Pavia MS Aldini 488: “Collectio de Balneis”…

by ⋅ 38 Comments

When a comment landed here today from Diane O’Donovan about the (sometimes asserted, sometimes denied) connection between the Voynich Manuscript’s Q13 (the ‘balneo’ folios) and the late 12th century De Balneis Putolanis by Peter of Eboli, it reminded me that there’s a 15th century balneological manuscript out there I really want to know a lot more about – MS Aldini 488 “Collectio de balneis”.

Q13A vs Q13B (again)

However, before I launch into all that, I first need to recap various codicological features of Q13 before we start trying to work with it.

The first thing to know about Q13 is that its bifolios have ended up bound in the wrong order. We can tell this because a bifolio that was originally at the centre of a quire / gathering has ended up not at the middle. Moreover, following the logical through to the end leads (as per The Curse of the Voynich back in 2006) to a situation where you can reconstruct the central two bifolios’ nesting order: f84 – f78 (centre) f81 – f75.

The second thing to notice is that the drawings on these two nested Q13 bifolios (which are all about bathing ‘nymphs’) seem to sit in a quite different category from the drawings on the other three Q13 bifolios (which largely revolve around plumbing, though whether this is real or imagined is hard to say). Voynich researcher Glen Claston proposed that the first two bifolios form a balneological quire on their own (which he called “Q13B”), while the other three form a medical quire (which he called “Q13A”). Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his specific interpretation, his basic codicological division into two separate artifacts has stood the test of time: so it seems we are looking at two separate (though similar-looking) things whose constituent bifolios have ended up interleaved. Glen also proposed that Q13B was constructed before Q13A.

The third thing to be aware of is that on the Voynich Manuscript’s page f81r (in Q13B, the bathing nymphs section), there is apparently a poem. I raised this poem section as something which we might look for parallels with in other texts when I started discussing the ‘block paradigm’ approach (where you look for structural matches between a page of enciphered text and plaintext pages from similar contemporary or earlier manuscripts). Interestingly, it seems (from the line-initial gallows characters) that the f81r poem has a 7 / 8 / 8 / 8 line structure, which would be consistent with the writer / copyist having accidentally skipped past a line within the first block of the poem.

Putting all these pieces together, the implication is that we should be looking for a block-sized match between the contents of the two “bathing nymphs” bifolios and 14th / early 15th century balneological texts (which are possibly but not necessarily illustrated). The poem embedded in the middle (it’s on the right half of the central bifolio) seems to be structured as three verses, each containing four couplets (i.e. eight lines). This is because if we can find a source match that’s tolerably close to this basic ‘block specification’, we might just be in business.

Arnold C. Klebs

Back when I was writing The Curse of the Voynich in 2006, to be honest I hadn’t yet found much balneological source material at all. It was only a little later (in 2009) that I found an online version of the (1916) article “Balneology in the Middle Ages” by Arnold C. Klebs. This mentioned a number of late medieval / early modern people who had written on the subject of baths, e.g.:

  • Giovanni de Dondis
  • Gentile da Foligno (d. 1348)
  • Ugolino Caccino of Montecatini (d. 1425)
  • Matteo Bendinelli (1489)
  • Michele Savonarola (who I already knew about)

Klebs also mentioned the printed book “De Balneis omnia quae extant” Venice, Giunta, 1553, fol., 447 leaves, which he describes as “the first text-book on balneology“.

A source Klebs also refers to specifically for German bath history is:

  • Martin, Alfred “Deutsches Badewvesen in vergangenen Tagen,” Jena, Diederichs, 1906. With 159 illustrations from old originals.

Giunta’s (1553) De Balneis Omnia

Google Books lists two separate copies of Giunta’s (1553) “De Balneis Omnia Quae Extant apud Graecos, Latinos et Arabas” (etc etc), both of which freely downloadable:

The bad news is that this is a super-heavyweight Latin compendium of balneological sources (the PDF runs to 1033 pages). However, the good news is that Giunta has assembled it from just about everyone pre-1553 who had written about baths, water etc: so there are large sections excerpting books from early authors such as Pliny, Avicenna, Aristotle, Galen, Hippocrates, along with selections from 16th century authors such as Gesner, Fuchs etc.

One thing I found was that, Pietro d’Abano’s “De Balneis” aside (which is written in hexameters), almost none of the balneo sources quoted by Giunta seem to appear in verse form. Even the promising-looking verse section on p.90 by “Ioannis et Iacobi De Dondis Patavinorum” turned out to be a poem by Claudian (370AD-404AD) (“Fons, Antenoreae vitam qui porrigis urbi, / Fataque vicinis noxia pellis aquis“).

Having said that, Giunta’s selection is entirely in Latin and far from complete. So it may well be that, if we can somehow go back to some fifteenth century collection of balneo manuscripts, we can see these in their original form – which may well be in Tuscan (rather than Latin), in verse (rather than in prose), and illustrated (rather than just text).

But where on earth would we find such an unlikely-sounding text?

Pavia, MS Aldini 488

It turns out that there really is such a text: and it is at the University of Pavia. Sadly, this “Collectio de Balneis” hasn’t yet been digitized (or if it has, its digital pages have not yet been shared outside the University of Pavia). But we do know the contents of MS Aldini 488:

Aldini 488, Collectio de Balneis. Cart., sec. XV, cc. 78 n.n., 232 x 154 mm.
c. 1: Savonarola Michele, De balneo et termis naturalibus omnibus Italiae sicque totius orbis proprietatibusque earum
c. 45: Ugolino da Montecatini, De balneis mineralibus et artificialibus
c. 61: Epigrammata de balneis puteolanis
c. 66: Consilium pro balneis de Corsena in comitatu luchano pro domino Lanzaloto de Crotis ducali consiliario
c. 67: Tura di Castello, Regula et tractatus balnei de poreta
c. 68v: Tractatus pro balneis de aquis per Petrum de Tussignano
c. 70v: Antonii Guaynerii papiensis de balneis aquis ciuitatis antiquissime que in marchionatu montisferrati sita sunt tractatus
c. 74v: De balneis secundum Petrum de Ebano
c. 75v: Tractatus de balneis secundum Gentillem
c. 76v: De balneis de Burmio secundum magistrum Petrum de Tussignano
c. 77v: Regula balnei loci de Aquaria in territorio regii
c. 78v: De balneo aque porrete
Collocazione cd: Mediateca nas bu 269
Collocazione vol. originale: Aldini 488

Because this is not yet available online, it is where – unless you happen to know better? – our current breakneck tour of balneological sources stops,

Note that there are a fair few monographs on individual balneo authors:

  • This Spanish Prezi presentation by Sergio P on Michele Savonarola lists eight manuscript versions of his book on baths (including Paris BNF Nouv. Acq. Lat 889, dating to 1452), seven printed versions of the same (1485-1562), plus four separate monographs.
  • Pietro da Tossignano’s (d. 1401) “Tractatus de regimine sanitatis” was printed in 1535 (his medical recipes are online here). Giuseppe Mazzini wrote “Vita e opera di maestro Pietro da Tossignano” in 1926 (reprinted in 2007).

As an aside, I also found an interesting chapter (in French) on the balneo literature – “Les traités médicaux sur les bains d’Acqui Terme, entre XIVe et XVIe siècles“, by Gabriella Zuccolin – from a recent book, “Sejourner au bain”. Zuccolin further notes that many of the treatises are covered at speed by Lynn Thorndike, but… they would be, wouldn’t they?

Voynich Manuscript: Letter Contact Tables

by ⋅ 29 Comments

A recent post on voynich.ninja brought up the subject of differences / similarities between Voynichese words starting with EVA ch and those starting with EVA sh. But this got me thinking more generally about the difference between ch and sh in Voynichese (i.e. in any position), and even more generally about letter contact tables.

