Your research is exhausting... your erudition... entertaining. I've been binging on them all... but had to jump ahead to your last two here to find out "who dunnit"... lol. I totally agree and just don't understand the blindness on the question of authorship. Keep up the good fight.... it appears that truth is the underdog in our current age. Thank you for the herculean effort and clarity of presenting your findings.
Hello there, Many thanks for your kind comments. I am relying to do my bit by bringing the issues to a wider audience. I fear we will have to wait until the current diehards move on and a new generation with a more open mind take over. Kind regards David
Thank you so much for a pair of fascinating videos on the Droeshout frontispiece. I have studied the engraving for a few years now and have uploaded a few videos on my TH-cam channel. Rather than summarizing all of my findings, I will just make a couple of additions to your excellent presentations. The angle of the right panel (our left) in the doublet is 20 degrees. In the 23 letter Latin alphabet gematria, the number 20 is equal to the letter "v". The panel itself makes the shape of the letter and completes a hidden monogram. When you extend the lines of that panel, they almost encircle the letter "o" in London, thereby making what I consider to be a monogram, though it is weak. The actual hidden monogram which is far easier to see is in the number of buttons on the doublet. There are 14 of them and the gematria letter value of that number is "o". Therefore, when you combine these numbers - 20 and 14 - into their letter equivalents, you have "V O", the initials for Vere and Oxford. Another item to note is that the lines in the pupils in the third state of the engraving are deliberate. The lines would have appeared more erratic had they been accidental. I believe that given the smooth surface of what would have been a copper sheet, a slip of the burin would have made these lines far sloppier and they would not have appears so visible. That is to say, they would probably have extended further into the face than they do. I believe the right-hand line ended where it did to let viewers know to look closer and figure out the mysteries in the picture. (You forgot to let viewers know that engraving states one, two and three are how the Folger categorizes them, but I believe that was a lapse on your part: you usually credit people for the ideas in your videos.) I also would like to thank you for debunking the idea there are two right eyes. We can clearly see (pun not intended) that the tear duct folds are on the inside of the face along the bridge of the nose where they should be. Stratfordians still repeat that hoary myth in ignorance of reality. My take on the engraving is that it is an early attempt at a caricature. The proportion of the head, the mismatched doublet (I disagree with you on your analysis of the doublet, by the way), the use of identical curves on the face, head, and sleeves (my entry in the SOF video contest for 2022 explains this), and the bulbous forehead seem to be deliberate. The intricate embroidery is a indicator that these features were deliberate. Droeshout would have had to have a model to work from since all of the lines are accurately done and it takes a lot of effort to draw them out. The poem makes it clear that the engraving is a caricature. Jonson says the engraver had to "out-doo the life" or exaggerate the features to poke fun at the pen name.
The poem "To the Reader" reads: This Figure, that thou here ſeeſt put, It was for gentle Shakeſpeare cut ; Wherein the Grauer had a ſtrife with Nature, to out-doo the life : O, could he but haue drawne his wit As well in braſſe, as he hath hit His face ; the Print would then ſurpaſſe All, that vvas euer vvrit in braſſe. But, ſince he cannot, Reader, looke Not on his Picture, but his Booke. One cannot help noticing that every line is capitalized except for the 'w' beginning the word 'with' in line 4. This prompts us to add up all the Uppercase letters in the 10-line poem -- there being a total of 17. Each of the ten lines has 4 metrical feet, giving us 40 such feet in total. There's our '1740' clue staring us in the face, pointing to Edward de Vere. The 17th word from the end is 'euer' [i.e. 'ever'], framed by the words 'vvas' and 'vvrit', each spelled with a double-v -- and each 'vv' equaling 40, since 'v' = 20. Many more tidbits of Oxfordiana could be mentioned here, but I'll leave it at that for now, except to point out that the 49th stanza of VENVS AND ADONIS is being purposely echoed in this 'To the Reader' poem: Looke when a Painter would ſurpaſſe the life, In limming out a well proportioned ſteed, His Art with Natures workmanſhip at ſtrife, As if the dead the liuing ſhould exceed : So did this Horſe excell a common one, In ſhape, in courage, colour, pace and bone. 'B.I.' -- presumably Ben Ionson -- obviously had this stanza in mind when he wrote "This Figure..." (etc.). We can compare the 'Painter' depicting a Horse (in V&A) with the 'Grauer' who cut into brass the image -- or 'Figure' -- of 'gentle Shakeſpeare', each artist at strife with Nature (or with Nature's workmanship) . . . but the Original horse, created by Nature, is said to 'excell a common one' -- i.e. it is 'gentle' (as is said of Shakespeare), that is to say, Noble. Jonson is telling us -- i.e. his Reader who remembers this stanza from V&A -- that 'gentle Shakeſpeare' was not a commoner, and that this ridiculous image engraved by Droushout is intended to 'out-doo the life' of the actual author -- to do out, or ERASE it, this engraving (or Graven Image) replacing it the same way that the Golden Calf replaced YHWH in the Israelite encampment when Moses was up on the top of Mt. Sinai.
