crackpots thinking they're up to no good
Art Neuendorffer
http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=61572
<<So here's what all the fuss is about. Here's the movie of The Da Vinci
Code - the story that sold countless millions of books and made Dan
Brown the literary sensation of our time. It's arguably the most eagerly
awaited film of the year. Only Superman Returns has anything like as
many people wanting to see it. Perhaps no movie could live up to so much
hype but The Da Vinci Code is not just a disappointment, it's a bad film
by any standards and very close to a disaster.
Let me admit first that I'm not a fan. I haven't read the book. A
workmate brought a copy in, I read the first page and I gave it back.
I'm not a literary snob - quite the opposite! I prefer bestsellers to
Booker prize winners. However, I'm fussy about my pulp fiction and I
won't read novels as poorly written as Brown's.
As it turns out, what's wrong with the film is nothing to do with the
quality of the source material. On the screen, Brown's writing style is
no longer an issue and his plot isn't such a bad one. It's a decent if
uninspired follow-the-clues adventure story similar to National Treasure
and Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade. If you've played point-and-click
adventure games on your computer, you may also be reminded of the Broken
Sword series. The plot is intriguing enough and the puzzles are fun.
The tale begins in Paris with a murder in the Louvre. The assassin is
Silas (Paul Bettany), a mad albino monk. The victim is a French museum
curator. He's a professional acquaintance of Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks),
an American historian whose speciality is symbols. Langdon happens to be
in town to meet him. Captain Fache (Jean Reno) of the Paris police asks
the American to come to the murder scene and decypher something the
curator wrote while he was dying. That's only a ruse. In fact the
captain has reason to believe the historian is the killer.
French policewoman Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) tells Langdon of Fache's
suspicions. She isn't at the crime scene on assignment - she's the
curator's granddaughter and she knows Robert didn't kill him. Her
grandfather was trying to pass information to his colleague and she
believes the key to finding his real killer is to solve the clues he
left before his death. Sophie helps Langdon escape from the police and
together they start piecing together the puzzle her grandfather left
behind.
The problem is not the story, it's the manner in which director Ron
Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have chosen to tell it. They
treat The Da Vinci Code with such seriousness and self-importance that
the entertainment value is squeezed out of it. This is a globetrotting
pulp detective story told with the kind of somber, reverential tone I
imagine the forthcoming 9/11 films will have. Howard shoots most of the
scenes in dimly lit rooms. Hans Zimmer's portentous score is always
telling us that something important is happening. The actors speak in
hushed tones, with frowns on their faces, reciting silly dialogue as if
they were giving a eulogy.
The tone smothers the actors. Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou underplay to
such a degree that their screen presences are diminished. Robert and
Sophie are caught up in the adventure of a lifetime and they seem numb
to it all. This is the first time the reliable Hanks has floundered on
screen since The Bonfire Of The Vanities in 1990. The supporting cast do
no better. The great Alfred Molina, playing a sinister cardinal,
completely fails to register. Paul Bettany manages to be dull playing a
mad albino monk with a silly accent. Even Jean Reno can't find a way to
have fun with his role. These are superb actors - they can't all have
been having an off day. Ron Howard has to take the blame.
It's only when Ian McKellen makes his entrance that The Da Vinci Code
sputters to life. He's the only actor Howard doesn't stifle. He's the
only actor who gets away with bringing humour to the film. McKellen hams
it up gleefully, surmising correctly that a slightly camp, theatrical
approach is the only way this material can be made to work. The moment
we first hear his voice over an intercom, the film shifts up two gears.
The fun he has is contagious. In their scenes together, Hanks drops his
mask and comes to life for the first time.
McKellen heroically, single-handedly redeems an hour of this
two-and-a-half hour slog. Not that he makes the film good exactly but he
makes it entertaining to watch and he brings a touch of wit that the
rest of the film desperately lacks. When he disappears, the gloom
returns. His exit feels like it should be the climax - not just because
McKellen's presence dominates the proceedings but also because the film
is so poorly structured. No, there's more, there's still a half-hour
plod to a climactic discovery that you'll see coming a mile off whether
or not you've read the novel. Then there's another twist after that.