Problems With Letter Contact Tables

For ciphertexts where the frequency instance distribution has been flattened, a normal first test is William Friedman’s Index of Coincidence (IoC). This often helps determine the period of the cryptographic means that was used to flatten it (e.g. the length of the cyclic keyword, etc). But this is not the case with the Voynich Manuscript.

For ciphertexts where the frequency instance graph is normal but the letter to letter adjacency has been disrupted, the IoC is one of the tests that can help determine the period of any structured transposition (e.g. picket fence etc) that has been carried out. But the Voynich is also not like this.

So, when cryptologists are faced by a structured ciphertext (i.e. one where the frequency instance graph more closely resembles a natural language, and where the letter adjacency also seems to follow language-like rules, the primary tool they rely on is letter contact tables. These are tables of counts (or percentages) that show how often given letters are followed by other given letters.

But for Voynichese there’s a catch: because in order to build up letter contact tables, you have to first know what the letters of the underlying text are. And whatever they might be, the one thing that they definitely are not is the letters of the EVA transcription.

Problems With EVA

The good thing about EVA was that it was designed to help Voynich researchers collaborate on the problems of Voynichese. This was because it offered a way for them to talk about Voynichese that online was (to a large degree) independent of all their competing theories about what specific combinations of Voynichese shapes or strokes genuinely made up a Voynichese letter. And there were a lot of these theories back then, a lot.

To achieve this, EVA was constructed as a clever hybrid stroke transcription alphabet, one designed to capture in a practical ‘atomic’ (i.e. stroke-oriented) way many of the more troublesome composite letter shapes you find in Voynichese. Examples of these are the four “strikethrough gallows” (EVA ckh / cth / cfh / cph), written as an ornate, tall character (a “gallows character”) but with an odd curly-legged bench character struck through it.

However, the big problem with EVA is arguably that it was too successful. Once researchers had EVA transcriptions to work with, almost all (with a few heroic exceptions) seem to have largely stopped wondering about how the letters fit together, i.e. how to parse Voynichese into tokens.

In fact, we have had a long series of Voynich theorists and analysts who look solely at Voynich ‘words’ written in EVA, because it can seem that you can work with EVA Voynichese words while ignoring the difficult business of having to parse Voynichese. So the presence of EVA transcriptions has allowed many people to write a lot of stuff bracketing out the difficult stuff that motivated the complicated transcription decisions that went into designing EVA in the first place.

As a result, few active Voynich researchers now know (or indeed seem to care much) about how Voynichese should be parsed. This is despite the fact that, thanks to the (I think somewhat less than positive) influence of the late Stephen Bax, the Voynich community now contains many linguists, for whom you might think the issue of parsing would be central.

But it turns out that parsing is typically close to the least of their concerns, in that (following Bax’s example) they typically see linguistic takes and cryptographic takes as mutually exclusive. Which is, of course, practically nonsensical: indeed, many of the best cryptologists were (and are) also linguists. Not least of these was Prescott Currier: I would in fact go so far as to say that everyone else’s analyses of Voynichese have amounted to little more than a series of minor extensions and clarifications to Currier’s deeply insightful 1970s contributions to the study of Voynichese.

Problems With Parsing

Even so, there is a further problem with parsing, one which I tried to foreground in my book “The Curse of the Voynich” (2006). This is because I think there is strong evidence that certain pairs of letters may have been used as verbose cipher pairs, i.e. pairs of glyphs used to encipher a single underlying token. These include EVA qo / ee / or / ar / ol / al / am / an / ain / aiin / aiiin / air / aiir (the jury is out on dy). However, if you follow this reasoning through, this also means that we should be highly suspicious of anywhere else the ‘o’ and ‘a’ glyphs appear, e.g. EVA ot / ok / op / of / eo etc.

If this is even partially correct, then any letter contact tables built on the component glyphs (i.e. the letter-like-shapes that such verbose pairs are made up of) would be analysing not the (real underlying) text but instead what is known as the covertext (i.e. the appearance of the text). As a result, covertext glyph contact tables would hence be almost entirely useless.

So I would say that there is a strong case to be made that almost all Voynichese parsing analyses to date have found themselves entangled by the covertext (i.e. they have been misdirected by steganographic tricks).

All the same, without a parsing scheme we have no letter contact tables: and without letter contact tables we can have no worthwhile cryptology of what is manifestly a structured text. Moreover, arguably the biggest absence in Mary D’Imperio’s “An Elegant Enigma” is the lack of letter contact tables, which I think sent out the wrong kind of message to readers.

Letter Contact Tables: v0.1

Despite this long list of provisos and problems, I still think it is a worthwhile exercise to try to construct letter contact tables for Voynichese: we just have to be extraordinarily wary when we do this, that’s all.

One further reason to be wary is that many of the contact tables are significantly different for Currier A and Currier B pages. So, because I contend that it makes no sense at all to try to build up letter contact pages that merge A and B pages together, I present A and B separately here.

The practical problem is that doing this properly will require a much better set of scripts than I currently have: what I’m presenting here is only a small corner of the dataset (forward contacts for ch and sh), executed very imperfectly (partly by hand). But hopefully it’s a step in the right direction and others will take it as an encouragement to go much further.

Note that I used Takahashi’s transcription, and got a number of unmatched results which I counted as ??? values. These may well be errors in the transcription or errors in my conversion of the transcription to JavaScript (which I did a decade ago). Or indeed just bit-rot in my server, I don’t know.

A ch vs B ch, Forward Contacts

A ch
(cho 1713)
—– of which (chol 531, chor 400, chod 196, chok 130, cho. 113, chot 94, chos 50, chom 28, choi 20, choy 18, chop 14, chof 12, choe 11, choa 7, choc 6, choo 5, cho- 4, chon 4, chog 2, cho??? 69)
(che 918)
—– of which (cheo 380, chey 229, chee 156, chea 64, chek 30, chet 19, ched 12, ches 8, chep 7, cher 2, cheg 1, chef 1, che. 1, che* 1, che??? 7)
(chy 544)
(cha 255)
(ch. 112)
(chk 60)
(chd 35)
(cht 31)
(chs 21)
(chch 5) (chp 5) (chsh 4) (chm 2) (chi 2) (chc 2) (chf 1) (chl 0) (chn 0) (chr 0) (chs 0) (ch- 0) (ch= 0)

B ch
(che 3640)
—– of which (ched 1482, chey 597, cheo 565, chee 537, chek 119, chea 82, ches 55, chet 42, chep 25, chef 15, cher 4, cheg 4, che. 2, chel 1, che??? 117)
(chd 725)
(cho 633)
—– of which (chol 200, chod 123, chor 83, chok 65, chot 44, cho. 34, chop 7, chos 22, choa 10, chop 7, choy 4, choe 4, chof 4, choo 4, choi 2, cho= 1, cho??? 26)
(ch. 403)
(chy 331)
(cha 185)
(chk 84)
(chs 50)
(cht 38)
(chp 20)
(chch 6) (chc 6) (chsh 5) (chf 2) (chi 0) (chm 0) (chl 0) (chn 0) (chr 0) (chs 0) (ch- 0) (ch= 0)

Observations of interest here:

  • A:cho = 1713, while B:cho = 633
  • A:chol = 531, while B:chol = 200
  • A:chor = 397, while B:chor = 83
  • A:che = 918, while B:che = 3640
  • A:ched = 12, while B:ched = 1482
  • A:chedy = 7, while B:chedy = 1193
  • A:chd = 35, while B:chd = 725
  • A:chdy = 21, while B:chdy = 504

As an aside:

  • dy appears 765 times in A, 5574 times in B

A sh vs B sh, Forward Contacts

A sh

(sho 625)
—– of which (shol 174, sho. 143, shor 105, shod 77, shok 32, shot 22, shos 11, shoi 9, shoa 6, shoy 5, shoe 4, shom 4, shop 4, sho- 1, shof 1, shoo 1, sho??? 26)
(she 407)
—– of which (sheo 174, shee 84, shey 81, shea 20, she. 19, shek 12, shes 8, shed 3, shet 2, shep 1, sheq 1, sher 1, she??? 1)
(shy 153)
(sha 58)
(sh. 39)
(shk 13)
(shd 7)
(shch 6)
(sht 5)
(shs 3)
(shsh 1)
(shf 1) (everything else 0)

B sh

(she 1997)
—– of which (shed 734, shee 386, shey 334, sheo 286, shek 78, shea 37, shet 18, shes 15, she. 13, shep 6, shef 5, shec 2, sheg 2, she* 1, shel 1, sher 1, she??? 79)
(sho 284)
—– of which (shol 89, shod 59, shor 43, shok 24, sho. 23, shot 8, shos 8, shoa 5, shoi 5, shoe 3, shof 2, shoo 2, shoy 1, shop 1, sho??? 11)
(shd 161)
(sh. 136)
(shy 104)
(sha 67)
(shk 35)
(sht 13)
(shs 12)
(shch 6)
(shsh 1)
(shf 1) (everything else 0)

Observations of interest here:

  • A:sho = 625, while B:sho = 284
  • A:shol = 174, while B:shol = 89
  • A:shor = 105, while B:shor = 43
  • A:she = 406, while B:she = 1997
  • A:shed = 3, while B:shed = 734
  • A:shedy = 2, while B:shedy = 629
  • A:shd = 7, while B:shd = 161
  • A:shdy = 3, while B:shdy = 100

Final Thoughts

The above is no more than a brief snapshot of a corner of a much larger dataset. Even here, a good number of the features of this corner have been discussed and debated for decades (some most notably by Prescott Currier).

But given that there is no shortage of EVA ch, sh, e, d in both A and B, why are EVA ched, chd, shed, and shd so sparse in A and so numerous in B?

It’s true that dy appears 7.3x more in B than in A: but even so, the ratios for ched, chedy, shed, shedy, chd, chdy, shd and shdy are even higher (123x, 170x, 244x, 314x, 20x, 24x, 23x, and 33x respectively).

Something to think about…

Dorabella Cipher: timeline, texts, and Keith Massey…

by ⋅ 25 Comments

There are plenty of things about Edward Elgar’s Dorabella Cipher that rarely appear in the countless gosh-wow sites that feature it on the web. And arguably one of the biggest of these is its timeline.

1886: The Liszt Fragment

The earliest instance we know of where Elgar used the ‘Dorabella’ shapes to write something down was when jotting something in the left margin of a programme for a Liszt concert at the Crystal Palace (10th April 1886). The best quality image of this fragment appears on p.134 in Craig Bauer’s magisterial “Unsolved!”, which I reproduce here:

This contains a fair few repeated shapes, which would be good grist for the cryptanalytic mill were the fragment not so darned short:

Though Anthony Thorley claimed to have ‘decrypted’ this fragment in (or before) 1977 as “GETS YOU TO JOY, AND HYSTERIOUS”, this looks just plain wrong to Bauer (and to me). This is not only because none of the repeated letter usages line up, but also because it’s basically the wrong length (Thorley’s phrase is 25 letters long, while the fragment is made up of eighteen shapes plus a terminal dash).

If this Liszt fragment is a cipher, I’m sure Big Data people wouldn’t have to try hugely hard to build up a list of all 18-letter English letter sequences with the same aBCDeCfgBhiDCBijkl pattern. Perhaps looking for matches for the 13-letter stretch from BCD to DCB might be a productive exercise?

At the same time, it is tempting to wonder whether Elgar was using these shapes as some kind of idiosyncratic musical notation. However, even though the eighteen-glyph-plus-hyphen fragment appears in the margin beside an eighteen-note arpeggiated melody (Liszt’s “allegretto pastorale” motif, which appears as “an independent episode” according to the programme notes), it has none of its musical symmetry.

So: even though the Liszt fragments looks as though it really ought to be a simple cipher (and, moreover, a simple cipher that Elgar had without any real doubt used many times before), none of the claimed decryptions put forward for it make much sense. It’s possible Elgar was using his own brand of self-pleasing nonsense verbiage but… this is as far as we can get.

1897: The Dorabella Cipher

According to her 1937 book “Edward Elgar: Memories of a Variation”, a young Dora Penny’s first met Edward Elgar on 6th December 1895. Elgar’s wife was an old friend of Dora’s stepmother, and so the couple had come to visit. Elgar and Dora talked, but not about music: rather, he wanted to know about Wolverhampton Wanderers (the club was close to the Penny’s house).

All the same, he did sit down at the piano in the drawing room before luncheon, where Dora turned over the pages for him. This proved to be a challenge, as “[w]hen it came to playing from his own manuscripts you often saw nothing but a few pencilled notes and a mark or two, when he was playing something tremendous – full orchestra and chorus perhaps“, though over time she did become “rather clever at it“.

Elgar first got to see a football match with Dora on 17th October 1896. He subsequently “was much taken with the names of some of the players – particularly Malpas. […] I have known him say when we met: ‘There you are. How’s Malpas?’ – a question I was not always able to answer.“

Her book reproduces a letter she received from Elgar with a distinctive red ‘E’ seal: all of which I think gives as close a representation of the likely content of the Dorabella Cipher as can reasonably be hoped for:

Forli Malvern March 4 [1897]
Dear Miss Penny
Here is some locomotive learning; so much nicer than mouldy music.
Alice tells me you are warbling wigorously in Worcestor wunce a week (alliteration archaically Norse).
I am very glad, but on second thoughts, as I have never heard you sing I am not sure: but perhaps some day if you are not rushing away I might arrange to show you over the Cathedral organ, K. John’s tomb and the Dane’s skin: (the Dane is dead).
By the way I have taken to ‘die-sinking’ as a recreation: here on the back of this is my parcel-post seal: I have to register all my MSS & they will not give a receipt unless they are sealed: so I put this on that my works may be Esily distinguished.
Kindest regards to everybody
Believe me sincerely yours
EDWARD ELGAR

The Dorabella Cipher is dated July 14 [18]97 and, if you haven’t already seen it a thousand times or more, looks like this:

This was “the third letter [Dora Penny] had from him, if indeed it is one“: so the March 4 letter was only one of two Elgar had previously written to Dora.

As to what the Dorabella Cipher says: I’ve previously (in 2013) speculated whether the first two words might be, just as with the March 4 letter, FORLI MALVERN. And the obvious suggestion that Elgar might have also included the phrase “How’s Malpas?” is entirely possible, though untested.

All the same, I’d point out that the general character of the glyph shapes seems to change on the third line. That is, the shapes lose their variety, and become visually monotonous, bland, repetitive, even dull. It’s as though Elgar kind of lost momentum, and stopped wanting to sustain the joke. Much as I have suggested with the famous unsolved Zodiac Z340 cipher (where the top half and bottom half have different statistical profiles / patterns), I do wonder whether we might be seeing two different things grafted together here, i.e. that the third line is quite different in nature from the first two. Just a thought.

Note: it was September 1898 when Edward Elgar first called Dora Penny “Dorabella” (as a quotation from Mozart’s Così fan tutte): so the one word we should not expect to see in the Dorabella Cipher is ‘Dorabella’.