@@davidshakespeare1767 I most probably got it from watching an Alexander Waugh video, or perhaps one from either of his proteges (Ron Roffel, et al.). I've found myself looking for such '1740' clues because of Waugh's brilliant observations. I discovered, all by meself, that by using the 24-letter English gematria system (where A=1, ... I/J = 9, K=10, L=11, ... T=19, U/V = 20, W=21, etc.) that HAMLET = 8+1+12+11+5+19 = 56 . . . but so, too, does DE VERE (4+5+20+5+17+5 = 56). Oh, this may be just a coincidence, but I'm inclined to believe that 'Shakespeare' knew perfectly well that DE VERE and HAMLET both had the same gematria value of 56. It was Percy Allen, I believe, who first noted the link between B.I.'s poem "To the Reader" and the 49th stanza of V&A, by the way, and more people need to know about it, as V&A isn't in the Folio collection (which, of course, consists solely of his Plays) and, thus, can't be seen in comparison unless buyers of the Folio also had copies of the Poems). So, I try to show the late Mr. Allen some love, as his work deserves to be remembered as fondly as that of Looney, Ward, and the other founding Oxfordian scholars. You, David, are one of the more recent Oxfordian scholars whose work truly deserves recognition, and it is to be hoped that your TH-cam videos will live on and inform future lovers of 'Shakespeare' of the evidence pointing to Oxford. Thanks to you for what you do.
@@chickyrogue8485 You'll have to help me out here: just what, pray tell, is "the 11 of hamlet"? The '11' of SPINAL TAP -- that I know, but I'm at a loss as to what you might be referring to as "the 11 of hamlet" . . .
Dear David, this episode was very interesting indeed. I appreciate the great research and work you put into it very much. I had thought at the beginning that I might be able to ask if the Shakespeare portrait was meant to allude to more than one person creating his canon so to speak. I have long wondered too,if the collar of the portrait suggests the rays of apollo. Another sign pointing to de Vere as he was sometimes called that I think. Then I saw Mr Pett's portrait, and he had the same collar ☺️. Ah well. I myself think De Vere is the author, perhaps with a little help from others here and there. Once again thank you. Blessings to you and your family.
My compliments on a very colourful and thorough elaboration of the 'Spanish marriage' proposal. Gabriel Ready too has some interesting things to say about that, including the following observation on Ben Jonson's brief testimonial: “Ben Jonson used an obscure Spanish poetic form (a stanza consisting of ten octosyllabic lines) opposite (of) the Droeshout engraving. It’s called a ‘decima’. There’s two, I believe that Jonson used as his model…the two decimas that appear in the preliminaries of Cervantes’ ‘Don Quixote’. The themes of these decimas are (on) commerce and thievery and, specifically, lower, servile class stealing from aristocrats.” (Gabriel Ready, October 2023 - th-cam.com/video/ty8o3n2pK4M/w-d-xo.html). Note Cervantes' prior emphasis on lower class theft from the aristocracy!
Thank you for this very interesting presentation. I wonder if you have seen the portrait of Anthony Babington on Wikipedia. His collar, doublet, hair line, nose and mouth are remarkable similar to the Droeshout engraving. Was Droeshout man figuratively hanged, drawn and quartered?
Hello there, There are some similarities as you say. Babbington was executed in 1586. The Piccadilly collar was much more popular in the early 17the century which makes me wonder if the attribution of the painting is correct. Regards David
Martin Droeshout cannot have worked from 'life', as Shakespeare, whoever he was, was already dead. Might perspective errors introduced into the engraving have been due, in some measure at least, to the angular displacement of the portrait which the engraver must have copied? In order to achieve the same right-facing image when printed, Droeshout would have employed a mirror and worked in reverse, so to speak. Yet he cannot have done so 'head on', as the original canvas would have been directly in his line of sight. Angling the mirror for an unobstructed view would necessarily have introduced additional perspective cues.
