14-08-2026, 09:35 AM
Stolfi, your theory is based on the assumptions that the author was very stupid, didn't know how to flip through the book, did not know how to distinguish Voynichese from Latin, and was also very persistent in his attempt to rewrite the text. 
In any case, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is most likely some kind of spell. What matters is not whether the words are meaningful (I have already given examples of spells: Peda inpeda. Prepeda. Conpeda prepedias inpediae. Conpedia and Porro porro poto zelo zelo zebeta arra array paraclitus. Do they make much sense?). Regarding f116v, another question is whether such a spell has ever been used.
The similarity of the handwriting (especially in the chi moment) can be explained by the fact that it was written by one of the scribes. This is the only assumption that this theory requires.
In any case, You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is most likely some kind of spell. What matters is not whether the words are meaningful (I have already given examples of spells: Peda inpeda. Prepeda. Conpeda prepedias inpediae. Conpedia and Porro porro poto zelo zelo zebeta arra array paraclitus. Do they make much sense?). Regarding f116v, another question is whether such a spell has ever been used.
The similarity of the handwriting (especially in the chi moment) can be explained by the fact that it was written by one of the scribes. This is the only assumption that this theory requires.