I enjoyed this article in New Scientist about using statistical analysis on the Voynich manuscript to try to work out whether it is a meaningful but secret code or just gibberish.
Ultimately, I remain puzzled as to what the statistics actually tell us. They identify patterns, but meaning is more than simply patterns. However, the fact that certain sets of symbols in the Voynich text appear to cluster in sections with common illustrations suggests it is code. The counter-argument that you could deliberately fake such clustering by mechanical means is intriguing. Without far larger samples, and an understanding of random clusterings, I have no idea whether this sort of faking would produce the same patterns as natural language. I am sure clusters must appear all over the place, without bearing any meaning whatsoever.
I also thought it was interesting that one of the arguments in favour of gibberish was that there were no mistakes. It strikes me there could be many reasons for the lack of proofing and correction and I would want to know more about the rate of correction in similar works before I could assess that argument. I know that standardization of spelling came relatively late, presumably before then far more “mistakes” would have been tolerated.
Nevertheless, a fascinating mystery and one that perhaps cannot be resolved by analysis but by coincidental discovery of the key (if it exists!) – if it is gibberish, perhaps we will never know. Either way, I am sure it would have amused the author to know that their work would still be a controversial topic hundreds of years after it was written!