What made Ron Howard, a gifted director, think this tosh should be
treated with the reverence of a biblical epic? Was it the novel's
extraordinary success? Did he think he'd be offending the book's fans by
making it fun? Did Dan Brown, who's credited as executive producer,
insist his novel receive the respect he felt it deserved? Most people I
know who've enjoyed the novel have described it as a terrific
page-turner, the kind of book you tear through in a couple of days on a
plane or a beach. The movie is anything but fast-paced. It creeps along
with its head bowed.
Does the film's self-importance stem from its religious theme, from the
controversial plot points that have upset the Catholic Church? I'm not
surprised they're upset. The film accuses their entire religion of being
based on a lie. Imagine if someone wrote a best-selling novel calling
Islam a lie - the consequences don't bear thinking about. Still, the
fact that the Vatican's gotten hot under its white collar shouldn't
necessarily lend dignity to The Da Vinci Code's hodgepodge of
theological revisionism and conspiracy theories.
Dan Brown makes some valid criticisms of Catholicism but the big secret
he reveals, the lie at the heart of the religion is ludicrous: it's
wishful thinking on behalf of those who find the Catholic Church's
values offensive to their own. Has the Vatican put its own spin on
Christianity? Probably. Would the Jesus described in the Gospels be
angry at the way many of his followers have turned out just like the
Pharisees who crucified him? Probably. Was Christ's real message a load
of fuzzy, politically correct New Age guff? Probably not.
The conspiracy doesn't stand up to scrutiny either. If the Catholics
wanted it kept quiet, why didn't the sect that kept the knowledge alive
just tell it to the Protestants? Why didn't they split and start their
own church like Martin Luther and others who were unhappy with
Catholicism? Watching this movie knowing nothing about Christianity, you
wouldn't realise there was more than one Christian church.
It isn't even a very effective conspiracy. The secret, supposedly the
biggest secret in the history of mankind, has been out for years.
Famously Dan Brown has been sued by the writers of Holy Blood, Holy
Grail, a non-fiction book about it. This is actually the second film
I've seen based around the secret. The first was the 2002 British
production Revelation, which involved similar discoveries about Jesus
and the Catholic Church. It also added a deliriously silly wrinkle - the
Church wanted to clone Christ from DNA left on his crucifixion nails.
Don't rush out and rent it though, it's worse than this.
And what of Opus Dei, the real-life Catholic association the film
portrays as a band of fanatics prepared to kill to preserve the big
secret? (There's a major unintentional laugh when we see cardinals
playing pool in their robes in what I assume is the Opus Dei clubhouse!)
I'm puzzled as to why anyone would be fanatical about preserving a lie.
Aren't fanatics driven by the belief that they're doing God's work? What
reward do these people expect for murdering to defeat God's work?
Opus Dei has received a lot of publicity in the wake of the book's
success. There was talk about Labour minister Ruth Kelly being a member
and thus, some presumed, a religious fanatic. I doubt its members are
more sinister than any other Catholics but then I doubt the Freemasons
are anything more than a bunch of bored middle-aged men who want to get
away from their wives in the evenings. I bet members of these groups get
a kick out of crackpots thinking they're up to no good.
The Freemasons will get an especially big kick out of The Da Vinci Code
since their inspiration, the Knights Templar figure in it. The Templars
were massacred by the Church in the Middle Ages but, according to Dan
Brown, their leaders - the Priory of Scion - survived and kept their big
secret safe. They're the ones who are being murdered by the mad albino
monk with the silly accent. Do you see what I mean when I say this
material needed more humour? A lot more humour? >>
Kevin O'Reilly
---------------------------------------------------
Munzerr
decided to stay in.