1924 or later: the Marco Elgar Cipher

Yet another place where the rotating e/ee/eee letter-shapes appear in Elgar’s papers is where he uses it as a simple pigpen-style cipher:

This we can date as having been written not before 1924, because the plaintext refers to “MARCO ELGAR”, the name of Elgar’s beloved spaniel, and who was born on 27th May 1924 (a picture of his grave is here).

While the most obvious interesting thing about this it doesn’t work for the Dorabella Cipher, there is something about this sheet that gives me the impression that what Elgar is trying to do is to reconstruct his cipher system. It is hardly a coincidence, I would say (apologies to Thomas Ernst) that another phrase enciphered on this same page is “A VERY OLD CYPHER”.

Given the roughly thirty years’ difference between the Dorabella Cipher and the Marco Elgar cipher (and the absence of any other similar letter-shapes in Elgar’s generally quite well-preserved writings), perhaps it was something he amused himself with as a young man, but which he had by the age of about 70 (he was born in 1857) just plain forgotten.

Perhaps the circular shape on this page is some kind of E-based mnemonic (i.e. that the letters of the alphabet were arranged around), but which had slipped his mind. Certainly, you can see the letter E concealed in it without much difficulty, so perhaps that was part of the game?

Undated: The Cryptogram Card

Our final Elgarian cipher shapes first appeared in Craig Bauer’s “Unsolved!”. These are on a card marked “Cryptogram” (hence “The Cryptogram Card”), but are undated:

Though the writing is tiny, there are two main runs of eee-shapes: in the one just above the word “Cryptogram”, the triple curve shape rotates around, as if (as Craig points out) it is doing a gymnastic forward roll. In the run just below the word “Cryptogram, the three sizes of right facing ‘e’ appear in descending order, followed by the next rotation round. There are also a couple of cipher letters at the top.

What we see here are more like pen trials than cryptograms: so in almost all senses there’s really nothing of importance here.

Recent Dorabella Theories

Plenty of clever people – not just Eric Sams and Tony Gaffney – have already put forward their thoughts about (and their attempted decryptions of) the Dorabella Cipher. Needless to say, not more than one of them can be right at the same time. 🙂

But the list of attempts to explain it keeps getting longer. When Klaus Schmeh blogged about the Dorabella in 2018, one of the commenters (Thomas Ernst) put forward – at some length – his notion that Dora Penny might herself have faked all Elgar’s ciphers. This is an interesting suggestion: Dora certainly had full access to Elgar’s archives for decades, so clearly had opportunity – and I can see what he’s getting at when he draws a parallel between Dora Penny’s book and Bettina von Arnim’s (1835) “Goethes Briefwechsel mit einem Kinde”, which contains numerous stories about Goethe falsely adjusted to bring Bettina herself into the foreground (think of it as a kind of literary Forrest Gump).

But I think Ernst is being far too literal when he draws negative conclusions from the way that the post-1924 Marco Elgar page “A VERY OLD CYPHER” alphabet does not work for the Dorabella Cipher. His reasoning (unless I’ve misunderstood it) is that because the two are inconsistent, at least one is not genuine. And he then goes on to argue that if one is not genuine, there’s no reason to think that they are both not genuine.

I would agree that the two are indeed inconsistent. However, the rather different inferences I draw from the Marco Elgar page are that (a) in it, Elgar gives the impression that he was trying to reconstruct a cipher system he had used as a much younger man; and (b) there was some kind of underlying symmetry to the letter-to-glyph assignments in that cipher that he simply could not remember.

So, although there are good reasons we should all be aware of the inconsistency between accounts, Ernst’s move to a full-fat hoaxed-by-Dora theory seems somewhat pessimistic and extravagant to me.

As an aside, I think it would be a good exercise to analyze the Liszt Fragment and the Dorabella Cipher to see if they are consistent or inconsistent with each other (e.g. by comparing letter contact tables etc).

Another commenter (ShadowWolf) used the same Klaus post to put forward his/her own Dorabella decrypt (which, perhaps almost inevitably, involves a cipher-style first pass and a this-is-what-Elgar-really-meant-by-that interpretational second pass, Eric Sams-style):

Plaintext:
PBS AFT DALYRENCE MEET B BECO YOUR IDEDTD ALWASE
E STUNDER E THINC OLL OR IS IT HIS CH GUISE
THNIC ABU IT ACOA

Message:
Problems after dalliance meet is because your identity always
a stutter I think all or is it his charming guise?
Think about it acolyte.

In a similar vein, Cipher Mysteries readers may possibly recall that I posted about Allan Gillespie’s Dorabella Cipher theory back in 2013: his (somewhat hybridized) theory was that the plaintext began “ForlE Malvern Link”, the encipherment used a Vigenère cipher system, but (not entirely unlike Thomas Ernst’s theory) it had been “concocted by someone other than Elgar (possibly in the run-up to WWII when GC&CS were recruiting; possibly with Dora Powell’s connivance, more likely not)“.

Another Dorabella solver is Mark Pitt, a Cleveland police officer “with an MA in crime patterns” who has already had the oxygen of publicity in the Times, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and Guardian (to name but four). Pitt has also claimed to have decrypted the Liszt fragment: his solution for both seems to be based around Schooling’s cipher that Elgar famously cracked, with the key “PRUDENTIA”. I suspect Pitt has a (not very active) Twitter account, but that’s just my hunch. A (paywalled) Telegraph article on him from early 2019 is here.

The Two Massey Observations

Finally, a very different take on the Dorabella Cipher has been put forward by Keith Massey in an 11-minute YouTube video from 2017 (but which I only stumbled upon recently), based on two very specific observations.

His first observation is that the Dorabella Cipher contains long sequences of glyphs where no two adjacent glyphs have the same number of loops. Specifically, the first line has a sequence with 12 loop-number-differing glyphs in a row; the second line has a sequence with 9 loop-number-differing glyphs in a row; while the third line has a sequence with 8 loop-number-differing glyphs in a row; all three sequences are near the start of their respective lines. Massey’s control experiments (two of them, which one might reasonably argue is a little bit lightweight) each yielded a single maximum of only 5 or 6 loop-number-differing glyphs in a row. (A more Oranchek-esque researcher would surely have done the experiment by anagramming the Dorabella a billion times over, but I suspect the results would have been not wildly dissimilar.)

Massey’s second observation is that the Dorabella Cipher contains way too many pairs of opposed symbols (i.e. where a glyph is immediately followed by a glyph with its same basic shape but where that second shape is rotated by 180 degrees). Massey calculates that this should on average ~5.3 times for 87 characters, but it instead occurs 12 times.

If we assume all 24 shapes are equally likely to occur (which isn’t true) across the Dorabella’s 87 characters, the probability of 13 exact opposites occurring is ((1/24)^13)*((23/24)^(87-1-13)), which Google tells me is 5.1046414e-20 (i.e. about one in twenty billion billion). Again, a more realistic (i.e. Oranchakian) way of doing this would be to anagram the ciphertext billions of times and see how often twelve exact opposites occur (i.e. using the actual distribution rather than an ideal [perfectly flat] distribution). My prediction here is that the probability there would still be no higher than one in a billion billion, so I believe this too is likely to be a statistically significant result.

Massey thinks the final nail in the Dorabella’s cryptological coffin is that these two patterns don’t overlap: he believes that

Massey’s overall conclusion is that that Elgar created the Dorabella Cipher as nonsense text to resemble a ciphertext as a joke on Dora Penny, but that this nonsense text eventually escaped to become a joke on all of us.

Even if you disagree with the full strength of his conclusion, I suspect these two Massey observations will prove difficult for anybody proposing a simple MASC as a solution (albeit typically with an interpretational second phase) to satisfactorily account for what we see in the Dorabella Cipher.

