The Debate over the Rosslyn Motet Heats Up

Over the last few weeks, there’s been an interesting exchange happening in the comments section of BS Historian’s article "Rosslyn Chapel’s Musical Cubes Silenced?" For those of you not familiar with the article or the comment thread, there are some serious questions about Stuart Mitchell’s Rosslyn Motet by BS Historian and Jeff Nisbet. The basis of the detractors from the Motet is that an 1860’s restoration team replaced a great number of cubes in Rosslyn Chapel. This theory is supported by lithographs done in 1837 by Samuel Dukinfield Swarbreck. In these lithographs, Swarbreck depicts a great number of missing cubes from the ceiling at Rosslyn.

This would mean that the basic theory behind the Rosslyn Motet is not accurate. The Mitchell’s theory behind the Motet is that the Sinclair family encoded the cubes with Chladni patterns to conceal a piece of music. What happens to the basic premise if cubes were added in the at a later date?

This isn’t the first time Mitchell’s work has been brought into question. A number of folks, myself included, have come out and expressed their doubts about the Motet. Here’s a run down of articles that present alternate view points on the matter:

• Dr Warwick Edwards, a Glasgow University music professor, was interviewed on 20 May 07 in the Sunday Mail with his doubts about the validity of the Motet. (Thanks to the News for Medievalist blog for capturing this article for posterity.)

• Jeff Nisbet’s article The Rosslyn Motet expressed issues with the history of the Cubes, in relation to the Motet, and inconsistencies in the news stories related to the Mitchells.

• Researcher and writer for the Fortean Times, Brian Allen ask me to post an open letter that questions whether the Sinclairs would have had access to technology that would have allowed them to have discovered a Chladni pattern, let alone encode the cubes with them.

• BS Historian also posted "Music of the Cubes - A Musician’s Perspective" bringing into question the very musical nature of the theory behind the Motet.

• And finally, I posted "Inconsistencies in Reports of the Rosslyn Motet" questioning some discrepancies in the news reports of the Motet’s “discovery.” Mitchell posted a comment about my article at the bottom of the piece.

It would seem that Stuart Mitchell has responded to some of BS Historian and Jeff Nisbet’s arguments in the comments section of Rosslyn Chapel’s musical cubes silenced? Mitchell’s comments are comments 11,12, and 15. It would seem that, other than the use of the incomprehensible phrase Mr. Muskateerwang, Mitchell doesn’t give an answer to the central question.

Mitchell’s comments on the 1860’s restoration and the Swarbreck lithos are, “You say the cubes have been ‘re-arranged’? And are not in the order first presented in 1446 and your evidenced,(taken from Lithographs which are artworks and artistic interpretations) is this?? WHO WOULD RE-ARRANGE THEM???? This chapel had a BLUEPRINT, look at the design, detail and infrastructure. There was a plan and any restoration would naturally stick to the original…WHO would NOT STICK TO the original designers intentions??”

Wouldn’t this mean that the 1860’s restoration team would be privy to the Sinclair’s original design and intent? That would mean that there was someone out there that, at least up to 1860, knew the keys to unlock the architectural and design secrets of the Chapel. If that’s the case, I’d love to see a write-up on how that came about and who was in the "know".

Now there would be another interesting twist to debate over the Motet. Jeff Nisbet posted on 6 Jan 08, as comment 20 in the thread, that all the cubes in the Swarbreck lithos appear to be the same. So there might not be any mystery attached to the cubes at all. If the original design of the cubes was identical, there could be nothing coded in the cubes by the original architects of the Chapel.

I would urge you to read the threads and articles posted above in full and form your own opinion. Jeff and Historian have brought up a number of points that need to be answered if the world is to accept the Motet as the final answer to the Rosslyn Cubes.

Another Point of View on the Rosslyn Motet

I received this letter from Brian Allen regarding the article I wrote on the Inconsistancies in Reports on the Rosslyn Motet. Mr. Allen has agreed to let me publish this letter here on my blog. His claims run counter to some of the news reports that are out about the Motet. I thought it is important to see his point of view based on his research as a counterpoint to the letter I received from Mitchell.