Your review was comprehensive, thanks! Maybe I won't have to shell out
the £10 after all!
lyra
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> The Freemasons will get an especially big kick out of The Da Vinci Code
> since their inspiration, the Knights Templar figure in it. The Templars
> were massacred by the Church in the Middle Ages but, according to Dan
> Brown, their leaders - the Priory of Scion - survived and kept their big
> secret safe. They're the ones who are being murdered by the mad albino
> monk with the silly accent. Do you see what I mean when I say this
> material needed more humour? A lot more humour? >>
>
> Kevin O'Reilly
Scion ??
maybe ...
lyra
lyra wrote:
Thinking of which,
it reminds me of a story by Ray Bradbury,
(quote)
The Year the Glop-Monster - Won the Golden Lion at Cannes by Ray
Bradbury - focuses mainly on a drunk projectionist who managed to
create an award winning film.
http://www.madcornishprojectionist.co.uk/anthology.php
..............................................................................................................................
maybe they should try it...
Art Neuendorffer
>>since their inspiration, the Knights Templar figure in it. The Templars
>>were massacred by the Church in the Middle Ages but, according to Dan
>>Brown, their leaders - the Priory of Scion - survived and kept their big
>>secret safe. They're the ones who are being murdered by the mad albino
>>monk with the silly accent. Do you see what I mean when I say this
>>material needed more humour? A lot more humour? >>
>>
>>Kevin O'Reilly
lyra wrote:
> Thinking of which,
> it reminds me of a story by Ray Bradbury,
>
> (quote)
>
> The Year the Glop-Monster - Won the Golden Lion at Cannes by Ray
> Bradbury - focuses mainly on a drunk projectionist who managed to
> create an award winning film.
>
> http://www.madcornishprojectionist.co.uk/anthology.php
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arianna Huffington: Al Gore Takes Cannes by Storm -
- Will the Oval Office Be Next?
by Arianna Huffington Mon May 22, 11:12 PM ET
<<Over the weekend, I flew from Washington to Cannes. In Washington,
the talk was all about 2006. In Cannes, the talk is all about 2008.
That's because even with Tom Hanks, Bruce Willis, Penelope Cruz, Jamie
Foxx, and Halle Berry here for the film festival, the hottest star in
town is Al Gore.
In Cannes for the European premiere of his powerful global warming
documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore has been surrounded by adoring
crowds and deluged with interview requests. He told me that he gave 23
back-to-back-to-back interviews on Sunday, Hollywood junket-style (all
on only one hour's sleep), and had another 23 scheduled for Monday.
"This is my second visit to Cannes," he said. "The first was when I was
fifteen years old and came here for the summer to study the
existentialists -- Sartre, Camus... We were not allowed to speak
anything but French!" Which may explain his pitch-perfect French accent.
It's clear that the film, and the engaging "New Gore" on display both in
the film and his public appearances promoting it, have connected with
people in a big way.
The film is an environmental punch in the gut. Gore 2.0 is a revelation,
and a critical smash. When asked at his press conference how he should
be addressed, he replied "Your Adequacy." "Hanks himself could not have
delivered the line more smoothly," gushed The Guardian. The Washington
Post's Sebastian Mallaby labeled him "a hero." Time's Anne Marie Cox
called him "a rock star." New York magazine touted his "amazing
comeback." And even Fox News' Roger Friedman described him
as "funny and relaxed." Talk about killer reviews.
Of course, as potent as the film is (Friedman says the minds of skeptics
"will be changed in a nanosecond" and Franklin Foer says "it will
certainly change elite opinion"), the other reason is the "Will he or
Won't he?" speculation about 2008.
He's saying no -- but you can hear the "Run, Al, Run" chant growing louder.
"Democrats are looking everywhere to find their presidential candidate,"
Graydon Carter told me. "But the solution may be right under their noses."
And I think that the pressure on Gore to run will only increase as we
move toward 2008.
Sure, that's a lifetime away in politics. And the shelf-life of movie
buzz isn't very long -- I doubt people will be debating the relative
merits of X-Men 3 and The Break-Up two months from now, let alone a year
and a half.
