The Droeshout Portrait : a new discovery ?

[Allisnum2er]

This morning I really planned to rest.

At the same time, I said to myself that Pi-day was coming , that this would be the occasion to overcome my own procrastination and to share, this year, my work on Bacon and Pi.
While having fun with the Droeshout Portrait, putting Shake-speare's head in its proper place, I realized that I had to move his head in a South South-east direction.
And then ... EUREKA!

I remembered having read that the name of the South  South East wind was Phoenicias ... the wind coming from Phoenicia ( from the Greek Phoinix meaning Palm tree and which gave the word PHOENIX).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemoi

https://archive.org/details/b3034315x/page/6/mode/2up

The strange collar of Shake-speare is a reference to the Compass rose (Tudor).
We can see 4 peaks on the right and if we consider that, by symmetry, there are 4 peaks on the left , then we obtain the number 44 of which I spoke in another post.

44 is the gematria (Hebrew numerical value) of Yeled ( Child) Dam (Blood) and Chol , meaning Palm tree, Phoenix or Sand ( of Time ? 🙂 ) 

What a wonderfull method used by Francis Bacon to tell us that he was Shake-Speare and the son of Queen Elizabeth Tudor !

What do you think ?

I apologize if this is something that has already been found in the past.

 

 

[Light-of-Truth]

So then when the artist shifted his head to the north-north west, Bacon calls that wind "Circius".

Circius, on wiki:

From Ancient Greek κίρκιος (kírkios), a derivation of circus

And oh what a circus it has become!

Edited March 4, 2022 by Light-of-Truth

[Light-of-Truth]

So Bacon offers 32 wind directions which was well in use by mariners (windrose) in his day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_compass_winds

Line 188 of the Sonnets in Day 32: "Pointing to each his thunder, rain and wind,"

That Line is in Sonnet 14 and to me is about Dee. DEE = 14 Simple cipher and JOHN DEE is 188 Kaye cipher.

http://www.light-of-truth.com/pyramid-GMT.php#Day032

But Bacon was aware there were 32 winds and it looks like he may be "pointing" that out in Day 32. 😉

 

[Light-of-Truth]

Just noticed Bacon signed the dedication to History of the Winds as "Fran. St Alban.

FRAN ST ALBAN is 102 Simple cipher, and as I have pointed out before, ONE HUNDRED TWO is 157 Simple and 287 Kaye ciphers.

In fact...

ONE HUNDRED TWO is 157 Simple, 168 Reverse, 58 Short, and 287 Kaye ciphers.

Exactly the same as William Tudor I.

WILLIAM TUDOR I is 157 Simple, 168 Reverse, 58 Short, and 287 Kaye ciphers.

There was plenty of room to spell out "Francis", but he abbreviated. Why?

[Light-of-Truth]

I've never looked at the History of the Winds before. Curious Bacon came up with 33 "PARTICULAR TOPICKS: or Articles in Inquisition Concerning the Winds"

I'll say, if I were Bacon, knowing and using numbers as it appears he did, I would have had 33 Topicks as well. 😉

I like how he ends up, "Let those who come after us endeavour for the rest."

 

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Light-of-Truth

[Allisnum2er]

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

So then when the artist shifted his head to the north-north west, Bacon calls that wind "Circius".

Circius, on wiki:

From Ancient Greek κίρκιος (kírkios), a derivation of circus

And oh what a circus it has become!

Yessss !!! Well done, Rob !

Kirkios means circle or ... RING !  And it is a reference to a kind of Hawk or FALCON  who flies in circle ! 😁

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/κίρκος

[Allisnum2er]

28 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Just noticed Bacon signed the dedication to History of the Winds as "Fran. St Alban.

FRAN ST ALBAN is 102 Simple cipher, and as I have pointed out before, ONE HUNDRED TWO is 157 Simple and 287 Kaye ciphers.

In fact...

ONE HUNDRED TWO is 157 Simple, 168 Reverse, 58 Short, and 287 Kaye ciphers.

Exactly the same as William Tudor I.

