Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Following the Underground Stream

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 26 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   
Previously I had posted a thread in ATS (back in 2003) entitled The Underground Stream. In this thread I spoke of something I found in the five years of research I did into the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery. However, I have never spoken publically about what it was I found. I would now like to do so. Since I backed out of talking about it on that thread and removed a lot of posts and junked the thread up, I'm starting a new one.

***************

In August 2000 I wrote an email to Graham Hancock concerning what I had noticed during my research. I did so because I greatly respect him as both a writer and a researcher. I felt that if anyone could open-mindedly look into this, and do it in-depth, it would be him. Unfortunately, at the time I sent this, Mr. Hancock was on a trip, and his research assistant responded asking me to post it on their public message board so that his readers could respond, and then he could when he returned. I was not ready to discuss it in public.

Here is the content of that email (to save me re-typing what I've already explained):

To:
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2000 3:51 PM
Subject: A Point of Confusion

Dear Mr. Hancock,

I have read all your books except the newest...you have slipped one by
me. I had not heard of "Heaven's Mirror". I shall promptly remedy
this situation. I would like to tell you how very much I enjoy your
books, but since I am not the writer you are...words escape me. Being
an engineer, I appreciate your investigative methods, your wonderful
conveyance of information, and your ability to maintain a good grasp
on the "big picture" while adding in the important details. I would
like to add that I agree with your theory concerning the Great Cycle
that this world of ours...and remnants of each passing civilization
[that] have gone through.

One of my other areas of interest is the study of the Templars and
Rennes-le-Chateau. I have read many books on this subject. Let me
clarify that all of these books are "recent", being written in the
past 20 to 30 years. Though each of these books has important insights
into the mysteries surrounding this particular area of France, and the
certain "secrets" that may still be concealed, the writers of each of
these books falls far short of your ability to maintain that "big
picture" view. Bluntly stated, they each tend to suffer from tunnel
vision toward what ever "slant" they want to impart to the situation.
I am hoping that you are continuing to investigate the areas (i.e.
Templars, what knowledge they may have become privy to, and how this
knowledge could affect humanity) opened in your investigation connected with "The Sign and the Seal".

I have noticed a particular detail which, in the mounting volumes of
pages written on the above subjects, has had not a single word printed
on its existence (to my knowledge). I would like to share it with
you.

In Poussin's "Les Bergers d'Arcadie", a painting which has innumerable
words dedicated to the various analyses of it, there is an obvious
"clue?" which has never been spoken of (again, as far as I know). The
young man in the foreground of the painting is pointing toward two
objects:

1.) the sarcophagus which, of course, has been dealt with in depth in
various books, and 2.) a shadow on the side of the sarcophagus. It is
this non-physical second entity that has never been discussed. And it
is the lack of discussion of this object (which basically resides at
the focal-point of the painting) that confuses me so.

In researching various books that deal with this painting I have
learned that Poussin not only was an extremely talented and adept
painter, but that he was also a perfectionist; going so far as to wait
until a painting had reached a specific "tackiness" at which time he
would painstakingly press, with his thumb, each area of the painting in
order to remove the brush-strokes. I have studied several of
Poussin's other works and have found him to be, in my lay-opinion, an
extremely talented realist; showing great knowledge of anatomy,
lighting, and geometry. However, the shadow cast on the side of the
sarcophagus in Les Bergers absolutely cannot be the shadow of the young
man pointing at it. Upon studying the shadow it is found that not only
is it not correct for this young man's pose, but it is almost a
cartoonish caricature compared to the rest of the painting. And
furthermore (adding in nothing more than my own opinion), this shadow
has a malevolent feel about it. In other words, to me, it looks a bit
demonic (to be quite blunt, it reminds me a bit of the demonic statue on
which the holy water receptacle is mounted at the Rennes-le-Chateau
church).

Now, I refuse to become "tunneled" on this point as others have on
their points, BUT I believe that this detail is important in the big
picture. And it's lack of mention concerns me in the following way:
Instead of the viewer being directed solely to the sarcophagus, isn't
this young man directing the viewer to both the sarcophagus, and a hint
at some malevolence involved with any secret attached to it; or maybe
even to the source of the secret attached to it?