Dear Brian,

With reference to a feature item in the UK Sunday Mail of April 22nd 2007 (and other media outlets) on the alleged discovery of a musical secret hidden in Rosslyn Chapel. This featured the work of Messrs. Thomas and Stuart Mitchell and the creation of a piece of music called ‘The Rosslyn Motet’. I present these observations, not with any taint of ‘sour grapes’, but purely in the interests of both presenting the bigger picture and perhaps giving perhaps more accurate and valid version of events. I am also probably one of the very few people who have also recreated certain specific frequencies within the chapel prior to the Mitchells. Mr Mitchell senior claims that he discovered the concept that the cubes in the so-called ‘Lady Chapel’ at the east end within Rosslyn are in fact graphic representations of ‘Chladni patterns’. I also arrived at this conclusion early in 2004 after conducting a series of investigations in the chapel first begun in 1993. This was with absolutely no knowledge of, or connection with, Mr Stuart Mitchell or his father, Mr Thomas Mitchell.

Based on my findings I conducted a full-scale test of my theories in the chapel in November 2005 using a tone generator, a computer and speakers, this was with the full consent of the then director of the Rosslyn Trust, Mr Stuart Beattie. The test, which involved the creation of tones comprising ‘augmented fourths’ also called ‘The Devils Chord’, produced some remarkable sonic and physiological effects. Those present, apart from my wife and I, included a musician, a psychologist, an acoustic therapist and two psychic mediums. In fact Mentorn TV reported on my theories at some length in a recent Discovery Channel TV programme.

Crucially, my own research was based on much earlier work facilitated by the late hotelier and former MI6 agent, Mr Steven Prior, who in the early 1990’s commissioned a computer programmer and a musicologist to decode the patterns; sadly he did not live to see any results. Mr Prior was of the opinion that the cubes represented what he called ‘healing cadences’. Therefore, although I could be mistaken, as with my own research there must be some doubt that Mr Mitchell’s work is entirely original, the difference is that, in my book, ‘Rosslyn, Between two Worlds’, I freely admit that my conclusions are based on earlier research and also that I tested the results successfully in 2005. Although this is described at length in the book, I also wrote an article on this subject for the magazine, ‘Fortean Times’. It is perhaps interesting to note that the late Mr Prior also intended to recreate the music in the chapel using musical instruments contemporary with the era and also with the services of a vocal group called ‘The Medieval Babes’.

That the cubes are based on Chladni patterns is indeed a valid hypothesis because the builder of Rosslyn, Sir William Sinclair, probably had the knowledge and available materials to recreate them had he chosen to do so. However, although I have been able to produce evidence for similar patterns, literally dozens of them, none have been identical, but I saw enough to conclude that my ideas were valid allowing me to proceed with my own evaluation. On the other hand, Mr Stuart Mitchell allegedly claims that his Rosslyn Motet is scored directly from the patterns on the cubes.

For this to be true it would require that a number of musical notes related to the cube patterns would have to be precisely recreated using the Chladni method (or alternatively a system called Cymatics, although this is less likely) in order to create an entire musical score and I have yet to see any evidence of any kind that this is indeed the case. If that has not been done then Mr Stuart Mitchell would have had no valid musical starting point, and that being the case, what he has produced, pleasant though it is, is therefore guesswork based on several earlier medieval pieces he has created vibrating plate assembly allegedly used by Mr Thomas Mitchell to recreate the patterns on the Rosslyn cubes, from my own experience this shape of plate (square) would not have produced the necessary patterns using the materials available to Sir William Sinclair. Not having any information regarding the exact method used by Mr Thomas Mitchell, I must conclude that it was an oscillator or something similar.

Some time ago I did try to contact the Mitchells directly via their website in order to ‘compare notes’ so to speak, but my approaches were either not received or simply ignored. Ignoring my approaches would be the case if (A) they realised that I knew as much as they did (B) I had arrived at a similar conclusion using a slightly different method, but especially, (C) that in addition I had beaten them to it. As a recognised paranormal researcher, broadcaster and author with four books published so far and another one currently in pre-publication, please feel free to validate my observations via my website, www.p-e-g.co.uk or simply enter ‘Brian Allan paranormal’, or ‘Brian Allan UFO’, using a search engine. If anyone wishes to discuss or pursue the matter further please do not hesitate to contact me on the peg website.

