- Options
- Login
- Desktop Style
Options
The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
- The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ioannestritemius > 08-01-2026, 07:23 AM
Let me save everyone some time. Each and every last letter contained in PUG 555-568 pertaining to Kircher's supposed Prague correspondents, plus Beinecke 408A, is a modern forgery. Voynich did not just forge the world's favorite mystery book, but also the beloved "carteggio". I prefer plain English: correspondence. And plain truth: forgery. The only interesting question from here on is the following: what else did he forge? If the man forged "Medieval Alice in Wonderland" and a complete 14-volume set of 17th Century correspondence (I can only assume that the remaining letters in those volumes are forgeries too), he fabricated more. Some library and museum shelves, beginning at the British Museum, will benefit from a good Spring cleaning. Unfortunately you cannot seek solace in the Dorabella-Cipher. That is a forgery too; trust me on that one. Sorry about this. – Life is so short, and life is so beautiful. There is no longer any need to waste it on this one man's obsessive nonsense. Spring is just around the corner. Waste your time instead on listening to the first blackbirds, and watch the trees bloom, and the grass grow, and deeply inhale the first Spring rain. Say hello from me to the first cat who crosses your path tomorrow. – And thank you for our brief time together. – Thomas Ernst. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Legit > 08-01-2026, 08:40 AM
(07-01-2026, 09:25 PM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(06-01-2026, 12:05 AM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Thank you, I think ... If I understand the logic of the comment "Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity" correctly, it is the same thing as stating that a fake-Rembrandt, for example, is the cornerstone that supports its authenticity??(05-01-2026, 11:50 PM)Koen G Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Isn't the manuscript itself the cornerstone that supports its authenticity?
Isn't that a paradox ?
To return to Voynich's forged letters in several PUG-volumes, allow me to deconstruct Baresch 16390427. Incidentally, I do not understand why, in a predominantly English speaking forum, the Kircher-correspondence keeps being referred to by the Italian word "carteggio". To over-inflate its importance? In plain English, a "carteggio" is a "correspondence".
Re 16390427, PUG 557, f. 353rv, Jiří Bareš (Georg Baresch) to Kircher. I suggest that the interested reader consult neither the English translation, nor the English summary, and especially not the Latin transcript, but the original text which is available at [You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.]. The same scrupulousness bestowed on the VM itself should also be applied to its supporting documents, i. e. its "certificates of authenticity", meaning the two letters Baresch 16390427 and Marci 16650819.
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, the diacritics over the "u", "ú", and "ù" (yes, there is more than that). Background: in humanist Latin, scribes occasionally used "ü", not as a modern trema, but to visually distinguish lines of neighboring letter-shapes, e. g. "adinüentionis" (Trithemius, letter to Germain de Ganay, 1515, not autograph). The "sharp" accent" (accent aigu) "ú" was used predominantly in print to indicate the ablative case; the "grave" accent (accent grave) "ù" to indicate an adverb, e. g. "lectúque", "minùs" (Historia rei litterariæ Ordinis S. Benedicti, 1754). In Latin, "ú" was not used to distinguish the sounds /u/ and /v/ or to mark diphthongs. The custom to put a little "flourish" above the "u" to distinguish it from "n" was limited to German handwriting. And Latin diacritics did not have the same meaning as those, for instance, in modern French: in "à côté" the grave is semantic (distinction from the verb "a"), the circonflexe is etymological (vestige of Latin and old French "s", "costa", "coste"), while the accent aigu is phonetic in that it indicates the sound of the long vowel [e:]. – To return to Latin: whichever convention a Latin writer or printer followed, he applied or not applied diacritics to the written letter "u" with 97.8543 percent %regularity.
...
First thank you for this detailed information. It's far from my area of knowledge. I would say however that as I get older my spelling gets worse and worse and if it weren't for spell check my posts would be much more embarrassing than just speaking on topics among others who know the subjects far better than I.
I will say when approaching your claim as a layman the reasoning leaves some room for doubt. Yes, I can accept that the Latin in Baresch 16390427 is terrible according to your expert opinion. But this only proves that Baresh wrote in poor latin at that time when compared to your knowledge of Latin. What would add to your claim would be proof that this letter had uncharacteristically bad Latin for Baresch. If you were to also compare this with another recent letter from Baresch (or more if that's feasible) and show that his Latin was not bad in his other correspondence. That would be much more undeniable proof.
edit: shortening the long quote -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
ReneZ > 08-01-2026, 09:49 AM
(01-01-2026, 05:44 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.In the comments below my blog post of September, 2015, "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.", Thomas Ernst has posted a series of comments carefully explaining why the Latin of that letter (the one Voynich claimed to have found in the Voynich, of course) is problematic in ways that would never appear in a genuine letter of the (supposed) time, by the (supposed) authors.
and now....