I can only guess at how busy you must constantly be, so I humbly offer
a thank you for the time you have invested in this email. I feel
better knowing that I have now shared with someone something I noticed
about five years ago, and still haven't seen a word printed about.

And I feel good that the person I shared it with was you.

Best wishes in your endeavors, and I look forward to reading more of
your wonderful works.

****************************************

Okay, so that covers what I found.

Here is a site with a half-way decent copy of "Les Bergers d'Arcadie" by Poussin. But I encourage you to get hold of a hardcopy reprint if you would like to really analyze this pic. I also encourage you to research the painting techniques employed by Poussin, and to review as many of his works in comparison to this one as you possibly can. Because I think once you have done that, you will start to see my point.

www.ac-rouen.fr...

I look forward to hearing your opinions on this - pro or con.

Thanks.


[edit on 5-26-2005 by Valhall]




posted on May, 26 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
Just for reference, here is
Les Bergers d'Arcadie
(big pic) from 1640 which is being discussed.

external image

And there is also Les Bergers d'Arcadie from 1629
external image



Upon studying the shadow it is found that not only is it not correct for this young man's pose, but it is almost a cartoonish caricature compared to the rest of the painting.

Hmmmm. It does seem like the raise leg is not represented in this painting. However, to me, the shadow looks more like its a person kneeling. Also notice that the arm that is pointing is, but I think this is a realistic presentation of a shadow, 'touching' the forhead in the shadow. IOW the man is in one pose, but the shadow might be in another. Almost looks like a supplicant or somesuch, kneeling and placing one hand to his head, or almost too it. However again that arrangement is 'realistic', I don't know if its meaningful. And then again, the shadow hand doesn't actually reach the head.

But I agree, it does seem like the arrangment of the legs, if nothing else, is different. I don't think that its cartoonish tho. I certainly don't see any malevolence about it.

I do have to question if that appearance of the shadow being in a different pose is true. It seems like a person in the character's position isn't going to cast a shadow like that. It seems like it, but is that true?? It seems like, sincethe right knee is so close to the right elbow in the person, that in the shadow it should be there also, but it isn't, indeed, the legs of the shadow seem to be completely down.

I had also thought that the man in the red tunic should cast a shadow of some sort, but apparently not.

It also looks like there is a dried up rivulet in the extreme foreground. The man in the red rests his leg upon a block, at the foot of which is some greenery, and comming out from is a darkened curved patch that, to me at the moment anyway, looks like a dried up rivulet. Perhaps, if the theme is an cryptic stream, then this, flowing from the sacrophagus, is noteworthy.

However its well neigh immpossible to talk about meaning in all this.

Abstract are has interpretive meaning, but its different for each view, depening on what they bring to the peive with them, their context, or the context of the work. Symbols don't have actual real world objective meanings, only subjective ones. Where you see a malevolent dark shadow, I think I see a supplicant humbling or praying. And at one point, when i thought the red tunic man should have a shadow, who also points to the sacrophagus, I thought that the blue tunic man is illuminated by a different light source, and that the artist was trying to state that many can come to the unground stream, but only some are illuminated by it. Tho that doesn't seem to be the case anyway.

Why is it thought that there is a 'cryptic' meanign in these paintings anyway??



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


Why is it thought that there is a 'cryptic' meanign in these paintings anyway??


uhhh...Nyg? That question is equivalent to asking a runner who just finished a marathon why he decided to wear running shoes today?

I'm serious. That's like a fundamental question in a much much broader subject. Maybe (and I'm still wondering if you really were interested) you could do some searching/researching for just a bit and see if you still want me to attempt to summarize the entire Rennes-Le-Chateau mystery into one post.




posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
i agree that it really depends who you are what you will you see in the picture.




i had never payed much attention to that vallhall. thank you. a very informative post.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 06:38 PM
link   
Well, I want to make sure that nobody thinks I'm trying to get them to see something. I noticed this in 1997. And I have to say that when I did it was a dramatic moment for me. I ordered a hardcopy, analyzed it, and just couldn't shake the feeling that there is no artistic way to match the shadow to the man.