WILLIAM TUDOR I is 157 Simple, 168 Reverse, 58 Short, and 287 Kaye ciphers.

There was plenty of room to spell out "Francis", but he abbreviated. Why?

Because 157 and 287 "are the Keys both of Sciences and works" 😉 

[Allisnum2er]

14 minutes ago, Light-of-Truth said:

I've never looked at the History of the Winds before. Curious Bacon came up with 33 "PARTICULAR TOPICKS: or Articles in Inquisition Concerning the Winds"

I'll say, if I were Bacon, knowing and using numbers as it appears he did, I would have had 33 Topicks as well. 😉

I like how he ends up, "Let those who come after us endeavour for the rest."

 

 

Yes I noticed it this morning, and I noticed something else maybe just a "coincidence" ...

"Mustard-Seed" one of the character of  a Midsummer nigth's Dream appears, with "Cobweb " on the  171th page of the First Folio ( 171 is the Kaye cipher of FRANCIS ), the misprinted page 151 ( instead of 153)

153 is 100 + 53 , with 100 the simple cipher of FRANCIS BACON and 53 , among other things, the simple cipher of POET, SWAN , SOW (Son of Widow / Son of Wisdom) .

[Allisnum2er]

I am not sure if it is against regulations to do that, but if we count the "St" of St Alban as one , then from "which" to "Alban." we have 141 characters in total :

141 is the simple cipher of FRANCIS TUDOR, but also the simple cipher of his father ROBERT DUDLEY and the reverse cipher of his mother ELIZABETH !

And if we add the 3 characters of "THE" we have a total of 144 characters, the simple cipher of SIR FRANCIS BACON ! 🙂

[Allisnum2er]

Incredible ! Without going into detail, yesterday I received a mail connected to another of my passion but "curiously" the mail delt with Dee, the number 365 and ... Humphrey Moseley, a name that I did not know!

I felt that it was kind of a "sign" and that I should follow "Moseley". And this is what I have just made !

I have discovered that Humphrey Moseley " was a prominent London publisher and bookseller in the middle seventeenth century."

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey_Moseley

And I have just learned that he published Sir Francis Bacon including ... The natural and experimental nature of winds (1653) !!! 😮

I did not find an archive of this edition but here is a link to a bookseller website, who sell the book and where you have photographies of the Title page and of the dedication.

https://www.milestone-books.de/pages/books/002724/francis-bacon/the-naturall-and-experimentall-history-of-winds-c-written-in-latine-by-the-right-honorable-francis

In this edition, the 53rd and last word of the first page of the dedication  is "WIL" in place of "WILLING" , and by taking in count this "WIL" and the final "THE" on the 2nd page of the dedication, we have 173 (R.C.) words in total ! 

[Light-of-Truth]

Interesting. Moseley published some plays he claimed to be Shakespeare collaborations. I ask, Shakespeare or Bacon (as Shakespeare)? 😉

Did he know something?

 

[Allisnum2er]

1 hour ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Interesting. Moseley published some plays he claimed to be Shakespeare collaborations. I ask, Shakespeare or Bacon (as Shakespeare)? 😉

Did he know something?

 

Maybe ! This afternoon, following "Moseley" I discovered the Title page of "The History of the Defendors of the Catholique Faith"

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/object/P_1868-0328-791

 CC BY-NC-SA 4.0   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

Notice that Queen Elizabeth's left hand invites us to look above her head.

Does she ask to take a look at the motto or at the person above her ? 

Above her, we have the young King Edouard VI. But take a look at the text on his right ...

I see BOW, another symbol (with the Harp) of Apollo ,and f(endor) B(y) C(hristopher) O(bservations) N(ostrum) 

Knowing that A and W(heareunto) are interchangeable ( I AM A AND O) ...

I SEE ... BOW AND F BACON

But it can be just a coincidence !

 

[Light-of-Truth]

Quote

But it can be just a coincidence !

Coincidences/synchronicity...

