🔥 The Marci Letter Forgery: Forensic Evidence 🔥

Why This Makes No Sense:

• The letter is in plain sight - Either attached to the inside cover or folded within the manuscript. A professional dealer examines everything.
• The phrase "Rogerium Bacconem Anglum" (Roger Bacon, the Englishman) appears prominently - Even a cursory glance would reveal this stunning reference. Impossible for a manuscript dealer to miss.
• Voynich's story changed multiple times - First "a castle in Southern Europe," then "an Austrian Castle," finally Villa Mondragone. Changing stories are a classic sign of deception.
• The Voynich MS is itself stunning and mysterious - Any included documents would have been of tremendous immediate interest, not overlooked.

The Real Explanation:

The "delayed discovery" claim suggests the letter didn't exist when Voynich first acquired the manuscript. He needed to explain why he didn't mention it to people who had already seen or heard about the MS. The letter was created later, requiring the fiction that he "just noticed it."

The Impossible Scenario:

• The 1665 Marci letter would have been part of this precious collection - It's addressed to Kircher, precisely the type of item the Carteggio was created to preserve.
• No Jesuit examined the manuscript before sale? - Professional librarians and scholars staffed the college. They would have examined any item being sold.
• They just let a valuable Carteggio item walk out the door? - The Jesuits carefully catalogued the collection in 12-14 packages. A missing Kircher letter would have been noticed immediately.
• The Carteggio was the pride of the Villa Mondragone - Students and scholars studied it. It was not a forgotten stack of papers.

The Only Logical Conclusion:

The letter was never in the Villa Mondragone archive. It was created later to establish a false provenance. The Jesuits couldn't have let it "slip out" because it was never there in the first place.

INFORMATION THAT NEVER APPEARED IN 25 YEARS OF LETTERS:

ALL of this "explosive information" appears for the first time in the final 1665 letter!

Why Would They Withhold This?

• They desperately wanted Kircher's help - Baresch sent samples, begged for assistance, wrote multiple times over years
• Mentioning Roger Bacon would have IMMEDIATELY captured Kircher's interest - Bacon was a legendary figure. This would have been the FIRST thing mentioned.
• Rudolf II connection would have added tremendous credibility - Why wait decades to mention this?
• The 1665 letter reads like a first introduction - Not like the culmination of 25 years of correspondence
• A younger, healthy Marci never mentioned this in earlier letters - Suddenly it all appears in his final, dying years?

The Forger's Dilemma:

The forger had to explain why this "explosive information" never appeared in the authentic Baresch/Kinner/Marci letters that were actually in the Carteggio. Solution: Date the forged letter 1665 - after Baresch's death in 1662. This way, it couldn't be compared to earlier authentic correspondence from Baresch, and could be presented as Marci's "final revelation" on his deathbed.

But this creates an impossible scenario: Why would vital provenance information be withheld for 25+ years?

Scholarly Observations:

• Philip Neal, Latin translator, called the 1665 letter "vexing" - Required special "extra notes" to interpret unclear passages
• Only Marci letter in the Carteggio requiring extensive translation notes - His other letters to Kircher are straightforward and clear
• Grammatical structures are awkward and ambiguous - Sentences don't flow naturally
• Logical connections between ideas are unclear - The argumentation is confusing
• The phrasing suggests someone less proficient in Latin - Unlike Marci's other scholarly correspondence

Modern Forger, Incomplete Proficiency:

A modern forger (likely John Frederick Lewis working with Voynich, or someone in their circle) would have had some Latin knowledge - enough to create a plausible-looking letter - but not the natural fluency of a 17th-century scholar. The result: awkward phrasing that differs noticeably from Marci's authentic writing style.

Standard Period Letter Formats:

All authentic letters in the Kircher Carteggio follow one of these patterns with clear, sensible fold lines and seals.