Regards,
Brian J Allan

A Response from Stuart Mitchell Regarding the Rosslyn Chapel Cubes

For those of you that don’t check out the comments section of my blog, I got an interesting one last night. The author claims to be Stuart Mitchell. There is no way to tell because it was posted on a newly activated Blogger account under the name Stuart. The profile has no info at this time.

However, I don’t doubt the validity of the post. The comment states:

Stuart said...

hi there,

I was very interested by your observations and felt I should clear up a couple of your queries.

There are today exactly 213 surviving cubes/rectangles/stone blocks protruding from the arches in the Lady Chapel at Rosslyn. 2 have been lost to antiquity due to theft or accident. It is known that Oliver Cromwell once used Rosslyn Chapel as a stable for his horses and the theory abounds that they were broken off then. But whatever the case is, 2 are missing. We have mapped out the entire ceiling and pattern sequence in a topological diagram and finding the identity of the missing cubes was fiarly easy. For example, one of the missing cubes is in the middle a line of cubes that are repeated 9 times, interestingly belonging to the percussion line of a medieval drum that emits one particular note/cube throughout its part. That one was straight forward. The other was not quite so easy but is part of a recurring phrase that repeats 3 times in the work. By the time we arrived at this missing moment, we already had an understanding of the way the piece was developing and instinctively applied a note that worked with the melodic development of the Motet.

Regarding some of the media discrepancies and inaccurate comments that have occurred over the past few months in the press, the subject of Rosslyn's music and its relationship with Cymatics/Chladni patterns is complexed enough for most news articles to want to shape the story for their readers in an understandable way, however, at the sacrifice of the scientific and aesthetic knowledge one has to absorb in order to arrive at the musical conclusion. Everything is 'boiled down' to suit the reader. It is beyond our control and subject to the viewpoint of the publication(s).

I have heard of Matsushita’s project but do not know what results have developed for him in this area.

I hope this has shed some light for you on some of the inconsistencies you have experienced in the past months regarding our project.

Best regards
Stuart Mitchell

So it would seem that I have been another victim of the mass media mediocrity on a few of the points I brought up. So it goes…

BK

Inconsistencies in Reports about the Rosslyn Motet

Author’s Note:
One of the things that I look for in any series of information is inconsistencies. One can ferret out the trail of where truth lies by looking at the wake of conflicting details. It is with this mind set that I have explored the following topic. And as always, I have played Devil’s Advocate with myself. The few things that I’ve turned up might be explained away very simply. However, there is an equal chance they cannot. The bad thing is that I end at a place that brings more questions than answers to the table. The other really bad thing is that all of this makes me sound like an off the deep end conspiracy theorist.

There is never a short list of architectural enigmas when talking about Rosslyn Chapel. In the news this week, one of the most intriguing features of the Chapel has been brought literally in the limelight. The remaining rectangular cubes that adorn the ceiling of the Chapel have taken to the news in the UK. This time the solution to the solution seems to be a musical one.

In 2006, composer Stuart Mitchell claims to have cracked the code by assigning musical notation to the Cubes by way of Chladni Patterns. Mitchell worked with his father Thomas Mitchell to offer a solution to the Cube riddle. Below is a list of relevant articles to get you up to speed on recent developments.

Team cracks chapel's music 'code'; 30 Apr 07; BBC News

Da Vinci Chorus; 22 Apr 07; The Sunday Mail

Tune into the Da Vinci Coda; 27 Apr 06; The Scotsman

The Rosslyn Cipher; Aug 2006; Fortean Times

Composer Cracks Rosslyn Musical Code; 1 Oct 05; The Scotsman

Japanese bid to solve mystery of the Rosslyn cubes; 16 Jun 2002;The Scotsman

Stuart Mitchell and his father Thomas have a better solution to the Cube mystery than has ever been presented, I have noticed a few oddities about the story. The first is that we know that there is at least one cube missing in Rosslyn. The author of the Fortean Times article makes this claim quoting “Chapel Management”. When I visited the Chapel in 1999, I heard a tour guide place the number of missing or damaged cubes at four. Either: I am mistaken, I misheard the guide, my recollection is not accurate, or there were four missing cubes and now there is just one.