In my opinion, working with numbers and ciphers for over 20 years, and learning lessons and experiencing discoveries by Bacon and Dee, and now mighty Ben, they and we are toying with vibrations in the Universe that were likely better understood 400 years ago.

To Dee mathematics were as spiritual and mystical as solid mathematical patterns. He learned from ancients while traveling and picking up manuscripts and teachings long lost in fire.

Myself, I play with ciphers that are intended, but have opened my mind to that things come up by synchronicity that may be equally as important. It is the on some level and the same game they played.

Today you, Yann, mentioned a mail asking about Dee, 365, and Moseley. Did Bacon arrange that? Or Dee? I cannot say, "No." But I will say the numbers they worked with and try to teach us about have that "quality" of connections, and including but not limited to Time going backward and forward.

< 1881 >

Just had dinner with my elderly Dad and my wife. My Dad started saying how everything "has a beginning and an end." I started by disagreeing stating that I believed that Time is something we as humans come up with to explain how things how happen in a linear path, and Time is an illusion created because our temporary human lives have a beginning and ending, like the day and night, and that is how we think. I was just mentioning Bacon when my wife cut me off, "Time to go..."

🙂

I know that is not Baconian science, so to speak, but to me based on my personal experience, is that they may have set some number patterns in motion 400 years ago that ripple back across the Infinite and Eternal Universe. All we need to do is open our eyes and ears.

Once the Veil is pierced, a lot of unexplained information is available. 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2022 by Light-of-Truth

[Allisnum2er]

10 hours ago, Light-of-Truth said:

Today you, Yann, mentioned a mail asking about Dee, 365, and Moseley. Did Bacon arrange that? Or Dee? I cannot say, "No." But I will say the numbers they worked with and try to teach us about have that "quality" of connections, and including but not limited to Time going backward and forward.

< 1881 >

Just had dinner with my elderly Dad and my wife. My Dad started saying how everything "has a beginning and an end." I started by disagreeing stating that I believed that Time is something we as humans come up with to explain how things how happen in a linear path, and Time is an illusion created because our temporary human lives have a beginning and ending, like the day and night, and that is how we think. I was just mentioning Bacon when my wife cut me off, "Time to go..."

🙂

< 1881 >     <Time to go ... go to Time > 😉 

When I said yesterday that , It could be just a coincidence, I did not believe it ! 🙂 I experience too much of this type of "Coincidence or Synchronicity" every day, to still believe that all happens only by chance.

I mentionned a mail talking about Dee, 365 and Moseley , but after a 2nd reading yesterday , it appears that the mail also refered to ... The COMPASS ROSE !!!

And I did not notice it , at least consciously ! But subconsciously, I think that the mail did his job during the night and that the following morning I was ready for unveiling one of the mystery of the Droeshout Portrait.

I also learned to follow my intuition and to keep the tiniest crazy idea that came to my mind.

For example, yesterday, regarding the Title page of "The History of the De(or Dee?) -  fendors of the Catholique Faith" and the motto above Queen Elizabeth,

                                         P O S U I    D EU M

                                         ADIUTOREM MEUM

Which means "I have made God my helper", I noticed that the first letters of each word formed the name PADME, that is the name of the QUEEN AMIDALA in Star Wars, the mother of LUKE SKYWALKER, THE CHOSEN ONE ... yeah a crazy idea !!! 😄 But it is Time going backward and forward !

And this morning, thinking about your post on "The Taming of the Shrew" with the concealed Pyramid ...

I noticed that with the letters A, R , I,  T, A, C, H and B we could form  AT BACHIR

BACHIR is the transliteration of the hebrew word for Chosen and,  I read that AT (The first and last letter of Hebrew Alphabet , the Alpha and Omega)

can means "THE"? And if this is the case  AT BACHIR would mean ... THE CHOSEN ONE !?! 

I do not know if this is exact (I don't know the Hebrew language) and if it is the truth, I did not know if it was intended , but it is interesting right after my crazy idea of yesterday !

