You might be interested to know that an interview with (relatively new) Voynich researcher Domingo Delgado was posted to YouTube a few days ago. In this, Delgado describes how he thinks the Voynich Manuscript was:
- made in Italy (because he thinks the handwriting is distinctively Italian);
- made in the 15th century (largely because of the same ‘4o’ pattern I went on about in The Curse of the Voynich back in 2006);
- written in Latin (because that’s what educated Italians used back then); and
- enciphered using a combination of substitution and “permutation” (I’m pretty sure he means ‘transposition’) tricks (though he doesn’t want to give any details away just yet, his book – to be published next year – will teach everyone how to decrypt Voynichese for themselves)
Having previously (in 2019) concluded that the Voynich’s author was Leon Battista Alberti, Delgado now thinks for 100% sure that it was funded by Federico da Montefeltro (though he doesn’t have any more detail than this).
He doesn’t yet know the author’s name, because the text’s combination of substitution and transposition means that it’s taking him a while to decrypt its text: so far, he has only managed to decrypt a few lines at a time.
Delgado also seems a bit cross that existing Voynich Manuscript researchers don’t seem to have taken his work seriously – in other words, that he hasn’t been given the seat at the top table he so rightly deserves.
(Hot tip: there is no top table – we all sit on the floor.)
f6r = Groundsel?
His decryption process seems largely to have been to look at the top two lines of herbal pages to see if they contain a tell-tale Latin plant-name that has been manipulated in some way. His key example seems to be f6r, which he says discusses groundsel, and how the plant is attacked by mites.
Groundsel certainly does have a long herbal medicinal history: it was mentioned by Pliny (who called it ‘senecio‘) and by Dioscorides (who recommended it as a cure for kidney-stones). Nowadays, we know that even though canaries do like a nice bit of groundsel seed, humans who take too much of it may well get liver damage. [So perhaps we’ll yet see the Donald recommending it as a coronavirus cure.]
My guess is that Delgado was looking specifically at the last word of the second line (EVA chotols), which he has matched with the -e-e– of ‘senecio’:
My guess is also that Delgado thought that he had seen a reference to “(minutum) reddas”, which some may know from Luke 12:59: dico tibi non exies inde donec etiam novissimum minutum reddas = [King James Bible] “I tell thee, thou shalt not depart thence, till thou hast paid the very last mite” (i.e. the last cent, penny, or farthing). And no, I can’t easily guess which Voynichese word of f6r Delgado thought was “reddas”.
It’s true that spider mites are among the (many, many, many) things that attack senecio vulgaris. But honestly, were any fifteenth century gardeners really that sophisticated about what was (and is) basically a weed?
Perhaps there’s an outside chance that this f6r identification is correct, but to be honest, I’m really not seeing even that much so far.
Nine-Rosette Castle = Amelia?
The decryption that Delgado seems most impressed with is that of the famous castle in the nine-rosette page:
He was so surprised to find the name of the town with the castle – Amelia (in Umbria, formerly Ameria) on this page that he plans to title his book “The Voynich Amelia Manuscript” (i.e. with a deliberate strikethrough).
As justification, he says that the text describes a “carpet of roses” (presumably that’s what the swirl of stars in the middle of the rosette represents?), and that even today there’s an Umbrian festival that has elaborate carpets of roses (he says this is “Spoleto”, but I’m pretty sure he means the Infiorate di Spello).
Spello does indeed have quite a splendidly beautiful festival, even if many of the designs do seem to my eyes to be a little too eager to combine 1960s psychedelia with 1980s crop circles:
Of course, Cipher Mysteries readers will immediately recognise this very specific point in a Voynich theory blog post: the first mention of a specific historical phenomenon. So yes, this is where I would normally point out that the first document mentioning decorating the streets of Spello with flowers (and not even with carpets of flowers) only dates back to 1831.
As a result, my confidence that this is a real decryption is as close to zero as makes no difference, sorry.
BTW, I suspect it is the second word of the Voynichese label just above the castle that Delgado reads as “amelia”, but it’s probably not hugely relevant:
I could stand about 5 minutes of the interview.
And that was being generous, after the initial comment about deciding not to read any previous work (theories) about the MS.
Of all the deadly sins of would-be Voynich decipherers, that remains the prime one for me.
“there is no top table – we all sit on the floor”, another fine quote. Still, when you are sitting on the floor there is less chance of toppling over.
Rene: the whole point of blogging is that I sit through the whole podcast so that you don’t have to.
It’s a tough profession, really it is.