Thoughts and Conclusions

I have to say that I’m very largely with Keith Massey here, insofar as he is pointing out statistical features of the Dorabella Cipher that are highly improbable. It is almost impossible not to see that these sit awkwardly with the traditionalist (one might call it ‘Samsian‘) reading of the cryptogram’s system as a pigpen-style simple substitution cipher applied to an idiosyncratic Elgarian nonsense-wonsense text. It would be good if Massey’s observations were to be confirmed in a more statistically robust manner, but I would be surprised if the actual results proved to be vastly different.

My own suspicion (just as in 2013) remains that the Dorabella Cipher may turn out to be a stegotext visually concealing a guessable personal message (e.g. “FORLI MALVERN”) rather than a cryptotext mathematically concealing a plaintext. And I believe this is far from inconsistent with Massey’s observations, though only for the left hand half of the three lines.

But even so, I’m really not at all convinced that his observations hold true for the Liszt Fragment, which I believe was written in the same “VERY OLD CYPHER” that Elgar was trying to reconstruct in the Marco Elgar page.

So there is perhaps still work to be done on a genuine Elgar cipher here, even if Massey has indeed managed to nail down the Dorabella MASC coffin (and all credit to him if he has!).

Chloe Delancy (Thomas Beale Jr’s Mother)…

by ⋅ 2 Comments

Given that I’ve paid my findmypast subscription (and that money’s not coming back any time soon), I thought it might be interesting to look at the records it holds for Thomas Beale Jr‘s mother Chloe Delancy / Delancey. We know a fair bit about Thomas Beale Sr, so why not find out more about his mother?

Chloe Delancy / Delancey

As far as I can see, “Cloe Delancy” only appears in Botetourt County in the 1810 and 1820 US census records. This would seem to imply that she married, moved, or died before the 1830 census – given that there are plenty of holes in the census records, it’s sensible to be at least a bit defensive.

In the 1810 census records, she is apparently living alone (“Number of free white females age 26-44” = 1) – every other column is blank. (Hence it would seem that Thomas Beale Jr may not have been living with her then.) Other than being in Botetourt County VA, no location is given.

In the 1820 census records, there is one “free white female age 45 and up” (presumably her), one “free white female age 10-16”, and one “free white female under age 10”. The location is noted in the margin as “Fin.”, which is without any doubt Fincastle.

There’s no obvious sign of her in the 1830 Census, yet that was the year that the case Delancey vs Beale was in the Supreme Court in Louisiana, so she was presumably still alive then (unless you know better?).

(Note that there is an online genealogy mentioning a Chloe Emaline Delancy b. 1834 Rockingham NC to William D. Delancey (1785-1860) and Catherine [nee Roach] (1799-1860): but this person seems entirely unconnected.)

Virginia Cloes / Chloes?

The 1830 Census has a Chloe Switcher living in Botentourt County, but she is a F 30-40 living with a M 15-20. Similarly, the 1840 Census has a Cloe Switzer, but she is a F 40-50 living with a M 20-30: I think it’s a pretty safe bet that the two entries refer to the same person, and that this probably isn’t Chloe Delancy.

Broadening the search a little, there are eight women called Cloe in Virginia listed in the 1830 Census: Cooper, Masters, Myho, Powelson, Simmons, Whichard, and Withers (though note that these are all the head of their household).

  • Cloe Cooper: 1 x F under 5, 1 x F 20-30, 1 x F 50-60
  • Cloe Masters: 1 x M under 5, 1 x M 5-10, 2 x M 15-20, 1 x M 20-30, 1 x F 2-30, 3 x F 30-40, 1 x F 60-70
  • Cloe Myho (actually Mayho): no details of household supplied
  • Cloe Powelson: 1 x M 10-15, 1 x M 15-20, 1 x M 20-30, 1 x F 10-15, 1 x F 15-20, 1 x F 40-50 [also in 1840 and 1850 censuses]
  • Cloe Simmons: 1 x F 5-10, 1 x F 50-60
  • Cloe Whichard: 1 x M 30-40, 1 x F 20-30, 1x F 50-60
  • Cloe Withers: 1 x M 30-40, 1 x F 15-20, 1 x F 70-80

Similarly, there are sixteen women called Chloe in Virginia listed in the 1830 Census: Atkins, Buske, Cheshire, Coleman, Ellison, Gaskins, Goodrich, James, Lunsford, Mifflin, Mills, Pitman, Powell, Sitcher, Thomas, and Vanlandingham.

  • Chloe Atkins: 1 x M 20-30, 1 x F 15-20, 2 x F 50-60 [also in the 1840 census]
  • Chloe Buske: 1 x M 20-30, 3 x F 20-30, 1 x F 50-60
  • Chloe Cheshire: 1 x M under 5, 1 x M 15-20, 1 x F under 5, 1 x F 10-15, 1 x F 20-30, 1 x F 50-60 [also in the 1810 census]
  • Chloe Coleman: 1 x M under 5, 1 x M 20-30, 2 x F 5-10, 2 x F 30-40, 1 x F 60-70
  • Chloe Ellison: 1 x F 50-60 [also in the 1810, 1820 and 1840 censuses]
  • Chloe Gaskins: 1 x M under 5, 1 x M 5-10, 1 x M 10-15, 1 x F 30-40 [also in the 1850 census]
  • Chloe Goodrich: 1 x F 60-70
  • Chloe James: 1 x F 20-30, 1 x F 70-80
  • Chloe Lunsford: 2 x F 15-20, 1 x F 50-60
  • Chloe Mifflin: no details given
  • Chloe Mills: 1 x M 10-15, 1 x M 15-20, 1 x M 20-30, 2 x F 5-10, 1 x F 15-20, 1 x F 20-30
  • Chloe Pitman: 1 x F 50-60 [also in the 1840 census]
  • Chloe Powell: 1 x M 5-10, 1 x F 5-10, 1 x F 30-40
  • Chloe Sitcher/Switcher/Switzer: 1 x M 15-20, 1 x F 30-40
  • Chloe Thomas: 1 x F 20-30, 1 x F 60-70 [also in the 1820 census]
  • Chloe Vanlandingham: 1 x M 10-15, 1 x F under 5, 1 x F 10-15, 1 x F 15-20, 1 x F 40-50

Note that Cloe Cooper is also in the 1840 Census, but listed as F 80-90.

Any Other Mentions?

There is one possible mention I found, which is in the Annals of Southwest Virginia 1769-1800 (Lewis Preston Summers, 1929), p.465. There, the entry for 10th February 1796 in the minutes of the County Court mentions that the grand jury presented “Isaac Dawson and Chloe Delaney for living in an unlawful way”.

Thoughts on the US Census

I have to say I was expecting to find a little more than I did. It may be that we now have a weak indication that Chloe Delancey had two younger daughters we were (or, at the very least, I was) previously unaware of: but the limitations of the census data mean that we have (I think) no obvious paths to go down to find their names.

Has anyone got any better information on Chloe Delancey and/or her possible two daughters than this?

More about Triantafillos Balutis…

by ⋅ 2 Comments

I thought my last post had gone through pretty much all the sources available online relating to Triantafillos Balutis, the Melbourne waiter who the PRO Victoria flagged as possibly being the mysterious “Balutz” at Christos Paizes’ Lonsdale Street baccarat club. But, thanks to the almost endless spelling variations of his names, it turns out I was wrong.

Which is good!

1930 Naturalisation Certificate

For a start, the NAA has a file marked “Treantafellous BALUTES – Naturalisation certificate” (NAA A1, 1930/1546), which is the correspondence and certificate (“A.A. 6302”) relating to Triantafillos Balutis’ naturalisation application.