But the debate over global warming is only going to heat up -- and Gore
has a whole campaign planned to ensure that it does.
"We are planning to train a thousand people to be able to deliver the
presentation all over the country," he told me, "so we can more quickly
reach the tipping point."
With An Inconvenient Truth likely to move the discussion about global
warming toward critical mass -- and the White House and the oil
companies and the likes of Sen. James 'Global Warming is a Hoax' Inhofe
making a mockery of the crisis -- the issue, with Gore as its leading
spokesman, will remain in the spotlight.
So at no moment between now and the Democratic convention in the summer
of 2008 will those eyeing the Democratic nomination be able to fully
relax about not having Gore as a potential rival.
Because of his unique position in the political landscape -- i.e. the
2000 White House winner who wasn't allowed to move in -- and because of
the platform his environmental moral crusade provides, Gore won't have
to abide by the standard running-for-president timetable. He won't have
to hit the usual marks of when to form an exploratory committee, when to
officially announce, when to show up in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Instead, he can lay back, bide his time, continue doing what he's doing
-- and is so clearly passionate about -- and perhaps be able to chart a
path to the Oval Office while avoiding the things about politics that he
says "feel toxic" to him.
So today's repeated denials don't really mean very much. Not because he
doesn't mean it, but because so much can happen between now and the
convention.
Especially if it appears that Hillary is close to securing the
nomination. Then the pressure for him to enter the race -
- to act as the anti-Hillary -- will increase significantly.
But it's not just that so many Democrats fear a Hillary-led ticket.
The pressure on Gore to run will continue to grow because watching him
speak out so eloquently, so passionately, and so personally on this
issue -- in other words, displaying real leadership -- is like suddenly
being served a steak after a steady diet of fast-food burgers. It's a
stark reminder of just how far we've lowered the bar on what we expect
from those we elect.
It's as if we've been so pummeled by ersatz candidates espousing
focus-group approved piffle that we've come to accept as normal the idea
that if you are going to be in politics you are going to have to sell
out -- shaped and molded by campaign consultants and pollsters, your
ideals and principles wrung out by the very process of becoming a
candidate. Each disappointment (et tu, John McCain?) is like a wound,
and the scar tissue that remains has desensitized us.
When people are exposed to the new Gore -- authentic, funny,
self-deprecating -- you can almost feel their relief and surprise as
they suddenly come to face to face with what a real leader could be.
Even major skeptics like myself (and I've never been shy about attacking
Gore, as you can see here, here, here, and here) can't help but be
affected. It's why he suddenly finds himself surrounded by people all
but begging him to run.
And here's an interesting grace note from Cannes: One of the films
generating the biggest buzz at the festival is Climate, by Turkish
director Nuri Bilge Ceylan. Despite its title, the film has absolutely
nothing to do with global warming or climate change. Rather it's the
story of a man's inner change. Festival audiences have been mesmerized
by the powerful rendering of his transformation.
Is this a cinematic omen of things to come in 2008?>>
--------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
> These are superb actors - they can't all have
> been having an off day. Ron Howard has to take the blame.
> -Kevin O'Reilly
Then let's just call it Opie's Day.
The film earned 78 million in a weekend so there's talk of
Dan Brown plagiarizing a sequel!
Greg Reynolds
John W. Kennedy
> The film earned 78 million in a weekend so there's talk of
> Dan Brown plagiarizing a sequel!
Well, he could follow the lead of a "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" website I
stumbled across in 2003 and go with "The Protocols of the Elders of
Zion". There would even be a certain symmetry in it, seeing that
"Protocols" was plagiarized in the first place.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Anti-Catholicism is the antisemitism of the intellectuals."
lackpurity
I saw the movie today. When Saints come into the world, Satan wants to
corrupt the true teachings, and lead people astray. Therefore, when
reading the history of these Saints, whether of Jesus, Shakespeare, or
Marlowe, I think we should try to keep an open mind. Quite often, the
truth has been altered and corrupted.
