13-07-2026, 05:34 PM
I don't think this is seriously likely, but I have a theory that the scribes may have worked independently of each other in terms of encryption...
If we assume that the scribes are the authors of the manuscript, and they knew its content and knew everything about the encryption algorithm, and they made this book for themselves, then it doesn't seem so absurd.
This could be effective as a security measure against hacking. If we decrypted Botany, we wouldn't decipher Balneology, and vice versa.
It is possible that the numerical alphabet changed slightly, but the meaning of the Voynichese symbols remained the same. It is also possible that other methods were used (in Currier B, the simplification of the cipher seems to result in an abundance of chedy words and detached morphemes such as aiin and edy. However, this may not be the only explanation).
I can also assume that there may be some kind of "base number" underlying the alphabet. This could be, for example, 10 added to the ordinal number of the letters, or in some other cases.
This could explain some of the quirks of that mini-cipher and the peculiarities of Voynichese. For example, a (ei) could be a trace of this "base number" that was added to one (which somewhat explains why there is no combination of ie).
If we assume that the scribes are the authors of the manuscript, and they knew its content and knew everything about the encryption algorithm, and they made this book for themselves, then it doesn't seem so absurd.
This could be effective as a security measure against hacking. If we decrypted Botany, we wouldn't decipher Balneology, and vice versa.
It is possible that the numerical alphabet changed slightly, but the meaning of the Voynichese symbols remained the same. It is also possible that other methods were used (in Currier B, the simplification of the cipher seems to result in an abundance of chedy words and detached morphemes such as aiin and edy. However, this may not be the only explanation).
I can also assume that there may be some kind of "base number" underlying the alphabet. This could be, for example, 10 added to the ordinal number of the letters, or in some other cases.
This could explain some of the quirks of that mini-cipher and the peculiarities of Voynichese. For example, a (ei) could be a trace of this "base number" that was added to one (which somewhat explains why there is no combination of ie).