Hi David, I am a subscriber. I usually view your videos thru my Roku streaming device. For the past few weeks, I have been unable to see any videos listed on your channel page thru my Roku. All appears normal on my computer, tablet & phone. However, I almost always view using Roku; & my tv. My efforts to contact youtube with Roku issues always fall on deaf ears. Probably because there is literally no way to contact them for the streaming app. As the channel owner, could you please draw this to their attention? All efforts to get to your homepage are successful, but once there, not one single video is listed. I do not know if it is a result of a youtube update, sun spots or a hack. I'd very much like to see the situation resolved. Thank you!
17 with 40 was also significant in medieval texts and paintings. It is associated with Platonist esoteric Christianity. I don’t think those medieval scribes and painters were identifying Edward de Vere as Shakespeare. Supposing that is what 17-40 means here is flawed methodology founded on Waugh’s assumption that it ‘obviously’ refers to Edward de Vere.
Just to say, it still looks like a mask to me, I have no skin it could possibly be behind my ear. I don't think it could be bulging skin, even if he was very fat - which he obviously isn't.
In the text "To The Reader" on the opposite left side, it says, "This Figure, that thou here feest put," - so obviously no true portray, but figure/number...
Many interesting points. But I think a better basis for the portrait has been found. Compare the matching of this “overlay” demonstration with what we see in Bonner Cutting’s presentation to the SOF m.th-cam.com/video/wkB9vjn-nO8/w-d-xo.html The comparison in Bonner’s presentation is between the folio image and a painting of Susan De Vere, whose role in completing the folio may have been utterly central- connecting De Vere with Pembroke. The match in Bonner’s presentation is stunning and compelling. Maybe 500% closer (many times more accurate in overall and point by point comparison). The one here leaves a lot more to be explained.
The least convincing of David’s theses so far..but still worth watching.To me the engraving just doesn’t look right in several ways..and this to me seems to have been the intention .
All the historical proof was that the Stratford man was not a gentleman. That you have assumed. I'm afraid Jonson was too clever for you as was Droueshout. You've spent all your breath to explain dozens of details that were DONE ON PURPOSE not in error.
Another fascinating and thought-provoking presentation. Thank you, David.
I could not be more happy to be notified that the greatest honey smoked voice on video is back in the building.
Your research is exhausting... your erudition... entertaining. I've been binging on them all... but had to jump ahead to your last two here to find out "who dunnit"... lol. I totally agree and just don't understand the blindness on the question of authorship. Keep up the good fight.... it appears that truth is the underdog in our current age. Thank you for the herculean effort and clarity of presenting your findings.
Hello there, Many thanks for your kind comments. I am relying to do my bit by bringing the issues to a wider audience. I fear we will have to wait until the current diehards move on and a new generation with a more open mind take over. Kind regards David
Thank you so much for a pair of fascinating videos on the Droeshout frontispiece. I have studied the engraving for a few years now and have uploaded a few videos on my TH-cam channel. Rather than summarizing all of my findings, I will just make a couple of additions to your excellent presentations.
The angle of the right panel (our left) in the doublet is 20 degrees. In the 23 letter Latin alphabet gematria, the number 20 is equal to the letter "v". The panel itself makes the shape of the letter and completes a hidden monogram. When you extend the lines of that panel, they almost encircle the letter "o" in London, thereby making what I consider to be a monogram, though it is weak.
The actual hidden monogram which is far easier to see is in the number of buttons on the doublet. There are 14 of them and the gematria letter value of that number is "o". Therefore, when you combine these numbers - 20 and 14 - into their letter equivalents, you have "V O", the initials for Vere and Oxford.
Another item to note is that the lines in the pupils in the third state of the engraving are deliberate. The lines would have appeared more erratic had they been accidental. I believe that given the smooth surface of what would have been a copper sheet, a slip of the burin would have made these lines far sloppier and they would not have appears so visible. That is to say, they would probably have extended further into the face than they do. I believe the right-hand line ended where it did to let viewers know to look closer and figure out the mysteries in the picture.
(You forgot to let viewers know that engraving states one, two and three are how the Folger categorizes them, but I believe that was a lapse on your part: you usually credit people for the ideas in your videos.)
I also would like to thank you for debunking the idea there are two right eyes. We can clearly see (pun not intended) that the tear duct folds are on the inside of the face along the bridge of the nose where they should be. Stratfordians still repeat that hoary myth in ignorance of reality.
My take on the engraving is that it is an early attempt at a caricature. The proportion of the head, the mismatched doublet (I disagree with you on your analysis of the doublet, by the way), the use of identical curves on the face, head, and sleeves (my entry in the SOF video contest for 2022 explains this), and the bulbous forehead seem to be deliberate. The intricate embroidery is a indicator that these features were deliberate. Droeshout would have had to have a model to work from since all of the lines are accurately done and it takes a lot of effort to draw them out.