I have read Nygdan's comments, and I must say that I don't agree. But that is why I have put this out publically now. To be corrected if I've become tunneled in this. Here are the issues I have:

1. The shadow should not be cast directly in front of the man (see the overall shadowing in the picture).
2. The man is looking to our northeast in the picture. The shadow is looking directly at him.
3. The arm/hand shadow almost appears as a wing



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
First off...

VALHALL...

Allow me to respond, as it seems a response is long overdue!

I want you to know you have enlightened me on several occasions, and this is yet another thread in which I have literally grown as an individual from reading it. You inspire me to search for truth based on ideas that you brought to my attention. Ideas which I was not aware of previously. I hope I am conveying my gratitude on a level that gives you some satisfaction.
Pat yourself on the back, if you dont already do so...
You seem to have a purity and goodness that is remarkable to me...

That being said, although I have only been researching this topic for about 8 hours (immediately after learning about it), I can see the point you make...

Sort of...

Withought doing your level of research I dont see all of the angles...

But in regards to the mystery of that shadow... With what little I know... It supports the 22 quatrains (sorry if not correct term) in my current understanding. And of course, no possible accident by the artist; intentional occurence.

I will get back to the research.

Thankyou valhall



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I decided to look at the "big picture" and not into the details.

Lets start with Figure 2 aka man and his shadow. It is my theory that this is a mockery of "creation of adam" where God touches Adam. Here we see man about to reach out and make contact with his shadowy demonic inner evil. The inner child that resembles the man on the left.

On the left is evil. He's male, wears no shoes and is blatantly encouraging figure 2 to touch it. He looks pleased and quite unnerving. I would say that he is a demon and not satan himself.

On the right of kneeling man is figure 3. A sexually ambiguous figure that I believe is a woman or male holding cherubic features is clearly concerned and looks to the creator for guidance. This is also a clue towards the malevolence of the shadow.

Figure 3 is looking towards Figure 4. Figure 4 clearly represents the grand creator or God. An air of superiority and physical size that dwarfs them all she posesses an impassive face and is fixated clearly on the man and his action, not the shadow.

So, in essence this painting details how close man is to his inner evil and the battle that is fought between good and evil for it. But not fought actively, from the sidelines with great concern.

All the while the grand creator looks on impassively, wondering if man will touch or recoil. Free will is a doozy.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Blessing,

Thank you very much for your kind words.

nerdling,

I really like your interpretation of that painting. It seems very appropriate. As we discussed on the side, further important issues may need to be pointed out:

1. The not so benevolent looking dude is to the LEFT of the kneeling man.
2. The kind, concerned looking dude is to the RIGHT of the kneeling man.
3. A very curious swapping of colors has taken place. The not so nice looking guy is dressed in white which is typically the Christian color for purity while the nice looking guy is dressed in scarlet which is typically the Christian color for sin.
4. The not so nice looking guy is the only one barefoot in the picture. This usually is symbolic of "hallowed ground". One could postulate that this ground is only hallowed to him.

Very interesting perception on this. Thank you very much for sharing.



posted on Oct, 29 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Just for reference, here is
Les Bergers d'Arcadie
(big pic) from 1640 which is being discussed.

external image


, I thought that the blue tunic man is illuminated by a different light source, and that the artist was trying to state that many can come to the unground stream, but only some are illuminated by it.



in my eye
ALL the individuals are illuminated from a different light source Radiant.

although the lightsource is generally from the viewers location,
my minds eye deduces that the radiants are from maybe 4 arm lengths from the viewers left & maybe 4ft higher than the viewers eye level, for the far left shepherd

the radiant on man-on-1-knee, is from 10ft directly above the viewers left shoulder

the radiant on the stooped shepherd seems to be spill-over from the light source radiants of the two figures already noted.

the radiant light on the far left figure (the boss) appears to be from a rather
verticle column of light directly facing the expensively clothed man....
and i would infer that the column of light radiating on this person went from the ground level and skyward toward the heavens,
as the top of his head & headress is aglow in reflected light(even behind the contour of the crown of his head.