(08-01-2026, 07:23 AM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let me save everyone some time. Each and every last letter contained in PUG 555-568 pertaining to Kircher's supposed Prague correspondents, plus Beinecke 408A, is a modern forgery. Voynich did not just forge the world's favorite mystery book, but also the beloved "carteggio". I prefer plain English: correspondence. And plain truth: forgery. The only interesting question from here on is the following: what else did he forge? If the man forged "Medieval Alice in Wonderland" and a complete 14-volume set of 17th Century correspondence (I can only assume that the remaining letters in those volumes are forgeries too), he fabricated more.
[...]
And thank you for our brief time together. – Thomas Ernst.
Ah, that clarifies quite a bit. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Jorge_Stolfi > 08-01-2026, 10:59 AM
(07-01-2026, 09:25 PM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Incidentally, I do not understand why, in a predominantly English speaking forum, the Kircher-correspondence keeps being referred to by the Italian word "carteggio". To over-inflate its importance? In plain English, a "carteggio" is a "correspondence".
Well, "correspondence" is a generic term that means any letter that Kircher recieved or sent. The Carteggio is specifically the set of letters bound together in those N volumes at whatever library they are in now.
We do often use Latin or other-language names for certain manuscripts...
All the best, --stolfi -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Legit > 08-01-2026, 12:48 PM
(07-01-2026, 08:26 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.But there is a bigger picture here you do not know about, because it is a long "work in progress", and I only hint at it. So you may think I "need" to do this or that, to convince you... really, though, are you interested in being convinced? And do I want to convince you? I can answer for myself, "no". I only discuss these things for the interest of those truly interested in these things I find interesting, and again, to save them the trouble of believing and disbelieving things that simply are not true.
I can only comment on the parts of your theory that you've written about. If I point out where your theory is unfounded, and you've withheld some supporting facts (and written only speculation) I've only responded with sincerity given the information. I would assume we're all seeking the unbiased truth here.
(07-01-2026, 08:26 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyway, back to the Lost Chart of Magellan... there is a great deal to this story, and much I still have to learn about it. When I do decide to write about this, at length, I hope you, too, will find it interesting. But for now, what I know for now, it relates more to the way Voynich 1) explained things, 2) fished for expert opinions, 3) either related or created provenance, 4) how questionable items have and are accepted by the scholarly community... all I can think of, at the moment.
(07-01-2026, 08:26 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Quote:The speculation on top of speculation makes it hard to accept it to be anything other than a fictional story. While we're speculating we should definitely implicate Voynichs wife Ethel who continued to try to sell the VM after his death, and their secretary Anne Nill who succeeded in selling it. Perhaps the encoded text is Polish or Russian since Ethel spoke and translated both of these languages.
You see you can do that, if you want, but you know I don't... so what is the point to those other speculations? Of course, for a false impression that my ideas are foundationless. Rather, you should stick to what I really believe, if you want to argue my actual hypothesis, and not strawmen.
Quote:Ethels claim that Voynich confessed it's true origin to be the Jesuits at Frascati could be used to speculate that she was complicit in the conspiracy to forge and sell the VM. The claim for the Jesuit origin comes not from Ethel herself but from a letter (presumably written by Ethel) to Anne Nill. Why would Ethel reveal this only in a letter to Anne? Perhaps Anne Nill forged that letter from Ethel. After all, she was the one who was successful in selling the VM. Perhaps there was a love triangle. The possibilities are endless.
Again, you are creating an implausible set of conditions I in no way believe in, or have ever stated. Why? If my actual hypothesis is weak, you should stick to that, and not grow your own low hanging fruit to pick.
The foundation of the line of reasoning of yours that I quoted is that the “Magellan Map” is a forgery. If it's not a forgery, then the entire line of reasoning collapses and is therefore foundationless. But if the Magellan Map is a forgery then perhaps it opens up the 'implausible set of conditions' that your theory may imply.
