The problems Cipher Mysteries recently had with its last web hosting supplier were all logical consequences of scale: not only had the blog got larger and the number of comments shot up, but also WordPress (and all those ‘must-have’ caching and security plugins) had got larger (and slower) as well.
I genuinely thought that moving the site to a WordPress multisite installation on a far more heavyweight hosting account would be (despite the inevitable hassle the transition involved) a great technical fix for all those scaling issues. And in many ways, it was: Cipher Mysteries now seems (touch wood) to be working better than it has done for a long time (though I’m still looking for a good multisite redirection plugin, bah).
But having now sat down to start posting again after my enforced break, I realise that I had overlooked a quite different scaling problem, and the effects that has been having on Cipher Mysteries. And this turns out to be something I don’t yet have a fix for, technical or otherwise.
Small Blog, Big Stories?
Over the last year or so, I’ve found it increasingly difficult to write blog posts on unbroken historical ciphers, and for one simple reason: that, having researched all the major ones in great detail over the last decade, a thousand words or so is too small a space to fit even a preamble to a new angle, let alone the new angle itself.
In practice, this is having the effect of dissuading me from writing anything about anything: inside the WordPress editor, I have thirty or more draft posts started that I just can’t find the energy to complete – in each case, having written a page or two or three, I can already tell that they’re all going to be too long.
In short: without really realising it, I’ve silently undergone a transition from medium-form to long-form, to the point that I can’t sensibly fit what I want to write into blog posts. And I don’t know what to do about it.
Schmeh For Two?
At the same time, Klaus Schmeh has arrived on the scene with his (entirely sensible, though occasionally Lego-minifigure-abusing) Krypto Kolumne, which covers a diverse collection of crypto stuff (particularly enciphered German postcards).
Klaus has a good presentation schtick, a nicely dry sense of humour, and a loyal online audience that relishes being fed unsolved cryptograms that it can (and often does) actually solve. He has taken what I would categorize as a more journalistic angle on historical ciphers: he seems less interested in solving or researching them himself than in enabling other people to grow them into a more substantial story.
By comparison, my own research interests have become far narrower and far more specific as time has gone by. This has been the perhaps inevitable result of exploring and testing the outer limits of knowledge of the “big” unsolved historical ciphers – the Voynich Manuscript, the Rohonc Codex, the Beale Papers, the Somerton Man’s Rubaiyat Page, the WW2 Pigeon Cipher, the Dorabella cipher, La Buse, Le Butin, etc. It’s a list whose elements were all individually well-worn by the time Elonka Dunin put them together and posted it on the Internet.
“Opinions Are Like…”
But this process of knowledge exploration has also meant that I have developed strong technical opinions: these are not only about the range of possible decryptions, but also about the limits of what can and can’t be known about a given artefact – i.e. what evidence we do have, and what we can infer from that evidence.
And expressing such technical opinions have, of late, brought me into repeated conflict with various people on the Internet: for example, I think that there is no evidence of “microwriting” in the Tamam Shud page whatsoever that could not similarly be drawn out from almost any digital image whatsoever – I continue to receive online abuse (and indeed accusations of mental disorders) for saying this. Which is the kind of thing only libel lawyers find enjoyable reading (simply because it pays their mortgages).
It has got to the point where I’m utterly bored of moderating snarky comments written by people who want to take a cheap shot at me: being ghastly to me has become a kind of initiatory hazing ritual for cipher nutters.
The Mainstream Arriveth
Another thing that’s going on is that, thanks to what looks like extended Turing Mania, historical ciphers have moved into the mainstream. Even today’s announcement that a teleprinter for a Lorenz SZ42 machine was bought on eBay for £9.50 (which is a nice little story, but far from cryptologically earth-shaking) emerged not via (say) the CryptoCollector mailing list, but via the BBC.
Even Kernel Magazine devoted its last issue to Codes and Ciphers: though this actually turned out to have only micro-interviews with Zodiac Killer Cipher researchers and a largely unrevealing summary of the A858 (ok, “r/A858DE45F56D9BC9” in full) subreddit code thing.
Yet arguably the only good mainstream article on cipher mysteries in the last decade has been Christopher Tritto’s excellent Code Dead on Ricky McCormick: and even that barely touched the nature of those pages.
And so even though codes and ciphers are now officially “cool”, there’s almost no good writing on them out there at all: and where Cipher Mysteries fits into the overall landscape any more is something I’m struggling to see.
Finally, Nick Gets To The ‘Focus’ Bit
So what will Cipher Mysteries’ focus be, going forward?
Right now, I don’t honestly know. But what I do know is that things have to change…
Nick, Would you be interested in posting about some of the medieval ciphers in manuscripts listed by Philip Neal?
Not much of a challenge for you, perhaps, but historically interesting and still a mystery to those without Latin.
Whatever you decide, I hope you continue to post.
I think you’re right on most of that (especially the microwriting – the latest is that the cover of GF’s book is riddled with it 8) ), and I think it’s a shame. That said, I think there’s an interesting (if eclectic) group of followers here. Certainly I find Voynich too tedious, and Beale relatively ridiculous; I have an interest in SM simply by virtue of it happening in my home town. Oddly enough, though I enjoyed “Coding and Cryptology” at uni (it was my favourite subject and my best score), I find many of your articles interesting on the Sherlock Holmes type mystery level rather than the cryptography (SM I think is quite mundane from a Cryptography perspective – I think in general most people (radical conspiracy theorists excluded) sort of agree that it’s most likely the initial letter of something (probably a Rubaiyat-like verse), and as such is basically unbreakable (but also probably quite trifling in terms of the mystery itself). Similarly it’s the mystery of Ricky McCormick that intrigues me more than his “chicken Scratchings” (although in his case they may be more pertinent to his ultimate demise).
I guess there’s probably (at least) 2 types of readers that come here – people who like unsolved mysteries, and people who enjoy cryptography (and perhaps dream that they are smart enough to break what noone else has ever been able to). There seems to be a fair share of crazies here (and likely some would count me in that group) however I think that’s the nature of dealing with the unknown – it tends to be somewhat unprovable, so people can propose whatever they like (often convincing themselves that it makes sense) – and then you get the battle of the crazies as someone disagrees with their “certainty”. It’s also inevitable that unsolved mysteries attract their own crowd of conspiracy theorists who firmly believe that there are higher powers pulling strings and turning an otherwise uninteresting story into something bigger than Ben Hur.
