The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

But lastly I point out that you have not explained to us how you think Marci's bad Latin diacritical marks made it from Marci, to that letter, by the scribe? Why would a scribe transcribe a letter for Marci with all those errors, including written ones?

And why would Voynich the master forger use bad Latin diacritical marks in his fake? The bad Latin is unexpected both if the letter is original and if it was faked by Voynich. It's unexplained in both cases.

At the very best for the Modern Forgery Theory (a fortiori) I can concede it's slightly more probable on the fake hypothesis, maybe with 1.2 to 1 odds: a very weak evidence. But for me the odds are 1 to 1, and the bad Latin is no evidence for, nor against, MFT (nor for, or against, the 'ancient Voynich' theory).

Well thank you for giving it some consideration and open thought, Mauro. But let me clarify for you the reasoning I was using in asking about the incorrect diacritical marks (and other features like it)...

Yes, as you say, bad Latin alone might be explained both by Marci's bad Latin, and, alternatively by Voynich's (or other forger of the letter's) bad Latin.

But the history of excusing the bad Latin and script of the letter was to invent a "scribe" to explain it. No, no scribe known, nor identified... just imagined, speculated on, whatever, to also explain why that letter was different than Marci's other letters, other than it being a fake.

OK, I never accepted that for several reasons, not the least of which was that the writing is somewhat similar to Marci's, but not quite. So why would a scribe copy his handwriting at all? And then, Marci's signature is assumed to be his... and better written. Not only that, but an almost perfect tracing! Well if he could write that well, why did he need a scribe? We were told Marci was old, and must have been feeble... so, the "scribe".

BUT NOW, with Thomas Ernst's excellent and detailed analysis as to in just what ways the Latin is wrong, the "scribe" excuse becomes very implausible. This, because that bad Latin of Marci's would have to "pass through" the scribe, and be transcribed by him/her onto the paper. How, exactly, would this "scribe" dutifully and religiously copy features of Marci's bad Latin, such as the diacritical marks, invented words, and so on, to the letter? How would he even KNOW the wrong diacritical marks were being used? Was it supposedly a letter of Marci's this "scribe" was copying? Why would he copy errors? If it was the habit of one's superior to not dot "i's" or cross "t's", and so on, would any receptionist/steno/scribe transcribe a letter without them? Why?

I hope that better explains the problem here. It is not the Latin quality, as much as the logistics of the proposed, speculative scenario of the inserted "scribe", and how that just does not make any logical, practical, or common sense.