A „post festum“ interpretation with a too broad range of arbitrariness, whimsicalities and improbabilities,
which cannot be accepted by a scientific community
for methodological reasons alone.
 |  |
Lately "Oxfordian" William J.Ray produced a film (click video below) explaining in detail the hidden messages of the Shakespeare Droeshout portrait as a sacred geometry for Edward de Vere , 17th Earl of Oxford .
I assume, that many can agree with William Ray‘s first part of
I assume, that many can agree with William Ray‘s first part of
that no real living person got portrayed in the Droeshout portrait and that the true author remained invisible and anonymous.
But I am buffled and confused and by no means convinced with the second (witty) part that „Oxfords identity is fixed secretly in the First Folio title [picture] for all times“, only comprehensible for a singular brain ....
Who would have inspired the 21 year old dutch painter Martin Droeshout to implement such a wealth of concealed symbolisms of a poet he didn‘t know and who died many years before?
Please note, that not even the first part of Rays acceptable assumption [the true author of the portrait remained invisible and anonymous] has generally been accepted up to now .-
Instead of interpreting invisible secret messages, why Ray doesn't begin with interpreting visable messages of assymetries (1 different hair length, 2 right stiffening collar line missing, 3 straight and round doublet line , 4 distant and adjacent line of bordure, 5 double chin line) most likely indicating [metaphoracally] a masque and two body halfes, a front view[right] and a back view[left].
But I am buffled and confused and by no means convinced with the second (witty) part that „Oxfords identity is fixed secretly in the First Folio title [picture] for all times“, only comprehensible for a singular brain ....
Who would have inspired the 21 year old dutch painter Martin Droeshout to implement such a wealth of concealed symbolisms of a poet he didn‘t know and who died many years before?
This a „post festum“ interpretation with a too broad range of arbitrariness, whimsicalities and improbabilities, which can never be accepted by a scientific community for methodological reasons alone. What a shame.
Please note, that not even the first part of Rays acceptable assumption [the true author of the portrait remained invisible and anonymous] has generally been accepted up to now .-
Instead of interpreting invisible secret messages, why Ray doesn't begin with interpreting visable messages of assymetries (1 different hair length, 2 right stiffening collar line missing, 3 straight and round doublet line , 4 distant and adjacent line of bordure, 5 double chin line) most likely indicating [metaphoracally] a masque and two body halfes, a front view[right] and a back view[left].
VIDEO (Vimeo)