From your perspective it probably doesn’t help that (at least in other people’s eyes) you’ve become somewhat of an Authority on some of these obscure mysteries – most notably, Tamam Shud. Without meaning any disrespect, I think that’s largely due to a lack of resource (the Wiki is all over the place, TomsByTwo is about fictionalising the account, GC has fairly extreme theories that I suspect get him offside with many punters, DA has his own agendas and a very specific view on the case (and what he wants of it) and there’s only a handful of other smaller sites (some, like Sue, still establishing themselves) but generally with little bits and pieces that are readily available elsewhere. In that environment, you provide the story with some investigative speculation (the Fred Pruzinski stuff was certainly an interesting avenue, and on the whole I suspect the idea of car rackets and petty (and I suppose not so petty) crime is one of the more likely scenarios) – but in any event any speculation was always presented as speculation, not as some smoke and mirrors certainty….
I hope you find a way to maintain most of what you have in a similar way that you have to date, however if you find change is unavaiodable that’s cool too (gotta do what you gotta do). Do what you think is right for you and for your site, and I’m sure at least some of us nutters will continue to come here.
Maybe you need to make an assessment on what content is more “important” (by whatever measure you see fit). My feel would be that breaking (or disproving) the VM would be an “important” achievement; but coming up with SM’s poem, not so useful – and Beale, Butin (or whoever the pirate was) and others are likely less significant again….
But don’t let us push you where you don’t want to go 🙂
2c
Nick, if you weren’t English I wouldn’t even raise this, but “board of” vs “board with” is like nails grating on a chalk board to my ears, having been taught by an old English schoolmarm. Yes, “board of” is slowly making its way into American English, but as the Oxford says, many find it incorrect and in particular in formal writing.
As you are a fellow who works with historic cyphers, I thought I would mention it.
P.S. As to writing longer articles, go for it. Too many treat these complex subjects superficially, and intense dissertations on your thoughts and analysis could only be a good thing.
As for the haters and critics, they are everywhere on the internet and must be ignored by anyone posting a point of view. I follow the tragic Trump, Clinton, Sanders politics in the U.S. and if you want to see hate try reading those comments.
milongal: in lots of ways, I feel that the work I’ve put in to the “big” unsolved ciphers has helped push many of them right to some kind of ‘tipping point’, i.e. where the arrival of only a small additional piece of information might trigger a torrent of (hopefully testable) explanatory inferences – this is certainly true for the Somerton Man mystery, and very probably for a fair few others too. So in many ways the best thing to do right now is hold my nerve and keep pushing away behind the scenes, patiently waiting for the hoped-for torrent of torrents to begin. 🙂
At the same time, because there are so few ripples on the surface, there currently isn’t much to write about without having to painstakingly describe the whole ocean underneath. Which I find uncomfortable, because I’m not really a say-nothing kind of guy. Oh well. 🙁
More generally: Cipher Mysteries will find a new focus and a new voice before long. I don’t yet know what that will be, but it will emerge for sure. 🙂
Tricia: coincidentally, I’ve recently been thinking about the numerous ciphers concealed in Trithemius’ letters (and flagged by Selenus not that long after Trithemius published them), which Philip so kindly placed on his site. Some worked examples of those would almost certainly be a good thing to blog about, unless there’s already a big literature on them – perhaps I should ask Jim Reeds about this, I’m sure he’d know. 🙂
Do what you need; I will enjoy it.
I am no cipher specialist but I am fascinated by them, and your site is very readable. Do not fear the long form! Just break them down into chunks and go for it.
If the writing is good, and the subjects interesting, all else will fall into place.
As for the trolls: they seem to be an inevitability as your readership grows. Do not stress about them. Publicly post the stranger, more extreme exemplars, and bounce the rest without mercy. And do not be so sensitive.
Thanks for hosting a very cool page.
Esteban: thanks for your cool-headed words of wisdom! I shall try to follow them…
Nick, your mention of Klaus Schmeh leads me to ask again for assistance. Some time ago, Klaus was invited (I think by Rene?) to attend a Voynich conference. Rene later described him as ‘a Voynich expert’. Thinking I must have overlooked a substantial body of original research, and wanting to correct the oversight, I asked where I could read his contributions to this study: papers, comments, analysis, online or in hard copy.
Rene was unable to assist. In the past two or three years, I’ve still found nothing. Obviously a person doesn’t claim to be an expert from no more than a flick through d’Imperio and a bookmark to voynich.nu, so where can I read Klaus’ research, do you know?
Diane: conference presentations aside, Klaus’s main contributions are in book form (such as “Versteckte Botschaften; Die faszinierende Geschichte der Steganografie” (2009) and “Nicht zu knacken, von ungelösten Enigma-Codes zu den Briefen des Zodiac-Killers” (2012)) as well as some articles in Cryptologia (“The Pathology of Cryptology — a Current Survey”, “The East German Encryption Machine T-310 and the Algorithm It Used”, and “A Milestone in Voynich Manuscript Research: Voynich 100 Conference in Monte Porzio Catone, Italy”). He has also written numerous German press articles on unsolved historical ciphers.
If you think Rene has described Klaus incorrectly, then perhaps you might take it up with Rene.
I should have called him an ‘internationally recognised Voynich MS expert’ of course. I’m not sure if I did.
But I am sure it’s OT.
Nick, would it help you at all if all of the persons who respond to your various discussions cease and desist — as far as referring to others’ past posts ? I try my best to stick with your discussions and discoveries. I was confused (briefly) when I realized that you had two conversations going on in re Ricky McCormick. My computer’s been behaving oddly this morning. I’ll catch up with y’all later.
beady
Everyone: thanks for your comments – in many ways, I guess I should be pleased that I have a lot of good stuff to post about, even if putting each post together in a relatively concise way will undoubtedly be a struggle. (I’ve got 5000+-word posts to write on each of the Voynich Manuscript, the Somerton Man, La Buse, and Le Butin, plus I’m waiting for a book to arrive from afar with an entirely new cipher mystery).