just an observation....not presenting any interpetation



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
What a great and interesting topic. Poussin is an intriguing figure in art history whose work I'm not particularly familiar with. I know of him more through references of his work in books like "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" as being encrypted depictions of the underground esoteric stream. I'm certainly inclined to believe that this is true. It's probably good to start with a basic outline of Poussin's life and a look at his works:

Poussin

Poussin Gallery

Poussin is a French Baroque painter and by design the work involves multiple levels of symbolism. All of the analysis made on this post is my own and done through observation. There may be conflicting or similar treatise on this painting of which I'm unaware. I personally do not see a lighting issue in "Les Bergers d'Arcadie". One can be almost certain that Poussin employed live models for this painting and it is unlikely that he had them all present at all times for the duration of the production. Any lighting inconsistencies may be due simply to normal variations in lighting over the course of production. The intended light source is consistently coming from the upper left. The shadow is realistically realized, and the distortion of shape comes from the foreshortening of the arm against the slanted wall of the tomb. I've illustrated these points here:



That the shadow is centralized is definite and this does speak to its importance in the composition. I find that it has a certain Pan-like quality to its shape, an appropriate thing for a shepherd of Arcadia.

With classical, Renaissance, Baroque, Pre-Raphaelite and other highly symbolist movements in art history it is often revealing to pay attention to the gestures of the hands, what they're pointing at, as well as the sight lines of figures, what they're looking at. What often reads as trivial, a given hand position, is often a clue. It is in no way natural to hold a hand in a raised and pointing position. Usually one points at something for a reason. Looking at the hands and sight lines of the figures in Les Bergers, a shape jumped out at me immediately, and one wholly appropriate for the subject matter of the painting:



The lines of the tomb, as well as the hand gestures and sightlines suggests this invisible chalice or grail. The kneeling shepherd's hand does appear to be holding something out. Note that this invisible object can serve as a light source and still read effectively.

While it could be that this scene shows three male and one female shepherd I think it actually only shows two male shepherds, the two inner figures. It looks as if they are being instructed by the standing male and female outer figures. From reproductions it is hard to see the inscription on the tomb, but to my eye it seems a pattern is being traced out on the wall. Utilizing the lines of the tomb and the gestures of the figures I suspect that the figure being drawn is a Cabbalistic Tree of Life pattern, the key symbol of the transmission of knowledge through the esoteric stream:





Note the basic grail shape is still being held in the kneeling shepherd's hand.

So if they aren't shepherds then who are the standing male and female figures? We can be certain that they represent divinities from the Eleusian Mysteries. The goddess on the left-hand side of the tomb (viewer's right) is likely Ceres (clothed in gold), Aphrodite or Athena. The god at the right may be Dionysus, Adonis or Hermes. Who these characters might be changes the identity of the tomb's inhabitant. If this is Ceres then it's likely that this is the tomb of her daughter Proserpine. You'll note that the deity figures are placed before the facing corners of the square tomb, column like. This makes one wonder if it is possible to project the Tree of Life upon the composition on a higher scale. If the central point of attention is the sephiroth Tiphareth then the central column is easy to place:



Here's where it gets really fun. The slanted position of the tomb causes some distortion and there are certainly other interpretations that could be made. Preserving the central axis defined by the Tiphareth at tomb center I placed Kether at the very top of the image, near the pyramidal apex of the cloud, at the top of the illuminated branch of trees in the background, in heaven. Yesod is at the base of the monument and Malkuth at the bottom of the picture where the dry stream escapes. The square form of the tomb dominates the pattern, the four corners indicating Hod, Netzach, Chesed and Gevurah. Note the proximity of Gevurah(Might) to the god's right hand and Chesed (Mercy) to the goddesses left breast or heart. Quite naturally Binah(Understanding) and Chokmah (Wisdom) fall on the heads of the divinities. The outlining of the god and goddess' attentions by the paths between Tiphareth and the upper sephiroths was unplanned and intriguing. It may seem that this superpositioning is arbitrary but look at the lines indicated by the figures poses, where they're pointing and where they're looking, as well as the lines of the tomb. With this large Tree of life pattern you'll note that the brightly illuminated area is almost completely contained within it.



