Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

Morten wrote: "Nonetheless, I resent your efforts to convince others to ignore my essay by in..."

I would never do that. I am concerned about your unsupported arguments and erroneous assertions. I would never incite others against you.

JP, Everyone knows that the Morten St. George theories are fringe theories. That's why VViews started this informal thread under Voynich Talks, to keep me from contaminating the ongoing discussions in other threads. It is therefore unrealistic to expect too much. Besides being critical where appropriate, readers of my posts should also be looking for ways that something I say could be expanding our knowledge of the VMS.

My theories are not unsupported. They in fact draw considerable direct support from the VMS marginalia, from the Nostradamus prophecies, from the two prose introductions to the Nostradamus prophecies, from English theatrical literature, from a herbal encyclopedia of the late 16th century, and from two novels of the early 17th century. They find additional, indirect support in medieval legends and cabalistic literature. You conclude that I'm unsupported only because you are probably unfamiliar with many of my sources.

Let me remind you that research into your sources (mainly other medieval manuscripts) has failed to resolve the mysteries of the VMS. Moreover, your sources provide little useful information on how to decode the VMS whereas my sources do indeed give us some ideas on that matter, and it is hardly surprising that my sources do that because, as you know, my primary theory is that parts of the VMS were already decoded and published back in the 16th century.

pox leber ubren quarix portas > per liber urbem quae portat > por libre urbe que porta > par cité franche qui porte

It's helpful to have a little imagination to figure that one out.