owlice wrote:
Shakespeare didn't author his works = literature's moon landing hoax?
Martin DROESHOUT(HERODOTUS) Jr.
- Shakespeare Droeshout engraving = Shroud of Turin
{And you didn't want to debate. 
}
Stratfordianism is mostly a orthodox fundamentalist religion
with its pilgrimage location being Stratford upon Avon.
DROESHOUT : {anagram}
HERODOTUS : "Father of Lies"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 26, 1564, Will Shakspere baptized.
April 26, 1601, Martin
DROESHOUT(
HERODOTUS) Jr. baptized.
April 26, 1607,
Capt. John Smith & 143 others land in Virginia
................................................................
<<The "sun-never-sets" image begins with
HERODOTUS
__ (Xerxes braging about the glory of the Persian Empire).
Reworkings of
HERODOTUS' "sun-never-sets" phrase can be found in:
Daniel Webster, Schiller, Sir Walter Scott, &
Capt. John Smith.>> - Don Gifford
................................................................
Daniel Defoe went into hiding the last year of his life
& died in Ropemaker's Alley, Moorfields on
April 26, 1731.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The engraving on the [Martin
DROESHOUT] doublet is quite intricate but on closer inspection it seems to show... the front of the right arm is on one side but, 'without doubt', the back of the left arm on the other side. The picture was given to two tailoring journals. 'The Tailor and Cutter', March 1911 and 'The Gentleman's Tailor', April 1911 . Both these trade journals agreed that the figure was clothed in a coat composed of the back and the front of the same left arm. This was proved by cutting out the two halves of the coat and showing them shoulder to shoulder.>>
http://www.william-shakespeare.info/william-shakespeare-droeshout-engraving.htm wrote:
William Shakespeare : The Droeshout Engraving
<<Many opinions have been expressed about the copper engraving picture - and they are far from complimentary. "Ludicrous" and "Monstrous" are some terms that have been consistently applied. Sam Schoenbaum the author of Shakespeare's Lives, wrote the following:
"
...a huge head, placed against a starched ruff, surmounts an absurdly small tunic with oversized shoulder-wings...Light comes from several directions simultaneously: it falls on the bulbous protuberance of forehead ... that 'horrible hydrocephalous development', as it has been called ... creates and odd crescent under the right eye..." - Sam Schoenbaum
"
A hard, wooden, staring thing." - Richard Grant White
"
Even in its best state, it is such a monstrosity that, I for one, do not believe that it has any trustworthy exemplar." - C. M. Ingleby
"
The face is long and the forehead high; the one ear which is visible is shapeless; the top of the head is bald, but the hair falls in abundance over the ears." - Sir Sidney Lee
Well, at first glance one cannot help but agree! So what on earth was Martin Droeshout the engraver thinking of? Surely such an illustration, on an important 900 page document, commissioned by the powerful Pembroke family would have been immediately rejected as quite grotesque? Why did they choose Droeshout as the engraver? Would they really have entrusted such an important task to a raw apprentice, apparently incompetent, with no talent and no sense of proportion or perspective?
Martin Droeshout made engravings of many famous and important people. These included John Donne, the Duke of Buckingham, the Bishop of Durham, the Marquis of Hamilton and Lord Coventry. Most significant is that in 1631 Martin Droeshout was commissioned with the second edition of Crooke's "Mikrokosmographia" this was a massive folio containing over 1000 pages. He therefore must have had an excellent reputation as an accomplished engraver. So is there may be more to the First Folio engraving than meets the eye.
There are many peculiarities about the engraving which have strengthened the arguments of the Shakespeare Identity and Authorship Problem. The following comments and speculations have been made by various experts about the engraving.
The Head: The head is out of all proportion with the body. There is a peculiar line running from the ear down to the chin. Does this signify that the face is in fact a mask? The mask speculation was suggested by Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence (author of Bacon is Shakespeare) who stated that it was a cunningly drawn cryptographic picture. Could it be an Actor's mask or even someone's Death Mask? Is it a mask attached to the back of someone's head? It has also been suggested that the eyes are wrong as they are in fact two left eyes. So we start the trail of the possible concealed messages in the Martin Droeshout engraving of William Shakespeare...
