The “Devil’s Handwriting” cipher first appeared in 1539, reproduced in a book by Teseo Ambrogio Albonesi: and, of course, nobody has yet managed to read even a word of it.
But for a short time in the mid-17th Century, oddly enough, it became hugely famous when a copy of Albonesi’s book held by Queen’s College was proudly shown to the newly-Restored Charles II (along with the Queen and the Duke and Duchess of York) on a visit to Oxford on Michaelmas Day 1663. It was the talk of court; and the matter of a small bribe to persuade someone to bring the book out on display became a necessary evil for tourists working their way around Oxford’s wondrous historical sights.
The Devil’s Handwriting then found use a kind of cipher mystery meme: that is, in much the same way that netizens now occasionally use the Voynich Manuscript as a handy metaphoric brick to virtually lob at things they deem incomprehensible, a 1674 poem by Thomas Flatman uses the Devil’s Handwriting to disparage the allegedly impenetrable poetry of Sam Austin of Wadham College:
“We with our fingers may your Verses scan,
But all our Noddles understand them can
No more, than read that dungfork, pothook hand
That in Queen’s Colledge Library does stand.”
[And in fact in 1743, Johann Christian Götze (describing Albonesi’s book) used almost exactly the same phrase to describe the shape of the Devil’s Handwriting’s letters: Mist-Gabeln. Nice.]
Another Oxonian poem (this time from 1746) celebrates rather than execrates the cryptogram:
A dark, oracular, mysterious scrawl:
Uncouth, occult, unknown to ancient Greece,
The Persian Magi, or the wise Chinese.
Nor runic this, nor Coptic does appear;
No, ’tis the diabolic character.
All in all, I think it fair to say that, circa 1665, while the Voynich Manuscript was still on its way to Athanasius Kircher’s to begin a multi-century sleep in Jesuit trunks, the most famous cipher mystery in the world was actually… the Devil’s Handwriting. Just so you know.
PS: I’ve added a page to the Cipher Foundation website containing all the above references to the Devils’ Handwriting.
On the page after the ciphertext Albonesi writes:
Verum cu[m] in dignoscendis variar[um] linguar[um] characteribus, ac literar[um] figuris, propenso semp[er] animo versarer, nolui etia[m] hoc scribe[n]di genus, p[rae]termittere intactu[m], et roga[n]ti Postello impartiri.
Which translates to:
“But although I have always applied my eager mind to the understanding of the characters of different languages and types of letters, nevertheless I have not wished to render this kind of writing unaltered and to share it with Postellus who asked me.”
Postellus is presumably Gulielmus Postellus, another specialist on languages, author of Linguarum Duodecim Characteribus Differentium Alphabetum Introductio, published in Paris in 1538 (a year before Albonesi’s book appeared). I know nothing about him beyond what appears on Wikipedia, although there is a link to his book here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k84321c/f34.item.zoom
It’s ambiguous, but this explicitly raises the possibility that Albonesi has deliberately changed the ciphertext, or whatever the writing originally was, for publication.
I’m trying to summon up the strength to start the next page,but Albonesi’s Latin is not very exciting reading!
Hi Nick. And friends.
This cipher not the devil. The report is written in Latin. This is a very simple encryption. Very much doubt this king ( X ) was the devil.
X = David. ( CQUID ) = ( diuqC = daviD.)
substitution :
1 = a,i,j,q,y.
6 = u,v,w,x.
Sounds like/looks like a reference to an early version of Braille:
“….with our fingers scan ….
🙂
SirHubert: yes, it was indeed his frenemy Guillaume Postel, whose behaviour and publications Albonesi took issue with (as I recall).
Again, I would suspect that Albonesi’s Latin is very likely precise as to what he is trying to say, but that it would be easy to lose that precision in the translation. We have so little to go on here that we need to retain that precision before making any big leaps. 😐
Nick: indeed, and in fact this is a better translation:
“But since I have always applied my eager mind to the understanding of the characters of different languages and types of letters, I did not want to leave this one untouched and to share it with Postellus who was asking.”
Whether intactum means ‘unaltered’ (i.e. Albonesi modified the ciphertext) or ‘not touched upon’ (i.e. Albonesi thought about leaving it out but decided not to)…now that’s another question. It would have to mean the latter in Classical Latin, I think, but for sixteenth century rhetorical Latin written on a technical topic…well, it certainly could mean the former.
Interesting if Postel knew about the cipher in 1538, though..
Albonesi’s Latin is not grammatically that complicated, but is quite rhetorical in style. It’s easy enough to get the gist of what he’s saying, but to translate it really accurately and properly has been more of a slog. And, in fairness, it is about twenty years since I last sat down to translate a page of Latin of any period and it’s embarrassing how much I’ve forgotten!
bdid1dr. I must commend you. The finger is correct. The finger is composed of three characters.
Characters are = J.E….X.
substitution = 6 – U,V,W,X.
The finger is therefore whom ? 🙂
Hi Nick.
As I wrote. Thus it is not a cipher Devil. This is a jewish enrollment.
Let me show you some of the text.
In Davic i Sun vidi ex finis. Morti vici n.
( Davic = Civad = David ) Jew King David.)
Veni Vidi Vici.
( Morti vici n = mor,, Tivici n,,= David in )
Champollion.