And regarding Star Wars , do you know where The Chosen one died ( but is not buried because he became one with the Force) ? At SKellig Michael, the island with the B'Hive Huts ! 😉 

 

[Allisnum2er]

Because all comes full circle, I would like to share with you few lines of a story that I began to wrote 5 years ago, the story that led me to FRANCIS BACON.

( I did not know anything about the Shakespeare Authorship Question at that time.) 

 

Finally, the last place to explore, was a place at the end of the Apollo/Michael ley line : Skellig Michael, in Ireland.

When I discovered the photography of the Island, I immediatly recognized it.
It was familiar to me. I had already seen this Island in a film : STAR WARS !
That was the island where Luke Skywalker, the Jedi Master, lived.

I learned that Skywalker is the english translation of the name Dakini, a Tibetan feminine Deity,
represented by a naked woman, whom the iconography is very similar to "THE WORLD" Tarot Card.

Judith Simmer-Brown, in Dakini's Warm Breath says :"The primary emblem of the feminine in
Tibetan Buddhism is the dakini, or "Sky-dancer" a semi-wrathful spirit-woman who manifests
in visions, dreams, and meditation experiences."

One of the roles of the dakini is a Wisdom protector.

"She is the one who conceals, or the one who recovers spiritual communications, textes and other objects called terma."

As I was intringued by the concept of terma, I looked for a more accurate definition:

"Terma is a Tibetan word reffering to texts or sacred objects believed to have been hidden
for safekeeping until the time is right for their recovering and utilization for the benefit of 
sentient beings. Someone who actually finds a material object of this nature, or who by virtue
of inspiration, memory or other means, reveals an inspirational text is known as a terton.

What could I say ? The definition fit perfectly with the story of my Oracle, and I really felt like a terton !

[peethagoras]

)

On 3/4/2022 at 1:20 PM, Light-of-Truth said:

I've never looked at the History of the Winds before. Curious Bacon came up with 33 "PARTICULAR TOPICKS: or Articles in Inquisition Concerning the Winds"

I'll say, if I were Bacon, knowing and using numbers as it appears he did, I would have had 33 Topicks as well. 😉

I like how he ends up, "Let those who come after us endeavour for the rest."

Ref Imitation of Winds (33)

Note that Bacon wrote it in Latin, and was translated into English by someone with the initials R. G.

 

The text says "within the recepticales" ............

Starting from 33 count down 3 lines, then count to word 3: RECEPTICALES  (11 letters).

Now count 3 letters from left and 3 from right, we have C and L, or 3 and 11.

3 x 11 = 33. 

It's all in the numbers.

 

[Eric Roberts]

https://archive.org/details/b30331006/page/n7/mode/2up?view=theater

Mikrokosmographia. Or a description of the body of man

by Helkiah Crooke, 1576-1648

https://worcestercathedrallibrary.wordpress.com/2022/06/08/the-contents-and-controversies-of-a-seventeenth-century-anatomy-book/

First published in London in 1615 by William Jaggard, Crooke's Mikrokosmographia was the first work on human anatomy to be written in English. Containing hundreds of anatomical engravings, the book caused something of a scandal due to its scientific illustrations of male and female generative organs. Despite attempts to ban it by the church, Mikrokosmographia was a great success. A more sumptuous edition was republished in 1631 with a title page and tour de force frontispiece by Martin Droeshout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helkiah_Crooke

 

[Eric Roberts]

On 3/4/2022 at 9:57 PM, Allisnum2er said:

This morning I really planned to rest.

At the same time, I said to myself that Pi-day was coming , that this would be the occasion to overcome my own procrastination and to share, this year, my work on Bacon and Pi.
While having fun with the Droeshout Portrait, putting Shake-speare's head in its proper place, I realized that I had to move his head in a South South-east direction.
And then ... EUREKA!

I remembered having read that the name of the South  South East wind was Phoenicias ... the wind coming from Phoenicia ( from the Greek Phoinix meaning Palm tree and which gave the word PHOENIX).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemoi

https://archive.org/details/b3034315x/page/6/mode/2up

The strange collar of Shake-speare is a reference to the Compass rose (Tudor).
We can see 4 peaks on the right and if we consider that, by symmetry, there are 4 peaks on the left , then we obtain the number 44 of which I spoke in another post.