The Doublet: The engraving on the doublet is quite intricate but on closer inspection it seems to show according to Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, author of 'Bacon is Shakespeare', the front of the right arm is on one side but, 'without doubt', the back of the left arm on the other side. The picture was given to two tailoring journals. 'The Tailor and Cutter', March 1911 and 'The Gentleman's Tailor', April 1911 . Both these trade journals agreed that the figure was clothed in a coat composed of the back and the front of the same left arm. This was proved by cutting out the two halves of the coat and showing them shoulder to shoulder.
We are not tailors but these experts seem to be adamant that the figure was clothed in a coat composed of the back and the front of the same left arm. And indeed it does look like this, but we were still uneasy about the whole subject. During our research into engravings we found a similar doublet! The engraving below depicts The Duke of Brunswick and Sir Francis Bacon. Same peculiarity with the doublet, the face appears to be split into two distinct halves depicting both Brunswick and Bacon. We then started to look at portraits from the era and found another similar doublet. Are the expert tailors incorrect? Have any recent investigations by tailors been made into this theory? Can any historians confirm whether doublets were occasionally designed this way?
The Collar: It has been suggested that the type of collar depicted on the engraving did not exist. This is not a style of collar that has ever been traced to any one else during this era, it appears to be completely unique. The head does not appear to be connected to the body but is sitting on the collar. We were intrigued by the Droeshout picture. The collar, as depicted, would have been an impossible part of Shakespeare's apparel - the collar looks solid, it has no fastenings, how would you put this on? So we looked at the collar at all angles - if it was not a collar what else could it possibly be?
We were intrigued by the Droeshout picture. The collar, as depicted, would have been an impossible part of Shakespeare's apparel - the collar looks solid, it has no fastenings, how would you put this on? So we looked at the collar at all angles - if it was not a collar what else could it possibly be? It suddenly dawned on us that it looked like a shield. We cannot trace any other authors who have made a similar suggestion in relation to a collar / shield theory.
It is really odd but once the observation has been made you can no longer see the collar as anything but a shield. The shape of the collar would be an unusual design for a shield as it has a concave, or bowed, top. All of the shields that we were familiar with had a straight top. There also appears to be a shield within a shield. Did such a shield design exist? Was there some significance to a shield within a shield? Our next step, of course, was to trace any shields of a similar design with the distinctive concave top shape. The image illustrates the premise, together with our findings, and provides the opportunity for our visitors to take an even closer look.
From our research and investigations it would appear that, according to 17th century heraldic rules, a shield within a shield signifies brethren. (Ref: A Display of Heraldire (1610) by John Guillim - this states that "this sort of imborduring heere spoken of, to be of the number of differences of brethren")
It is perhaps no coincidence that the First Folio was dedicated to the two Pembroke brothers, Philip and William, referred to in the dedication of the Folio as 'the most Noble and incomparable paire of Brethren' Their father the Earl of Pembroke was the leader of the English Rosicrucian movement and their mother was the Countess of Pembroke. After looking at hundreds of shields, we have only been able to trace one authentic shield that fits the description...>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many Elizabethans (e.g., Edward Dyer & Francis Bacon) were
Rosicrucians
In Folio's 2,3, & 4
{Rosencrantz <=> Rosenkreutz} was ROSINCROSS
[In the first Quarto
{Rosencrantz <=> Rosenkreutz} is Rossen(CRAFT)!]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Finnegans Wake p. 619] And
robins in crews so. It is for me
goolden wending.
_
The Chemical Wedding of Christian
ROSENKREUTZ 1459_
was edited in
1616 in Strasbourg. 200 years later:
Daniel Defoe was born in 1659 in to James Foe, a London
BUTCHER.
.......................................................................
Will Shakspere was buried on
April 26,
1616.
_The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of
Robinson Crusoe_
_________ was published on
April 26, 1719.
-------------------------------------------------------------
<<I WAS born in the year 1632, in the city of York, of a good family,
though not of that country, my father being a foreigner of BREMEN,
who settled first at Hull. He got a good estate by merchandise,
and leaving off his trade, lived afterwards at York, from whence
he had married my mother, whose relations were named Robinson,
a very good family in that country, and from whom I was called
[list]ROBINSON KREUTZNAER;[/list]but, by the usual corruption of words in England, we are now
called - nay we call ourselves and write our name - Crusoe;
and so my companions always called me.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If such transgressions were to go unpunished then no scholar in any academic field would feel safe in his ivory tower.
