Run · Voynich Manuscript

Naibbe as published against Currier B: glyph entropy, word length and top-word share

Pliny 16 and Dante plaintexts give h2 2.18 and 2.20, mean length 4.80 and 4.76. On the whole book the manuscript's h2 is 2.261 and the cipher's 2.17; on Currier A 2.375 against 2.16, so the fit is best for B, which the tables were built against.

Close but outside the spread (z -12, -3, -13, -3): the cipher moves Latin most of the way to the manuscript's glyph statistics, as Greshko reports, without matching themh2 2.105 vs 2.167; H1 3.845 vs 3.851; mean length 4.66 vs 4.80; top-10 0.147 vs 0.1520

Result

Run	Measured	Result	Against	Decision	Date
Run	H2 glyph units / H1 glyph units / mean word length / share of 10 commonest words: manuscript vs Naibbe mean	h2 2.105 vs 2.167; H1 3.845 vs 3.851; mean length 4.66 vs 4.80; top-10 0.147 vs 0.152	Plain Latin in the same lines: h2 3.349 · H1 3.973 · mean length 5.61 · top-10 0.128	Close but outside the spread (z -12, -3, -13, -3): the cipher moves Latin most of the way to the manuscript's glyph statistics, as Greshko reports, without matching them

What it used and found

Naibbe cipher simulation from the published tables

Method

MTH

Latin genre texts

Dataset

DAT

Naibbe cipher tables and example plaintexts (greshko/naibbe-cipher, commit 719f2f4c)

Dataset

DAT

ZL3b transcription

Dataset

DAT

Latin or Italian under the Naibbe cipher

Answer it tests

ANS

Parameters

target = Currier B pages, corpora = 30, plaintext = Latin by section

Cite it

Mysteries Department. (2026). Naibbe as published against Currier B: glyph entropy, word length and top-word share [Run RUN0DC7QG68DEYK]. https://mysteriesdept.com/r/RUN0DC7QG68DEYK

@misc{mysteriesdept_run0dc7qg68deyk,
  title     = {Naibbe as published against Currier B: glyph entropy, word length and top-word share},
  author    = {{Mysteries Department}},
  year      = {2026},
  note      = {Run, catalog key RUN0DC7QG68DEYK},
  url       = {https://mysteriesdept.com/r/RUN0DC7QG68DEYK}
}