And let’s face it, there are plenty of websites out there with less than 5000 words of substance on any subject. 😐
Hi Nick,
I’d be happy to read longer articles from you – I did buy Curse after all 🙂
On the flip side however, and speaking as someone who wouldn’t dignify himself with a title like ‘Voynich Researcher,’ I do enjoy blog posts which are informative and interesting while still short enough to be read and digested in an odd few minutes. I don’t often get time to read anything longer at a single sitting, but quite often have a spare five or ten minutes to check in here and see what’s going on.
I think that may also apply to replies. A 5,000 word article is going to take you a long while to write and consider…while the feedback you get may well, in some cases, have been dashed off in about thirty seconds. But is that perhaps inherent in blogs as opposed to websites structured and maintained differently?
SirHubert: the kind of blog post you’re talking about is pretty much exactly what I like to write and publish, but after a decade spent relentlessly chipping away at all these cipher mysteries, the discourse has become so excessively nuanced that anything I write with less than perfect academic rigour and surgical precision gets scolded and berated.
All of which would perhaps still be tolerable if I was (say) writing a dissertation, but… clearly I’m not. Oh well. 😐
Dear all. Below are the results of five more vowel frequency analyses:
The tighter writing scribe:
f24r: In 20 lines: “o” appears 71 times, “a” appears 39 times; c-c with a circumflex, 14 times, a gallows inserted into c-c, 9 times; c-c, 24 times, cc, 11 times and c, 10 times.
f35v: in 21 lines, “o” occurs 46 times;,”a” is present 32 times, c-c with circumflex, 5 times, c-c intersected by a gallows, 6 times and c-c is seen a total of a stunning 49 times(!); c-c, 7 times and “c” 6 times.
The Looser writing scribe:
f4v: In 14 lines, “o” is seen 71 times, “a” is seen 17 times; c-c with a circumflex is present 20 times; the c-c bisected with a gallows, 9 times; c-c is present, 32 times; c-c is seen, 9 times, cc a total of 9 times, and “c” is present 12 times.
f6v: In 21 lines, “o” appears 80 times, “a” occurs 29 times; c-c with circumflex, 5 times; c-c, bisected with a gallows, 22 times; c-c appears 43 times; cc is seen 10 times, and “c” occurs, 13 times.
f22v: In 16 lines, “o” is seen 54 times, “a” appears 24 times; c-c with circumflex occurs 9 times, c-c bisected with a gallows, 5 times; c-c, is seen 29 times; cc=twice and “c” just once.
It is noted that “a” appears often (I’ll provide the stats anon) in the sequence “8am” which I think is Latin for “eam”, for “that” in English. I am tentatively assigning c-c as “i” since it usually occurs before “o” which in Hangul is “ng”.
So there are some oddities to deal with like c-c appearing 49 times in the case of f35v where it outnumbers “o” which appears 46 times.
I am also working on whether the gallows bisecting c-c has the same distribution as does the simple gallows.
Cheers, Tom
Yesterday I was scanning various posts in re the radioactive ‘dump sites’ and Ricky McCormick’s death and mysterious notes. The talk-show host (or reporter?) referred to you as “Nick Dunning”. Oh well — did you ever get my letter I mailed to you *Nick Pelling at Compelling Press…… ?
Again, I am offering to buy both of your hardbound books — each at full market price — when you have published the second.
@Thomas Spande: The c-c character is actually ‘c-e’ (the e being slightly smaller). If the linked ‘e-c’ character appears to be reversed, and is followed by the the figure ‘8’ it is pronounced ‘aes’ – as in “Aesop’s Fables” .
aes often appears with aes-am or aes-an-eus in the “Voynich” mss and in the Florentine Codex.
bd
Dear all, I appear to have strayed badly from the topic of the heading. I thought I was tugging on a different site thread! Anyway, here I am, reporting on “vowel’ frequency analysis. Is this a new direction to be heading toward? Or is it something that is already in the rear-view mirror of most? I find it hard to believe that I am the first to approach this topic and that the NSA in that two-day symposium organized by d’Imperio didn’t go there from the get-go? NSA got the “Venona” code but dropped the ball on the VM?
My view is that some are understandably weary with the task of decrypting the VM. In my view, what makes it hard is that it could well be a mix of languages, not any made-up language or now obscure language. I think we have been misled into thinking that “o” is like the “a”, a vowel, when it is not. Then we will have to search all those crazy “cc” combinations for one of them being the “o”. If I were to propose a new direction for VM studies, it would be “eastward”. The situation might be that elements of Eastern ideas, like the Chinese or Indian origin of many of the plants/herbs, as well as some linguistic elements like parts of the Hangul language find their way into the VM but that the origin was European, even Italian. The one does not exclude the other. If Nick decides to “bag” VM studies I hope he will continue to supply a venue for VM results and provide those of us who continue to labor in the VM-vineyard with the benefit of his expertise. I think in any attempted decrypt of the VM we have to bear in mind the remark of the great British naturalist, J.B.S. Haldane, “Nature is queerer than we think, in fact it is queerer than we CAN think!”. This may hold true of any decrypt of the VM. Cheers, Tom
BD, How have you interpreted the glyph “o”? Houston, here we have a problem (in my opinion) as very few languages have “o” as a leading vowel. And none at all where it exceeds the other vowels ‘a”, “e” etc by such a gargantuan frequency difference. I think it is a consonant and have commented on that in other posts on “Theories”. I think “8” is “e” but having it linked with another letter is a possibility I had not considered. There are indeed more “c c” combos than are needed for vowels. Cheers, Tom
Nick
Do you know the blog Unenumerated by Nick Szabo (who some say is the creator of bitcoin)? The slower pace of posting and essay-length posts might be what you are looking for.
Ottoman once ounce only re-known-ed —-sound ……… Caesar
oi ‘why’
oe we
2 b brief : check out (find my posts of several years ago) on two or three of Nick’s discussions, which for a short time, seemed to have been very helpful to the cause of ‘decoding/deciphering’ the Nahuatl translators’ side by side with Espanol writing. (In Sahagun’s Florentine Mss — Natural Things.
