: it will come in handy for us in unit 15.)
Opinions were spoken out that Christian Eusebius use pagan "Seleukid era" for some reason but that would also produce mistake of 25 years. To make ends meet it was assumed that Eusebius date Christ and Abhar's mail exchange in a fictional "Era of Edessa" not noted anywhere else. However, understanding all the weak points of such considerations, the majority of researchers prefer to simply ignore this episode, "to avoid temptation".
It would also be intresting to mention how Greek text of "chronicle" exist as a set of excerpts only and its complete text is considered a translation produced by blessed JERONIM, the rest of compositions of whom were picked up as late as XVIII century and printed in Verona in 1734-1742 ( p 328).
There is not a single "antique" composition whose origin could be tracked reliably back to the beginning of the bookprinting era.
On top of it, an origin of the most authoritative compositions (Plato for example) is beyong questionable and some of them clearly appear to be a forgery (Vitruvius).
So maybe Morozov is right indeed and so called "antique" litherature appear to be a forgery as a whole? (By the way contrary to a widespread opinion it's not that massive: reprinted with a modern font it would fit quite well in one or two mid-sized bookshelves.).
We'll try to answer this question in following paragraphs.