From this, we learn that:

  • his address was Victoria Hotel, 404 Bourke Street, Melbourne;
  • he had no wife or children;
  • he had placed advertisements for his naturalisation application in the Argus and Age, both of the 24 Jan 1930;
  • he was 5ft 5in, black hair, brown eyes, small mole on right cheek;
  • he was born on 5 Aug 1886, in Cavalla in Greece;
  • his father was Dameanos Balutes, and his parents were both Greek;
  • he arrived in Melbourne from Greece on the 16 Feb 1923 on the S.S. Ormonde;
  • after leaving Greece but before coming to Australia, he lived in the USA for eight years;
  • he was a café proprietor, who had been running a café at 426 Bourke Street, Melbourne for four years and five months; and
  • he was represented by Messrs. Luke Murphy & Co, Solicitors, 422 Bourke Street, Melbourne.

The general remarks section on the form asserts:

Applicant has been established in business in Bourke St. at the Canberra Café during the past 4½ years. He has opened up a further business at Warrnambool for the manufacture of cheese, which he proposes to export to Egypt & U.S.A. Applicant is of the keen type of business man & gained a good business knowledge during his residence in the U.S.A. for about 8 years. There is nothing known against applicant.

His three referees were two householders and a police officer:

  1. Donald Mackintosh, Gun Maker, of 2 Thistle Street, Essendon
  2. Horace Govett James, Business Manager, of 3 Sunnyside Grove, Bentleigh
  3. Sidney James Kirby, Constable of Police, of Russell Street, Melbourne

From this, we learn that – despite the apparently contradictory evidence presented in the previous post – all the evidential threads tie together, i.e. there was only one Triantafillos Balutis, even though his date of birth seems somewhat uncertain. His full name would therefore have been Triantafillos Dameanou Balutis.

Note that when he was born in Kavala, it was part of the Ottoman Empire (Greece absorbed it in 1912 during the Balkan War). So his nationality at the time of his birth was Turkish, but later became Greek: hence he was both Greek and Turkish, depending on how you asked the question. Nationality can be quite a fluid thing!

George Vrachnas & Jack Lenos

The NAA lists two other documents relating to him. The first, dated 1930, is item NAA: A10075, 1930/21 (item barcode: 3140391) is “BALUTES Treantafellous versus VRACKNAS George; LENOS Jack”, and relates to a cause (complaint) brought by one party against another before a single judge. (Not yet online.)

According to findmypast, George Vrachnas was born in 1890: and had a restaurant in the ground floor of Traynor House, 287 Elizabeth street. Though Vrachnas & Lenos appear in a number of other cases that appear in Trove (e.g. Wolff vs. Vrachnas and Lenos; Boyd vs. Vrachnas and Lenos; Palmer vs Vrachnas and Lenos, etc, while 1932 saw the inevitable Vrachnas vs Lenos), I so far haven’t found anything relating to Balutes vs Vrachnas and Lenos.

We can see a separate case being taken against the pair in 6 Nov 1931:

IN THE COURT OF PETTY SESSIONS, HOLDEN AT WATER POLICE OFFICE, SYDNEY. No. of Writ. 5993 of 1931. No. of Plaint, 5680 of 1931. THE NATIONAL CASH REGISTER CO. OF A/SIA, LTD., Plaintiff; and GEORGE VRACHNAS and JACK LENOS, trading as Vrachnos and Lenos, 215 Oxford-street, Sydney, Defendant. UNLESS the amount of £14/17/11, together with all fees due herein be paid at or before the hour of noon To-day, Friday, the sixth day of November, 1931, the Bailiff will sell by Public Auction, at Water Police Office, the Right, Title, and Interest of the defendants in goods which are the subject of Conditional Bill of Sale dated 16th July, 1930, No. 13779. last renewed 9th September, 1931, between George Vrachnas and John Lenos (Mortgagors) and John Vrachnas (Mortgagee), and the Right, Title, and Interest of the defendant George Vrachnas In goods which are the subject of conditional Bill of Sale dated 11th October, 1930, No. 19858. between George Vrachnas (Mortgagor) and A. A. Marks, Limited (Mortgagees). Dated at the Court of Petty Sessions abovementioned, this twelfth day of October. 1931.

Incidentally, Trove mentions that Gwendoline Vrachnas was charged in June 1932 with being a manager of a common gaming house in Elizabeth-street, Sydney, in relation to “the sale of share tickets in the State Lottery”.

As a final aside, there’s an oral history recording of George Vrachnas online here, reminiscing about his life. In one part he mentions the effect of the Depression upon his business (suddenly none of the businesses renting from him could pay their rents, and the whole setup collapsed), which was the point in his life when his fortunes dramatically changed.

Police Records

The last of the NAA records is simply titled “Treantafellous Balutes” (NAA: B741, V/7104, Item barcode: 1140692, Location: Melbourne), and contains (or, at least, seems to contain) details of his Victoria police record from 1930 to 1949. Even if Balutis wasn’t in the Victoria Police Gazette for 1944 / 1945 / 1946, it would seem that there was still police interest in his activities.

The B741 series:

[…] comprises files relating to the investigation of all criminal offences committed against the Commonwealth, the contravention of Commonwealth Acts or of State Acts committed on Commonwealth property; the pursuit of recalcitrant debtors to the Commonwealth; and inquiry into the whereabouts of persons requested to be traced by government departments, organisations such as the Red Cross, International Tracing Service, Australia House, private persons or by diplomatic or consular representation. Investigations carried out at the request of government departments include areas such as narcotics trafficking, impersonation, bribery, “forge and utter”, ships’ deserters, enemy aliens in wartime, prohibited immigrants, naturalisation, and rape on Commonwealth property. In most instances a separate file was raised for each particular case requested to be investigated.

It therefore may well also be that Balutis appears in Victoria’s B745 series (because, as it says, “No items from the series are on RecordSearch“):

Name (offenders) index cards to: (1) Correspondence files, single number series with “V” (Victoria) prefix, 1924 – 1962 (2) Correspondence files re Police investigations, annual single number series, 1963 –

The series is the name index to all persons committing an offence against the Commonwealth and/or contravening Commonwealth legislation or State legislation on Commonwealth property, persons whose whereabouts have or are being investigated, and up until 1963, recalcitrant debtors to the Commonwealth.

The Shadow of the Depression

The Depression cast a deep, malign shadow over the life of George Vrachnas, and it seems to have had the same effect on Triantafillos Balutis.

Even though he applied for his naturalisation in January 1930, that was right at the end of the good times. Before that, you can see from Trove that Vrachnas’ café had held regular social meetings and dances, often raising money for war veterans: but now the 1920s were gone, and a different kind of economic reality was in place.

For Balutis, I think you can see the same thing via the advertisements in Trove, from the 2 Jan 1930 (just before his naturalisation)…

Waitress, experienced, start at once, no Sunday work. Canberra Cafe, 426 Bourke st.

…to the 10 Feb 1930 (just after his naturalisation)…

WAITRESS, 16 to 18 years, ready to start, permanent. Canberra Cafe, cr. Lonsdale and Swanston sts.

…to, alas, 13 Dec 1930…

THURSDAY, 18th DECEMBER. At Half-past 2 o’Clock. On the Premises, 426 Bourke-street, MELBOURNE. Under Power of Bill of Sale No. 173,535, instructed by Mr. A. H, HILL, 11 Elizabeth-Street, Melbourne. COMPLETE FURNISHINGS AND PLANT OF CANBERRA CAFE. SODA FOUNTAIN, SODA WATER MACHINE, JACKSON BOILER COMPLETE With Pie Heater; NATIONAL CASH REGISTER, TOLEDO SCALES, 2 Ice Chests, Cutlery, Crockery, Glassware, &c. The Whole To Be Offered As a Going Concern. Full Particulars in Future Advertisement. R. RICHARDSON, Auctioneer, 18 Queen-street.