44 is the gematria (Hebrew numerical value) of Yeled ( Child) Dam (Blood) and Chol , meaning Palm tree, Phoenix or Sand ( of Time ? 🙂 ) 

What a wonderfull method used by Francis Bacon to tell us that he was Shake-Speare and the son of Queen Elizabeth Tudor !

What do you think ?

I apologize if this is something that has already been found in the past.

 

 

Hi Yann. If you can spare the time, I would be grateful if you could have a look at Pierre Henrion's last essay on the Droeshout portrait. Using the same darts, like compass points, radiating around the ruff/collar that you refer to in your analysis, Henrion employs a 24 alphabetical cypher wheel to derive the name, "BACON". He eliminates one of the six darts as a "null" because it is in shadow. Do you think this is a valid/credible discovery? While on the subject, I'm trying to put together a bibliography of essays on the Droeshout portrait.

If anyone has links or PDFs of texts on the history, aesthetics and/or interpretation of the Droeshout frontispiece, for or against Francis Bacon's authorship of the Shakespeare plays, I'd be most interested and appreciative to see them.

Here is Pierre Henrion's essay from 1986 Baconiana No.186 Dec., pp: 29-33

Any ideas or thoughts on Henrion's unique cypher system above?

 

 

Edited June 7 by Eric Roberts

[Kate]

Okay, so what I am going to say here is probably not going to be popular, but in search of the truth this has left me scratching my head, so I'll share it. 

I was recently reading this pamphlet, which lampoons the Droeshout Portrait. On page 26 it is said that Boaden (presumably the portrait painter) describes the engraving as 'an abominable libel on humanity". The author goes on to say that in his opinion the Jansen portrait is the closest to the real Shakespeare. So looked that up and it turns out it is Janssen but... 

 

 

 

....I put them side by side and got this.

 

I thought it was interesting as in this portrait (right) the angle is almost identical as are the lines on the arms. This in my opinion, actually make Droeshout's just look like a bad facsimile, rather than back to front arms.  The Shakespeare one also looks like the head is 'floating'.  The eyes and eyebrows, length of nose and even the shape of the ruff (minus all the lace) are pretty similar, but it was striking that the one of Shakespeare has more hair, so he doesn't have the baldness of the Droeshout (which is also missing a pointy beard). Then I noticed this was the version of the Janssen portrait which had been conserved, so I went looking for the original.

Here it is.

https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/s/oi467k

No hair in the original. A bald forehead very, very similar to Droeshouts.

I'm absolutely mindful of APs extensive coverage of this in his recent paper/book, but I can't help but wonder what is going on here. Did Droeshout copy from this portrait (badly) and the decades of people thinking there was a floating head and back to back arms really was down to his inexperience. If so, why did they use him? I have to say that I thought some of Droeshout's other early 1600s engraving were also pretty poor. It took me a while to come up with one that captured real expression on the face (Howson). Many of his early ones were a bit vacant in facial expression.

The upshot is then, this is the first time ever that I have questioned whether, on this point - not on the authorship - the Stratfordians are right. As I say, I get that it will be unpopular to say this, but I can't blindly dismiss the likenesses here.

Am I missing something?

[Light-of-Truth]

5 hours ago, Kate said:

Okay, so what I am going to say here is probably not going to be popular, but in search of the truth this has left me scratching my head, so I'll share it. 

I was recently reading this pamphlet, which lampoons the Droeshout Portrait. On page 26 it is said that Boaden (presumably the portrait painter) describes the engraving as 'an abominable libel on humanity". The author goes on to say that in his opinion the Jansen portrait is the closest to the real Shakespeare. So looked that up and it turns out it is Janssen but... 

 

 

 

....I put them side by side and got this.