Finally, the lines of the composition with regards to the Tree of Life reminded me of the Lightning Bolt pattern said to illustrate the transmission of knowledge or enlightenment from heaven to earth. This pattern is traced in green:



To me it seems this pattern resolves the composition and the image truly depicts the transmission of information through the esoteric stream.



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Looking again it seems reversing the lightning pattern, for whatever reason, works better with the composition:




Perhaps this mirror image of the pattern relates to the mirroring cast shadow of the kneeling figure.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Cicada]

[edit on 1-11-2005 by Cicada]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Sorry for the multiple posts. On the other thread related to this one, also by Valhall:

My Theory on the Secret Behind Rennes-le-Chateau

masqua wrote:

originally posted by masqua
If you haven't yet read this fascinating little booklet, I suggest you find a copy, published by Corgi Books in 1992.

Lincoln identifies the right side background landscape in the Poissin painting as being that of the rocks of Toustounes and Cardou as well as the crest of Blanchefort, all descending unmistakebly to the mound on which the village itself sits.

There are people who say the tomb, as it now, was erected in the 20th century, but, whatever that means, Poissin's excellent artistry establishes the proximity of the tomb to Rennes-le-Chateau even if it only was just in his minds eye.
When Lincoln studied the painting, he was intrigued by the positions of the shepherds’ staffs, by way of which he ascertains a pentagon as the underlying symbol upon which the tomb was painted. This is not only seen by the staff angles alone, but also on an x-ray plate which hinted that the tomb was painted on after the shepherds were rendered, since the tip of the shepherds staff to the right (kneeling figure) does not reveal itself to be in front of the tomb. (more mystery) I know I'm confused by these abnormalities.


Interesting stuff. I missed or didn't realize the connection to the Southern France landscape. This is more and more compelling. I'm going to try to get the Lincoln book. Apparently he approached the image in a similar way and came out with varied but related results. A quick search on the web brought up this site:

The Priory of Sion Paintings

An intriguing page I'll have to explore further. This page has both a pentagram and a hexagram pattern overlaid and I've reproduced both of them (pentagram greatly simplified):





However, both of these schemes only utilize the shepherd staffs in the most cursory manner. I'd like to see the Lincoln text in order to see what he was getting at. The kneeling shepherd's staff does seem short. I wonder if its top is within the form of the Bacchus figure to his left, demonstrating the spiritual nature of this entity.

Using the central axis provided by these patterns does correct the distortion of my Tree pattern somewhat:





posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
However, the shadow cast on the side of the
sarcophagus in Les Bergers absolutely cannot be the shadow of the young
man pointing at it.

Actually, yes it can. And it was probably copied from a model who stood in front of a surface and pointed.

You're looking at the young man as a two dimensional figure... but he's actually three dimensional. His shadow won't be flat, but will be a distorted representation of himself.

The sun is coming at approximately a 45 degree angle. The head, which is at least a shoulder and a half's length from the wall, casts that part of the shadow on the wall at a lower angle. As the body parts move closer to the wall, the shadow cast is more exactly like the part.

Take a photo of someone in that same position at about 10 am (or 3 pm) on a sunny day.

My expertise here is as an artist myself. In learning to draw shadows (which they made us do) I found that the shadow is not always a flat representation of the object but is often distorted as parts of the object are further from the flat surface than other parts.

Your mileage may vary. This is what I learned in many still life drawing classes.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Valhall
However, the shadow cast on the side of the
sarcophagus in Les Bergers absolutely cannot be the shadow of the young
man pointing at it.

Actually, yes it can. And it was probably copied from a model who stood in front of a surface and pointed.

You're looking at the young man as a two dimensional figure... but he's actually three dimensional. His shadow won't be flat, but will be a distorted representation of himself.

The sun is coming at approximately a 45 degree angle. The head, which is at least a shoulder and a half's length from the wall, casts that part of the shadow on the wall at a lower angle. As the body parts move closer to the wall, the shadow cast is more exactly like the part.

Take a photo of someone in that same position at about 10 am (or 3 pm) on a sunny day.