The poem makes it clear that the engraving is a caricature. Jonson says the engraver had to "out-doo the life" or exaggerate the features to poke fun at the pen name.
Thank you, David
The poem "To the Reader" reads:
This Figure, that thou here ſeeſt put,
It was for gentle Shakeſpeare cut ;
Wherein the Grauer had a ſtrife
with Nature, to out-doo the life :
O, could he but haue drawne his wit
As well in braſſe, as he hath hit
His face ; the Print would then ſurpaſſe
All, that vvas euer vvrit in braſſe.
But, ſince he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
One cannot help noticing that every line is capitalized except for the 'w' beginning the word 'with' in line 4. This prompts us to add up all the Uppercase letters in the 10-line poem -- there being a total of 17. Each of the ten lines has 4 metrical feet, giving us 40 such feet in total. There's our '1740' clue staring us in the face, pointing to Edward de Vere. The 17th word from the end is 'euer' [i.e. 'ever'], framed by the words 'vvas' and 'vvrit', each spelled with a double-v -- and each 'vv' equaling 40, since 'v' = 20.
Many more tidbits of Oxfordiana could be mentioned here, but I'll leave it at that for now, except to point out that the 49th stanza of VENVS AND ADONIS is being purposely echoed in this 'To the Reader' poem:
Looke when a Painter would ſurpaſſe the life,
In limming out a well proportioned ſteed,
His Art with Natures workmanſhip at ſtrife,
As if the dead the liuing ſhould exceed :
So did this Horſe excell a common one,
In ſhape, in courage, colour, pace and bone.
'B.I.' -- presumably Ben Ionson -- obviously had this stanza in mind when he wrote "This Figure..." (etc.). We can compare the 'Painter' depicting a Horse (in V&A) with the 'Grauer' who cut into brass the image -- or 'Figure' -- of 'gentle Shakeſpeare', each artist at strife with Nature (or with Nature's workmanship) . . . but the Original horse, created by Nature, is said to 'excell a common one' -- i.e. it is 'gentle' (as is said of Shakespeare), that is to say, Noble. Jonson is telling us -- i.e. his Reader who remembers this stanza from V&A -- that 'gentle Shakeſpeare' was not a commoner, and that this ridiculous image engraved by Droushout is intended to 'out-doo the life' of the actual author -- to do out, or ERASE it, this engraving (or Graven Image) replacing it the same way that the Golden Calf replaced YHWH in the Israelite encampment when Moses was up on the top of Mt. Sinai.
Hi There many thanks for your contribution. I hadn't picked up the 1740 reference. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 I most probably got it from watching an Alexander Waugh video, or perhaps one from either of his proteges (Ron Roffel, et al.). I've found myself looking for such '1740' clues because of Waugh's brilliant observations. I discovered, all by meself, that by using the 24-letter English gematria system (where A=1, ... I/J = 9, K=10, L=11, ... T=19, U/V = 20, W=21, etc.) that HAMLET = 8+1+12+11+5+19 = 56 . . . but so, too, does DE VERE (4+5+20+5+17+5 = 56). Oh, this may be just a coincidence, but I'm inclined to believe that 'Shakespeare' knew perfectly well that DE VERE and HAMLET both had the same gematria value of 56.
It was Percy Allen, I believe, who first noted the link between B.I.'s poem "To the Reader" and the 49th stanza of V&A, by the way, and more people need to know about it, as V&A isn't in the Folio collection (which, of course, consists solely of his Plays) and, thus, can't be seen in comparison unless buyers of the Folio also had copies of the Poems). So, I try to show the late Mr. Allen some love, as his work deserves to be remembered as fondly as that of Looney, Ward, and the other founding Oxfordian scholars.
You, David, are one of the more recent Oxfordian scholars whose work truly deserves recognition, and it is to be hoped that your TH-cam videos will live on and inform future lovers of 'Shakespeare' of the evidence pointing to Oxford. Thanks to you for what you do.
@@patricktilton5377 do you think the 11 of hamlet was a salute to JANUS thx
@@chickyrogue8485 You'll have to help me out here: just what, pray tell, is "the 11 of hamlet"? The '11' of SPINAL TAP -- that I know, but I'm at a loss as to what you might be referring to as "the 11 of hamlet" . . .
@@patricktilton5377 it is in your reply to David....Hamlet =56
Thank you! Very interesting!
Dear David, this episode was very interesting indeed. I appreciate the great research and work you put into it very much. I had thought at the beginning that I might be able to ask if the Shakespeare portrait was meant to allude to more than one person creating his canon so to speak.