 

I thought it was interesting as in this portrait (right) the angle is almost identical as are the lines on the arms. This in my opinion, actually make Droeshout's just look like a bad facsimile, rather than back to front arms.  The Shakespeare one also looks like the head is 'floating'.  The eyes and eyebrows, length of nose and even the shape of the ruff (minus all the lace) are pretty similar, but it was striking that the one of Shakespeare has more hair, so he doesn't have the baldness of the Droeshout (which is also missing a pointy beard). Then I noticed this was the version of the Janssen portrait which had been conserved, so I went looking for the original.

Here it is.

https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/s/oi467k

No hair in the original. A bald forehead very, very similar to Droeshouts.

I'm absolutely mindful of APs extensive coverage of this in his recent paper/book, but I can't help but wonder what is going on here. Did Droeshout copy from this portrait (badly) and the decades of people thinking there was a floating head and back to back arms really was down to his inexperience. If so, why did they use him? I have to say that I thought some of Droeshout's other early 1600s engraving were also pretty poor. It took me a while to come up with one that captured real expression on the face (Howson). Many of his early ones were a bit vacant in facial expression.

The upshot is then, this is the first time ever that I have questioned whether, on this point - not on the authorship - the Stratfordians are right. As I say, I get that it will be unpopular to say this, but I can't blindly dismiss the likenesses here.

Am I missing something?

Here is part of what we kicked around last year:

And this PDF Eric linked:

https://sirbacon.org/bacon-forum/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=3363&key=d341e0a1a7f4f84b944e5954e912d79e

 

[Light-of-Truth]

6 hours ago, Kate said:

Did Droeshout copy from this portrait (badly) and the decades of people thinking there was a floating head and back to back arms really was down to his inexperience.

The Droeshout engraving is not lacking in quality at all, it is one of the most beautiful engravings ever engraved. The engraving is exactly as whatever the vision was among all those involved; backward shoulder, disembodied head, obviously line with a shadow around the face, and so much more.

Connections to the Cobbe painting are curious and worthy of study.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

8 hours ago, Kate said:

Okay, so what I am going to say here is probably not going to be popular, but in search of the truth this has left me scratching my head, so I'll share it. 

Thank you for bringing this up!

I thought it was dead. This is my third(?) time with it in my brain. It does grab one's attention! The first time for me was a while before the B'Hive. "A painting of Shakespeare while he was alive." Wow! That would be HUGE! I remember the excitement! I dug in, and after some traveling into the tale I was left empty.

The Droeshout engraving we know very well, and there is zero question on when and where it appeared. It was 1623. There is a "paper trail", so to speak. In my opinion, which I am aware is a "belief" in my head that is not science, is that the Droeshout engraving is an "original" masterpiece created for and specifically for the First Folio with several people involved on many levels. Can you imagine paying for an engraving for this collection and being delivered a crude copy of a Sir Thomas Overbury painting?

"You idiot! Once this hits the market we will be accused of copying Cobbe's painting!"

Rumors of the Cobbe painting being around 1610 are not validated. Unless in the past few years anyway. I suggest it is a copy of Droeshout's eternal masterpiece.

I see the similarities and have heard the Stratfordian spin, but at the end of the day, there has never been any "beef" as far I could tell. But here I am again curious and do not remember my paths and findings from before! I am curious again! Thank you, Kate!

My new question is when and why did Cobbe paint his painting. If it is actually by him, of whoever it is (as it is still a question), why ape the First Folio engraving?

Kate, you have a special "Eye" for finding cool things and it is not about any of us being popular. I am more invested in the B'Hive's popularity. 😉

"some poynts popular to invite many to contribute and joyne."

Why did Cobbe copy Droeshout's cryptic engraving? Who was Cobbe? A Rosicrucian?