These are interesting questions your theory raises. How could Wilfrid be a criminal mastermind of forgery and Ethel his wife not know? If Ethel kept the secret of the Jesuits, why not reveal it soon after Wilfrids death? On his death, Wilfrids will gave a large portion of his estate to Anne, so large that she declined it because it would financially harm Ethel. Would Wilfrid do this for Anne if she was only an employee and they were not having an affair? I'm not presenting these as implausible, but if your suppositions are correct - highly plausible using the same standards of evidence (that you've chosen to share).
By not revealing what she knew about Wilfrids "Bacon" deception soon after his death makes her a knowing participant as she continued to try to sell the VM under those pretenses. This is an undeniable stain on her character. If this implicates Wilfrid in fraud, why not Ethel?
Whether you intend or not, your theory paints a picture of Wilfrid as an agent of a "forgery factory" smuggling letters into archives all over and hoping nobody would notice anything new. How likely is it that nobody knew the contents of the correspondence well enough that they wouldn't notice when a new letter had been added? -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
nablator > 08-01-2026, 01:38 PM
(08-01-2026, 07:23 AM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Let me save everyone some time. Each and every last letter contained in PUG 555-568 pertaining to Kircher's supposed Prague correspondents, plus Beinecke 408A, is a modern forgery.
This includes the two letters from Kinner to Kircher, PUG 562, both also using "â" meaning "from" in the same "incorrect" way.
Here is a 1653 You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. from Kinner to the famous mathematician and astronomer Christiaan Huygens:
Quote:Set quoniam ab eo tempore iam tertius mensis labitur, neque tamen responsus â te video, quem aliàs in vices alienis literis rependendas cognovi satis pronum [...] morbus aliquis â scriptione te prohibeat.
Translation: But since the third month has passed since that time, I still see no response from you, whom I have known to be quite prone to replying to other people's letters at other times [...] some illness may prevent you from writing.
Are all Kinner's letters fake? Is Kinner fake?
-
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Mauro > 08-01-2026, 05:38 PM
(08-01-2026, 02:42 AM)ioannestritemius Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
That's not a proof the letter was faked by Voynich. Please read post You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > Yesterday, 05:06 AM
(07-01-2026, 08:46 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(07-01-2026, 07:30 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
proto57 > Yesterday, 05:51 AM
(08-01-2026, 12:48 PM)Legit Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The foundation of the line of reasoning of yours that I quoted is that the “Magellan Map” is a forgery. If it's not a forgery, then the entire line of reasoning collapses and is therefore foundationless. But if the Magellan Map is a forgery then perhaps it opens up the 'implausible set of conditions' that your theory may imply.
Yes, I agree with you. If I am wrong about the Magellan Map, then of course that line of inquiry collapses, becomes moot to any other issue. All that would remain would be the interesting question, "What the heck happened to what would arguably be one of the most important and valuable maps in the history of the Age of Discovery?". I mean that, sincerely. Maybe it was quietly sold by Voynich, and not destroyed or otherwise lost, and will turn up on someone's attic one day.
Quote:These are interesting questions your theory raises. How could Wilfrid be a criminal mastermind of forgery and Ethel his wife not know?
I'm not "grasping at straws" here, but it is generally assumed that they were not an exceptionally tight pair for some time, and did live relatively separate lives. Ethel admits somewhere... a letter?... an interview?... that she didn't pay much attention to the "Bacon Cipher" until after Wilfrid died. Then she and Anne embraced it fully. Not related to forgery or not, but you or others may be interested in some discoveries I made in reading all the extant letters in two collections, the Beinecke, but mostley the Grolier: "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view." There were literally years of angst over funds, and what to do with the collections, the business, the London store, and more.
Quote:If Ethel kept the secret of the Jesuits, why not reveal it soon after Wilfrids death?
I think the assumption is that people might still be alive who would be embarrassed, or even get into trouble, by that revelation. I would only be (further) guessing, but I've heard of cases in which the ownership of art, literature, and other items is questionable, and people sometimes don't want their possessing the item generally known... or, where they actually got it. There have been many cases, throughout history, in which people or nations insisted on the return of items. If Wilfrid genuinely purchased the Ms. from the Jesuits, or if he thought they would think it was theirs if he said they did, or if, after Ethel inherited it, it's ownership might be contested... well everyone might have wanted to keep that secret to the grave, for that reason, too.
I've got secrets that are going to the grave, too, but I'm dying to tell you. Just kidding.
Quote:On his death, Wilfrids will gave a large portion of his estate to Anne, so large that she declined it because it would financially harm Ethel. Would Wilfrid do this for Anne if she was only an employee and they were not having an affair? I'm not presenting these as implausible, but if your suppositions are correct - highly plausible using the same standards of evidence (that you've chosen to share).
