Arcadia Discussion Zone

‘Real or Imaginary’ No. 2: A connection between Poussin’s second Shepherds of Arcadia and Egypt?

Subject: An ankh on the tomb?

Discoverer: Don Barone

Website: http://donbarone.bravehost.com/The_Giza ... Part_I.htm

Details: From quotes by Gary Osborn:

However, a significant detail that everyone appears to have overlooked is the tiny image of the Giza Pyramids in white on an outcrop of the mountain behind the shepherds.

After realising that the painting is alluding to Giza and not directly to Rennes le Chateau as most people have believed . . . Don has since found this detail as well as the Ankh shown left which is more evidence that the information and knowledge encoded in the painting is associated with the wisdom of ancient Egypt.

We also found that the pyramids and the Ankh are joined by a vertical line.




So what do you think?

Did Poussin intend that shape to be interpreted as an ankh. If so, why?

After having a quick look at this link http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/Nicolas_Poussin_052.jpg and expanding the image to its full size with the box in the lower rh corner of the image (internet explorer) or clicking on the image (firefox) the ankh has gone. So it seems to be just an artifact of the digital processes the image has gone through on its travels to our screens.
Maybe emphasising the need to view the 'real McCoy' after having gone so far in our armchairs (another thread).
The pyramid seems to be an artifact of Don Barone's imagination. His mates were probably winding him up...

What is certain though is that there is a nice sunrise between the trees.

RenaissanceMan wrote:



The ‘painting’ is the artefact!

The image you are referring to is nothing like the official version of the painting kept at the Louvre. See:

http://www.photo.rmn.fr/c/htm/CSearchZ. ... 6NU0HZH2QG


So to be more precise, is that an ankh on the official Louvre version of les Bergers d’Arcadie?




Quite!



I’m inclined to agree about the pyramid connection.

The ankh is an artefact of the way the true image, the painting itself, is reduced down digitally to a smaller version and then transmitted to us. By repeating the steps listed it will be possible to see this.

I realise this is not the 'correct' version of the painting but the arguement holds good. The only way to check for sure is to view an old fashioned non digital image or a larger digital image or see the real thing.

Personally I would like to think it was an ankh as to me there is an exeptionally strong link between RLC and Egyptian beliefs.
I thought the ankh in the picture, if it does exist, had a flat top. This put me in mind of the alchemical symbol for Saturn so I visited this page http://roma.freewebpages.org/roma-c20.htm. Under the symbol for Saturn is the following:

"when in your house black crows
will give birth to white doves,
then you will be called a sage"

A coincidence considering the white dove painted into the cloud.
I think St Surnin or Saturnin may be a candidate for visiting St Anthony

black crows = death
white doves = life
your house = yourself ?
the raven is normally looked on as a bird of divination or augury so a crow holding St Anthony's bread makes far more sense.

This might put a different interpretation on Et in Arcadia Ego

RenaissanceMan wrote:




The image of the photo from the RMN was only included to show what the correct version looks like.

I have a half-scale version of the painting (24 by 17 in/61 by 43 cm) and the ‘ankh’ is clearly there. This fits with your criterion that one can check using a larger digital image. The ‘ankh’ is not an artefact.




The symbol on the tomb is more like the sigil for Venus. Perhaps Saturn is being represented by the scythe-like shadow cast by the blue shepherd?




The dove is a symbol for the Goddess Venus/Aphrodite, the Holy Spirit, and Sophia (Wisdom).

Also connects with the planet Venus (with respect to Earth) and the pentagon.





From James Ferguson’s, Astronomy Explained Upon Sir Isaac Newton’s Principles, 1799 ed., plate III, opp. p. 67.

See: http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/venus.html

Its good that you can confirm that the ankh exists. It makes sense.

The sigil for Venus is an ankh, I was looking for a different sign to account for it being misshapen. The sigil for Saturn fitted quite well not only because of its shape but due to the sense of its verse on the Porta Magica.
Dove = life as in spirit as in spiritual life was the way in which I was looking at it.

