Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

JKP wrote:

"If you are used to reading 15th-century script, it quite clearly reads as ma+ria (Maria). Look at the other "i" shapes on the page. They all have a leading serif and the "i" was haphazardly dotted at this time (sometimes dotted, sometimes not). Look also at the other "r" shapes, they are the form which has the hook disconnected from the stem. This was quite common at the time."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Isn't Maria a religious name in Italian? I sure hope you're not reverting back to authorship by the northern monks?

I think you handwriting experts are suffering from optical illusions. Let's try an experiment. Let's remove the word mature from all its surroundings and show it to people. I'm pretty sure many or most people would identify that central plus sign (+) as the letter t. Your judgment is being distorted by the surrounding plus signs and you don't realize it.

Similarly for the word mur. Let's extract it without the stray dot and show it to people. How many people do you think would say the word is nim when there is no optical illusion? BTW, what's nim supposed to mean? 

Also, please note that there is no Latin letter a here. That's another optical illusion. It's just a VMS glyph that happens to look similar to the letter a, comprised by the joining of a c with an i, where the i has a left hook on top and attaches to the top of the c. There is absolutely no evidence that this glyph was created to represent the letter a. In fact, I see that one handwriting expert transcribes the final a of your Maria as "ct". 

For my analysis, I interpreted this glyph as representing the diphthong æ which can be transcribed either as an a or an e. That's how I get mature. Similarly, portas can be rendered as portes, which exactly matches the published output in spelling.

Let's briefly have another look at Shakespeare's shield on page 17:



Recall that on page 116v Shakespeare induced us into a Hebrew reversal of vix to get xiv. Here, a Hebrew reversal of 17 gives us 71.

Let's now look at an excerpt from the printing of the backup manuscript:



Notice the numbering sequence: 80, 71, 82. The portes recipe is incorrectly numbered 71!

Now, inside the portes recipe, notice that the first Sept is erroneously and inexplicably spelled Segt, where the p has been ridiculously replaced with a g.



Now back to page 116v. Immediately to the right of mur: Is that, or is that not, the Latin letter g?