My expertise here is as an artist myself. In learning to draw shadows (which they made us do) I found that the shadow is not always a flat representation of the object but is often distorted as parts of the object are further from the flat surface than other parts.

Your mileage may vary. This is what I learned in many still life drawing classes.


You are right and I mentioned and illustrated this point as well. It is a realistic depiction of a cast shadow. Usually a cast shadow doesn't occupy the central focal point of a composition so there's little doubt that the symbol-laden Baroque Poussin meant to emphasize it.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Sorry for dominating this thread but the shadow in this painting has been haunting me. It occurred to me that quite basically the secret being transmitted through the underground or esoteric stream is a form of theology most recognizable as Gnosticism. Note the semi-circle formed by the clouds making an open window of clear sky in the upper left. This is the obvious light source, the light of the sun shining down on the figures. The shepherd's physical body blocks the rays of the sun creating a prominently placed cast shadow on the wall of the tomb. This is an allegory of Gnostic theology. The light (of the solar god) shines through the spiritual form of man (the form that is on the level and of equal substance to sub-divinities in Arcadia). The shadow is the empty projection of this cast light through the spiritual template. The shadow is the material body, according to Gnosticism the illusion. That the screen of this projection is a tomb demonstrates the inevitable fate of all things material.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Is it just me or does there sem to be a lot of implacation going one here. I am sure that I could impose a picture of Mickey Mouse on the painting if I wished.

I am reading Holy Blood Holy Grail and it was mentioning the painting. Sorry if I am ignorant of this but I would love to hear more discuion and how the images may be there or not. ANd what would be the reasons of it.

Take it easy



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Egg Mundane
Is it just me or does there sem to be a lot of implacation going one here. I am sure that I could impose a picture of Mickey Mouse on the painting if I wished.


All the overlays and inspection are tentative and experimental. You have to actually make the attempt and risk being wrong in order to hit upon something that's demonstratively right. This isn't a matter of simply tracing whatever you want over the top of something and declaring it profound. All the lines that I placed are drawn from lines suggested by the lines around the bricks on the tomb, the position of the figures (arm, leg, hand positions, etc.) the direction of the gaze of the figure and other factors.

The fact that Poussin is a French artist working in the Baroque era is a major factor of this. Of course not every artist of every era is involved in hiding secret symbols in their work. The Baroque is highly symbol-oriented, and hidden aspects are a part of the aesthetic. It's meant to be a puzzle, by design. Of course when Poussin painted this image the Inquisition was still going strong. If he wanted to convey information that was heretical he had no choice but to encode it.

The invisible chalice is a more common motif then you might think in Renaissance, Baroque, Pre-Raphaelite, Symbolist, etc. paintings. The Tree of Life is a major component in all things Hermetic and you can find the pattern incorporated into paintings, sculptures, architecture and even music. Looking at things in this manner is a major paradigm shift and many inviduals are uncapable of looking past the surface level. This is all part of the trick the artist is playing. Like stage magic there's an act of illusion taking place and the artist has every reason to try to distract you.


[edit on 7-11-2005 by Cicada]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Reading from Henry Lincolns The Holy Place on the subject of the Poussin painting;


A search for complexities will serve only to generate complexities. Experience has shown that the route to a provable valid discovery is found by choosing the simplest possible approach. One of the simplist statements that can be made about the shepherds staff is that it is cut in two by the shepherds arm. Measurements with dividers will show that the division is exact. Moreover, that exact measure is repeated from the top of the staff to the tip of the shepherds pointing finger. It is also repeated in the division of the left hand shepherds staff, which is bisected by the line of the kneeling shepherds back. A straightforward check, maintaining this half staff measure, will quickly produce numerous repititions of this fixed distance in the painting. This discovery was a clear indicator that there was an unexpectedly rigid geometry underlying the composition of The Shepherds of Arcadia.