This movie does point out what happened, when Emperor Constantine and
the Council of Nicea formed the Christian Religion to their own tastes.
It's possible that Mary Magdalene could have become a Saint, or even a
successor of Christ. Based on the quotes attributed to Jesus'
appointment of St. Peter as his successor, i.e. giving him the keys to
the Kingdom of Heaven, so that he could bind those on earth, so they
could be bound in heaven, I wouldn't want to demote or replace St.
Peter, just based on what I saw in the movie. Jesus could have had
more than one successor, however, that is entirely possible.
Michael Martin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
Art Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelangelo. Crucifixion of Saint Peter. 1546-1550.
Frescoes. Pauline Chapel, Vatican.
http://www.abcgallery.com/M/michelangelo/michelangelo70.JPG
.
http://www.bethelks.edu/services/mla/images/martyrsmirror/mm%20bk1%20...
Crucifixion of apostle Peter, Rome, AD 69 (Eeghen 663)
.
http://www.wga.hu/html/c/caravagg/05/28ceras.html
http://www.mezzo-mondo.com/arts/mm/caravaggio/CAM010.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio26.html
----------------------------------------------------------
*The Globe burned down on St.Peter's day* 1613
----------------------------------------------------------
TOTHEO [N] l ___ I _ EBE G ____ ETTERO
FTHESE_ [I] n ___ S - UIN G ____ SONNET
SMrWha_- [L] L __ [H]a P <P> I__ [N] ESSEA
NDthat____[E] T __ [E]r _ N <I> T___[I] EPROM
ISEDB Y O u ___- [R]e V <E> R [L] IVING
POEtW I s h ____ [E]t _ H [T] H___[E] WELLW
IShIN- G a ______ [d V e] N [T] u ______ ReRINS
EtTIN G fort___________ H [T] t
.
_________________ <= 19 =>
--------------------------------------------------------
. _The SCOURGE of Folly_ by JOHN (Davies)
....................................................
. To our English Terence, Mr. Will. Shake-speare.
.
. Some say (good Will) which I, in sport, do sing,
. Had'st thou not plaid some Kingly parts in sport,
. Thou hadst bin a companion for a King;.
.
. And, beene *A KING AMONG THE MEANER SORT*
---------------------------------------------------------------
_______________ JOHN {the Divine} 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN 19:18 Where they crucified him, and two other with him,
. on either side one, and Jesus in the midst. {T T T}
.
JOHN 19:19 And ... Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the CROSS.
_____________________ And the writing was,
__________ *JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS*
.
JOHN 19:33 when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already,
. they *BRAKE* not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a *SPEAR*
. pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
. And he that saw it bare record, and his record is *TRUE*:
. and he knoweth that he saith *TRUE*, that ye might believe.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Disputation with Simon Magus and Crucifixion of Peter 1481-82
Cappella Brancacci, Santa Maria del Carmine, Florence
http://keptar.demasz.hu/arthp/art/l/lippi/flippino/brancacc/cruc_pet.jpg
.
The Crucifixion of St Peter - The Beheading of St John the Baptist
. (predella panel from the Pisa Altar) Masaccio 1426
http://www.artchive.com/artchive/M/masaccio/masaccio_peter.jpg.html
.
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio32.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio37.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio47.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio7.html
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yogi Buchon wrote:
.
<<The The statue scene in WT is a strange deviation from Greene's
*Pandosto*. During this scene the author includes a reference
to Giulio Romano, a rather obscure Italian artist who would not
have been known to very many people in an English audience.
.
. Why mention Romano?
. Is this some sort of a puzzle for readers to solve?
. If it's a puzzle, here's one possible solution:
.
WT was written about 1610, and the statue scene, a scene of
resurrection, is set in Sicily. Was there a famous Italian artist
painting in Sicily in a very realistic way, as opposed to Mannerist,
who painted a resurrection scene? Why, lo and behold, Michelangelo
Merisi da Caravaggio had painted *The Raising of Lazarus* in
Sicily near the time WT was written. What a coincidence!!