Mark: 🙂
Thanks for sitting through the podcast for us, Nick 😉
Every time I am genuinely astounded about how much the rhetoric and arguments of these Voynich solvers resemble each other. It must be some psychological pattern that lures people in and makes them do and say similar things each time. And a large portion of these people appear like they are otherwise intelligent individuals.
Well there’s one good idea there, Italian or not.
Latin.
I never studied it, having been blocked from taking Latin class in the 9th grade by a nun who apparently thought I was too recalcitrant or, perhaps, was lacking in any conceptions of English grammar. In response I went to a public high school the following year and took Russian, a language with just as many declensions and conjugations and did just fine. But over the years, particularly now in Herbal research, the crazy thought of studying it now keeps pestering me even as I climb the craggy slopes of traditional Chinese. Sic semper to nun-ums.
Why not Latin, it was indeed THE language in the Voynich era and most certainly a possibility, even if it really was from meso-Ameerica where the dutiful monks most certainly would have taught the heathen natives to enhance their spirituality quotient.
Koen: in software engineering, tempting behaviours that end up badly are known as “anti-patterns” (behaviours that end up well are known as “patterns”). I think the main things guarding unsolved ciphers are anti-patterns – traps for the unwary to fall into.
I’m not so sure that everyone has quite made it up to ground level, and I can see a whole underworld populated by theorists…
Rene: 🙁 🙂
There is a key to cipher the Voynich manuscript.
The key to the cipher manuscript placed in the manuscript. It is placed throughout the text. Part of the key hints is placed on the sheet 14. With her help was able to translate a few dozen words that are completely relevant to the theme sections.
The Voynich manuscript is not written with letters. It is written in signs. Characters replace the letters of the alphabet one of the ancient language. Moreover, in the text there are 2 levels of encryption. I figured out the key by which the first section could read the following words: hemp, wearing hemp; food, food (sheet 20 at the numbering on the Internet); to clean (gut), knowledge, perhaps the desire, to drink, sweet beverage (nectar), maturation (maturity), to consider, to believe (sheet 107); to drink; six; flourishing; increasing; intense; peas; sweet drink, nectar, etc. Is just the short words, 2-3 sign. To translate words with more than 2-3 characters requires knowledge of this ancient language. The fact that some symbols represent two letters. In the end, the word consisting of three characters can fit up to six letters. Three letters are superfluous. In the end, you need six characters to define the semantic word of three letters. Of course, without knowledge of this language make it very difficult even with a We can say that the Voynich manuscript is an encyclopedia of knowledge that humanity needs today. I managed to partially solve the mystery of mount Kailas ( for example, its height is 6825 meters). The manuscript indicates the place where the Grail Is hidden, as well as the Font and Cradle of Jesus.
For more information, see my article https://scieuro.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/february-2020.pdf
I am ready to share information.
With respect, Nikolai.
I am looking for a person, or even an organization, who will decide to responsibly continue to decipher the Voynich manuscript.
Norwegian playwright Henrik Johan Ibsen coined the phrase ‘A picture is worth a thousand words’. Sadly the great man passed on in 1906 though thankfully his quote lives on and most of us, the lumbering non intellectual classes understand well its meaning. Coincidently Dick Garnett who ran the reading room of the well respected British Museum Library reading room and who mentored the likes of one Wilfid Voynich and several non blood relatives, himself passed on just a few weeks earlier. I have enormous respect for them both and their simple home truths regarding what can be believed and what migut not about the written word. Case in point being, the as yet undeciphered text of the latter’s cheap and nasty little manuscript named for him, only salvation being ( to his eternal credit) it’s all revealing picture clues telling us everything we need to know about it’s creation and purpose. 1906 would be a good year to start looking for the truth I’d reckon.
Hello Nick,
You should get your facts straight before publishing. “Infiorata” was first inaugurated in 1265, it was a Catholic feast of Corpus Domini. Also, the Italian town known as Amelia today was known as Ameria at that time, and that is what my book is called “Ameria Manuscript” not “Amelia Manuscript”. What I have deciphered which means the plant “Groundsel” does not use the word “‘Senecio” as you believe. One last correction, it is “permutation” not “transposition”.
Hello Again,
Another fact that you should correct is that I do not believe 100% that Montefeltro was the initiator of this manuscript (I clearly state this many times) it is only a theory. However, I do believe 100% that it is a Latin substitution-permutation cipher.
[Comment deleted then reinstated]
Hello Nick,
It seems that my posts have been deleted. Please have the decency of correcting your blog, what you claim of what I have said is incorrect!
Thanks,
Domingo
Domingo Delgado: the earliest documentary references to anyone using flowers to ‘paint’ with that I have found is ~1625, and to anyone making public flower carpets is ~1780 (slightly earlier than Spello, but not by much). Can you please point me towards a reliable reference that will change my mind?