This makes the tomb in the painting a tomb of rebirth and allows the final verse of the Porta Magica to make sense, Saturn being lead, the starting point and the Sun, gold, being the goal:

"our dead son lives, he returns
from fire as a king, and rejoices
over the conceiled mating"

The mating being the recombining of the physical body with the true self, the shade or shadow you refer to being left behind after the process of driving out the demons.
Bearing in mind Arcadia is in the Underworld this is a recipe for a classical hero who's duty it is to return to pass on the secret to others as in the verse for the Monad, the one, the re-combined person on the threshold of the door:

"it is the secret deed of the true sage to open the earth,
so to make salvation germinate for the people"

Open the earth as in overcome (spiritual) death. When looked on like this a lot more makes sense including the symbolism of the St Anthony paintings, women joined at the hip http://andrewgough.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1228 (Les saintes Puelles) etc.

This could then mean that Life is also in Arcadia, or, the secret of life is in the Underworld.

I have found it pays not to dig in too deeply until a trail of possibilities hang together, but then the hard part is proving it. Its virtually impossible to prove the meaning of symbolism as it changes from one groups use of it to the next. Its more a question of how long can you run with it before you trip over your own feet.. To me this runs further than most!

Of course as the ankh is a symbol of life, that fits in perfectly as well.

This will be my last post for a while - sorry for 'blitzing' different sites but this is fun! Personally, I agree with the premise there's a link; possibly in relation to the Egyptian creation myth (P's Shepherds are the first family - Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel - si?); together with an ancient Egyptian formula for the first act of creation (one of separation) + possible allusions to perspective.

I have limited resources to study, so my thoughts may be way off, but please consider:

Unity (One) in seeking to comprehend Self, sought perspective. In order to achieve perspective, Change was required to effect a Duality (since Self could not observe Self). The first act of Creation occurred when One split into Two (Geb and Nut separating), creating an outwardly balanced expression of Form and Spirit. The essence of Change remains vital to the ongoing dynamics of Creation/Life.
Or, to put it another way (sorry, no access to a square root sign):
(1 + (sq rt) 5)/2 - this is the formula for phi.

Just a thought. Maybe I should be careful about what mushrooms I eat!!

Points: Geb's phallus and foot 'bisect' segments of Nut's body = duality; his aspect changes - upper torso faces earth, lower torso faces Nut;
5 is "the number of Change" + is associated with Mercury (Chaldean numerology). Poussin used two different systems of perspective in his painting (one Egyptian) which, per Henry Lincoln's art curator friend, he'd blended "seamlessly" (?).

The numerological aspects are tentative, so I won't post them - I've no idea what calculation system was used by the Egyptian priests.

Until next time -
Love and laughter,

'Uensis'

Hello Adrian,

Thank you for pointing out that there is only one 'authentic' copy of Les Bergers d' Arcadie II. It is also worth pointing out that there are some who have consistently used reproductions of the painting for analysis/theories/etc. Here is one: http://www.grailstar.bravehost.com/

Kind Regards,
A. Nesos

I'm well aware that the image I used is not of the original painting. It is, however, identical in the positioning of the features and is therefore perfectly suitable for use to illustrate geometric theories. Being a more vibrantly colored and higher resolution image than any of the original versions, I would be settling for inferior results if I were to use an image of the original painting. I assume that the copier used a grid system to get the features accurately transfered. I defy anyone to identify a major feature which is not positioned accurately. BTW, thanks for promoting my website. Modesty prevents me from doing so myself.

Aprositus Nesos wrote:



Yes I am aware of this. It is clearly better to use the artist's original work.

I have already analysed the 'grailstar' theory at http://www.andrewgough.com/geometry.html

Also check out some of the the older posts on this forum.

No, you attempted to analyse the Grail Star Theory, and failed. The lines obviously correspond perfectly to the major features of the painting, not folds in clothes. Nobody else can explain the angles of all three upper staffs, especially not Adrian Lodge. Thus, I succeeded and you failed. How did you miss those two big stars?

Brian Ettinger wrote:



I beg to differ.

Perhaps it is for others to decide!

"Make a wish on the Even' Star
that Love will reign supreme..."

Love and laughter
Uensis

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star from heaven fallen unto the earth: and there was given to him the key of the pit of the abyss.