Whatever the relationship between Balutis and Vrachnas & Lenos was, 1930 seems to have been the year everything went wrong both in the macro-economy and in the Melbourne micro-economy. It was not only the year that Balutis became a naturalised Australian, but also the year that the Australian economy – as the phrase goes – went South.

I think it’s fair to say that a lot of dreams died that year.

What Would I Like To See Next?

As always, the archive records accessible online are only the tip of a giant evidential iceberg. So, the (non-online) documents I’d really like to see next are all held in Melbourne archives:

  1. “Treantafellous Balutes” B741 V/7104 (barcode 1140692) from NAA Melbourne (99 Shiel St, North Melbourne). All I know about this is that it covers the date range 1930-1949: beyond that, all outcomes are possible.
  2. I’d also like to know if any Balutis / Balutes / Balutz is mentioned in the B745 series. This is the set of name / offender index cards maintained by Victoria’s Investigation Branch: so if anyone had any contact with the Victoria police from 1924-1962, their card should be there. Having said that, it’s not entirely clear to me from the NAA online description whether B745 is at North Melbourne at all. Getting some clarity on this would be very good!
  3. As an aside: if it turns out that B745 is accessible, I’d also (just in case, you never know, it’s possible that, etc) really like to see the index cards of all the (T or J first initial) Kean / Keane individuals. Because if it were to turn out that any of those had been charged with nitkeeping prior to 1 Dec 1948, we might just have struck gold. 😉
  4. Finally, I’d also like to see Stelios Balutes’ death records (he died on 09 Jul 1977). According to PRO Victoria’s website, their archives hold both his will (PROV ref: VPRS 7591/ P4 unit 757, item 836/255) and his probate records (PROV ref: VPRS 28/ P8 unit 494, item 836/255), both of which I’d like to see. I’d guess that they are stored together (because they share the same item number), but you never can tell with archives. These are held at PRO Victoria’s North Melbourne site (also at 99 Shiel St, North Melbourne).

A helpful response from PRO Victoria…

by ⋅ 7 Comments

I just received this very helpful email from the Public Record Office Victoria, in response to a request I put in a few days ago to have a look at the Victoria Police Gazette 1945, 1946, and the two photographic supplements covering that period:

The Victorian Police Gazette (1853 – 1971) is not actually a part of our collection, though we do keep a copy of it in our reading rooms for reference purposes. There are several indexes in the back of each volume and each volume contains a single year of records, in the later years each volume also contains a photograph section.

Most volumes contain indexes to weekly photographs, fortnightly photographs, prisoners discharged from gaol and a general index. I have had a brief look in the index of 1944, 1945 and 1946 and unfortunately none of the names you mentioned appeared.

After reading the article you cited, it does not appear that these men were charged with anything. They appear on an ‘affidavit’ and the house was eventually listed as a common gaming house and was sold not long after that, by Paizes.

I thought the name Balutz might be a nickname but after seeing one of the other men was a Richard Thomas known as Abishara and tracing him shows his name was really Abishara, a Syrian born man who later became ‘Donegal Dick’, I wasn’t so sure.

When I put Balutz into an electoral roll search, the name Balutis came up as an alternative, possibly might be this man, but again nothing comes up in the Police Gazette. Treantaillous Balutis was a greek waiter, living in Melbourne in the 1930’s and 1940’s, as I am sure you are aware Paizes was also a greek immigrant. not sure if that is relevant or not.

You could try looking through the records for Melbourne Courts (VA 518) to see if these names appear, as an option.

So, even though this line of research started with a (single) mention of a Balutz, might he actually have been a Balutis?

Triantafillos Balutis…?

It’s a reasonable suggestion: so let’s look for “Treantaillous Balutis”, see what we find? (Note that the proper Greek spelling (I think) of his first name would be closer to “Triantafillos”.)

  • Findmypast has a Triantafylos Balotis (brother to Vassilios Balotis) arriving at New York from Piraeus on the Themistocles (NARA publications M237 and T715) in 1910, but no original image to check. Note that Theodoroula Balotis (mother of Vassilios Balotis) also arrived on the Themistocles in 1910, as did Vassilios Balotis (aged 19, of Constantinople, Turkey).
  • Findmypast also has a Triandafilos Balutis arriving on the Carpathia in New York from Trieste in 1913 (NARA publications M237 and T715), but no original image to check.
  • Findmypast has a “Trentafellos Damianon Balutis” (born 28 Aug 1885, nationality Turkey, son of Theodoola Balutis of Constantinople, medium height, slender build, brown eyes, black hair, living at 342 Broadway NYC) joining the US Army in 1918 in New York.
  • Ancestry lists “Messrs T. Baloutis” (born about 1889) arriving at Fremantle on 08 Feb 1923, but I don’t have a subscription so can’t see the arrival record behind the Ancestry.com paywall.
  • The NAA also has a 1928 record of a Triantafilos Balutis (Nationality: Greek) being nominated by Dimitrios Balutis. This was a Form 40 (“Application forms […] for admission of Relatives or Friends to Australia“), so would imply that Dimitrios Balutis was almost certainly a relative already in Australia. (No original image.)
  • The 1939 Melbourne electoral roll has a Balutis, Treantafillous at 27 Lansdowne st. (waiter): and he was at the same address in 1946. Note that 27 Lansdowne St seems (from various small ads) to have been a house converted to BSRs (bed sitting room).

While it’s possible that these are all the same person, it’s also hard not to notice that one record says he is Turkish and born in 1885, and the other says he is Greek and born in 1889. All the same, the vectors of people’s lives are often complicated, so who can say?

Stelios Balutis…?

As for other Melbourne people with the surname Balutis, we can see a Stelios Balutis in North Melbourne applying for naturalisation in 06 Aug 1954 (his certificate of naturalisation, issued 12 May 1955, is here):

I, STELIOS BALUTIS, of Greek nationality, born at Thraki, resident 31 years in Australia, now residing at 119 Queensberry Street, North Melbourne, intend to APPLY for NATURALISATION under the Nationalisation and Citizenship Act 1948.

There are a number of other Stelios Balutis records:

  • Findmypast has a record of a Stelios Balutis being born in 1890 and died in “Park”, Victoria in 1977 (reg: 17231).
  • The NAA also has Stelios Balutis’s service record (V377969, born 28 Feb 1888 in Sterna, Turkey, enlisted in Caulfield, Victoria, next of kin “BALUKIS IOANNA” [presumably BALUTIS misspelt]).
  • Familysearch’s reference books (which, it has to be said, aren’t normally the most useful part of that site) have “Balutis, Stalios” [sic] living at 119 Queensberry St in the 1959 Commonwealth of Australia electoral roll (though the document itself can’t be seen online).
  • There was also a Stelios Balutis on the S.S. Bretagne, arriving in Sydney in 1962 from Piraeus, with his destination “Grenvell St 26 Hamilton Melb”.
  • findmypast has the will/probate records for “Stelois Balutes” [sic], died 09 Jul 1977, retired, of “Parkville”, Victoria.
  • The Greater Metropolitan Cemeteries Trust lists a “Stelias Balutis” [sic] as having been interred on 13 Jul 1977 in the Chivers Lawn section of Templestowe Cemetery (location: “TE-CH_L*H***52“) in Manningham City, Victoria. (This also appears in findagrave.com)

Again, it’s entirely possible that these are all the same person, but it’s hard not to notice that one was born in Sterna, Turkey (where is that, exactly?) while another has Greek nationality.

Where Next?