I have long wondered too,if the collar of the portrait suggests the rays of apollo. Another sign pointing to de Vere as he was sometimes called that I think. Then I saw Mr Pett's portrait, and he had the same collar ☺️. Ah well.
I myself think De Vere is the author, perhaps with a little help from others here and there.
Once again thank you.
Blessings to you and your family.
Thank you so much for your kind comments. I am glad that you enjoyed it. regards David
Is "rotation" the magic word, you can explain and excuse everything with? I have my doubts ...
Fascinating work. However, the link you provide goes to your work on Elizabeth de Vere rather than the second part of the frontispiece PDF.
Sorry my fault, I have rectified the problem. regards David
My compliments on a very colourful and thorough elaboration of the 'Spanish marriage' proposal. Gabriel Ready too has some interesting things to say about that, including the following observation on Ben Jonson's brief testimonial: “Ben Jonson used an obscure Spanish poetic form (a stanza consisting of ten octosyllabic lines) opposite (of) the Droeshout engraving. It’s called a ‘decima’. There’s two, I believe that Jonson used as his model…the two decimas that appear in the preliminaries of Cervantes’ ‘Don Quixote’. The themes of these decimas are (on) commerce and thievery and, specifically, lower, servile class stealing from aristocrats.” (Gabriel Ready, October 2023 - th-cam.com/video/ty8o3n2pK4M/w-d-xo.html).
Note Cervantes' prior emphasis on lower class theft from the aristocracy!
Thank you for this very interesting presentation. I wonder if you have seen the portrait of Anthony Babington on Wikipedia. His collar, doublet, hair line, nose and mouth are remarkable similar to the Droeshout engraving. Was Droeshout man figuratively hanged, drawn and quartered?
Hello there, There are some similarities as you say. Babbington was executed in 1586. The Piccadilly collar was much more popular in the early 17the century which makes me wonder if the attribution of the painting is correct. Regards David
Thank you and thanks again for your video.
Martin Droeshout cannot have worked from 'life', as Shakespeare, whoever he was, was already dead. Might perspective errors introduced into the engraving have been due, in some measure at least, to the angular displacement of the portrait which the engraver must have copied?
In order to achieve the same right-facing image when printed, Droeshout would have employed a mirror and worked in reverse, so to speak. Yet he cannot have done so 'head on', as the original canvas would have been directly in his line of sight. Angling the mirror for an unobstructed view would necessarily have introduced additional perspective cues.
Hi David, I am a subscriber. I usually view your videos thru my Roku streaming device. For the past few weeks, I have been unable to see any videos listed on your channel page thru my Roku. All appears normal on my computer, tablet & phone. However, I almost always view using Roku; & my tv. My efforts to contact youtube with Roku issues always fall on deaf ears. Probably because there is literally no way to contact them for the streaming app. As the channel owner, could you please draw this to their attention? All efforts to get to your homepage are successful, but once there, not one single video is listed. I do not know if it is a result of a youtube update, sun spots or a hack. I'd very much like to see the situation resolved. Thank you!
17 with 40 was also significant in medieval texts and paintings. It is associated with Platonist esoteric Christianity. I don’t think those medieval scribes and painters were identifying Edward de Vere as Shakespeare. Supposing that is what 17-40 means here is flawed methodology founded on Waugh’s assumption that it ‘obviously’ refers to Edward de Vere.
Great video! Have you seen Bonner Cutting’s Portrait That Time Forgot? Interesting alternate source theory for the face.
Just to say, it still looks like a mask to me, I have no skin it could possibly be behind my ear. I don't think it could be bulging skin, even if he was very fat - which he obviously isn't.
In the text "To The Reader" on the opposite left side, it says, "This Figure, that thou here feest put," - so obviously no true portray, but figure/number...
What if the engraving simply isn't perfectly anatomically accurate?
Many interesting points. But I think a better basis for the portrait has been found.
Compare the matching of this “overlay” demonstration with what we see in Bonner Cutting’s presentation to the SOF
m.th-cam.com/video/wkB9vjn-nO8/w-d-xo.html
The comparison in Bonner’s presentation is between the folio image and a painting of Susan De Vere, whose role in completing the folio may have been utterly central- connecting De Vere with Pembroke.
The match in Bonner’s presentation is stunning and compelling. Maybe 500% closer (many times more accurate in overall and point by point comparison). The one here leaves a lot more to be explained.
The least convincing of David’s theses so far..but still worth watching.To me the engraving just doesn’t look right in several ways..and this to me seems to have been the intention .
All the historical proof was that the Stratford man was not a gentleman. That you have assumed. I'm afraid Jonson was too clever for you as was Droueshout. You've spent all your breath to explain dozens of details that were DONE ON PURPOSE not in error.