4029 replies to this topic

[Knul]

Abramelin, on 13 July 2012 - 09:26 PM, said:

After reading that library of Cornelis Over de Linden, I had some thoughts.

The guy was obviously no idiot. He was a freethinker. He was an auto-didact, and a clever one.  He wrote many unpublished philosophical treatises on philosophy and Freemasonry, in which he railed against church and science. He had travelled the world, learned many languages, was interested in philosophy, hated Christianity, was knowledgable concerning ancient (Roman, Greek, Frisian, Dutch, world) history, loved the French Revolution,  was fanatically attracted to anything Old Frisian, thought he descended from some great and famous ancient Frisian family, knew a lot about ships and ship building, visited the OLB "Finda" lands (India, Indonesia, China), travelled to South Africa (Lyda country).....

He was a Frisian rebel, and he read anything that was able to fuel his Frisian patriotism.

Think about that.

.

However, it was Ernest Stadermann the revolutionary intellectual polyglot, who himself was member of the Masonry and who introduced Over de Linden, who bought books for him, who exploited Over de Lindens supposed Frisian origin and who came with a plan to make money of a manuscript, who knew about printing, binding and paper quality. When Stadermann died Cornelis over de Linden went on with it, but he dit not manage to publish the manuscript, which he did not understand, etc. Stadermann has been the genius after the OBL, not Cornelis over de Linden. His influence on Cornelis over de Linden has generally been acknowledged. It has been Gerrit Jansen, head master of a school in Den Helder, who was the first to mention Stadermann as the author of the OLB.

Edited by Knul, 14 July 2012 - 12:19 AM.

[Otharus]

Knul, on 14 July 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

However,
1) Ernest Stadermann [was a] revolutionary intellectual polyglot,
2) who himself was member of the Masonry and
3) who introduced Over de Linden,
4) who bought books for him,
5) who exploited Over de Lindens supposed Frisian origin and
6) who came with a plan to make money of a manuscript,
7) who knew about printing, binding and paper quality.
8) When Stadermann died Cornelis over de Linden went on with it, but he dit not manage to publish the manuscript, which he did not understand, etc.
9) Stadermann has been the genius after the OBL, not Cornelis over de Linden.
10) His influence on Cornelis over de Linden has generally been acknowledged.
11) It has been Gerrit Jansen, head master of a school in Den Helder, who was the first to mention Stadermann as the author of the OLB.

That were many claims, therefore I have numbered them.

Claims 1), 7) and 11) may be true.
The rest is speculation, unless new sources were discovered.
If that is so, please name your sources, Menno.

[Van Gorp]

Hi Guys,

Was just visiting after some time the OLB version on Angelfire.
Seemingly sponsored by Ordo Anno Mundi? :-) Did not notice those links previously, is that quite recent?

[Otharus]

Van Gorp, on 16 July 2012 - 07:06 PM, said:

... Ordo Anno Mundi?

That organisation does not exist.
It is made up by Tony Steele.
Just like "Daughters of Frya".

[Van Gorp]

Otharus, on 16 July 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:

That organisation does not exist.
It is made up by Tony Steele.
Just like "Daughters of Frya".

Ok, thanks Otharus.
Meaning that the Oera Linda text on Angelfire is published by him also?

[Knul]

Otharus, on 16 July 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

That were many claims, therefore I have numbered them.

Claims 1), 7) and 11) may be true.
The rest is speculation, unless new sources were discovered.
If that is so, please name your sources, Menno.

