The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[proto57]

The 'scribe' is just a third possibility beyond 1) original and 2) faked by Voynich of the bad Latin found in the letter (*). I have no doubts even more possibilities can be imagined, but the point here is not to find 'the' explanation for the weird Latin. The point is: does Marci's letter being a fake by Voynich explain the bad Latin better than it being an original?

Let me try to be clearer: the Latin in Marci's letter is unexpected, being bad and using diacritics in a weird way. The letter being a (textually bad) fake is a possible explanation and, of course, one can make a case about the letter being a fake starting with the bad Latin as evidence, and if the case succeeds it removes a piece of evidence for the authenticity of the VMS (an already rather weak piece of evidence imho, given we can't be sure it actually refers to the VMS). But what one surely cannot do is to pin that fake on Voynich himself in support of the Modern Forger Theory, because the very same weird Latin is unexpected also from Voynich (who must have been a very accomplished forger for the Modern Fake Theory to be true) as much as it's unexpected from Marci.

I do understand your points here, and yes one can look at all the possible "ways" to explain the bad Latin. And I don't necessarily disagree with all or any particular idea, it is only that I consider my scenario most plausible. That is the nature of the beast: We don't know, so we all must speculate.

A point here, though, meanwhile, in that you wrote, "([the letter is] an already rather weak piece of evidence imho, given we can't be sure it actually refers to the VMS)". You realize that this is You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. for my rejecting the use of this and all the other letters, by Baresch/Kinner/Marci/Kircher, right? It is weak, and the other letters are far weaker still. I think your appraisal, as an honest aside, is also a very accurate one, and also one which most- if not all- 1420 Genuine adherents vehemently deny. The supposed "strength" of these references is no less than foundational to the whole genuine Voynich argument.

Well, another point to your, "... because the very same weird Latin is unexpected also from Voynich (who must have been a very accomplished forger for the Modern Fake Theory to be true)". I don't agree that it at all follows that a person bad in Latin would necessarily be a bad artist, or forger, or have made up Voynichese. I know little about Latin, for instance, and I am a far better artist than the Voynich artist. I also don't think the Voynich is very well done, and that it is a very poor forgery, and only accepted because of circumstantial events on its timeline. But that is a moot point to yours... so even if one considers it a good work, or a good forgery, I don't think ability in Latin would necessarily have any effect on that at all. I think they are unrelated.

Anyway, back to this issue: 

No one here has yet... and not Rene, especially, who, here, seems to have first suggested it... explained their reasoning for how and why this "scribe" (for those who believe it WAS a scribe, and not Marci, who wrote it) would know and copy bad diacritical marks, and other specific features- supposedly of Marci's- into this supposedly transcribed letter. Was he supposedly copying these features from a letter written by Marci? Did Marci tell him to do it?

And related to that is the study Rene pointed to... I still have not looked it up, but hope to, soon... here is the quote by Rene, from page 28 of this thread:

In 2002, Margaret Garber successfully defended a PhD thesis about Marci's philospohical writings. In the committee was Joseph Smolka, who has studied Marci's life, and published about him continually since the 1960's. The title of the thesis is:

Garber, M.: Optics and alchemy in the philosophical writings of Marcus Marci in post-Rudolphine Prague 1612-1670, dissertation submitted for the degree Doctor of Philosophy, San Diego, 2002.

In this thesis she literally writes that "Marci did not write in the most efficient of manners".
His Latin was cumbersome.

This is a feature of Marci's writing. The opposite of evidence that this letter is not genuine.

That quote of hers, "Marci did not write in the most efficient of manners" is being used here, by Rene, as a sort of "blanket excuse" for the bad Latin of the 1665/66 Marci letter. But I am curious in exactly what way was it bad, as per Garber? And in reading this dissertation, would any of us agree that the badness is of the same type and form as Neal and Ernst and others have seen in the aforementioned letter? And Rene, is it you who used the word "cumbersome", or is that also a word Garber used?

My point is that if Garber noted and described a set of different reasons to describe Marci's Latin as "not" the "most efficient", other than Thomas Ernst or others, then not only is Garber not supportive evidence, as used here, but actually further evidence that this letter was not by Marci at all... imagined scribe or not. Come to think of it, since I'm on that, I'll see if I can find the paper... 

... OK, not available to me, or behind paywalls... I can and will download it, but need to renew my NYPL card, apparently. Meanwhile, Rene, could you please copy that portion of the paper which describes what Garber meant by "Marci did not write in the most efficient of manners"? So that we can all see how it relates, or does not, to the "bad Latin" as described by Neal, Ernst, et al? Thanks...

Rich