I particularly like the word canon (with a tilde above the first n) = canyon
OK (now there’s a word for ya): Sorry, Nick, if we seem to be going over ‘old stuff’. You may want to see what the Ottoman writings may have to offer. Several months ago, I referred you to US President Thomas Jefferson’s huge library; which had a “Koran” amongst its religious books/Bibles. Fascinating!
bd
Nick,
Thanks very much for those titles. I haven’t yet read Klaus’ article in Cryptologia. Good to know that the gap in my reading list and/or credits isn’t as substantial as I’d feared.
@ ThomS: pneumococci — now that is a word which requires some pondering, eh?
@ Nick: Were you and Rene able to follow up on the history of the “Korte” (which I think was introduced by either Rene or Klaus). French revolutionaries occupied an abandoned “Cordelierian” monastery. The revolutionaries then wrote a “Declaration of Independence” and framed it with a knotted cord (korte). I was quite surprised by the lack of interest by the persons who initiated the discussion, in the first place. “Cordelierian” was the earliest name for Franciscan monks/brothers who wore knotted cords instead of sashes.- who begged for their food, while traveling and preaching their faith in St. Francis.
bd 🙂
Of the few illustrations of Fray Sahagun (which appear in the “Florentine Codex/Manuscript), he is seen wearing a knotted cord ‘belt’ — which was St. Francis’ garb. So, I’m hoping that any of your ‘regulars’ may follow up on this latest post. You can also find illustrations of Fray Sahagun’s paper manufacturer, scribes, illustrators, and colorists.
I sincerely hope that some one (or more) of your faithful correspondents/contributors will follow up on my ‘recommended reading’ — and compare the subject matter with the subject matter which appears in B-408.
For those persons new to NIck’s ‘forum’ : B-408 is Boenicke/Benicke Library’s manuscript numerical identitiy number for the so-called “Voynich” manuscript.
more ‘beady-eyed’ than ever & still wondering
bd-id-1-dr
Philip: I’ve seen Nick Szabo’s name mentioned (in relation to Bitcoin), but hadn’t seen his very interesting blog before, thanks very much for the link. 🙂
From my own perspective, I’d say that Szabo’s blog highlights both the benefits and dangers of long-form writing for bloggers. By which I mean: while there’s a comfortable (and indeed enjoyable, I’d say) monotony to physically turning pages when reading a book, when the same class of dense information is presented en masse on a single long web-page, it seems to lose both its structure and digestibility. That’s the point where the whole “TL;DR” eyes-glazing-over phenomenon kicks in, I guess: and his lambasting readers (however gently) for somehow not keeping up with a format that I think is genuinely hard to read comes across as neither fair nor helpful.
The core problem there is that what Szabo and I (and doubtless many others) seem to aspire to is something with the detail of a research article (long-form) coupled with the accessibility and scale of a blog (large audience). The best-known home for this kind of writing used to be The New Yorker (to which I subscribed for a few years), though of late long-form journalism has found an appreciative new audience on the web (e.g. Longreads etc).
But even readers of The New Yorker might find ten-thousand-plus word articles hard to consume: and moreover, I’m far from sure that what I do fits into the category of ‘journalism’ at all.
Cryptologia would be nearly perfect for this: but I’m simply not a closed-journal kind of guy. Even so, if I could persuade Cryptologia both to publish my articles and to make them freely available afterwards, I’d be delighted to take that route. Perhaps I should talk to Craig Bauer (Cryptologia’s managing editor): after all, he’s written a book on unsolved ciphers that’s due for publication next year, and I’m sure he’ll have an interesting viewpoint…
Nick,
I keep a few sites bookmarked, and have just realised that they divide pretty clearly into the short-and-interesting with a cup of tea sort: ‘Futility closet’ being a fine example and then the Long-article sort which I tend to glance over, maybe read or not at the time, but keep as a constant reference.
The litteravisigothica page is well organised for this sort of thing. It presents a shorter look, but uses links to let the reader expand as much as they like. A sort of surface macro- and linked micro-pedia.
One post there last year – “Writing in cursive and minuscule Visigothic script: polygraphism in medieval Galicia” I found rivetting, and only now realise that the ‘macro’- post is 1300 words, but using the linked micro- detail it expands (as far as the reader chooses) to as much as 10,000 – 15,000 words of relevant material.
I wonder if the lesson here isn’t that readers’ attention lengthens the more technical information they gain in a subject about which they’re already keen and know a bit?
That said, one the first of the long-post blogs proved enormously popular. “Poemas del río Wang” (blogger) – where their having so many different guest- and member- authors was one draw, and their topicality another.
BD. On “pneumococci”, Nice word with “o”s and “cc” but microorganisms were unknown in the 15th C. Waiting for Pasteur to discover them. Cheers, Tom
Dear all, Following up on my post of 6-1-16, I have examined nine folios for the frequency of the gallows alone or bisecting a “c-c”. I have looked at three folios by the looser writing scribe, four by the tighter hand and two where each scribe contributes: The results follow: First let me reiterate a belief of mine and Nicks and maybe others, that the gallows cannot stand for immutable consonants but vary, maybe at best each stands for one of five possibilities to be selected by inspection. I have designated the four gallows as 1 and 2 for the single legged glyphs with one and two loops respectively; 1′ and 2′ for the double-egged gallows with one and two loops respectively. As an operating hypothesis, I think that a gallows (*) bisecting a c-c glyph represents c-c-*-c-c. so if, for example c-c is “i” (my current best guess) and * be “n”, then the complex glyph would read “ini” and may form part of a word like “ining” where “ng” comes in from Hangul “o” and represents in English “ng”. The order of the gallows below is 1,2,1′,2′ and holds also for the complex gallows.
