Fájl:Aethicus betűi, a 12. sz. vége, Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Cod. Sal. IX. 39, fol. 133v.png

Aethicus betűi, a 12. század vége, Isidorius Hispalensis; Ps.-Hrabanus Maurus (tartalmazza az AEIOU rövidítést is, : ̸ ⋮ ̸ ⸬ ̸ ⁙ ̸ · rejtjelezéssel; talán III. Frigyes német-római császár is innen vette a saját osztrák AEIOU rövidítését, még hercegi korában.)
A betűnevek és hangértékeik, az olvashatatlan részek [szögletes zárójelben]: 1. csoport, 1. sor: 1. alamon (a), 2. becah (b), 3. chatu (c), 4. delfoy (d), 5. effotu (e), 6. fometu (f), 2. sor: 7. g[ar]fou (g), 8. hetmu (h), 9. iofitu (i), 10. kaitu (k), 11. lethfu (l), 12. malathi (m), 13. nabalech (n), 2. csoport, 1. sor: 14. ozechi (o), 15. phitirin (p), 16. chori[ze]t (q), 17. salathi (s), 18. hitalech (x), 19. theot[imos] (t), 20. a[zathot?] (r), 21. [req?] [u?], 2. sor: 22. yrchoim (y), 23. zeta (z)

„Markomann” betűnevek (Sz. L.): 1. asc (a), 2. biruh (b), 3. chen (c), 4. thorn (d), 5. ech (e), 6. fech (f), 7. gibu (g), 8. hagalc (h), 9. his (i), 10. gilc (k), 11. lagu (l), 12. man (m), 13. not (n), 14. othil (o), 15. perc (p), 16. chon (q), 17. rehit (r), 18. suhil (s), 19. tac (t), 20. hur (u), 21. helach (x), 22. huyri (y), 23. ziu (z)

Az AIOU rövidítésre vonatkozóan lásd René Derolez: 'Ogam', 'Egyptian', 'African' and 'Gothic' Alphabets. Some Remarks in Connection with Codex Bernensis 207. Scriptorium 5 1951. 9-10.[1]

"So after all the idea of cryptography should not be rejected too readily. Since only the vowels are involved, a comparison with the notae Sandi Bonifacii seems obvious. In this type of secret writing the place of the vowels is taken by one, two, etc. dots, or by the consonant following the vowel. In his work on the relations between England and the Continent W. Levison devoted a few pages to these notae, which deserve more attention than they received till now (19). [19 W. Levison: England and the Continent in the Eighth Century. Oxford, 1949. 290. ff To Levison's list might be added an Oxford Ms., St. John's College No. 17, f. 5V and 8r. On f. 7V this interesting Ms., which I hope to discuss more fully elsewhere, uses some ogam script as well.] In a number of manuscripts an example of these notae (A : E ⋮ I · 0 :: U :·:) is given, with the following comment:

Genus vero huius descriptionis, tarn quod supra cum punctis V et vocalibus quam subtus cum aliis vocalibus quam solitum est informatum continetur, fertur quod sanctus Bonifacius archiepiscopus ac martyr, ab Angulsaxis veniens, hoc antecessoribus nostris demonstrarit. Quod tamen non ab illo inprimis coeptum est, sed ab antiquis istius modi usus crevisse comperimus (20). [20 Levison, o. c., p. 291 f.]

According to Levison, there may be a substance of truth in this tradition (21). [21 Levison, o. c., p. 294] In a footnote Levison adds:

In medieval practice the system of dots has sometimes different starting points, either one dot standing for a, two dots for e, three for i, &c, or one for i, two for o, three for u, four for a, five for e (22). [22 Levison, o. c., p. 291, note 4]

If no other alphabet than the Latin had been known to those who used this cryptography, it would be hard to account for those divergent arrangements of vowels. If, however, we assume that some of the people responsible for the spread of this type of secret writing were familiar with the ogam alphabet [régi kelta ABC], it becomes far easier to explain why e. g. o is sometimes represented by two dots and u by three. This is the case for instance in the title of a propositio in Alcuin's collection of Propositiones ad acuendos iuvenes (c. 26) :

Propositio de cursu cbnks be fvgb lfp:rks (= de cursu canis ac fuga leporis) (23). [23 Levison, o. c., p. 293]

If no example of such notae based upon the ogam sequence a o u e i has been discovered yet, this may simply be a coincidence. Of course such an order must have looked rather doubtful to any non-Irish scribe, who will have felt tempted to return to the order of the Latin alphabet, a e i o u. Hence such hybrid systems as i o u a e or i a e o u. The fact that i (I) was the numeral for 1 and u (V) the numeral for 5 may have been another disturbing factor. But it will be useless to press this point until a fuller study of the notae Sancti Bonifacii has been made."

Lásd még: Szegedi László: Az osztrák AEIOU rövidítés rejtélye. Turul 90. 2017/4. 183-186. [2]

Universitätsbibliothek Heidelberg, Cod[ides] Sal[emitani] IX. 39, fol. 133v [3][4]