Other Droeschout portraits?
Adam Selzer
portraits? We could add a lot to the "strange" argument if we knew that the
"oddities" found in his Shakespeare portrait were also found in his other
portraits, particularly those in which we can be pretty well certain that he
wasn't working with a live model.
The so-called oddities to which I refer include the notions that the portrait
has:
-two left arms
=two right eyes
-a bump on the head
-serious bags under the eyes
-illumination from a few sources of light
-the "mask" appearance
Even if they're unique, it may be a stretch to call it "strange" rather than
"somewhat flawed." Maybe he was wearing an irregular shirt bought at discount
from a tailors "bargain bin." There's no real problem if it's considered
"flawed;" I've never heard of a dust jacket photo of an author being cosidered
great art, after all.
Adam "I have two left feet, myself" Selzer
www.adamselzer.com
www.mp3.com/adamselzer
Aol Instant Messenger: SwedChefBorkBork
paul streitz
> I should already know this, but is Droeschout known to have done any other
> portraits? We could add a lot to the "strange" argument if we knew that the
> "oddities" found in his Shakespeare portrait were also found in his other
> portraits, particularly those in which we can be pretty well certain that he
> wasn't working with a live model.
Droeshout did several engravings of prominent men, including the Duke
of Buckingham and the Prince of Sweden. These were well composed
portraits, unlike the portrait of Shakespeare.
Droeschout also did cartoons or caricatures. A few examples of both
types of his engravings can be found in a book on English Engravings
available in the NY Public Library. In short, Droeshout was an
accomplished artist. Whatever faults are in the Shakespeare engraving
are deliberate, and not a result of amateur work.
paul sreitz
Neuendorffer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.comptons.com/encyclopedia/ARTICLES/0125/01492736_A.html
<<PTAH was often portrayed as: a BEARDED,
BALD male figure who wore a tight cap
and an ELABORATELY DECORATED NECKCOLLAR.>>
PTAH [patron of MASONS] was worshipped under the name PTAH-SEKER.
P(T)AH-SEKER
SHAK-(S)PERE
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* Memphis *
<<"There are few remains above ground," says Manning (The Land
of the Pharaohs), "of the splendour of ancient Memphis. The
city has utterly disappeared. If any traces yet exist, they are
buried beneath the vast mounds of crumbling bricks and broken
pottery which meet the eye in every direction. Near the village
of Mitraheny is a colossal statue of Rameses the Great. It is
apparently one of the two described by HERODOTUS and Diodorus
as standing in front of the temple of PTAH.
Said to have been founded by MENES, the first king of Egypt.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Only one person claimed that he saw John Shakspere. In the middle of
the 17th century, Archdeacon Thomas Plume of Rochester wrote down some
legends about Shakspere: 'He was a glover's son. Sir John MENNES saw
once his old father in his shop - a MERRY CHEEKT OLD MAN, that said,
"Will was a good honest fellow,
but he durst have crackt a jesst with him att any time."'
[But] John MENNES was only two-and-a-half when John Shakspere died;>>
-- _Who Wrote Shakespeare?_ by John Michell.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20010511/wl/canada_shakespeare_painting_cpt111.html
Was the first step in transforming Wriothesley:
http://www.gorki.net/Art/fa12.html
http://www.shire.net/hrflag/hw.htm
Into the DROESHOUT
HERODOTUS rustic.
http://home.att.net/~tleary/doublet.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
tigerspirit
> portraits? We could add a lot to the "strange" argument if we knew that the
> "oddities" found in his Shakespeare portrait were also found in his other
> portraits, particularly those in which we can be pretty well certain that he
> wasn't working with a live model.
> The so-called oddities to which I refer include the notions that the portrait
> has:
> -two left arms
> =two right eyes
> -a bump on the head
> -serious bags under the eyes
> -illumination from a few sources of light
> -the "mask" appearance
<snipped a bit>
> www.mp3.com/adamselzer
> Aol Instant Messenger: SwedChefBorkBork
It may be that the portrait style is partly based on a playingcard
or tarot card as I think they were at the time...the king etc. are
usually styled quite strangely aren't they...and sometimes portraits
have been painted to *be* a decorative pack of cards
(not my idea, got it from
http://www.geocities.com/sunspirit19/Kit_Marlowe_Shakespeare_portraits.html
...some of the anagrams are amusing too...
I don't know if others have also thought of this playingcard thing)
tigerspirit
David Kathman
Selzer<adam...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I should already know this, but is Droeschout known to have done any other
>portraits? We could add a lot to the "strange" argument if we knew that the
>"oddities" found in his Shakespeare portrait were also found in his other
>portraits, particularly those in which we can be pretty well certain that he
>wasn't working with a live model.
Droeshout did do other engravings, but unfortunately I don't
have access to any of them at the moment. There's a list
in A. M. Hind's article "The Droeshout Family" in
*Engraving in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth
Centuries*, v.2, pp. 341-66. As I just noted in a related
thread, the Martin Droeshout who did the Shakespeare
engraving was not the man born in 1601, but that man's
uncle, born in the 1560s and active until 1641.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Ian Haste
At the 5th annual de Vere Conference in Portland, Or. last April, Dr Paul
Altrocchi gave a presentation which considered the Droeshout engraving. As
an assignment to his students he asked them to find errors in the engraving.
They came up with a list of 25 errors which I reproduce below:
A. Deliberately Erroneous General Features.
1. Head disproportinately large for size of body.
2. Head positioned too far forward of neck and torso.
3. Neck too long.
4. Proximal arms too large for too small thorax.
B. Deliberately Erroneous Head Features.
1. High, bulging forehead.
2. Two right eyes.
3. Asymmetrical positioning of occular orbits.
4. Difference in size of eyes.
5. Asymmetrical haircut.
6. Unusual lateral protrusion of lower hair on Shaksper's left.
7. Left ear backward.
8. Left ear misshapen.
9. Mouth and chin angled to left.
10. Mustache doesn't move to left with lips.
11. Abnormal shape of upper lip.
12. Curious beard.
13. Evidence of a wig.
C. Deliberately Erroneous Neck Features.
1. Dark line of a mask.
2. Asymmetrical ruff design.
3. Backward right side of doublet.
4. All buttons point in wrong direction.
There are several other Droeshout works, all considered works of art and
none showing any of these deliberately drawn errors such as above. The
conclusion was that the Droeshout engraving was to point out that
"Shakesper" was not the author of the plays and poems, but someone else was.
It being the de Vere Studies Conference at Portland there was much other
evidence in those four days to overwhelmingly convince that Edward de Vere,
17th Earl of Oxford was the real author of the Shakespeare canon.
...Ian.
Bob Grumman
So, the wack professor has well-trained students, so what?
> There are several other Droeshout works, all considered works of art and
> none showing any of these deliberately drawn errors such as above.
Put another engraving of his on the net and I guarantee I'll be
able to find 25 or more "errors" in it.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
John W. Kennedy
> At the 5th annual de Vere Conference in Portland, Or. last April, Dr Paul
> Altrocchi gave a presentation which considered the Droeshout engraving. As
> an assignment to his students he asked them to find errors in the engraving.
> They came up with a list of 25 errors which I reproduce below:
> A. Deliberately Erroneous General Features.
Is it not a remarkable achievement to start lying even before the first
issue of fact is raised?
--
John W. Kennedy
"Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays"
-- Charles Williams
Paul Crowley
> Ian Haste wrote:
> > At the 5th annual de Vere Conference in Portland, Or. last April, Dr Paul
> > Altrocchi gave a presentation which considered the Droeshout engraving. As
> > an assignment to his students he asked them to find errors in the engraving.
> > They came up with a list of 25 errors which I reproduce below:
> > A. Deliberately Erroneous General Features.
>
> Is it not a remarkable achievement to start lying even before the first
> issue of fact is raised?
Thanks for pointing out all errors though.
It's the factual basis of arguments that
make them so powerful. I'd never have
realised just how wrong that list was
without your detailed corrections.
Paul.
--
Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)
Bob Grumman
> > > At the 5th annual de Vere Conference in Portland, Or. last April, Dr Paul
> > > Altrocchi gave a presentation which considered the Droeshout engraving. As
> > > an assignment to his students he asked them to find errors in the engraving.
> > > They came up with a list of 25 errors which I reproduce below:
> > > A. Deliberately Erroneous General Features.
> >
> > Is it not a remarkable achievement to start lying even before the first
> > issue of fact is raised?
>
> Thanks for pointing out all errors though.
> It's the factual basis of arguments that
> make them so powerful. I'd never have
> realised just how wrong that list was
> without your detailed corrections.
Hey, it took me a while, but I catched the irony, Paul
Now for a different kind of humor, picture all them hoaxster boys
getting together with Droeshout and deciding exactly how many
errors he should put in his portrait of Shakespeare to make sure
that everybody who knew he wasn't the author could laugh but
no one who didn't know he wasn't the author would know until
the reason the identity of The True Author, now dead for 19 years,
couldn't be revealed was no longer a factor.
Lord Chester: Hey, Marty, give the--har har--give the f**ker two
mouths! Hawahwah.
Lord Bester: No, no, no, you idiot! That's just the sort of thing
that my groom Rupert would catch!
Lord Wester: True, but we do need something more. Marty's only
put 23 clues in so far. Posterity could be REALLY stupit, you know.
Marty: I could cross his eyes. They all laugh except Lord Bester.
Lord Bester: Jesus, you guys! This is serious!
Marty: Okay, okay, how about a lump somewhere on his nose. I
could make it look like I didn't know what I was doing, easy.
And I could give him a bald head.
Lord Wester: He HAD a bald head, you dolt!
Marty: Oh, yeah.
Lord Fester: I don't know why we're doing this, anyway. Benny's
poem should be enough to tell everybody The Truth without letting
anybody else find out till the Ogburn/Crowley Era. Why
the damned picture?
Lord Wester, impatiently: Because, like I told you before, to
let the people who aren't sharp in the semantics department
SEE The Truth--except, of course, if they aren't supposed to.
Marty: Aha, I have it! I'll have half his buttons facing the
wrong way!
Lord Wester: Damn, Marty, you're a genius!
Lord Bester: Yeah, it IS good--but have 'em ALL face the wrong way;
half of 'em going one way and the other half going the other might
be suspicious.
Etc.
Adam Selzer
start the morning.
In article <2de05d1d7ad18e543b8...@mygate.mailgate.org>, Bob
Grumman says...
Paul Crowley
> Now for a different kind of humor, picture all them hoaxster boys
> getting together with Droeshout and deciding exactly how many
> errors he should put in his portrait of Shakespeare to make sure
> that everybody who knew he wasn't the author could laugh but
> no one who didn't know he wasn't the author would know until
> the reason the identity of The True Author, now dead for 19 years,
> couldn't be revealed was no longer a factor.
>
> Lord Chester: Hey, Marty, give the--har har--give the f**ker two
> mouths! Hawahwah.
>
> Lord Bester: No, no, no, you idiot! That's just the sort of thing
> that my groom Rupert would catch!
>
> Lord Wester: True, but we do need something more. Marty's only
> put 23 clues in so far. Posterity could be REALLY stupit, you know.
>
> Marty: I could cross his eyes. They all laugh except Lord Bester.
>
> Lord Bester: Jesus, you guys! This is serious!
Basically, Bob, I don't think you're too far wrong.
But first go back a stage to when they decided
on a portrait.
Ben Jonson (the editor): "It's nearly finished;
I've got all the dedicatory poems set. There's
not a word about Oxford anywhere. But it's
a scandal. I can see everyone in the future
believing that the Stratford shit wrote it all."
Pembroke: "We know, old boy; it's terrible but
it's what we've been told to do. We want to get
these plays published, and they won't get out
with any pointer to Oxford."
Ben Jonson: "The printer says we should put
a portrait of the author on the front. But there
is no way I'm having a picture of that illiterate
clown anywhere near it."
Montgomery: "I agree. But here's an idea.
Let's make up a fake picture -- a kind of cartoon
of a person who could never have existed in
reality. It won't point to Oxford, but it will tell
anyone with eyes to see, that the name on the
front is a fraud -- or a pseudonym."
Pembroke: "That's a great idea. We can use
one of the templates for Queen Bess, making
it into a man, and distorting everything. She
and he were as thick as thieves, and nothing
would ever have been written without her
encouragement and her personal backing.
Having her on the front, especially in a
disguised form, would be poetic justice."
Bob Grumman
news:xYsZ7.23686$8s4.1...@news.indigo.ie...
> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message news:2de05d1d7ad18e543b8...@mygate.mailgate.org...
>
> > Now for a different kind of humor, picture all them hoaxster boys
> > getting together with Droeshout and deciding exactly how many
> > errors he should put in his portrait of Shakespeare to make sure
> > that everybody who knew he wasn't the author could laugh but
> > no one who didn't know he wasn't the author would know until
> > the reason the identity of The True Author, now dead for 19 years,
> > couldn't be revealed was no longer a factor.
> >
> > Lord Chester: Hey, Marty, give the--har har--give the f**ker two
> > mouths! Hawahwah.
> >
> > Lord Bester: No, no, no, you idiot! That's just the sort of thing
> > that my groom Rupert would catch!
> >
> > Lord Wester: True, but we do need something more. Marty's only
> > put 23 clues in so far. Posterity could be REALLY stupit, you know.
> >
> > Marty: I could cross his eyes. They all laugh except Lord Bester.
> >
> > Lord Bester: Jesus, you guys! This is serious!
>
> Basically, Bob, I don't think you're too far wrong.
> But first go back a stage to when they decided
> on a portrait.
>
> Ben Jonson (the editor): "It's nearly finished;
> I've got all the dedicatory poems set. There's
> not a word about Oxford anywhere. But it's
> a scandal. I can see everyone in the future
> believing that the Stratford shit wrote it all."
(After all the lies Jonson wrote???)
> Pembroke: "We know, old boy; it's terrible but
> it's what we've been told to do. We want to get
> these plays published, and they won't get out
> with any pointer to Oxford."
>
> Ben Jonson: "The printer says we should put
> a portrait of the author on the front. But there
> is no way I'm having a picture of that illiterate
> clown anywhere near it."
>
> Montgomery: "I agree. But here's an idea.
> Let's make up a fake picture -- a kind of cartoon
> of a person who could never have existed in
> reality. It won't point to Oxford, but it will tell
> anyone with eyes to see, that the name on the
> front is a fraud -- or a pseudonym."
> Pembroke: "That's a great idea. We can use
> one of the templates for Queen Bess, making
> it into a man, and distorting everything. She
> and he were as thick as thieves, and nothing
> would ever have been written without her
> encouragement and her personal backing.
> Having her on the front, especially in a
> disguised form, would be poetic justice."
Pretty funny, Paul, but I think mine's funnier.
Here's an addition to yours that might help:
LORD BESTER: But, but, fellas! If it don't look
like the guy we're sayin' wrote the plays, won't
people say somethin'? And won't those who the picture
says Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare to maybe start nosin'
around and find out . . . The Truth? And that would be
horrible, wouldn't it? Though I forget jus' why, Him
bein' dead an' all, these long years.
paul streitz
This is a very interesting finding. Hope it can be confirmed. The
idea that a twenty year old did the engraving always struck me as odd,
but I let it pass.
That leads one to several conclusions, if Droeshout was an
experienced, competent engraver who had been a contemporary of
Shakspere/Shakespeare. One can only speculate whether Droeshout ever
met the illustrious man from Stratford, but given Shakspere's
prominence in London society according to Stratfordians, it seems very
likely.
1. Shakespeare/Shakspere had a very odd appearance for a human being.
2. Droeshout was drinking the night he did the engraving.
3. The engraving is a deliberate distortion to indicate it does not
represent any actual human being.
paul streitz
KQKnave
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) writes:
>1. Shakespeare/Shakspere had a very odd appearance for a human being.
He doesn't look odd to me, nor to many others. In fact he looks
pretty much what I would expect him to look like. This objection is just
an invention of ant-Stratfordians.
>2. Droeshout was drinking the night he did the engraving.
>3. The engraving is a deliberate distortion to indicate it does not
>represent any actual human being.
>
4. The engraving is simply an accurate portrayal of Shakespeare's
face, with the rest of the details stylized in a manner consistent
with Droeshout's other work.
Agent Jim
Neuendorffer
>
> >1. Shakespeare/Shakspere had a very odd appearance for a human being.
KQKnave wrote:
> He doesn't look odd to me, nor to many others. In fact he looks
> pretty much what I would expect him to look like. This objection
> is just an invention of ant-Stratfordians.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wilson wrote:
<< The Droeshout engraving. The Droeshout is
THE standard portrait of Shakespeare. Apparently the
painter Gainsborough said: "Damn the original portrait. I never
saw a stupider face. It is impossible that such a mind and such a
rare talent should shine with such a face and such a pair of eyes."
Ivor Brown and J. Dover Wilson (mid-20th c. scholars Thomas) both
have similar laments. Prof. Schoenbaum says:
"Droeshout's deficiencies are, alas, only too gross."
Lord Brain, Head of the Royal College of Physicians (1945), commented
that the subject had been given two right eyes. "Gentleman's Tailor"
(1911)
commented that the tunic "is so strangely illustrated that the
right-hand
side of the forepart is obviously the left-hand side of the back part
and so gives a harlequin appearance to the figure which it is not
unnatural to suppose was intentional, and done with *express object and
purpose.*" C. Ogburn adds the highlighted line from "unreal ear to chin
paralleling the line of the cheek. It corresponds to no lineament of
the human face..." He reasonably asks: "What can the line represent ?"
< howling in the distance... an approaching roar... flames erupting...>
".. but the edge of a mask...">>
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Larque wrote:
<< In fact Schoenbaum has saved me the trouble of making my main
point on all this anti-Stratfordian drivel. Schoenbaum does not like
the
picture, but for some strange reason he seems to think that this might
just be the fault of the artist rather than evidence that the subject
did
not exist.
Here is Schoenbaum's view on why the portrait is (in Schoenbaum's
opinion) not a good one.
"The title page features a portrait of the author signed by the
engraver,
Martin Droeshout ... Martin was only 15 when Shakespeare died and 22
when
the Folio appeared; hardly very experienced in his craft". Perhaps he
got the job, Schoenbaum suggests, because he was cheap. Schoenbaum also
points out that there have been admirers of the picture, Dr. Rowse for
example, said "What a powerful impression it gives, that searching look
of the eyes understanding everything, what a forehead, what a brain!".
Dr. Rowse's opinion is only his opinion, but since Peter's entire
posting
on this subject is based on random opinions it seems appropriate to
include it here.
Schoenbaum does indeed mention Droeshout's deficiencies - but notice
that
he means deficiencies in the portrait and not, as Peter Wilson bizarrely
seems to suggest, an incredably subtle code for the non-existence of the
engraved man. Schoenbaum dislikes, "The huge head on a plate of a ruff
surmounts a disproportionately small doublet. One eye is lower and
larger than the other, the hair does not balance at the sides, light
comes from several directions. It is unlikely that Droueshout ever
sketched Shakespeare from the life" - which goes without saying, since
by
the time Martin Droeshout received the commission William Shakespeare
had
been dead for 7 years.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.historynet.com/BritishHeritage/articles/1998/05982_cover.htm
Droeshout Portrait
<<Among the oddities that have been cited in support of revisionist
theories is the design of the figure's shirt, which appears to have two
left sleeves. On the other hand, one anatomist has claimed that the face
has two right eyes. Further, the hair on one side of the head is longer
than the other. Exactly how any of these anomalies are meant to indicate
that Shakespeare of Stratford is not the true author is left vague. More
comprehensible, at least, is the theory that the dark line running from
the chin to the ear depicts not the edge of the jaw, but the edge of a
mask, behind which lies the true author's face. Other theorists argue
that the face itself is evidence that this man could not have been a
great writer. The painter Gainsborough, for example, said without
qualification that 'I never saw a stupider face. It is impossible that
such a mind and such a rare talent should shine with such a face and
such a pair of eyes.'>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) writes:
>
> >3. The engraving is a deliberate distortion to indicate it does not
> >represent any actual human being.
KQKnave wrote:
> 4. The engraving is simply an accurate portrayal of Shakespeare's
> face, with the rest of the details stylized in a manner consistent
> with Droeshout's other work.
Droeshout 'the elder' or Droeshout 'the younger?'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Neuendorffer
>
> >1. Shakespeare/Shakspere had a very odd appearance for a human being.
KQKnave wrote:
> He doesn't look odd to me, nor to many others. In fact he looks
> pretty much what I would expect him to look like. This objection
> is just an invention of ant-Stratfordians.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Wilson wrote:
Droeshout Portrait
> >3. The engraving is a deliberate distortion to indicate
> > it does not represent any actual human being.
KQKnave wrote:
> 4. The engraving is simply an accurate portrayal of Shakespeare's
> face, with the rest of the details stylized in a manner consistent
> with Droeshout's other work.
Droeshout 'the elder' or Droeshout 'the younger?'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Paul Crowley
[..]
> > Ben Jonson: "The printer says we should put
> > a portrait of the author on the front. But there
> > is no way I'm having a picture of that illiterate
> > clown anywhere near it."
> >
> > Montgomery: "I agree. But here's an idea.
> > Let's make up a fake picture -- a kind of cartoon
> > of a person who could never have existed in
> > reality. It won't point to Oxford, but it will tell
> > anyone with eyes to see, that the name on the
> > front is a fraud -- or a pseudonym."
>
> > Pembroke: "That's a great idea. We can use
> > one of the templates for Queen Bess, making
> > it into a man, and distorting everything. She
> > and he were as thick as thieves, and nothing
> > would ever have been written without her
> > encouragement and her personal backing.
> > Having her on the front, especially in a
> > disguised form, would be poetic justice."
> LORD BESTER: But, but, fellas! If it don't look
> like the guy we're sayin' wrote the plays, won't
> people say somethin'? And won't those who the picture
> says Shakespeare wasn't Shakespeare to maybe start nosin'
> around and find out . . . The Truth? And that would be
> horrible, wouldn't it? Though I forget jus' why, Him
> bein' dead an' all, these long years.
MONTY: What ails you Bestie? Scarce a
soul in London ever met ye Stratman. And
the few who had the uncertain pleasure of
his companionship, soon discovered him
to he no more than a mean, grasping,
unschooled churl.
Bob Grumman
> unschooled churl (but loyal to Oxie till the end).
ALGERNON: Besides, dear boy, we put a monument up
with a fake head in the churl's hometown, and no one
said a thing! And we even called the churl a writer,
now on Olympus, who had the art of Virgil! The rubes
will swallow anything!
enough. --Bob G.
>
>
> Paul.
> --
> Email: pebj...@ubgznvy.pbz (apply ROT13)