For the Loose scribe:
f7v, nine lines: 0: 2: 12: 12 complex forms: 0: 1: 0: 4
f20r, 13 lines: 2: 3: 6 : 23 complex forms: 0: 1: 0: 3
f35r, 15 lines: 0: 1: 8: 19 complex forms: 0: 0: 2: 6 ((numbers left as is without being factored)
For the Tight scribe usually writing in high iron ink:
f24r, 20 lines: 0: 2 :14: 12 complex forms: 1: 1: 6: 9
f32r: 17 lines: 2: 1: 7: 12 complex forms: 2′ = 5 times
f44r: 10 lines: 1: 4 :17: 17 complex forms: 0: 1: 2: 1
f57r: 11 lines: 0: 6: 12: 10 complex forms: 1: 1: 2: 14
Both scribes, the tighter over the looser:
f42v: tight-8 lines: 0: 0: 13: 12 complex 0: 1: 0: 3
loose 7 lines: 0: 1: 10: 8 complex 0: 1: 0: 4
f42r: tight-6 lines: 1: 1: 3: 8 complex 0: 0: 1: 3
loose-17 lines: 1: 5: 18: 27 complex: 0: 0: 3: 6
In both selections f42v and f42r, the portion enscribed by the looser hand has been reinked in a few spots. I assume the tighter writer is the “uber” scribe. He demonstrates this with scribal flourishes in the lead gallows in both the examples.
What can we learn from this exercise, if anything? 1) There is, with the exception of f57r with a remarkable 14 examples of the double-looped, double-stemmed gallows used to bisect a c-c, a general paucity of gallows used in this way and few single-stemmed gallows in either the uncomplexed or complexed form. 2) the tighter hand is slightly more prone to the complex glyph.
It may be that the place to drive a wedge into deciphering the gallows, that the place to start is the complexed forms. One might start with a consonant frequency in Latin and assume those are critical consonants and appear in a vowel-consonant-vowel pattern, like “i-n-i”
I’ll ponder this some more and write anon. Cheers, Tom
Did the author use the Hindu-Arabic system or was it added latter ?
As one pope of the time said : ‘reading’ pictures is considered to be a variation of reading itself.
Mary D’Imperio used the work of Frances Yates . Did she overlook something in the mnemonics?
xplor
How nice to see references to mnemonics increasing in Voynich studies. Seriously, it is very nice to see. As far as Yates’ work goes, it is a good exploration of the renaissance-and-later ideas, but for the period of interest to Voynich researchers, I’ll say (yet again) that Mary Carruthers’ works treat the subject in better depth and cover the period of most relevance to us. Her “Book of Memory” offers the best initial grounding, I think, treating the classical sources which show the art of memory already developed, and then shows how the principles were developed and applied, especially in France by Hugh of St.Victor, a teacher in a college associated with the University of Paris. One of these days I mean to write a ‘vindication’ of Opicinus, showing that his maps were not the product of a diseased imagination but an overdeveloped network of memory-links.
Hi explor, I think D’Imperio likely read one VM mnemonic correctly when she commented that the plant part on f28r resembled “piles” of plates, i.e. a clue that the plant leaves and roots were used for haemorroids also known in slang as”piles”. They are shown complete with a “bloody” flux or discharge. I think tracing the slang might be profitable? Cheers, Tom
Thomas: with all due respect, that way only madness lies. 😐
Tom,
Now that the use of mnemonics is proving a popular theme, I notice in this connect (yet again *sigh*) that since who-knows-whom established the law that no-one may acknowledge my original work, the custom has arisen of hunting through d’Imperio and the first mailing list for something – anything – that can be cited instead.
d’Imperio was there just expressing a personal impression, not unlike seeing faces in clouds, and never did any research into the manuscript which identified any mnemonic devices, explained the system informing them, or how they relate to the plants shown.
The plant on f.28r is, in my opinion, the Ensete, which is a plant from which both a ‘grain’ and a drink was made. If you turn up its use in treating piles, do tell, but throughout that section the mnemonics are with few exceptions set around the level of the root, and no higher. Among the few exceptions are the little dragon on f.25v, the pair on the top of f.5v.
I have found it best to identify the plant first, and use the mnemonic element if any just as a way to check the id. e.g. I identified the plant as Dracaena cinnabari, and the dragon didn’t contradict. Similarly, you’ll see the wobbly-leg motif not only on f.28r, but elsewhere. But I won’t go on. Anyone interested can always (a) mention my work (b) read it (c) use it with appropriate acknowledgements.
Diane, I did not introduce the concept of “mnemonics” in the post of “explor” (6-5) and have always been scrupulous in acknowledging your first use of the term. I prefer the use of “embedded clues” myself in analyzing the VM botanicals; it is more descriptive and direct. Anyway, I was aware of D’Imperio’s guesses and that was one I thought might be on the money for f28r. I was only interested in providing an answer to ‘explor”; not in providing a plant ID. “Piles” was used in medieval Latin “pila” ca. 1400 or earlier as “pili”. TCM uses Ginko biloboa for haemorroids. Nick, I don’t plan to risk madness by spending any more time on the origin of the word “piles” and am happy to let this matter rest. I have some more embedded clues to unload on the readership but will do that anon. In the meanwhile, back to textual analysis. Cheers, Tom
Madness is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. In this case Cryptology. In the 15th century the art of memory was one of the leading sciences.
The scientific method we know today came much latter. I give full credit to Frances Yates for her lifetime of work on the subject.
xplor. whoa! A science is a body of facts that can be TESTED by experiment. I fail to see that “memory” in the context of the VM can be anything but a practice to provide a clue, a hint as to use. With other facts that are not mnemonic-based, it can lead to a hypothesis that could be tested.The ultimate experiment being its use as a medicinal, ideally with a double-blinded clinical trial or the minimum being consistently positive anecdotal reports. By itself mnemonism cannot be a science. but it might verge on mathematics, as you say in cryptology. Mathematics is not a science,, it is a logic.
Here is the problem I see with over reliance on memory to crack the VM cipher, whether as an encrypted image or cipher text. If the creators of the VM embedded too many clues in the image, it will depart so much from reality as to be useless in an herbal where the plant has to be recognizable by at least the first generation of herbalists to benefit anyone. And I think we will agree that likely the VM botanicals, being loaded as they are with embedded clues, were not intended for use by trained herbalists but by practitioners who were using the VM botanicals, likely in commerce–just selling them. A trained herbalist won’t need a single embedded clue if the plant drawing is accurate. Here is the rub with the VM botanicals. Most are fanciful and so loaded with clues that distort the appearance of the plant that to use it as a reference to known plants in the field or other herbals is not going to be possible. This should not stop speculation which may provide a possible path to a plant ID but it seems to me that a final, definitive ID may have to await the cracking of the VM text. That is the way I see things. Cheers, Tom
You are correct Tom. When we look at the Voynich manuscript you must ask what was its purpose. It is small and easily carried . Who would have such a book ? I found the answer in a statue of Giordano Bruno by Ettore Ferrari . In his right hand he has a book of the same size.