That would be the abyss on Oak Island, the star having fallen to the Earth, or more precisely, the sea, and pointing directly to Oak Island.

If you look at the image previous to the unframed Shepherds painting on the linked page you will find a drawing of the painting from the mid 1800s which has a style virtually identical to that of Jean Cocteau. Is that where he got the idea for his style from? Very possibly. image

So to return to the topic of this particular thread: is it or is it not intended as an ankh?

Hello Adrian,

I did not realize when I responded to your post that you were Adrian Lodge. I read your article about artistic intent with great interest. Very nicely done and well argued.
Best,

A. Nesos

Sure, never mind the fact that the article specifies nonexistent flaws in the Grail Star theory and upholds a very much less viable alternative figure. Aside from being dead wrong on all counts, it's a fine article. Lodge, for instance, concentrates on the fact that the star figure doesn't conform to the lower part of the left staff. What he ignores is the fact that I never stated that it DOES match the vague lower part, I stated that it matches the clearly painted upper part and Lodge has no defense against that, other than to tell us that our eyes are all defective. I don't have to match the figure to both parts of the staff. There is no such rule in Poussin painting solving. My theory is that the upper parts of the three staffs provide all the information necessary to position the star figure and the STRAIGHT middle and right staffs are certainly matched to the star. Lodge simply made up a nonexistent flaw because he wasn't capable of understanding the fact that the left staff is angled three degrees differently above and below the hand, which is extremely obvious. Since he missed such a grossly obvious fact, how competent can he be to critique something as complex as the Poussin star geometry? Not at all.

And, no, it's not an ankh. There is no circle on top, just two vertical lines. Zoom in on the linked image of the unframed painting (the long URL) and you will see what I mean. Also doubtful that there are pyramids on the mountain. Surely someone would have noticed that on the actual painting, where you could see such an item very clearly. Much more likely that it is simply an illusion created by the conversion to a computer image. You can see the two vertical cracks in the cut-out below and even in the Grail Star image I posted earlier, though it is a copy it was clearly a very accurate copy and the artist did not copy a circle so he must not have seen a circle on the original. If anything, it would be a Tau cross.

Correct there is no Ankh. It is a Tau cross.

What there is above the line pointed at by the Red Shepherd however is a dawn sky.

Ettinger wrote:




No it specifies that the Grail Star ‘geometry’ is imaginary, and upholds an alternative geometric solution as being more viable. When both were subject to the same objective statistical test, it was found that the latter geometric construct (the Rigby pentagon) was far more likely to be intended by Poussin.





Actually, what you conveniently ignore is that my analysis was also based on further geometry found on an old website of yours (which you had asked to be considered when I undertook the review). On the website you inferred that the positioning of the Grail Star ‘geometry’ was determined from other more elaborate geometric constructions. In the image below, it can clearly be seen that a line (in yellow) ‘DOES match the vague lower part’ as you call it. You then proceed to misalign the central axis of the left ‘star’ with the same staff!







See above!




NO! The three staffs provide information necessary for the position of three lines - that is all! Not only do you fail to do this precisely (as demonstrated by the left staff misalignment), but you provide no evidence (in the form of alignments/intersections with features in the painting) why rest of your irregular ‘geometry’ was intended by Poussin.




Your three degree angle is pure guesswork since it relies on ‘geometry’ that is entirely subjective. This is further supported by the absence of a black line demarcating its position, unlike the line clearly seen below the shepherd’s hand.









As I have already pointed out, the long URL was posted so as to show what the official version of the painting looks like. Obviously if you enlarge such a small image you are bound to lose resolution markedly.


Hence:




However, the painting is ten times the size of the image shown on the website.

Here is a photo of the same region taken from a half-scale version of the official painting:





Clearly, the marking is more of a loop or circle than the ‘two vertical lines’ you suggest.







Here is a Tau Cross:




and here is an ankh:





Clearly it is not a Tau Cross on the tomb! It is far more likely to be an ankh!

Precisely, the yellow hexagram explains the angle of the lower part of the staff while the Grail Star itself explains the upper part. Is a two part geometry too complicated for you, Adrian? Upper part- 18 degrees from vertical, lower part- 15 degrees from vertical. 15 degrees is obviously an angle inherent in hexagonal geometry, so it is perfectly plausible that this is the reason for the lower staff angle. But what of the 18 degree upper staff? Could be the top point of a pentacle, but then how would you explain the positions and angles of the other two staffs. No, for that you require nothing less than the Grail Star figure, employing not just one but two identical stars of varying sizes. That is the only figure which can explain all three staffs, including both sections of the left staff.

In regard to your statement that I "misaligned" the centerline of the large Grail Star, I did not. It's perfectly aligned. Can you not see that the line is exactly on the left edge of the upper staff? Show me where it deviates from the edge then, smarty pants. You just don't have any explanation for the 18 degree upper staff, that's why you try to pretend it doesn't exist.

Ettinger wrote:



And misaligns completely with the left edge of the lower staff (that is demarcated by Poussin)!

Why does the rest of the 'centreline' of the larger Grail Star ignore the greater proportion of the staff?

What is the point of all that complicated regular geometry (shown on the right) if you then ignore it (on the left)? In what way are the two geometries connected?

JB1717,

Adrian Lodge has raised a significant and rationally argued criticism of your ‘theory.’ His argument cannot be dismissed simply by calling him incompetent:




This is the worst sort of rhetorical argumentation. Why should I or anyone else disregard Adrian’s complete argument or conclude he is incompetent simply because you say he is wrong on a particular point?

Nothing you have said addresses Adrian Lodge’s central thesis. He has argued that the Rigby construction is more likely than yours using the methods of statistical analysis. Your counter-argument must be equally rigorous. His methods carry a good deal more weight than your bland assertions and insults.

-A. Nesos

That would be because you are even more incompetent at Poussin painting solving than Lodge. I think I stated rather clearly that the left staff references two different parts of the geometry. As Lodge failed to comprehend, and as you have no chance whatsoever of comprehending, the hexagram geometry is the basis for the star geometry. First you draw the hexagram and then you use that to generate the star. The reason I showed them separately was simply for clarity. It's easier to see the star figure without the hexagram being shown at the same time. The hexagram line is perfectly aligned to the black line at the left edge of the staff, so that part of the staff is explained. Then the star centerline explains the upper part, which is at a completely different angle than the black line. I really don't know what either of you find difficult to understand about any of that, but perhaps one of you can provide a reasonable explanation for the fact that the top and bottom of the left staff are at angles 3 degrees different from each other. Of course you can't, because I'm the only person in the world who can.

Now you begin to see the complexity of the Poussin geometry. Before you can arrive at the exact star geometry, you have to solve the hexagram/pentagram geometry and then you have to figure out how to use that to produce the star geometry. Trust me when I tell you that it is well beyond the capability of Adrian Lodge and most definitely Aprositus Nesos. just the first preliminary stages of it are more complex than the Rigby Pentacle, which is mighty purty but far too simplistic to be the basis for something as complex as the Shepherds painting.

Ettinger wrote:





The line IS perfectly aligned to the black line . . . but how can you be sure it is intended as part of a hexagram? All you can be sure of is that Poussin intended a line, not a hexagram or 'Grailstar'. Your proposed geometries bear no relation to features in the painting, features which the Rigby pentagon brings into play!

Also you are guessing that the angle of the lower part of the staff is at 75 degrees.

And again, as I said earlier:



There IS no connection is there? There is no logic!

It is not enough just to say:



How do you 'generate' this particular irregular 'geometry' ('Grailstar') out of a regular hexagram? There are an infinite number of irregular shapes that you can create.


Oh yeah, I nearly forgot . . . that is not a Tau cross on the tomb, certainly looks more like an ankh to me!





versus:

JB1717,

It's rather the same thing again isnt' it? You have made assumptions about my mathematical skills and understanding of compositional analysis and trade insults rather than reason. You have adopted the same methods as Paul Smith, but without his evidentiary standards - and you are certainly less civil than he (!)

-A. Nesos

P.S. As for mathematical skills - why don't you address the statistical analysis of Dr. Lodge? You are up to the task, aren't you?