1) Ernest Stadermann [was a] revolutionary intellectual polyglot, s. Weiding prozess
2) who himself was member of the Masonry and s. Wumkes Frijtmitselderij en Oera-Linda-Boek p.9
3) who introduced Over de Linden, id.
4) who bought books for him, s. http://www.dbnl.org/...01187801_01.pdf
5) who exploited Over de Lindens supposed Frisian origin and  s. http://www.dtekst/_g..._01.pdfbnl.org/
6) who came with a plan to make money of a manuscript, Layout of OLB shows medieval block-book. Over de LInden did not know about it.
7) who knew about printing, binding and paper quality. Stadermann was a professional bookbinder-bookrestorer
8) When Stadermann died Cornelis over de Linden went on with it, but he dit not manage to publish the manuscript, which he did not understand, etc.  Stadermann died 13 april 1867, Cornelis over de Linden contacted Siderius in May/June for publication/translation.
9) Stadermann has been the genius after the OBL, not Cornelis over de Linden. Obvious conclusion.
10) His influence on Cornelis over de Linden has generally been acknowledged. s. http://www.dtekst/_g..._01.pdfbnl.org/
11) It has been Gerrit Jansen, head master of a school in Den Helder, who was the first to mention Stadermann as the author of the OLB.

I have asked you several times, why Over de Linden did not mention Stadermann in his letters to Ottema nor in his testament. A next question is, why Over de Linden tried to sell the manuscript, which he regarded as a family treasure. A following question is, why Over de Linden did not mention the lost chapter and pages to Ottema.

[Otharus]

Knul, on 16 July 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

2) who himself was member of the Masonry and s. Wumkes Frijtmitselderij en Oera-Linda-Boek p.9
3) who introduced Over de Linden, id.

I read page 8 to 11 (in Frisian) but your claim is not confirmed. (Perhaps you misinterpreted "freon"; it means friend.)

Quote

4) who bought books for him, s. http://www.dbnl.org/...01187801_01.pdf
5) who exploited Over de Lindens supposed Frisian origin and  s. http://www.dtekst/_g..._01.pdfbnl.org/
10) His influence on Cornelis over de Linden has generally been acknowledged. s. http://www.dtekst/_g..._01.pdfbnl.org/

This is what your source says about Stadermann:

"... Ernst Stadermann, een vriend van C.O. d. L., die zeer veel wist van de oude schrijvers, den man, die bij Bom te Amsterdam veel boeken kocht en aan wien dus C.O. d. L. menige inlichting en mededeeling kan te danken gehad hebben."

and

"... eene andere vraag is het echter, of hij misschien helpers gehad heeft en wellicht, behalve E. Staderman, die ter ziele is en zich dus niet meer verantwoorden kan, de schrijver der bovengenoemde artikelen..."

Source does not confirm your claims.

Quote

6) who came with a plan to make money of a manuscript, Layout of OLB shows medieval block-book. Over de LInden did not know about it.

Huh?! Please explain.

Quote

8) When Stadermann died Cornelis over de Linden went on with it, but he dit not manage to publish the manuscript, which he did not understand, etc.  Stadermann died 13 april 1867, Cornelis over de Linden contacted Siderius in May/June for publication/translation.

Your conclusion is just a guess. The fact that OL went looking for help with the translation shortly after Stadermann died can be a coincidence, or maybe he had hoped that Stadermann could help him with the translation, or maybe he was reminded of his own mortality and wanted a translation before he died.

Quote

9) Stadermann has been the genius after the OBL, not Cornelis over de Linden. Obvious conclusion.

Conclusion based on what facts?

Quote

I have asked you several times, why Over de Linden did not mention Stadermann in his letters to Ottema nor in his testament.

My answer was and is: because it was irrelevant. They were neighbors for one year only in the 1840s, and according to OL's son they were not that close at all. In 1845 Stadermann and Munnik joined OL on his trip to Enkhuizen, when he tried to obtain the manuscript from his family. That is the only relation between S. and the OLB that we know.

Quote

A next question is, why Over de Linden tried to sell the manuscript, which he regarded as a family treasure.

In one of his last letters to Ottema, he wrote that he had received an offer, but he did not sell it. This was probably an excuse because he wanted Ottema to return the part that he still had in his possession.