This would imply it belonged to someoe that traveled.
Mnemonics was one of the tools common at the time . Priests would point to a picture of a seraph and devide each wing into seve parts and talk for six weeks,each day a new part.
What were sciences in the 15th century ?
xplor, The science biggie in the 15thC was the sun-centric solar system with Kepler, Galileo, Brahe and others. Optics played a big role with Galileo also reporting with a telescope on mountains on the moon. Nick wrote a good essay on telescopes as some hypothesized the VM had images only likely perceived with the aid of a telescope. The microscope revealed a world of small living critters.
The earliest law I am familiar with was the law of flotation proposed by Archimedes. Another early one was the explanation of a lunar eclipse. A confirmed hypothesis becoming a law. Very very few go on to become Theories. There are only a few of these: the Atomic Theory, the Theory of Gravitation of Newton, the Theory of Genetics (Watson-Crick), and the heliocentric view of the solar system. There are others but not many and even some scientists will say “Theory” when they should say “Hypothesis”.
I agree with you that the smallish size of the VM is an important characteristic we have to keep in mind. BTW, laws can come and go: one, such law was the “doctrine of signatures” where a plant shape was considered a clue to its use. It did not stand up to experimentation. Thanks for the civil exchange. Cheers, Tom
@ xplor & Thomas Spande:
mnemonic : the alpha-character which ‘looks like’ a fish-hook with one barb — or looks like a right-parenthesis with a ‘thumb/single barb’ is the Nahuatl “n” — the -right parenthesis which has two barbs or bumps is the Nahuatl ‘m’ . I’m pretty sure you can form the word (just for fun) m n m o nic …….
Another good word would be: tl m p ll Nahuatl does not have a free-standing T, nor does it have a ‘one legged L . The Nahuatl “L” looks like a pair of telephone poles with a connecting looped wire between them.
Several years ago, I laid out the entire Nahuatl ‘alphabet’. I also encouraged Nick’s fans to write the word Nahuatl using Nahuatl “alphabet’…….
btw: I have, at one time or another, over the past two or three years, donated entire phrases of Espanol/Nahuatl discussions which appear in both B-408 and the Florentine Codex. The entire contents of the Florentine Codex can be applied to the translation of the so-called “Voynich Manuscript”. The Voynich manuscript is now referred to as B-408 in the archive at the Boenicke Library at Yale.
Most of all, folks, have fun! Once in a while, thank Nick for his 1-dr-fl puzzling posts.
Nick, I curtsy rather that salute !
bd
Thomas,
Obviously, I agree anyone who says that the plants pictured in Beinecke MS 408 include mnemonic devices (a technical term).
I’m glad we agree in considering unlikely the idea that these plants were first made for European pharmacists or ‘herbalists’. I don’t think that discounts use by the sort of eastern Mediterranean or further-eastern makers of medicines, perfumes and other vegetable-based products, including ones which weren’t included in the Latin herbalists’ repertoire. These were known as ‘sandalani’ or variations thereon. Kahl is the specialist on the subject of eastern dispensatories.
Overall, it will be news eight years old that my conclusion about the content in Beinecke MS 408’s various sections finds common reason if one supposes it all intended to serve a peripatetic profession, chiefly one involved in the east-west trade.
So we agree, at least, on the issue of trade rather than a single profession’s needs. For me, this is a very nice and nearly-novel situation in Voynich studies, I admit.
I would make the point that the botanical section’s images are not just efforts at “likeness” that were then ornamented with ‘cues’ as if each were a christmas tree laden with decoration.
The images are very elegantly conceived and expressed: extremely lucid and quite admirable, with a consistent pattern of having a first level of identifying elements that are drawn very literally and from what had to be first hand knowledge of the plants, not only in the *original* draughtsmen but also being presumed for the *original* users.
Those literal elements – mostly literal, but occasionally using a schematic leaf – are 1) habit: a slender, only-slightly sinuous stem means a slender plant, like the sesame; one more sinuous a creeper but not a true vine unless the tendril is shown.
2) petiole and arrangement of leaves. Occasionally (as with the ‘sorrel’-leaf to indicate an edible spinch-sort of plant) the draughtsman adopted a stylised form, but generally the leaf is correctly drawn for the class of plants to which the group pictured was thought to belong. Arrangement of leaves on the stem (alternate, opposite or both) is absolutely literal and perfectly correct. I came to treat it as a invariable: if my developing identification agreed with everything except the arrangement of leaves on the stem, and the relative length of petiole, I discarded the identification. The makers were never mistaken on this point.
It became clear to me, as I treated one and then another folio that makers knew their plants, and for most of the time the content was used, the users also did. The images communicate, and do so systematically and lucidly. These are not scribbled images made for one person for use by none but himself. They ‘speak’ lucidly and clearly – just not in the language of a Latin Christian herbal.
To those fundamental and literal elements, certain schematic ones might be added, apparently without disruption to the communication between the original makers and original readers: thus flowers are usually set at the top of the plant, no matter where they appear.
In some cases, a regional form of stylization is found used to depict the flower – not to make it harder to read but because the audience *originally* intended lived and worked in the same environment, and knew those stylised forms just as well. (many of these stylizations occur in e.g. metalwork and needlework, as I first pointed out in 2011 or so). I believe others followed, or attempted to follow that idea, but to shift the locus from that I had identified to one more congenial to their linguistic theory.
Cultural context is expressed in the imagery. For example it shows clear evidence of respecting certain conventions, or ‘tabus’, among which is the avoidance of plant-parts which are naturally coloured in the mauve-purple-black range. The avoidance may result in that part of the plant’s being omitted (also found in the Egyptian tradition, and thus in one or two instances in Latin herbals). But I think this tabu is a reasonable explanation for the disproportionate number of flowers pictured blue in the Voynich botanical section.
To the intelligently constructed, informative basics, some mnemonic device may then be added, but in the great majority of cases this occupies only the level of the roots and in style of drawing as well as the nature of the imagery, the light touch, eastern motifs and so on declare that these are *not* images from the Latin style of ‘alchemist plant books’. Stylistically and intellectually they are worlds apart, even if I wouldn’t dispute that the Latin works could have been developed by knowledge of that plainly-earlier and older system seen in the Vms.
