Tell tale signs Marci letter forged by Wilfrid V.

[ReneZ]

Rich,

what makes the 'Voynich faked it' theory particularly vulnerable is that it does not deal with events that happened in the first half of the 15th century, but with much more recent events, for which we have a lot of documented evidence. This evidence can be put to good use.

Marci has written well over 30 letters to Kircher that are still preserved. We can see these letters on our computer screens at a click of a mouse. For those interested in looking at them, rather than copying all links by hand, let me refer to a page by Philip Neal where they are all together:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Here are two parts of one particular letter by Marci, dated 12 January 1641:

   
   

Text and signature are in the same hand, and 'manu propria' by Marci. One can go to any number of other letters using the above link, and note the same hand with some natural variation in all of them. Many include the 'manu propria' sign, others don't.

Now let's look at the letter from 10 September 1665, also included in Kircher's correspondence. This means: it has been bound into that volume (APUG 562), and it is listed in the hand-written, contemporary index of the volume (on fol.1v), which I show first:

   

Then, again, two parts of the letter:

   
   

Finally, two parts of the 1665 Marci letter now preserved in the Beinecke. The fine texture is a gauze that Beinecke has put over the letter:

   
   

As everyone can clearly see, the handwriting of the main texts of the two letters from 1665 are closely similar to each other, but completely different from the hand that is positively identified as that of Marci.
Equally, the two signatures from 1665 are very similar to each other, and similar to Marci's original signature.

You write in the blog post that you link to:

It has long been known that the “signature” of Marcus Marci is not by him, as it seems to be different on his other, earlier letters.

The evidence clearly tells otherwise.

In the forum post above, referring to my:

2) "... the signature is Marci's while the main text of the letter is from the scribe. (It could also be one of his students)..."

you commented:

Who wrote what is only a guess by you, first of all;

Again, the evidence is very clear. Main text: someone else. Signature: Marci.
The hand of the main text of these two letters is not the same as that of any of the people who signed Marci's will. These are some of his best known students.

Clearly, and beyond any reasonable doubt: if the Marci letter now in the Beinecke is a fake by Voynich, it must have been done by closely copying the handwriting of the original letter of 1665 that is still in the Kircher correspondence.

I am, however, confused about one statement:

I never said, nor implied, that the entire 1665/6 letter is a copy, only the signature, date, and some other portions.

Are you suggesting that the body of the text of the letter in the Beinecke, that gives the various details of the manuscript and its history, is actually an original 1665 letter, but only the signature of Marci was copied on it by Voynich?

While this is completely untenable, if it were the case, it means that this is to be treated as an original letter, written by the same scribe who wrote the other letter from Marci one month earlier later.