It was the Romans who called the town Ameria: my understanding was that by the 12th century it was already called Ammeline or Amelia. So I believe calling it the Ameria Manuscript would be anachronistic by at least 400 years. But perhaps you can correct me on that too.
I’ll be happy to correct the blog post text to note that you didn’t find the word senecio.
If what you have found is permutation rather than transposition (ie raw anagrams rather than rule-directed reordering), then I don’t really think it falls into the category of cryptography at all.
Domingo Delgado: it seemed clear to me from the YouTube interview that you were 100% certain the manuscript was produced by Federico da Montefeltro’s scribes in his studio, and also that you did not have any other candidate in mind. If the interview misrepresented your theory, please point me to anything else you have posted on your theory online so that I can gain a better view of your ideas.
Please post all of my posts that you deleted. It seems you only keep the ones that suit you.
Domingo: on moderated blogs (such as this one), there is a pause after a commenter submits the post while the moderator moderates the post.
The single comment of yours that I removed was where you were making yourself look foolish because you misinterpreted this (inevitable) pause as a sign I was censoring or deleting your comments.
So I actually removed it out of kindness, but if you’re so dead set that I reinstate it, I’m more than happy to.
Hi Nick, thought I would give you a heads up re Amazon prices of your book. Cant find a direct email for you so you’re welcome to erase this in moderation. Amazon.ca lists Curse as $156, and Amazon.com as $125. I believe these prices must be a mistake! Where should I purchase it failing amazon?
No one expects the Spanish inquisition.
Benedetto Drei and his son are considered the first promoters of the custom of using the flowers from Saint Peter’s Basilica to reproduce mosaics by cutting and placing each flower in a particular way.
It seems this tradition was inaugurated in 1265 and gave start to a real trend, which has evolved throughout the years into a real artistic event taking place in occasion of the Catholic feast of the Corpus Domini. Flower petals are gathered and placed so as to form particular drawings, geometrical or not, and become scenery to processions and religious events.
https://www.lifeinitaly.com/lifestyle/holidays/infiorata/
The Latin name of Amelia Italy was Ameria. The Voynich Manuscript as I have deciphered says Ameria.
https://www.trismegistos.org/place/11849
again it seems my posts are deleted.
Domingo Delgado: again it seems you didn’t grasp that I have to see your comments and then moderate them before they appear.
Top tip: if you want to persuade me (or indeed anyone else) about a historical point you’re trying to make, link to a historical document (or a book describing that document) that supports your point. Relying on lightweight / tourist websites makes you look foolish, which I’m sure is not what you’re trying to do.
History of Corpus Domini that led upto Infiorata as told by the Vatican and an Italian Wikipedia…
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2020-06/pope-to-celebrate-feast-of-corpus-domini-in-st-peter-s-on-sunday.html
http://www.italiapedia.it/infiorata_appr_1079_comune-di-genzano-di-roma_058-043
Domingo: I can see the history of Corpus Domini just fine, and the history of using flowers for painting from 1625 onwards, and the history of making public flower carpets from about 1780 onwards. But I still can’t see any evidence that the tradition of celebrating Corpus Domini involved public flower carpets prior to 1780.
Can you at least see why this is a problem?
I like carpets of flowers. The ones in Brussels are particularly pretty. I regret never having seen it in person, even while I lived not all that far away.
This discussion is also quite interesting.
However, I have not seen anything that looks like a carpet of flowers in the Voynich MS.
I do see lots of stars, and I consider that proposing that these stars are flowers is an unproven, and unprovable assumption.
They are also all the same colour (ink) which would defeat the purpose of flower carpets.
Rene: my understanding is that Domingo found the reference to a carpet of flowers in his decrypted text. The fact there is a swirl of stars beneath the castle was merely my own observation.
As so often, Delgardo wants to sell ideas without giving any clear idea of how his research ever led him to hold those ideas.
‘Histories’ which are presented with no history to their evolution is a peculiarity so common in Voynich writers that I’d call it a major repeating error – a pattern (to quote Koen) or anti-pattern (to quote Nick).
I’d ask Delgardo – ‘If this is your answer about the manuscript’s origin, then what was your question… and where have you presented your working-out?’
I don’t just mean his effort to translate the written part of the text, but his research on the vellum, the codicology, and the range of hands he considered before deciding an Italian hand was ‘most like’ in his opinion.
