The Chepstow crop circle riveted my attention because my great ancestor (mother’s side), Hugh Calkins, departed Chepstow for America with the Free Welsh Company in 1640, ultimately, settling in Norwich, Connecticut.  For me, Chepstow represents a transition or “jumping off point;” the point at which ignorant but hopeful, intrepid souls ventured out across the watery abyss to exchange familiar surroundings for unfamiliar challenges on civilization’s western frontier. 

Like the settlers from Plymouth, the illustrious Pilgrims of Mayflower fame, the Free Welsh Company survived because they stood by and supported one another in the face of adversity.  Unlike the Mayflower Pilgrims, they came free of puritanical baggage; they were open-minded and their objectives secular, though I would be surprised if they did not repose strong faith in God, whom they trusted to deliver them through the dangerous ocean crossing. 

Of what possible significance could this be to the recent crop circle that was, evidently, laid down on 22 April, “Good Friday?” 

First, I am certainly not the first to remark on the significance of site in crop circle interpretation.  The circle-makers seem to delight in puzzles and their works are often subject to interpretation on multiple levels (as if to extend puzzle-solving opportunities to a variety of intelligences; furthermore, their creations are open and accessible to all, free from outside influence or distortion; in this regard, they strike me as “small ‘d’ democrats; but I digress).  What about Chepstow? 

To begin, one is immediately struck by the relationship of the Chepstow circle to the M48, a nearby “industrial park”, and the Severn Road Bridge, which links Wales and England, beyond.  A quick investigation of the industrial park was, for me, eye-opening because the Maybey Bridge company is located there.  Maybey Bridge is a builder of bridging solutions, among other things; they also produce wind turbines and have been involved in a recent international bribery scandal. 

The confluence is remarkable, I think, for in this one company one finds a combination of things that are good, even noble, and worthy of emulation though secular – “building bridges,” a phrase that says it all (though fabrication of non-polluting renewable energy sources is perhaps more critical in this day and age) – and other things that are deeply flawed, self-serving and to be avoided.  If the circle-makers wished to draw attention to the duality of human nature – noble, yet flawed, able to bridge troubled waters, yet risking failure through pig-headed self-interest – they could not have chosen better. 

Consider, will humanity survive 2012; will we bridge across the troubled waters that lie ahead?  “Maybey, yes; Maybey, no!”  This might be coincidental; but I doubt it.  Furthermore, the yellow coloration of the crop is indicative of danger or warning . . . and if the plant is oil seed rape, as it appears to be, then the authenticity of the warning is beyond doubt. 

Is there anything in the crop circle, itself, that suggests duality?  Well, I could not help noticing two Latin crosses in a wheel-like formation (near the M48!) one upon the other; but the arms of just one are contained in perfect circles; as if to suggest that Christianity is, itself, flawed?  Are Christian precepts right insofar as they align with cardinal virtues (universal and transcendent), which provide a true moral compass?  Admittedly, it’s a stretch.  But I think this interpretation is not absurd because, should the minds-eye remove the cross that does not terminate in perfect circles, one is left with the ancient symbol for Earth, which pagan Gaia-worshippers found all-important—cardinal points for a moral compass, indeed! 

Finally, I note that Heinrich-der Gluckliche sees a G with a fish swimming into it; except, the G appears, evidently, only if the image is reversed, which he has done for us in his illustration.  And this, I think, is truly remarkable for the symbol of the fish is ancient in Christianity and the G might well stand for God (as Freemasons would have it); except, there is no G, “no God,” unless the image is reversed!  Yet, the fish swims in either way!  To my mind, the inference is that the G stands not for God, per se, but for Gnosis (divine knowledge within), the practitioners of which believe that God is not something external to the human condition, but within; to be revealed by rigorous application of creative and intelligent thought to encountered enigmas; in a phrase, “experiential wisdom.” 

To the Gnostic, faith is tantamount to ignorance for it accepts rather than inquires.  (How very unlike the circle-makers, who seem to delight in puzzles!)  Gnostic truth-seeking, which is guided by creative, rational processes of mind, organic to our species, looks inward for God, which is divine wisdom, lies within us . . . and being human, it seems that our DNA — divine code of life — has a dual nature, both good and bad!  Whether or not this is the message of Chepstow 2011, I cannot help but think this line of inquiry should be further pursued.