I’m sure you’ve read about Vincent’s tempestuous relationship with his brother Theo. But are you one of the few who know there was a third Van Gogh brother, Cornelis, who was raised in the Netherlands, but worked, married and died in South Africa. If you did know this, you DIDN’T know that Theo sent the painting Wheatfield with Crows to Cornelius in 1898 as a wedding gift (sadly the marriage only lasted 8 months), 8 years after it was painted, 8 sad years after the death of Van Gogh.
In 1889, at the age of 22 Cornelis came to South Africa working as an “engineer engineer, first for the Cornucopia Gold Company in Germiston and then for the Nederlandsche Zuid-Afrikaansche Spoorweg Maatskappy in Pretoria. He sided with the Boers in the Anglo-Boer War, first as a railway engineer and later as a commando in the Free State. Suffering from fever, he ended up in a hospital in Brandfort in 1900, where he committed suicide by shooting himself, as had his brother Vincent ten years before”.
The painting was lost for many years (the paintings one sees on display in museums all over the world are reasonable replica’s of the original). What HAS happened is that these pieces have surfaced from the owner (by default), who felt the work should belong to as many people as possible, not just one person.
It is a well known fact that the Bhubezi Script has been held under lock and key for centuries – it is best that way as the knowledge of Between holds too much power for those who would use it incorrectly. Every now and again a note pops up, left discarded, but somehow it makes its way to the Sof Omar caves where a little guy you would not even take notice of, carefully files them to ensure information of ANY form does not fall into the wrong hands. Its almost impossible for something to exist without EVER being detected, so occasionally, those curious enough find SOMETHING of the script.
Here are two recent examples:
“The Bhubezi Script disrupts the process of signification, logic and syntax simply because we cannot read or fathom the subtitles of its uniqueness. It cannot be read in a conventional way, for it belongs to an unconventional tribe. It appears to exist in the ghosts of forgotten, complex language constructions and structures with the focus on single glyphs yielding untold layers of meaning. A simple thicker line inflection can change the meaning on the deepest level – how I wish I could hear it spoken”. Professor Stevens (1907 – Harvard)
“We have only begun to plumb the depths of the Bhubezi Script. One of the keys to unlocking its elusiveness has been the mysterious Phaistos disk, but even with this ancient mechanism we remain uncertain of the full extent of the implications of this primal form of communication”. Professor Somaar (1978 – Department of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Cambridge)
Note found, but name cannot be disclosed as she is still employed and in danger from the Moorish Darwish:
“Three sub-disciplines of linguistics are directed towards language in action, which I believe to be a foundation of Bhubezi Script:
Pragmatics (ways in which the meaning of an utterance depends on the context of its use), Sociolinguistics (the relation between language and all aspects of society) – including how social hierarchies within the tribe mark themselves linguistically, to the dynamics of conversations and more importantly, Psycholinguistics (how language is acquired, represented and processed in the mind. I have no reason to believe that Historical linguistics applies as this is language in its purist form. It evidences no earlier constructs or forms.