The first adventure happened at Zurich airport. While passing visa control, I noticed one passenger from the flight from Frankfurt am Main. It’ better to say, not the passenger, but the newspaper he held in his hands.
Holmes put rather creased newspaper on the desk. It was “Izvestiya”, September 22, №175.
Yes, Holmes, I understand, why you noticed it.
You’re absolutely right, Watson, its number is the same as the number of the flight of “Boeing-767”, which attacked the southern tower of WTC, and – naturally – the date when this newspaper was published – September 22. You know, Watson, I noticed this numerical accordance almost automatically, and the incident might finish on it, if this unknown to me passenger hadn’t passed through passport control several minutes earlier than me. Having got my luggage, I was hurrying to the exit, where Switzerland representative of our firm, Louis Renier, was waiting for me, but suddenly my glance stopped at some armchair in the waiting room, and there that very newspaper, carelessly thrown, which I paid my attention several minutes ago, lied. How do you think, Watson, what did I think?
The most probable, that the same thing can’t catch one’s eye twice in the senseless fuss of airport.
Of course, Watson, you’re right. And still, some time I was hesitating, like Buridan’s ass, – should I take it? Or not? And may be, I didn’t take it finally, if it wasn’t for the photo in the upper corner of the first page.
Holmes pointed on the page of the newspaper, where the photo of smiling Anna Kurnikova, Russian tennis player, was placed.
Dear Watson, doesn’t it remind you something?
I think – nothing. Well … the next model is promoted, and if she will be in porno- or “haute couture” – it’s not that important…
The same question I asked Louis Renier, who met me there, and he only shrugged his shoulders in respond.
I can add only, that this “lass” has nothing to do with chess surely.
And, Watson, translate please the inscriptions under the photo, may be, they will suggest you something?
“Anna Kurnikova. The long-awaited foreshortening”. And some below – the title of the article: “Nothing personal”, with short explanation of the theme – “American Playboy wants to shoot Russian beauty”. I understand, what you mean, dear Holmes, but my intuition says me nothing about how this maiden can be connected with the “picnics”.
Well, and the title of lead article? May be, it can suggest something to your intuition, Watson?
“The twilights of freedom”, “American tragedy may bury the democracy”, – slowly, as a schoolboy, I translated the titles of the lead article, continuing to study the photo of pretty tennis player and repeating the inscriptions under the photo in my thoughts.
Holmes was right, this lass reminded me someone indeed, but… I hadn’t any models for “Playboy” among my acquaintances. But among others… no, this can’t be true! I was seized again by some strange feeling, as like after the dinner with Galba in the bar of “Woldorf” hotel.
It seems to me, Holmes, that I remembered her; this is Aphrodite Beautifully-rumped.
How did you say, Watson? Beautifully-rumped? But this girl has her back, not rump, naked.
Yes, I’m sure, – more confidently, like at the exam, I continued, – this is Aphrodite Callipyga, which means “Beautifully-rumped” in Greece. Her statue stands in the National Museum of Naples, and in ancient times she was especially worshipped in Syracuse. The picture of this statue is in the right upper corner of the “Post Historical Picnic”, like the picture of Kurnikova in “Izvestiya”. In the “picnic” Aphrodite Beautifully-rumped is represented with the placard “Free Russia – free love!” and here – “The twilights of freedom”. What do you think, Holmes?
I see, Watson, you did a good job with the pictures of Russian rebus. But let us keep some order, and later we’ll return to this newspaper, if we find the answer on the question “What can we think about it?”
Speaking this, Holmes turned on his notebook computer, took a floppy-disk, recorded some file on it and then handed it to me.
There’s a file on this floppy-disk, which is called “The Last Gambit”, as we together decided three weeks ago. All my meetings and conversations with people in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Spain, Egypt, India, I tried to record in this file, as much as possible. By the way, it helped me to work on the new information, which sometimes had rather sudden sources. I hope, Watson, that you have similar recordings too, and I feel ready to get acquainted with them. Let’s agree that today we will have a rest, exchange some general impressions, and read the file of “The Last Gambit”, and tomorrow we will start the work on the “picnics” right from the morning. I have here the copies of some newspapers and notes, which I got from the people with whom I have been talking. But before you start reading my recordings, Watson, I’d want you to get acquainted with this note, which was given to me by a very interesting man in Cairo. The recording of conversation with him is on this floppy. I think that this note is especially interesting for us, as we go in for this activity.
I brought my notes to Holmes and left him, for he needed a rest after the long trip, returned to my room and occupied myself with reading the note from Egypt. It seemed to me so unusual and really significant for our long activity with Holmes, and I decided to quote it here entirely, with all commentaries and footnotes by unknown authors from Russia.
The principles of tandem activity
The superior zhretses in Egypt combined the principles of even and odd numbers in their activity. In the times, preceding the Jewish going out from Egypt, they included: ten of superior esotericists from the North, ten – from the South[93], and each ten was headed by the eleventh zhrets, its head-hierarch and leader.
That means, that every leader of the ten, in the case of voting[94] within it, had to support, basing on his own understanding, one of two opinions, which could arise among the subordinate zhretses of the ten, because he knew more than they by the conditions of the structure of the ten. It provided two decisions on every problem from every ten in the whole, no matter how different the opinions were within each.
But, if two commands were working together, the situation of “voting” with the result was – 11 “for”, 11 “against”, not only wasn’t excluded unequivocally, but statistically programmed by the principles of structure of the system themselves, because the leading consecrated hierarchs of two commands were equal, and their opinions were equally authoritative for all others.
And if the decisions of not even commands in whole, but of their head-hierarchs only were divided between two contrary opinions on the same question, then the equal rights of two leaders made them to seek for some decision which could satisfy both.
Thus, the superior administrative structure of ancient Egypt can be described mathematically by some peculiar formula:
Of course, one may suppose, that two superior zhretses could try to agree with each other by casting lots, and to accept the decision by lot. Such approach to the problem of getting rid of uncertainty and making the decision (when two contrary variants have the same number of votes) is understandable and acceptable to the majority of “voting machine” lovers. And the odd number of participants in the most part of them, as the main principle of their structure, plays the role of all the same casting lots, for few can prognosticate beforehand, how the votes would divide within the voting group and on whose side the only decisive vote would be.
However, though the leaders of the tens might agree to cast lots for making the unit opinion on the suggested question, it would be the infringement of system-organizing principles of their working structure “”, which they built purposely and were keeping during the change of generations in such form, that it allowed in statistically programmed way the probability of equal dividing the opinions between two contrary decisions on the same question.