The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[ioannestritemius]

I have transcribed all of PUG 557, f. 353rv but for the sake of expediency will limit myself to the most obvious proof of forgery,

What do you mean with 'forgery' in this case? 
Not written in the 17th century? Written by someone else? Much later? Even Voynich himself?

This is the only piece of writing we have from Barschius. Who knows... perhaps that was just how he wrote.

More importantly, it is bound into a volume and listed in the original index to that volume. 

I apologize for my perhaps unclear wording, but I cannot express what I said more succinctly. The Barschius-letter was forged by Wilfrid Voynich, with the intent to validate/authenticate the VM, and Voynich forged many other letters in some of the PUG-volumes, too. The most obvious proof are the diacritics as explained by me. Not to mention the weird, ungrammatical Latin. No writer or printer of Latin would have used the diacritics exemplified by me, or even written such a text. It is not a matter of handwriting or personal choice or the dwindles of age: no one writing in Latin would have written such a letter. If this is the only letter by Barschius, then no letter by Barschius survives. That the letter a) was bound, and b) is listed in an index is secondary, or circumstantial evidence. The text proves by and itself that it was forged, because no one would or could have "written like that." Any Latin handwriting expert or paleographer will attest to this. Would you accept such a third person's "attestation"? Kind regards, T. E.