I should also like to see more of his research into the demographics of fifteenth century Italy – to see some sign, for example, that he knew the Adriatic coast was heavily populated by emigrants, foreign business enclaves, by Jewish communities which were the remnants of older ones, and that the southern part of the peninsula had a long, and still living Greek-Byzantine tradition whose roots lay in the pre-Roman era.
So – what exactly does Delgardo mean by ‘fifteenth century Italian’? And why does he imagine that, in the fifteenth century, all literate people must know Latin? The evidence shows plainly enough that, by that time, this was no longer true, even in Italy.
Ah OK Nick.
So we have nothing tangible yet.
Rene: if the carpet of flowers tradition started in the late 18th century, then I’d say we already have several centuries’ worth of reasons to think the theory is probably wrong.
Thank you Domingo Delgado for finding Federico da Montefeltro a true
Soldier of Fortune and humanist. While he is a little young
his teachers are not. Vittorino da Feltre now becomes a person
of interest.
Thank you xplor, it seems I have struck a nerve. I have not given up true sources that include historians. I’m not going to give up anymore information, that will be in my book. Look carefully on what I have given up. You will see that just in face value my descriptions on what I have actually deciphered is completely different than anyone’s so called deciphering, and makes real sense. Every single person who claims that they have deciphered it, never shows how!!!! I will clearly show how (step by step)!
Xplor,
The main reason I zero in on Montefeltro is because of the last page of the Voynich Manuscript. It is a fact that the cipher Montefeltro used had the “+” sign, and so does the manuscript. Also, the carbon dating of 1404 to 1438 is 95% certainty. This does not mean that it is 1421, it actually means that any and every year from 1404 to 1438 has a 95% certainty. Remember that Montefeltro became a Mercenary at the age 16. He did study at the Casa da Gioiosa under Vittorino but, Vittorino is not known for any ciphers and Montefeltro is. Also, Monterfeltro had direct ties to Sforza and Gonzaga.
Domingo: the + sign on f116v seems extraordinarily unlikely to be a cipher (there are many hundreds of texts from that period that use the + sign in exactly the same non-ciphered manner), so I think you’re barking up the wrong historical tree there, sorry. 🙁
Nick: I disagree because both are ciphered, although it is true that the + is used outside of ciphers. But one can also argue that the similarities between Latin abbreviations and the Voynich cipher should discredit that the Voynich Manuscript being a cipher at all…
Nick: it seems you don’t talk about what I claim to be a cardoon, please comment on that.
Domingo Delgado wrote:
“Every single person who claims that they have deciphered it, never shows how!!!! I will clearly show how (step by step)!”
Well I am sorry but that is just plain wrong, to the point of being backward.
How can you know what other people did, if you have not read earlier work on the manuscript??
I have reviewed I don’t know how many proposed solutions in the past and a large number of them, while certainly not acceptable as a good translation, still clearly explain how the solution was obtained. In detailed steps.
From this one, I have seen nothing at all. No method and no plain text.
Domingo: I try to focus on specific historical claims made by a theory that I can actually check. Like “Federico da Montefeltro”, “Ameria” and “carpets of roses”.
0/3 so far.
Dom,
Years ago Nick Pelling wrote about the
Montefeltro Conspiracy and Pazzi plot.
What did he overlook?
Xplor: I can tell you that no one will be able to dispute my deciphering. However, in regards to Montefeltro it is just a theory. My book will discuss this in greater detail. I’m not sure if you have listed to the podcast, and you will hear what I have to say.
https://youtu.be/qqhc-ynmIqU
Domingo, blogger Nick does not do justice to your analysis! Keep up the good work.
Rosalie Stafford: actually, most of the criticism I’ve had here has been from people thinking I’m being too soft on a Voynich theory that is obviously broken from top to bottom.
Which it is.
I’ve just listened to the podcast. Domingo comes over as polite, frustrated and not a conspiracy theorist. Your write up of his position here has a bitchy, classist tone to it. Almost as if you could not stand a ‘lay’ person to have discovered the answer.
What is so wrong with someone thinking they have actually discovered the manuscript to be in Latin and about plants? Is that really so terrible or is the real problem here your arrogance?
Mary Browne: Domingo is, I daresay, a very nice guy. But his theory appears to be very flawed. That does not mean that he is conspiracy theorist, just that he has got the wrong theory of the Voynich as so many people have.
Mary Browne: the dark art of genuine Voynich Manuscript research is, as per Rene Zandbergen once said, avoiding making mistakes.
Good Voynich researchers recognise all manner of mistakes, mainly because they have made many of those same mistakes themselves (before catching themselves on, and so ultimately not being fooled).
So that’s how things actually work, which you’re clearly unaware of: but as to the rest of your comment, words simply fail me. Please don’t leave any more comments here.