The manuscript overall tells in every section of its non-Latin origins and speaks of matter relevant to the east-west trade and traders. This includes the content of that map on folio 86v (Beinecke foliation 85v and 86r) which I was first to explore, identify, analyse and describe in detail by reference to physical features and cultural markers.
For the online Voynich audience I’ve already written a great deal about the east-west routes, and their connection to travel, migration and religious preaching as well as to commerce. I’ve written about the persons who knew those ways, who recorded them, travelled them and traded across them – from the Hellenistic period to about the eleventh and twelfth centuries.
That such a time-span had to be treated was required by the Voynich imagery itself, in which some ideas and forms are referenced which are very old indeed, and not even remotely European Latin Christian.
I have yet to treat the next phase, the rise of the Karimi – but having now mentioned the word, I daresay someone else will suddenly ‘discover’ this as a new idea, and find some other person who might have said the word at some stage.
Still, if that happens, as I expect it will, I’ll be saved the trouble of writing it all up, myself and only then having it “lifted” without attribution.
– I don’t mean by you, Thomas. Your Armenian research had, for a time, attracted its own “re-investigators who never properly acknowledge” – and until you returned to the scene, I seemed to be the only one who remembered who had really put the time and effort into researching that idea. So you know the “whose-name-is-not-mentioned” phenomenon.
*packs away soap-box..*
Diane, I agree with many of your fundamental conclusions regarding the VM botanicals. I think the elements of an Eastern understanding of Yin/Yang symbology is also present in depictions of VM botanicals and can account for the directionality observed in some plant depictions, the bi-color palate for plant blossoms (blue/purple or brown/red/yellow) or the leaf shapes. I have discussed directionality before but will reiterate. Some plants are shown with all the leaves facing right or left, roots facing right or left, blossoms likewise. Some have leaves in one direction, flowers in the other. I think blue/purple blooms indicate a male (yang) use for some plant part; brown/tan/yellow, a female (yin) use. You often focus on roots and rhizomes and I think when they are intensely colored (usually brown but sometimes green), they do deserve out attention as I think the herbalist indicates that part of the plant is used for some purpose. When left uncolored, the root is likely not used. I think there is a code in the root shapes also but cannot at the moment, decide what is meant when rootlets are many and crossing often (maybe a hairlike symbol for female use?).
The great Armenian herbalist Amirdovlat Amasiasti often segregated plants for male or female use in his un-illustrated ms of 1460. The incorporation of Yin/Yang descriptors like directionality and color seemed to me a natural progression in indicating the intended ultimate user. Where no directionality is seen or blossoms are both blue and red, the plant can convey benefits to both sexes. Eye disorders were a major concern of A.A. as he became court oculist to Ahmet II, the conqueror of Constantinople. Armenians were skilled in eye surgery, removing cataracts and penetrating objects.
I think some Armenian glyphs appear in the VM botanicals (like the ampersand like symbol for “f”, the tipped “2” for “ch” and the “4” but I realized from a later. still preliminary vowel frequency analysis that “o” is not a vowel but likely a complex consonant for “ng” in the Hangul language. Many of the odd glyphs that Nick drew attention to in “Curse” (f57v, p 125) are likely Hangul. Some like the inverted “v” under an overbar are also Hangul and appear at several places in the botanical text. I was drawn initially to Armenian as it is an ancient phonetic language (no diacriticals) and in use over the widespread Armenian diaspora. It also runs L->R.
Well, anyway we are in agreement on many issues. I also doubt much that Latin Christians had a hand in compiling the VM botanicals. There is maybe in f16v, a depiction of a common form of the Armenian cross, but the herbal is surprisingly free of religious iconography. Armenia, incidentally, is the oldest Christian nation in existence, predating Latin Christianity by roughly 100 years. One branch honors the Pope, the other (Apostolic) has their own “pope”, a catholikos. I have some more folio interpretations that might imply some early knowledge of anatomy but will convey those anon. Cheers, Tom
ps. If anybody ran with an Armenian hand in this, I wish them luck. Armenian had no glyph like the inverted “gamma” and oddly enough “o” and “f” were not introduced into the Armenian language until the 14thC, being considered foreign and originally found only in “loan” words. It has no gallows glyphs nor all those pesky “cc” combos.
explor, I was in error in responding to your query of June 7 asking what was the main scientific undertaking during the 15thC, the time when at least the vellum of the VM was prepared. I stated incorrectly that it was the heliocentric Theory of the Solar System. That theory was really formulated in rough manuscript form by Copernicus in 1514, finally published coinciding with his death in 1543. Tycho Brahe’s astronomical observations, the planetary orbits studied by Kepler and the adoption of the Copernican theory by Galileo came more than 100 years later. So I was off on the formulation of the heliocentric model of the solar system (originally considered to be “the universe”) by ca. 50 yrs.
In answer to the original query, I would guess that certain aspects of alchemy might be considered enough of a science to qualify. Not in transmutation work (which was a dead-end undertaking) but in the successful isolation of certain of the elements. The procedures could be repeated and the isolation of pure elements such as mercury, phosphorous, sulfur, etc. would qualify as science. Just as astrology led to astronomy (and led to the reform of the Julian calendar), alchemy led to chemistry.
Good question. I will dig more into this. Cheers, Tom
I too misspoke, we should be talking about natural philosophy . Science came much later.
Even Isaac Newton was a natural philosopher, So, this leads to looking at natural philosophers that might have known the author. First name that popped up was Pico,Giovanni Pico della Mirandola. When i saw a picture of the Mirandola bus station the lights went on and I am off chasing another goose.
Nick & friends:
All I’ve been trying to do is to shift the focus of the B-408 manuscript’s from ‘decryption’, and so-called ‘hidden’ clues/words in the botanical drawings. There are no alphabetical characters in the drawings. Furthermore: the colors ARE correct for each and every botanical item.
However, there are clues in many of the drawings: my favorite being the ‘monks-hood. The nahuatl/espanol written dialogue for this plant talks about its root system being invasive in the garden. I’m pretty sure just about any of Nick’s botani-fanatics will be able to continue this (my) dialogue/identification.
