Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

Morten, you're doing it again. You are making things up.

We do not reject the idea that the VMS is a copy of something. The possibility is mentioned on a regular basis. I don't know anyone who has openly rejected the possibility.

You guys remind me of the US presidency: you say one thing but your actions tell a different story.

From my own experience, and from what I have been reading elsewhere, you guys frequently fight tooth and nail against any suggestion that the VMS script and drawings could have originated prior to the 15th century. It is in fact widely assumed that it all originated in the 15th century, which in effect constitutes a total rejection of Currier's copying job theory.

Recall, for example, the publication of the baths of Naples which was presented as an absolute refutation of my 13th century theory, until I had to point out that it was standard design for the ancient Roman baths which could be found all across the empire.

Over on another thread, I noticed that someone (Antonio of Spain) agrees with my postulation that it is the loss of critical precedent manuscripts that has been leading you astray on the origins of the VMS:

My impression is that what would explain the VMS are books that have not reached us. Too many Inquisitions and books at the stake.

On more than one occasion I have asked you to provide, on the basis of internal VMS content, a smoking gun that would definitively place the manuscript later than the 13th century and I am still waiting for a response.