😉

EDIT:

Notes (Hamnet):

Condition reviewed the panel consists of a single oak plank, apparently cut radially from the tree. At some point prior to 1770 the hairline was raised. The ground is a thin cream-colored gesso. There are two severe vertical cracks. One runs from top to bottom on the right-hand side, passing the sitter's ear and curving gently at the bottom where it borders the sitter's left wing. The second crack is down the middle of the panel passing to the left of the figure's left eye. These cracks were visible early on, as they are commented on by both Boaden in 1824 (p. 194) and Wivell in 1827 (pp. 108-09, n.). There is a third crack that starts at the top, 6 1/2 inches from the left edge, and ends near the right eye. The cradling consists of five vertical battens of irregular widths and spacing and five horizontal battens. Spielmann described it in 1909 as "on panel, very roughly hewn at the back and held together by three strengthening uprights-not a recent addition-and strips of canvas glued against the two cracks" (p. 232)

https://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~28422~102045:Janssen-Portrait-of-Shakespeare

[Kate]

Eh? The Cobbe and Janssen are different paintings aren’t they? My understanding from having read up on this today is that the Cobbe was located relatively recently (2006) when someone saw the Janssen and thought, but hang on that must be a copy of the one I have! (The Cobbe). 
 

The Cobbe one, however, has hair.

The Janssen one does too, but only after it was restored. The dating of the Janssen (unchanged version) is prior to the Droeshout.
 

Seems Droeshout copied the Janssen.

Whether it’s actually Shakespeare or not is not the issue. It’s the fact that the floating head and strange tailoring may be a false trail and actually he was just inexperienced and maybe as it was such an expensive project (according to Emma Smith it was) they tried to save money by commissioning Droeshout.
 

it doesn’t negate the Rosicrucian plan theory though as there’s reason to believe the extra line around the face and lack of any other adornment on the Droeshout (no laurel wreath, name  or heraldry etc) and the bright light on the face, juxtaposed to the dark of the tunic, (light and dark)  are drawing the attention of those with the eyes to see, that this picture of “Shakespeare” hides secrets!  I.e. It is indeed a front.

 

[Light-of-Truth]

2 hours ago, Kate said:

Eh? The Cobbe and Janssen are different paintings aren’t they? My understanding from having read up on this today is that the Cobbe was located relatively recently (2006) when someone saw the Janssen and thought, but hang on that must be a copy of the one I have! (The Cobbe). 
 

The Cobbe one, however, has hair.

The Janssen one does too, but only after it was restored. The dating of the Janssen (unchanged version) is prior to the Droeshout.
 

Seems Droeshout copied the Janssen.

Whether it’s actually Shakespeare or not is not the issue. It’s the fact that the floating head and strange tailoring may be a false trail and actually he was just inexperienced and maybe as it was such an expensive project (according to Emma Smith it was) they tried to save money by commissioning Droeshout.
 

it doesn’t negate the Rosicrucian plan theory though as there’s reason to believe the extra line around the face and lack of any other adornment on the Droeshout (no laurel wreath, name  or heraldry etc) and the bright light on the face, juxtaposed to the dark of the tunic, (light and dark)  are drawing the attention of those with the eyes to see, that this picture of “Shakespeare” hides secrets!  I.e. It is indeed a front.

 

You might be right? Its been a while since I looked at this.

I have no clue. LOL

I will acknowledge whatever this is shares a few characteristics with the 1623 Droeshout.

Question 1:

When?

Question 2:

Who?

Unless something new pops up, the "When" is not nailed down. Yet.

Same goes for the "Who?" It is not agreed upon yet, right?

Another Treasure to seek! 🙂

My bet is on that the First Folio was out when this was painted. Not based on fact, just my hunch... 🙂

 

 

[Kate]

‘When’ is reported as around 1604-1610.

You could be right Rob, who really knows, but the floating head and the bald forehead in the unrestored version inclines me to think he copied it from this earlier one, not the other way round.
 

The arrow here points to why it appears to be floating as it’s just black shadow or space, which is why Droeshout may have put his head abnormally high in his engraving - especially if he was doing a rough trace of it.  Round off the chin, add a bit of detail on the nostril, take off the lace and the Droeshout is an almost exact copy.

The Cobbe one has detail added at shoulder level and more hair, detailed lace and the eyes have more life.

Anyway, all very interesting stuff to contemplate.