Well… I have to say I’m not entirely sure. The logical step would seem to be to get hold of Triantafillos Balutis’s Form 40, and/or Stelios Balutis’ service records, his death notices from 1977 and/or his will/probate records, to try to reconstruct a little more of both men’s immediate family.

But for all the details scattered across all the archives, I’m not yet sure I’ve really got even a basic handle on either of these two yet. For example, I have no idea at all about Dimitrios Balutis, or Ioanna Balutis: so everyone in this family / these families seems to be close to archivally invisible.

At the same time, given (a) that the S.S. Ormonde arrived at Fremantle a few days before proceeding to Sydney, and (b) that I’m not a big fan of coincidences, it does seem overwhelmingly likely to me that Triantafillos Balutis and Stelios Balutis both reached Australia on the same ship.

Note that there was a fireman (i.e. a fire stoker) on merchant ships called Demetrios Balotis (5ft 5in, 160lbs) born around 1911 (nationality: Greek) who appears in US crew lists from 1945-1950, who had been at sea for 14 years by 1945. I don’t believe this was the same Demetrios Balutis who filled in Triantafillos Balutis’s Form 40, but I could easily be wrong-footed there.

I suppose the big question for me is: where are these people all buried? We have a plot for Stelios Balutis, sure, but there are at least three other Balutis family members to account for in or around Melbourne, and there are no other Balutis graves in Templestowe Cemetery. Perhaps some ended up near The Resurrection of Saint Lazarus Greek Orthodox Church? It feels to me as though there is a gap in the records here that findagrave and billiongraves aren’t touching. All suggestions and ideas very welcome!

Finally, John Joseph Keane…

by ⋅ 4 Comments

As Derek Abbott liked to point out (particularly when he was trying to raise Somerton Man crowdfunding from Americans), we can easily imagine the Somerton Man having some US connection. This was not just from the distinctly American feather stitching on his coat, but also from his Juicy Fruit chewing gum, probably a habit picked up at a younger age (when he had more teeth to chew with).

So I’ve been playing around behind findmypast.com.au’s database paywall, seeing what’s there. And it was there that I found four American John Joseph Keanes all born in 1898, thanks to their First World War enlistment records.

These four American draftees should be worth a quick look, right?

JJK #1

Serial Number: 2271 / 3171. Address: 221 Vernon, Wakefield. Born: 28th June 1898. Description: Tall, Medium Build, Blue Eyes, Light Hair. Nationality: Irish. Next of kin: Mrs John Keane, Attymon, Galway. Drafted: Melrose City #28, Massachusetts. Occupation: Lead Busman. Employer: Thompson Scarnitt, Nitro, W. Virginia.

JJK #2

Serial Number: 2376 / 1388. Address: 2123 S. Opal, Phila, Phila, PA. Born: 13th September 1898. Description: Short Height, Medium Build, Gray Eyes, Brown Hair. Nationality: US born. Next of kin: Patrick Keane (Father), 2123 S. Opal. Drafted: Philadelphia City No. 51. Occupation: Assistant Blue Printer. Employer: United States Navy Yard, United States Govt.

There’s a John Keane, born 13th September 1898, who died in Pennsylvania in October 1966 (Social Security Number 164-05-1829): so it looks as though #2 may be fully accounted for. 🙂

JJK #3

Serial Number: 3841 / 5260. Address: 556 Paris St, San Francisco, CA. Born: 19th May 1898. Description: Medium Height, Medium Build, Blue Eyes, Auburn Hair. Next of kin: Ellen Keane, 556 Paris, San Francisco, CA. Drafted: San Francisco City No. 3. Occupation: Heater Boy. Employer: Schawbatchee shipyard, South San Francisco, San Mateo.

There’s a 1910 Census entry for 596 Athens Street, with John Keane (Head, born in Ireland), Ellen Keane (wife, born in Ireland), John J. [12] and James Keane [8] (all born in New York), and Katherine [6], Robert M. [4], Evelyn [3], and William Keane [2] (all born in California).

JJK #4

Serial Number: 1503 / 94638. Address: Brentwood, Suffolk, N.Y. Born: 25th Dec 1898. Description: Medium Height, Medium Build, Blue Eyes, Black Hair. Next of kin: Anna Keane (Mother), Galway Ireland. Drafted: Suffolk County No. 2, New York. Occupation: Farmer. Employer: Sisters, St Joseph, Brentwood, Suffolk, N.Y.

Any Matches?

Here’s the tie linked to the Somerton Man, with the name (T? or J?) Keane on it, which (I have to say) doesn’t look like any of the signatures. And we also know that the Somerton Man was tallish (5ft 11in) and with grey eyes. So it looks like we’re out of luck here, sorry.

But the point I’m trying to make (albeit implicitly) here is that this kind of archival search is extremely random and patchy. For these four draftees, we have a date of birth, a physical description, a next of kin, etc, which is really great: but this is the archival exception rather than anything like the rule. In just about every other case, we have only the tiniest of fragments – for example, marriage details are often little more than a pair of names, a place and a date. Unless you already know what you are looking for, you’re going to be struggling from the start: and that has been true of the research so far.

That Dulwich clerk, at last…

Even so, all my fine-tooth trawling through findmypast’s databases did mean that I found the Australian Electoral Rolls 1939, which (mirabile dictu!) lists:

  • 5761 Keane, Clara Maude, 16 Union st, Dulwich, home duties F
  • 5762 Keane, John Joseph, 16 Union st, Dulwich, clerk M

So it would seem that we finally have (probably) a wife for our Dulwich bookmakers’ clerk.

And this Clara Maude Keane in turn led (via the inevitable long string of intermediate dead-ends) to the following Family Notice in the Adelaide Chronicle of 23rd January 1941:

KEANE. —On the 20th of January [1941], John Joseph, dearly beloved husband of Clara Keane, of Gurney road, Dulwich, and loving father of Kevin and Ronald, beloved brother of Rita, Josie, and Kevin. Aged 44 years. Requiescat in pace

And so, I believe, this search ends.

The Somerton Man: the search for John Joseph Keane continues…

by ⋅ 32 Comments

For some time, I have been looking at the Somerton Man case from the point of view of tangible evidence. For a start, the much-repeated belief that he was unidentified simply doesn’t hold true: the suitcase that he (without any real doubt) left at the railway station contained three items with the name “KEANE” on them. And any reconstruction of his life (or indeed death) that starts with some kind of spy thriller-inspired ‘clean-up crew’ sanitising his effects to cover up his real name is just of zero interest to me.

So, whether you happen to like it or not, he has a surname: KEANE.

Us and Them

Of course, the South Australian Police searched high and low (and even interstate) for anybody with that particular surname who had recently gone missing. But no such person ever turned up. Even when Gerry Feltus managed to track down the mysterious nurse (whose phone number had been written on the back of the Rubaiyat connected to the dead man by a slip of paper in his trouser fob pocket), he encountered nothing apart from evasions and stonewalling from her.

Gerry knew he was being shut out of the truth, but didn’t know why. I think it should have been obvious because, as I’ve blogged before, this specific behaviour has a name: omertà, the Mafia / gangster code of silence. The nurse’s husband – Prosper (“George”) Thomson – had been tangled up with some Melbourne gangster second-hand car dealers, the name of one of whom he specifically refused to reveal in his court case against Daphne Page. So any suggestion that the nurse knew nothing of gangsters or the gangland code of silence would be completely untenable, in my opinion.

What I think Gerry perhaps didn’t grasp was the degree of antipathy that Australians felt towards the police (and even the law itself) in the period after the Second World War. In particular, the Price Commission’s arbitrary price-pegging (carried over from the war years) meant that many people’s economic activities were suddenly only viable on the black market. