the man behind the mask (a brief pictorial essay)
lowercase dave
following link would be roughly equivalent to a two-thousand word
essay on the genius behind the Folio plays. See what I mean
<http://www.marlovian.com/images/manbehind.html>
david more
<http://www.marlovian.com>
Paul Crowley
news:545b95a7.03051...@posting.google.com...
> at the rate of 1 picture equalling one-thousand words, the image at
> following link would be roughly equivalent to a two-thousand word
> essay on the genius behind the Folio plays. See what I mean
> <http://www.marlovian.com/images/manbehind.html>
Well, both pictures show a moustache.
I suppose that's about as good a case as
Marlites will ever have.
Paul.
Bob Grumman
useful, as I was not aware of the new revised version of Nicholl's book. (Young
Kit, if that's him behind the Droeshout, don't look nothin' like old Will,
though.)
I took this gem from the newspaper article by Nicoll about his book that Dave
quotes:
"The moral, of course, is that the case is never closed, and whenever I start to
feel that yes, this time I've got it right, I mutter to myself the name of
Francis Archer. A hundred years ago it was firmly believed that it was he who
killed Marlowe. The curious thing about Francis Archer is that he never really
existed. He is a figment, a documentary poltergeist: the man who wasn't there.
He was formed out of a clerical error which is almost a brilliant chess-move of
misinformation. When Marlowe was buried in St Nicholas's churchyard in Deptford
on June 1 1593, the vicar recorded in the register that he had been 'slaine by
Francis Frezer'. This error - Francis instead of Ingram - was then compounded in
the early 19th century by another Deptford vicar, who transcribed the
Elizabethan entry in response to a scholar's inquiry, and misread 'Frezer' as
'Archer'."
And so many are perturbed about things like "Shaxberd," and "SIEH."
--Bob G.
lowercase dave
;-)
You're right about the moustache, of course, but those are CM's eyes
behind the mask. I did it as a mouseover experiment with Photoshop.
<http://www.marlovian.com/images/manbehind.html>
dave
Marlowe Lives!
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html>
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> wrote in message news:<0gUwa.13528$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>...
Elizabeth Weir
If only you had evidence.
Elizabeth Weir
> ;-)
> You're right about the moustache, of course, but those are CM's eyes
> behind the mask. I did it as a mouseover experiment with Photoshop.
> <http://www.marlovian.com/images/manbehind.html>
>
> dave
I like the graphics. Nice effect. Now lets see some
empirical evidence of Marlowe's authorship.
lowercase dave
> If only you had evidence.
LOL
that really made me laugh ...at 5 a.m.
thanks. Glad you liked the graphic effect as well
<http://www.marlovian.com/images/manbehind.html>.
evidence? by all means, where shall we begin?
i've been trying to work out FB's relationship with CM. No doubt he
had "a hand" in the Folio (1623), and may have recommended CM's
banishment to Essex, his protege at the time (1593) ... and much more
in between, but before we get into that ...
1. do you accept the general finding of the inquest? i.e. the cm was
killed by Frizer?
2. do you think Bacon wrote V&A and Rape of Lucrece? (if so, your
evidence for that is what?)
david more
lyra
> lowercase dave wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03051...@posting.google.com>...
I thought using Photoshop was
a way of *removing* "red-eye", a well-known effect
in photos??? not of adding it... <grin>
The picture with red eyes looks rather Satanic
than anything else,
mixed with witless...
sort of like *Zoltan, Hound of Satan*,
after being made harmless...
the Kit picture beneath reminds me
of how I always think the collar is a
paper cut-out, stuck on...
maybe this was typical of the era.
* * * * * *
"speed bonny boat, like a bird on the wing"
lyra
Gary Kosinsky
wrote:
> The picture with red eyes looks rather Satanic
> than anything else,
> mixed with witless...
I thought he looked like he was coming off a long night at the
Mermaid.
- Gary Kosinsky
lyra
> Elizabeth Weir wrote in message
news:<efbc3534.03051...@posting.google.com>...
> > lowercase dave wrote in message news:<545b95a7.03051...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > > Thanks for the feedback, Paul...You made my blog today because of it.
> > > ;-)
> > > You're right about the moustache, of course, but those are CM's eyes
> > > behind the mask. I did it as a mouseover experiment with Photoshop.
> > > <http://www.marlovian.com/images/manbehind.html>
> > >
> > > dave
> >
> > I like the graphics. Nice effect. Now lets see some
> > empirical evidence of Marlowe's authorship.
> I thought using Photoshop was
> a way of *removing* "red-eye", a well-known effect
> in photos??? not of adding it... <grin>
I've just found another meaning of the
red eye...
(Aldebaran is near the Eclipse this month.)
(quote)
http://users.macunlimited.net/ianrid/startales/taurus
Taurus
The bull
Taurus is a distinctive constellation, with star-tipped horns and a
head defined by a V-shaped group of stars.
The bull's glinting red eye is marked by the brightest star in
Taurus, Aldebaran, a name that comes from the Arabic meaning ‘the
follower', referring to the fact that it follows the Pleiades across
the sky.
Surprisingly for such a prominent star, Greek astronomers had no
name for it (although Ptolemy called it Torch in his Tetrabiblos, a
book about astrology).
Aldebaran appears to be a member of the Hyades but in fact is a
foreground object at less than half the distance, and so is
superimposed on the Hyades by chance.
Aldebaran is a red giant star about 40 times the diameter of the
Sun.
(unquote)
(quote)
Annular Solar Eclipse of May 31
The first solar eclipse of 2003 is a very unusual annular eclipse
which takes place in the Northern Hemisphere (Figure 2
<image/SE2003Fig2.gif>).
The event transpires near the Moon's ascending node in central
Taurus five degrees north of Aldebaran.
(unquote)
(for more on this you can read the thread
*a complex ROMANCE*)
Paul Crowley
news:545b95a7.03051...@posting.google.com...
> You're right about the moustache, of course, but those are CM's eyes
> behind the mask.
Firstly, there is no good (or even reasonable)
basis for believing that the Cambridge portrait is
of Marlowe. Secondly, you retained "Marlowe's"
eyes in both of the images you show. Why?
> I did it as a mouseover experiment with Photoshop.
> <http://www.marlovian.com/images/manbehind.html>
Every human face has eyes, a nose, a mouth, a
chin, a forehead, etc. Putting one face over
another shows nothing -- except that they are
both human (although, in this case, that of the
Stratman clearly isn't). You have to compare the
details of each feature -- and its relationship to
other features -- to see if they could belong to
the same subject. In the 'Marlowe' / Folio-
portrait case the differences are enormous.
Nearly every feature is radically different:--the
nose, the forehead, the chin, the cheeks, the
eyes, the eyebrows, the overall shape of the
skull . . .and so on and on.
Your exercise proves that there was no
relationship between the 'sitters'. Not that
much hangs on it. Who would ever claim
that there was?
Paul.
lowercase dave
"Paul Crowley" <slkwuoiut...@slkjlskjoioue.com> who wrote in message news:<Ifzxa.13813$pK2....@news.indigo.ie>...
> Firstly, there is no good (or even reasonable)
> basis for believing that the Cambridge portrait is
> of Marlowe. Secondly, you retained "Marlowe's"
> eyes in both of the images you show. Why?
1. if you say so... neither good nor reasonable ...
that's very ironic coming from an Oxfraudian...
2. What i did was
1. photoshop out the eyes in the Shakespeare Folio engraving
2. overlay it on marlowe's portrait, so it appeared to be a mask.
I may try it again with just the faces, which might make it
clearer.
Maybe I'll try it with Devere too. Is it my imagination or are
Devere's
eyes slightly crossed?
(paul, if you think the portrait is not of
Marlowe, take it up with Cambridge University...where it
hangs..."putative" they say, because the date of the portrait
matches marlowe's age, and the verse in the upper
left matches a phrase in one of the Shakespeare sonnets)
> Every human face has eyes, a nose, a mouth, a
> chin, a forehead, etc. Putting one face over
> another shows nothing -- except that they are
> both human (although, in this case, that of the
> Stratman clearly isn't). You have to compare the
> details of each feature -- and its relationship to
> other features -- to see if they could belong to
> the same subject. In the 'Marlowe' / Folio-
> portrait case the differences are enormous.
> Nearly every feature is radically different:--the
> nose, the forehead, the chin, the cheeks, the
> eyes, the eyebrows, the overall shape of the
> skull . . .and so on and on.
What I notice about the two portraits was the way the hair on both
sticks out, as if the subject had very large ears. Also the same faint
hint of a moustache.
> Your exercise proves that there was no
> relationship between the 'sitters'. Not that
> much hangs on it. Who would ever claim
> that there was?
I think the Droeshout is a composite of the characteristics of several
writers, including Marlowe, and probably Bacon, just like the Folio
itself. Didn't a scientist years ago publish something in *Scientific
American* that showed the Folio engraving to be of Queen Elizabeth?
While we're on the subject of the lack of your candidate in the
picture, if i may quote myself:
The Earl of Oxford fits-in neatly here:
Edward DeVere. Was he "William Shakespeare"
As his proponents say? Small chance, I fear,
Although his roots were old aristocrat,
And he possessed a flair for the dramatic.
At 12, young Edward lost his dad,
And gained the oldest earldom in the land.
But Oxford 17 was a cold cad--
As the record shows, his acts were bad.
It's true, he paid for complimentary verse,
And scenes his group of players could rehearse,
Those comedies were judged among the best;
Read Ogburn if you want to know the rest.