I admit I forgot that part, about the inheritance to Anne. Anyway, somehow I doubt Wilfrid was having an affair with Anne, and it is often suggested possible that it was Ethel and Anne who were... well, very close. They were practically a couple for decades, until Ethel's death. And Anne never seemed to speak of men in any sort of admiring way. Of course, no way of knowing, and it does not matter to our questions. I think, though, it would be nice if they were in love, and a couple, and had those years together as more than friends.
Quote:By not revealing what she knew about Wilfrids "Bacon" deception soon after his death makes her a knowing participant as she continued to try to sell the VM under those pretenses. This is an undeniable stain on her character. If this implicates Wilfrid in fraud, why not Ethel?
Well everything is not black and white, it is a matter of degree. I'm not sure Ethel's concerns ran to the level of believing any overt deception was being perpetrated in the Bacon or other parts of Wilfrid's given provenance, but she at least... wondered at it? Was concerned? One case I noted this was a note Ethel made (it is in the Beinecke archives), in which she listed the whole Bacon/Dee/Rudolf line of... stuff... and wrote in big letters, "HOW DO WE KNOW THIS???", and then double or triple underlined it (I have the pic somewhere, sorry I've had trouble finding it, and may have that a bit off). It seemed to me she was realizing those stories had a poor foundation... and either genuinely wanted to know where they came from, or, was questioning if they had any foundation at all. Not sure.
But then she clearly tried to "steer" the visibility and investigation of the Voynich Ms. in the direction she thought would be most beneficial to selling it at a good price. There are several cases of this. In one letter, she is asking someone... I forget, Anne?... she was right there... I forget who she was asking, or if Anne was asking for her... Anyway, Ethel was concerned that someone... I think, Steele?... might not be "behind" a Bacon authorship, and if not, she didn't want to grant permission for that person to see it.
In another case, she was upset that Charles Singer was lecturing on the Voynich... before it was (supposedly) discovered! As early as 1905! Worse yet, Singer was saying it was a 17th century "Paracelsan type manuscript". Both these claims would of course have undermined both the given provenance, and the nature of the manuscript, if true. Charles Singer "recanted": "You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.?" Whether or not this is correct, it is relatable to your point in that at the very least Ethel was very protective of the nature, provenance, and "image" of the Voynich, and probably because she was hoping for a sale, and a great return on it. So I don't think she was un-ethel-cal... I mean, unethical... just trying to control the narrative a bit to protect her interests.
Hmmm.... that reminds me of something.
Quote:Whether you intend or not, your theory paints a picture of Wilfrid as an agent of a "forgery factory" smuggling letters into archives all over and hoping nobody would notice anything new. How likely is it that nobody knew the contents of the correspondence well enough that they wouldn't notice when a new letter had been added?
You are confusing me with our friend who has done a really fantastic job of analyzing the problems with the Latin in various letters. I am not yet on board with the idea that any other letters of the Carteggio are similarly faked. And for me, Wilfrid as an agent of any "forgery factory"? It never even occurred to me, so that's not me either.
I think, like many collectors and dealers... and more unsavory sorts in some institutions... Voynich may have had some tangential knowledge of, and possible connections with, either forgers or dealers in forgeries. That doesn't put him in any especial class... I think that has always been the case, and is, today. For instance, the fine watch industry... millions of high quality fakes of watches literally pour out of the "east" today, and many are VERY difficult to tell from genuine. So, they end up passing through the hands of legitimate dealers all the time. Ascertaining what those dealers knew, and closed their eyes to it; or simply didn't know, is often something that would be impossible to determine.
But I think the ONLY forgeries Voynich may have had a hand in, perhaps partially or wholly created, are the Voynich Ms. and later, the 1665/66 Marci letter. But I do believe he sold, in addition to the "Columbus Miniature" we do know about, another 5 or 6 forgeries, including the Magellan Chart. Don't know, though, and I may never know... they are works in progress, needing VAST amounts of research, time and footwork, and I probably will never get to all of it. -
RE: The Modern Forgery Hypothesis
Mauro > Yesterday, 10:09 AM
(Yesterday, 05:06 AM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(07-01-2026, 08:46 PM)Mauro Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
(07-01-2026, 07:30 PM)proto57 Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.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.
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.
(*) notice I'm not personally able to judge the form of the Latin in the letter, but from what I read here I take it for granted. I did not even know Latin can use diacritics (but in rare cases) and it's one of those things I'll check out sooner of later.