Quote

A following question is, why Over de Linden did not mention the lost chapter and pages to Ottema.

I don't know.

[Otharus]

If Stadermann (or anyone else) really would have had the knowledge and talent to write the OLB, he could much more easily have written something that would have made him rich and famous (and thus, influential).

[Knul]

Otharus, on 17 July 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

If Stadermann (or anyone else) really would have had the knowledge and talent to write the OLB, he could much more easily have written something that would have made him rich and famous (and thus, influential).

Stadermann did not write the OLB. Dr. J.H. Halbertsma wrote the original text. Stadermann made the transcription in Juulscript so that it would look like a mediaeval incunabel book. His transcription is full of mistakes, because he did not know Oldfrisian grammar. The lost chapter and pages must have been in his possession when he died, probably still browning in an eel smokery in Den Helder or in Enkhuizen. It is not clear, if he found the manuscript in Amsterdam or if Halbertsma looked for a publisher outside of Frisia like the then famous publisher Over de Linden in Enkhuizen.

[Knul]

Otharus, on 17 July 2012 - 05:53 AM, said:

In one of his last letters to Ottema, he wrote that he had received an offer, but he did not sell it. This was probably an excuse because he wanted Ottema to return the part that he still had in his possession.

This is not true. He discussed the sale with Ottema, who advised him.

[Otharus]

Knul, on 17 July 2012 - 04:53 PM, said:

Dr. J.H. Halbertsma wrote the original text.

That is your theory, not fact.

[Otharus]

Knul, on 17 July 2012 - 04:56 PM, said:

This is not true.

What is not true?

I have a copy of the letter at home.
Will check next week.

[Otharus]

"Klankleer en Vormleer in het OLB" (phonology and morphology in the OLB) masters thesis (2000) by V. vd Bossche (Univ. Leuven)

Fragment p.5, with translation:

"... in het midden van de twintigste eeuw [werd] het papier, de inkt en de binding onderzocht. Het resultaat van dit onderzoek was eensluidend: Thet Oera Linda Boek kon geen vervalsing zijn. Toch vallen de voorstanders van de echtheid na dit onderzoek stil. In de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw zijn enkel nog stemmen te horen die de onechtheid van het boek onderstrepen."

"... in the mid-20th century, paper, ink and binding were investigated. The result of this research was unambiguous: The OLB could not be a forgery. Yet the proponents of its authenticity stay silent after this. In the 2nd half of the 20th century only voices are heard that claim it's a hoax."

Unfortunately, vd Bossche does not give sources for this mid-20th C. investigation.
I don't know what he was referring to.

[Knul]

Otharus, on 20 July 2012 - 03:35 PM, said:

"Klankleer en Vormleer in het OLB" (phonology and morphology in the OLB) masters thesis (2000) by V. vd Bossche (Univ. Leuven)

Fragment p.5, with translation:

"... in het midden van de twintigste eeuw [werd] het papier, de inkt en de binding onderzocht. Het resultaat van dit onderzoek was eensluidend: Thet Oera Linda Boek kon geen vervalsing zijn. Toch vallen de voorstanders van de echtheid na dit onderzoek stil. In de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw zijn enkel nog stemmen te horen die de onechtheid van het boek onderstrepen."

"... in the mid-20th century, paper, ink and binding were investigated. The result of this research was unambiguous: The OLB could not be a forgery. Yet the proponents of its authenticity stay silent after this. In the 2nd half of the 20th century only voices are heard that claim it's a hoax."

Unfortunately, vd Bossche does not give sources for this mid-20th C. investigation.
I don't know what he was referring to.

Here you find a citation:
http://www.nederland...ugent.be/file/9
I have contacted v.d. Bossche by mail to find out about his article.

[Knul]

Knul, on 22 July 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

Here you find a citation:
http://www.nederland...ugent.be/file/9
I have contacted v.d. Bossche by mail to find out about his article.

He has his holidays now. Returns August, 7th.