Lincoln asks Professor Christopher Cornford of the Royal Acadamy of Art to look at these geometric clues. According to Cornford, there are two basic systems;


one was based on the account of the creation given in Plato's Timaeus, and was published by Alberti in his Ten Books on Architecture (Florence, 1485). It proceeds by calculation as much as by constuction using instruments, and it had great appeal in the High Renaissance and its aftermath, since it both disassociated art and architecture from the old, manual masonic tradition of mediaeval times, and associated them with humanist scholarship. Moreover, the number system used was a kind of invocation of the divine inasmuch as the building or painting became a microscopic rehearsal of the primal act of creation.
The other type of system was the masonic-geometric. According to Professor Cornford, this was 'incomparably the older of the two, indeed it seems to have been known to Ancient Egyptians and to our own megalithic culture. It survived, often by an atmosphere of craft (if not cult) secrecy, until Alberti's time and subsequently went into eclipse...'


-snip-


...as he worked on his analysis, he was surprised to find evidence of the older and long-outdated masonic-geometric system.


-and-


What so startled Professor Cornford was not my 'half staff' measure, but something which seemed unconnected with it. The ancient geometric symbol which Poussin had used was the Pentangle.


I thought the Tree of Life superimposed upon the painting very 'right looking', Cicada...

but, try the pentangle with a line starting at the bottom right corner to the upper left corner. Continuing on, draw a line along the top of the painting exactly as long as the first line you drew, which will take you off the right side of the painting. Then draw a line from that 'off painting' point down to the bottom right corner again. The distance from the right hand point of the horizontal line to the bottom left hand corner of the painting is now repeated along the bottom of the painting, giving you a point short of the left side. That will also be the distance to the upper left hand corner again. Drawing a perpendicular line from the midpoint on the bottom side of the painting will give you the top of the pentagon and cut through the face of the standing figure. From this it is simple to work out a perfect pentangle within a perfect pentagon by drawing a line from the right hand bottom corner to the pependicular line, intersecting it above the painting. The rest is obvious from there on.

The only thing you did not do which Professor Cornford did was you tried to contain the pentagon within the confines of the paintings' rectangle. If you use the face of the upright figure as a marker of the Golden Mean as well as the centerline of the pentagon you will see it fits quite nicely.

[edit on 7-11-2005 by masqua]



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I get the pentagram scheme. It's included in the collection of works on the "Priory of Sion Paintings" link above. Instead of recreating what someone else had done I simplified down to an easy to read pentagram. Look at the version on the web site and you should be able to see the pentagram I chose to outline because it was the easiest to read. I also included the hexagram from the same site because I found it to be compelling as well. The fact that both the pentagram and the hexagram are both within the scheme only shows how complex the Poussin composition is. There's layer after layer and level after level of geometric, pictorial, and allegorical symbolism at play. Poussin is indeed a Baroque master.

We don't need to choose one scheme and deny the others. It's not that kind of puzzle. The geometry of the pentagram and the hexagram relate to that of the Tree of Life. This image's main theme is the transmission of the underground esoteric stream. We cannot understate the importance of the Cabbala and the Tree of Life in deciphering the argot employed in the transmission. It is key. The invisible chalice too, I'll reiterate, is exactly what we should be looking for in compositions of this nature. This is something I'm sure Henry Lincoln knows.



posted on Nov, 7 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I did look at the pentagonal geometry as described in the link you provided, but it is different than the one which Professor Cornford provided as a result of his study (at the request of Henry Lincoln).

His pentagon is based on the relationship between the length and height of the painting.These measurements are the means by which the pentagon is derived and extends beyond the confines of that rectangle instead of being confined within. The upper right arm just may be pointing to someplace on the horizon which is not included in the painting.

In the geometry which Cornford produced, the 'center focus' becomes the face of the upright figure (which I believe is a woman). Another interesting location found by the intersecting lines are the contours of Cardou, Blancheford and Rennes-le-Chateau on the horizon of the landscape painted in the distance and to the right of the tomb.

Cornford also relates the underlying geometry to a system which predates Plato by thousands of years, used in the megalithic era and understood by Egyptians of the Early Kingdoms.

I'm still convinced this puzzle points much further back in time than the bloodlines of David and Solomon. Ask yourself why Jesus and Mary would come to Gaul. I don't believe they were so much escaping from Jerusalem as they were going to something which was in Gaul. What they went to see is likely the answer to the puzzle, imo.









 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join