For our concern is with a poet who's far greater
Than DeVere, up with the great "Shake-speare"--
Christopher "Kit" Marley, the once-low man
Who rose to be the realm's top showman,
Unless a well-versed Oxfordite steps up
To expedite Ned's version. I need help
Accounting for the hard-cold facts--zero--
That Oxford was a literary hero.
excerpt from *The Marliad*, a "rap-epic" poem about Christopher
Marlowe and the Age of Shakespeare (29)
david more
marlowe lives! at
<http://www.marlovian.com/>
lowercase dave
> I thought using Photoshop was
> a way of *removing* "red-eye", a well-known effect
> in photos??? not of adding it... <grin>
look again, the eyes are brown ... could be your computer screen i
guess.
> The picture with red eyes looks rather Satanic
> than anything else,
> mixed with witless...
I know that this is an aside, but when did Satan come into vogue in
religious iconography? Not in Renaissance England...Does anyone know?
mixed with witless WHAT, lyra?
> sort of like *Zoltan, Hound of Satan*,
> after being made harmless...
This is all i could find of Zoltan the Hound... (a subtitle to
Dracula's Dog)
http://www.centenary.edu/~balexand/gothic1999/vampirism.html
but no image...
maybe i should try it again in black and white.
i'll let you know when i do.
funny, I have new friend named Zoltan (Saluki of Shakespeare)...you
can read about him and the others at
<http://www.marlovian.com/blog/marlivs.html#Profs>
david more
> * * * * * *
>
> "speed bonny boat, like a bird on the wing"
>
> lyra
> Elizabeth Weir wrote in message news:<efbc3534.03051...@posting.google.com>...
Paul Crowley
news:545b95a7.03051...@posting.google.com...
> (paul, if you think the portrait is not of
> Marlowe, take it up with Cambridge University...where it
> hangs..."putative" they say,
I have no argument with 'putative' -- meaning
'supposed'.
[..]
> I think the Droeshout is a composite of the characteristics of several
> writers, including Marlowe, and probably Bacon, just like the Folio
> itself.
Is this a belief based on evidence?
If so, why did you not seek to show it?
> Didn't a scientist years ago publish something in *Scientific
> American* that showed the Folio engraving to be of Queen Elizabeth?
Yes. Correct. Do a similar overlay with QE and
you'll see a near-exact match of the nose, eyebrows,
mouth, chin, and so on. The Folio portrait has been
given that monstrous forehead and 'masculinized'
with facial hair, and by making the eyes smaller
and the nose thicker -- producing features never
seen in nature.
No Marlite here has ever produced:
(a) any kind of scenario as to who mounted the
cover-up, and why it was maintained for so long;
or (b) any account of how making Marlowe author
helps to explain any aspect of the plays or poems,
or the context in which they were written, produced
and performed.
I keep asking, but am never answered. I suppose
that there is no chance with you, either. (Silly
question really. It's like asking a Creationist
to provide an explanation for manifest facts in
the world -- beyond 'God wanted it that way'.)
Paul.
lyra
> Paul Crowley who wrote in message:
>
> > Firstly, there is no good (or even reasonable)
> > basis for believing that the Cambridge portrait is
> > of Marlowe. Secondly, you retained "Marlowe's"
> > eyes in both of the images you show. Why?
>
What i did was
> 1. photoshop out the eyes in the Shakespeare Folio engraving
> 2. overlay it on marlowe's portrait, so it appeared to be a mask.
> I may try it again with just the faces, which might make it
> clearer.
> Maybe I'll try it with Devere too. Is it my imagination or are
> Devere's
> eyes slightly crossed?
> (paul, if you think the portrait is not of
> Marlowe, take it up with Cambridge University...where it
> hangs..."putative" they say, because the date of the portrait
> matches marlowe's age, and the verse in the upper
> left matches a phrase in one of the Shakespeare sonnets)
>
Marlowe of course was a student in the very college,
Corpus Christi, in which the portrait was found.
There were no other "student" portraits there,
only those of people like Thomas More,
therefore it isn't likely a "nonentity" student's portrait
would be kept...this, and the correct age, helps to make
Marlowe likely.
(see *The Reckoning*, Charles Nicholl)
> What I notice about the two portraits was the way the hair on both
> sticks out, as if the subject had very large ears.
I've sometinmes wondered if wigs were commonly worn at the time...
of course we know Elizabeth did, but I wondered if they became a sort
of fashion.
> I think the Droeshout is a composite of the characteristics of several
> writers, including Marlowe, and probably Bacon, just like the Folio
> itself.
This occurred to me too. Also, the clothing/arms part
is based on a playing-card style, not unusual, this sort of
thing was done. In fact there were card packs where each card
was painted of a separate individual by a portrait painter.