.
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/html/c/caravagg/10/65lazar.html
.
<<Most of Caravaggio's religious subjects emphasize sadness, suffering
and death. In 1609 he dealt with the triumph of life and in doing so
created the most visionary picture of his career.
.
Lazarus, the brother of Martha and Mary, was the patron of Giovanni
Battista de' Lazzari, to whom Caravaggio was contracted to paint an
altarpiece in the church of the Padri Crociferi. The Gospel of St John
tells how Lazarus fell sick, died, was buried and then miraculously
raised from the dead by Christ.
.
Once again, the scene is set against blank walls that overwhelm the
actors, who once more are laid out like figures on a frieze. Some of
them, says Susinno, were modelled on members of the community, but at
this stage Caravaggio did not have time to base himself wholly on models
and relied on his memory - the whole design is based on an engraving
after Giulio Romano and his Jesus is a reversed image of the Christ who
called Matthew to join him.
.
There is a remarkable contrast between the flexible bodies of the
grieving sisters and the near-rigid corpse of their brother. In the
gospel Martha reminds Jesus that, as her brother had been dead four
days, he would stink, but here nobody detracts from the dignity of
the moment by holding his nose. Jesus is the resurrection and the
life and in the darkness through him the truth is revealed.>>
.
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio24.html
.
Yogi Buchon wrote:
.
<<Well, how about another coincidence?
Caravaggio copied Giulio Romano's pose of Patroclus
in his painting of Lazarus. This copied pose has been
well noted in art literature. And another coincidence? Both
Romano & Caravaggio did artistic work for the Knights of Malta.>>
.
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio56.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio20.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio11.html
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio8.html
--------------------------------------------------------
. Some interesting 5-letter Rollett strings
. "found in arrays based on the first 144 letters
. of the dedication to Shakespeare's Sonnets.":
.
. HIRAM: 1706u
. NAILE: 2106d
.
Terry Ross site: http://shakespeareauthorship.com/wds1.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Terry Ross (t...@bcpl.net)
Subject: Re: Rosencraft & Guildenstone flip coins
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2000-11-27 03:53:28 PST
.
Odds of picking 5 letters at random out of the 144 in the dedication
. and getting HIRAM are 10/144 * 14/143 * 9/142* 5/141 * 2/140 or
about 1 in 4.6 million. There are 2520 5-letter slots in the arrays,
. and since Rollett allowed words to appear reading either up
. or down, there are in effect 5040 places to search for HIRAM.
.
. The chance of finding *HIRAM* somewhere
. in some array is thus about 1 in 909.
----------------------------------------------------------
. Sonnet's dedication:
.
. T O T H E O N L I E B E G E T T
. E R O F T H E S E I N S V I N G
. S O N N E T S M R W H A L L H A
. P P I N E S S E A N D T H A T E
. T E R N I T I E P R O M I S E D
. B Y O V R E V E R L I V I N G P
. O E T W I S H E T H T H E W E L
. L W I S H I N G A D V E N T V R
. E R I N S E T T I N G F O R T H
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bull wrote:
.
<<I had found the MAR-LO in the Rollett grid myself.
It looked suggestive to me, especially as it forms a counter diagonal
to HENRY, but I couldn't pin it down or see huge improbability in it.
I definitely hadn't noticed the HI - LO transposition that makes
HIRAM MARLO. Now that is very, very interesting.>>
----------------------------------------
. *MAR-LO* forms a small "upside down" cross.
*de VERE* forms a slightly larger upside down cross:
----------------------------------------------------------
TOTHEO [N] l ___ I _ EBE G ____ ETTERO
FTHESE_ [I] n ___ S - UIN G ____ SONNET
SMrWha_- [L] L __ [H]a P <P> I__ [N] ESSEA
NDthat____[E] T __ [E]r _ N <I> T___[I] EPROM
ISEDB Y O u ___- [R]e V <E> R [L] IVING
POEtW I s h ____ [E]t _ H [T] H___[E] WELLW
IShIN- G a ______ [d V e] N [T] u ______ ReRINS
EtTIN G fort___________ H [T] t
.