The 1665 "Marci" Letter's Problems:

• Fold lines don't make sense for EITHER delivery method - Try to reconstruct it yourself - it doesn't work
• Blank on reverse (no address) - This suggests it should have gone in a wrapper envelope, BUT...
• ...it has wax seals directly on it - Why seal a letter that's supposed to go inside an envelope?
• The seals and their marks line up as if part of the letter when folded - But the manuscript's cover is newer than the alleged 1665 letter date
• It appears trimmed from a larger source sheet - With new fold lines added afterward
• Possibly an address or other writing was trimmed off or erased - Explaining the odd proportions

Repurposed Antique Paper:

The letter was likely created from repurposed blank antique paper that Voynich had access to. This is documented fact: Voynich sold antique blank paper from book end-sheets to the famous etching artist James McBey.

The forger took an old sheet (possibly already folded and sealed for some other purpose), trimmed it down, added new folds to approximate a letter format, and wrote the forgery. The result: physical characteristics that don't match ANY period letter convention.

🔥 THE SMOKING GUN 🔥

There is another letter in the Kircher Carteggio dated September 10, 1665

Allegedly written by the same "scribe" who wrote the Voynich letter...

THE SIGNATURES ARE EXACT OVERLAYS

Impossibly. Perfectly. Identical.

• Every stroke matches precisely - Not just similar - IDENTICAL
• The year "1665" overlays perfectly - Same spacing, same letter formation
• Human scribes CANNOT produce pantographic duplicates - Even the same person signing twice will show variation
• Only tracing or mechanical copying can create this level of match - This is forensic fact

This is direct, physical evidence of mechanical forgery.

Evidence of Date Manipulation:

The forger traced the signature and date from the authentic September 10, 1665 letter, but then made modifications:

• Small loop added to the final "5" in 1665 - Attempting to make it look like "6" (hence the historical confusion: was it 1665 or 1666?)
• Tail added to the "0" in "10" - Turning it into "9" (creating September 19 instead of September 10)
• These modifications explain the awkward appearance - The numbers look "off" because they were traced then altered

Forensic Conclusion:

The signature and date were mechanically copied/traced from the authentic September 10, 1665 Marci letter in the Carteggio, then manipulated to create a different (but suspiciously similar) date. This is irrefutable proof of forgery.

THE CONNECTION THAT MAKES IT ALL POSSIBLE

The Kircher Carteggio was housed AT the Villa Mondragone where Strickland was in charge.

How The Forgery Conspiracy Worked:

1. Strickland (or students/professors at the Villa) create catalog or thesis of Carteggio contents - Documenting the letters and their descriptions. This was normal academic work at a Jesuit college.
2. The catalog reveals Baresch's 1639 letter to Kircher - Describing a manuscript with "unknown characters," plants unknown to Germans, stars, and chemical symbols.
3. Information shared with Voynich through their friendship - As a rare book dealer, Voynich networked extensively. Strickland knew Voynich would be interested in leads about rare manuscripts.
4. Voynich sees the opportunity - Create a mysterious manuscript matching Baresch's description + forge a "Marci" letter connecting it = priceless "Roger Bacon" manuscript instead of worthless curiosity.
5. Access to authentic Marci letters in the Carteggio - Through Strickland's position, Voynich (or someone working with him) can examine the real letters to copy signature, date, Latin style, and other details.
6. Access to blank period paper - DOCUMENTED FACT: Voynich sold antique blank paper to the famous artist James McBey. He had access to end-sheets from old books.
7. John Frederick Lewis creates the physical forgery circa 1910-1912 - Using materials and information Voynich provided. Lewis's unconscious baseline arching appears in both the forged letter and the manuscript marginalia.

MEANS + MOTIVE + OPPORTUNITY = CONSPIRACY

A Deliberate, Calculated Fraud:

This was not some random coincidence or mistake. Voynich had everything needed to create a forged provenance letter: access to source materials, blank period paper, skilled forger (Lewis), knowledge of what the letter needed to say (based on Baresch letter), and a massive financial incentive.

The forgery was a deliberate conspiracy to create a false "Roger Bacon" provenance that would transform a mysterious manuscript into a priceless treasure.

EACH LINE OF EVIDENCE STANDS INDEPENDENTLY

Together, they form an ironclad, irrefutable case for modern forgery.
The 1665 "Marci" letter is a fabrication created circa 1910-1912
to establish a false "Roger Bacon" provenance for financial gain.