Nick/Diane/ThomS — My comments are sincerely meant to be both amusing and informative. Please let me know if I’m starting another ‘tempest in a teapot’ !!
Fondly,
bd 😉
So far, I get little feedback from our host, much less any positive response from other contributors to Nick’s various blog-posts. I go my way (and try not to write a critique of other’s posts). I do my best to explain each and every NA-HUA-TL and Spanish discussion which appears on every ‘page’ of the so-called ‘Voynich” manuscript.
I have translated 30 Nahuatl/Espanol discussions and have offered them on Nick’s blog pages — whenever it is a botanical item being displayed. I reiterate that there are NO alphabetical characters in either the blossoms, stems, leaves or roots. .
I have, and will continue, to criticize D’Imperio’s so-called translations. She was “a real piece of work” (a North American negative term for female fakery and/or liar).
Over the past several years, I’ve often referred you all to Phillip Neal’s magnificent archive (when the subject is correspondence between European priests, Cardinals, Papal transcripts, libraries, missionary correspondence — and the Inquisitioners. Most important to me is the Florentine Codex — which was Fray Sahagun’s continuation of his diary/Boenicke Mss 408.
bd
Especially helpful to persons who are still trying to decode the contents of B-408 is Book Eleven (Earthly Things) of Fray Sahagun’s magnificent “Florentine Codex” : “General History of the Things of New Spain ” — Also known as the
Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva Espana ”
Within Book Eleven are fully illustrated discussions (Spanish/Nahuatl) of insects, caterpillars (including bombyx mori (silkworm) , trees/leaves (morus), ants, stinging insects…, four footed animals, small animals like mice …..serpents, .deer, dogs, birds, waterfowl, colors, mines, caves, soils, clays, rivers, seas……..minerals herbs……..fruit trees, mulberry trees (for feeding silkworms) —
some 13 chapters, –some 290 pages…
I don’t understand why you, Nick, and several of your long-term correspondents (Diane, Rene, Tom Spande, to name a few) seem to go into ‘contradictory-mode’ rather than following up my references/referrals to botanical items and/or trees of importance (mulberry). The so-called “Voynich” manuscript (Boenicke 408) is full of mysterious illustrations — my favorite is an illustration of a single mulberry FRUIT. Not too long ago, I posted a full identification of that fruit — and why it was so important.
Ennyway, I’m very tired, very nearly blind, and nearly totally deaf. I don’t blame you, if you decide not to post any more “Voynich” items. Do take a look, at least, at the Florentine Codex, and compare its contents with Boenicke Manuscript 408 (aka: the “Voynich” Manuscript).
PS: Paula Zyatz (spelling?) was not in the least helpful in decoding a manuscript which was not encoded. I seem to recall she went on tour at least twice in the past five years.
bd
Several years ago, “Voynich Researchers” ended up reviewing Boenicke’s offering of the contents of the Shakespeare Library. Not one mention of the so-called “Voynich” Manuscript. Nor was there any reference to Boenicke’s manuscript number 408.
I still shrug in confusion with Boenicke Library and Paula Zyatz’ nonsense. I now have come to the conclusion that they had no idea of how close they came to ‘decoding’ the “Voynich Manuscript — if only they had concentrated on the “Spanish/Latin” dialogues in the “Voynich” manuscript — and compared them with Sahagun’s great “Florentine Codex”.
N-e-u-a, I have a few more translations to finish. I am hoping that Senor Fernandez-Armesto will accept a letter from me, thanking him for his books of Latin American history.
bdid1dr
You are not alone in feeling the lack of response to your study of Beinecke MS 408. Think of P.Han, who has been publishing his take on its content for years longer than either you or me. Or Robert Teague, who is quite certain that the astronomical folios are literal and precise maps of the heavens as they were in the sixteenth century or later. Even professional scholars such as Anna May Smith received virtually no response to the work she published online, or in other places. It’s par for the course, and you mustn’t be too hard on the Voynicheros – how many have equal knowledge of Nahuatl, of mathematical astronomy, of medieval China or of comparative linguistics? Better an interested silence than arguments from ignorance, surely?
Nick, Today’s Wall St. J.(D5), (E. Rothstein) has a piece on cryptography entitled “A Chance to Decode History” that could be a huge new direction for you. During the American Civil War, the Union telegraphy dept of the War Office sent 15,971 telegrams with a word substitution code for both words and numbers of ca. 5400 messages. “Zodiac” was “stop”. Abe Lincoln sent ca. 100. These have all been put on line (Zooniverse.org) and currently an estimate 75K code crackers are expected to participate. Interestingly Wm. E. Friedman rescued these from the trash. This is made for your skills. Cheers, Tom
BD, Have you read the Dover book by Gates “An Aztec Herbal”? The timing is off for the VM vellum by a hundred years. The Aztec plant depictions there are stylistic only with later detailed plant depictions done in the 20th C. that to my eyes (not great either) bear no resemblance to the plants of the VM. I just cannot make it work. At least I have read what is considered a good translation into English of the original on which the Codex is based. Cheers, Tom
@ ThomS: Yes, Gates little book led me to further reading material:
Daily Life of the Aztecs — Jacques Soustelle
Psalmodia Christiana – Bernardino Sahagun
The New College Latin and English Dictionary – John C. Traupman, Ph.d
Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva Espana —Angel Ma. Gar i bay K. —
Editorial Porrua
Florentine Codex (Fray Sahagun and scribes, artists, painters of some two-hundred/folios
You can find the entire “Historia General” online with whatever “Reader” you choose. I use Adobe Acrobat
Psalmodia Christiana is a good place to begin….preparatory to trying to decode the contents of B-408
bd (who is starting all over again with Fray Sahagun’s diary –the so-called “Voynich Manuscript” ) .
And then there are the artists, colorists, legend-tellers, feather regalia makers, miners and mines, paper makers, Aztec ‘astronomers’ and makers of sun and moon cycles……calendars,.artifacts and monuments……. gods and goddesses…..birds which catch fish ( pelicans for the .fishermen’nets).
bd
ThomS : As long as you understand that Friedman’s wife was the reknowned codiologist (working for the “Coast Guard – during prohibition, before their marriage.
bd