_________________ <= 19 =>
.
<<The Tau: *T* is the 19th letter of the Greek alphabet.
In ancient times it was regarded as the symbol of life.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
. From: volker multhopp (vol...@erols.com)
. Subject: *Sonnets* Dedication -- the RolleTT cipher
. Date: 1998/09/29
.
<<Here is the dedication to Shakespeare's *Sonnets*:
.
. TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTOR.OF.
. THESE.INSVING.SONNETS.
. Mr.W.H.ALL.HAPPINESSE.
. AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
. PROMISED.
. BY.
. OVR.EVER-LIVING.POET.
. WISHETH.
. THE.WELL-WISHING.
. ADVENTVRER.IN.
. SETTING.
. FORTH.
. T.T.
.
[Notes on appearance: The dedication was "center-justified", ie
left-right symmetrical. This will appear approximately correct with a
fixed-width font like Courrier, but the lines will be scrunched to the
left in a proportional font like most readers use. Also, the hyphens
in "well-wishing" and "ever-living" are extremely short and low-set
in the original, almost indistinguishable from the odd dots
between the other words.]
.
This very strange dedication (note: "poet" has to play subject of
"wishes" *and* object of the preposition "by"!) has lead many people
to suspect there is a meaning hidden here. English physicist
I.M. RolleTT discovered the following cipher (and
at the time, he hadn't even heard of the Oxford theory!)--
.
Besides the strained language, there are other oddities. Most striking
are the weird dots between each word-- this suggests someone is counting
the words. Furthermore (more apparent in the original rather than this
crude etext reproduction), the words are arranged in three triangles.
Counting the lines in the triangles, we get a number sequence: 6, 2, 4.
Using these number, let's now count off[1] the words, marking
the 6th, 2nd, and 4th words, and then repeat the process:
.
. TO THE ONLIE BEGETTOR OF
. *THESE* INSVING *SONNETS*
. Mr W H *ALL* HAPPINESSE
. AND THAT ETERNITIE
. PROMISED
. *BY*
. OVR *EVER*-LIVING POET
. WISHETH
. *THE* WELL-WISHING
. ADVENTVRER IN
. SETTING
. *FORTH*
. T.T.
.
. Now let's pull the marked words:
.
. *THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER THE FORTH*
.
Now EVER is a known play on *Edward de VERE*, the
17th earl of Oxford. What *THE FORTH* means is now lost to us,>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
KQKnave wrote: [But] RolleTT's methods,
if consistently applied, point to *T*
------------------------------------------------
. TO THE ONLIE BEGETTOR OF
. *THESE* INSVING *SONNETS*
. Mr W H *ALL* HAPPINESSE
. AND THAT ETERNITIE
. PROMISED
. *BY*
. OVR *EVER*-LIVING POET
. WISHETH
. *THE* WELL-WISHING
. ADVENTVRER IN
. SETTING
. *FORTH*
. T.*T*.
---------------------------------------------
<< THESE SONNETS ALL BY EVER *THE FORTH T* >>
------------------------------------------
"Globe" burned down on St.Peter's day 1613
.
_ [e]
_ [r]
_ [e] _ [T]
. [d V e] [T]
_____ [T]
---------------------------------------------
http://www3.tky.3web.ne.jp/~jafarr/The%20Tau%20and%20the%20Triple%20T...
.
The Triple Tau is the most important symbol of [R]oyal [A]rch [M]asonry
.
It has been said that three Taus come together to form the Triple Tau.
.
. Some say the Triple Tau is originally the
. coming together of a T and a H, forming , meaning
.
. [T]emplum [H]ierosolyma : "the Temple of Jerusalem"
.
. "Clavis ad [TH]esaurum" : "A key to the treasure"
.
. "[TH]eca ubi res pretiosa" :
. "Place where the precious thing is concealed."
------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer