1601 (was "The Orpheus Book" )
- Last night Betsy and I were talking about the year 1601 and "Death."
Since its her story, I won't try to even paraphrase it here. But it
seems that my very feet-on-the-ground friend had some sort of
interesting recurring experience with this year and "Death", so last
night she asked me if I had any idea why that year was significant.
Betsy, you said you wouldn't mind posting your story here. Would you?
I mentioned to her some things that happened that year, and Alaerian
and I talked more about it after we got off the phone. 1601 seems to
be one of those key years where, while many futures were possible
before, something happens and many of the probability waves collapse,
and suddenly only one of them becomes possible.
(Alaerian also pointed out, this is 400 years before 2001, if any of
you see a similar collapse of probability waves surrounding theevents
of 9 / 11. For any magickal datekeepers and scholars of the
Looking at the possibilities concerning specifically Dee and his
magickal projects, and which ones seem to collapse in 1601 and which
do not, might be a fruitful line of inquiry. It certainly leads us
right to the most famous dramatic work of the time, Hamlet.
[(Remember too that "Hamlet" takes his name from "Amleth," the mythic
character adapted by from the Icelandic and Norwegian myth of Amlodhi
or, in a later version of the name, Amleth, which became Hamlet in
Shakespeare. Amleth turns the cosmic mill, or clock, of the ages. . .
hence the title "Hamlet's Mill" for Santillana and von Deschend's
book on "myth and the frame of time." See excerpt at
http://phoenixandturtle.net/excerptmill/santillana.htm for parts of
the preface to this book; for a "Cliff's Notes" version of how that
connects to celestial cycles and ancient mythological science, see
http://www.technosophy.com/milltime.htm ) This is one of many
subjects Vincent and I plan to address in our book on Shakespeare and
Dee: why on earth, pun intended, is "Hamlet" named after "Amleth,"
when the play on the surface seems to have so little to do with the
myth of precessional astrology from which it takes its name? ]
To return to 1601 . . . for various reasons I've tacked this
discussion on to the earlier thread about John Dowland and the
Orpheus Book. A few things about 1601 from that thread (and its
resonance is the early 1900s Dowland dispute between Grattan Flood
and Peter Warlock) . . .
> > --- In AlchemistRoyalAdvisorDrJohnDee@yahoogroups.com, "TerriBurns"
> > <burnst@u...> wrote:in
> Dr. John Dowland (1563-1626) is often referred to as the "English
> Orpheus," a title which on the surface seems odd since Orpheus is
> associated with harps and lyres rather than lutes. In this novel,
> Dowland is associated with John Dee, and indirectly, with the same
> circle as Shakespeare. Here we might note that that certain scenes
> Shakespeare's plays (from the few from which we have survivingscores,
> such as the Tempest) use certain instruments, like lutes, whenothers,
> like the harp, would seem more appropriate.<snip>
>About Dowland in 1601, according to Grattan Flood:
> If Dowland was an Irish musician in the English court, it seems to
> have been so obvious no one felt the need to comment on it. But if
> that were the case, he would be in some sort of blackmailed position
> in the first place, as he appears in this novel. Ditto if he were a
> staunch Catholic, or even a non-Catholic whose mentor was a Catholic
> priest (like Father Campion, whose portrayal here is fairly
> historically accurate).
> Flood writes: "In 1601, Dowland came to England for a holiday, andProponents of various Shakespeare conspiracy theories attach various
> was able to purchase musical instruments. It is very likely that he
> furnished his friend Shakespeare with many of those touches of local
> colour regarding Denmark to be found in Hamlet. Certain it is that
> Hamlet was occupying Shakespeare's attention, and was produced the
> following year."
narratives to the Earl of Essex, Robert Devereaux, and at least one
book and many articles have been written suggesting that a
possible "model" for the character Hamlet was Devereaux. Whatever
the connection one makes, this much is certain-- Dowland and Essex
were friends (one of Dowland's more famous galliards is dedicated to
Essex), and Essex and Dee were neighbors. Essex married Walsingham's
daughter, and Walsingham/Cecil ran a spy network that seemed to
compete with one started by Essex. In effect, for a short time in
the late 1500s and early 1600-1601, all the major players in the
different spy networks have living arrangements almost on top of one
If Dowland was Irish and working with Dee, and Essex friends with
both, we might also want to note that the precipitating cause of the
events which led to Essex's imprisonment and execution -- in 1601 --
were Essex's actions in Ireland, and horror at what was going on in
Ireland, which led to acts of "high treason" and then to the Essex
Rebellion in January 1601, and his execution a month later.
Enough on 1601 for now,
- Terri wrote:
> (Alaerian also pointed out, this is 400This might be of interest as it discusses some of the same themes. It
> years before 2001, if any of you see a
> similar collapse of probability waves
> surrounding theevents of 9 / 11. For
> any magickal datekeepers and scholars of
> the precessional cycle.)
> Looking at the possibilities concerning
> specifically Dee and his magickal
> projects, and which ones seem to collapse
> in 1601 and which do not, might be a
> fruitful line of inquiry.
comes from Adam McClean's alchemy forum:
Subject: ACADEMY : The Romance of the Rose-Cross
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 1999
From: Susanna Åkerman
"Michael Martin wrote:
>Two things that puzzle me as far as pre-1610 dates go are:"I have no information on the Ur Chemical wedding and have
>1) The "'Ur' "Chemical Wedding" attributed to Andrae from
>about 1601-02. Did this document refer to CRC, or was he
not seen it. But if CRC is not mentioned in it it would be
and sensational. Do you have any reference to it? In
>2) The date of "1604" which appears...""I believe 1604 is focused on as it it coincides with
>Certainly, this would have been the year of the finding
> of CRC's vault. It also coincided with two separate
> super novas. But, why this year, especially if CRC
> is a fictional character? Wouldn't 1610 (or 1614, etc)
> have served better?
the passsage of the great conjunctions to the "trigono
igneo that shall give us the last light" (Fama), based
on Abu Mashar's ninth century astrological theory of
the regular passage of the conjunctions of Jupiter and
Saturn from one zodiacal sign to another. The passage
from the watery to the fiery trigon takes place in 1583
and then in Dec-Jan 1603/4 and was the seventh of such
passages (to Aries in 1583 to Sagittarius in 1603 and
significantly to Leo in 1623) since creation according
to Johannes Kepler's Mysterium Cosmographicum, recently
published when the Fama appeared. The scheme had been
used by Cyprian Leowitz in 1563 in Prague prohecying on
Bohemia but without Kepler's elegant theory.
P.S. Geheime figuren contains a Lion, 1604 and an old
man in a cave, typical RC elements. Am I thinking of
the right picture?
> This is one of many subjects Vincent and ITo answer this, one would have to look into the lives and motives of
> plan to address in our book on Shakespeare and
> Dee: why on earth, pun intended, is "Hamlet"
> named after "Amleth," when the play on the
> surface seems to have so little to do with the
> myth of precessional astrology from which it
> takes its name? ]
Thomas Kyd and Francois Belleforest from where Shakespeare likely got
most of his ideas for his famous play.
> To return to 1601 . . .Just a few interesting things to note:
Tycho Brahe died in 1601
Louis XIII was born in 1601
Pierre de Fermat was born in 1601