No matter what the number, the missing cube(s) could queer the whole decryption process. The missing piece, or pieces, could be the “key cubes” to the code. The piece of music would be incomplete without the missing cube(s). None of the articles about Mitchell even address how he overcame this obstacle. (Mitchell has a book on cracking the cube code that I have not gotten yet. This may be addressed there. Or I could have missed a reference that has explained this. If so, let me know.)

Related to the missing cube(s), is the number of cubes reported to be in the Chapel. All the news reports and articles I listed above set the total number of cubes in Rosslyn at 213. Thomas Mitchell’s web site says that he decoded 215 cubes. Out of all the references I have on Rosslyn, I cannot find an exact cube count. If anyone out there has a definitive answer to the number of cubes at Rosslyn, please let me know.

The other set of inconsistencies has to do with Matsushita Electric Works UK’s, a division of Panasonic, research into the Rosslyn Cubes. My misgivings about the Matsushita and the Mitchell situation can be found in my article Music and the Rosslyn Cubes.

Basically, the 27 Apr 06 Scotsman article Tune Into the Da Vinci Coda asserts that: “The breakthrough to interpreting the notation came when Mitchell's father discovered that the markings carved on the face of the cubes seem to match a phenomenon called Cymatics or Chladni patterns.” The Sunday Mail’s 22 Apr 07 article Da Vinci Chorus goes on to say, “Using skills learned as an RAF code-breaker during the Korean War and his lifetime knowledge of classical music, he finally realized they depicted the vibrations of musical notes. He said: "It was a Eureka moment to end all Eureka moments.”

Oddly enough, in the 16 June 2002, Scotsman article Japanese bid to solve mystery of the Rosslyn Cubes says one of the theories that Matsushita has is: “… that the notes were recorded using a brass plate covered with sand. When the brass plate was struck with a bow, it vibrated, creating a distinctive pattern of sand lines for that particular note.” This is exactly how Chladni patterns are created.

Mitchell’s father didn’t make any breakthroughs relating the Chladni patterns to do with the Cubes. The theory was in existence and in print four years before the Mitchells made the announcement they had cracked the code. To further muddy the waters, Stephen Prior was working on cracking the cube code via music as far back as 1994. So what gives? Stuart Mitchell made the comment on 30 Apr 07 to BBC, “We got clues from other books as well. Over the years this became more of an obsession than anything else and we decided we had to find out what was going on.” So how could the pair not have been aware of Matsushita’s work in 2002?

What has happened with Matsushita’s project? Their research began on the premise that music derived from the Cubes could be used to heal damaged tissue. This theory was based on Stephen Prior’s prior (sorry couldn’t resist) work. Stuart Mitchell himself thinks that playing the Motet in Rosslyn will literally unlock something in the Chapel. The big question at hand is did Matsushita’s project ever stop, or is it still on going? Furthermore is there a connection between the Mitchells and Matsushita? Alas, I have no answers for those questions.

The final oddity is one that puts me over the top with the Lone Gunmen. Stephen Prior was reported to be in the MI6. Thomas Mitchell was an RAF code breaker during the Korean War. While this truly is six degrees of separation that could link both men back to Kevin Bacon, the fact is both were part of the British Intelligence Community at one time. It’s odd how British Intelligence keeps popping up in my articles. Remember Vernon Gifkins or the decoding of the Shepherd’s Monument at Shugborough Hall being decoded by Bletchley Park? Ok, now I’m beginning to think that I should get a grip…

In closing, let me be the first to say all of this might be easily explained. I realize that I do not have all of the facts at hand; nor have I spoken with anyone involved in the project. I would welcome any rebuff from either Mitchell on some of the inconsistencies that are in print about them. Given what’s in the press, there’s just something that doesn’t feel right. Once again, I’m left with more questions than answers.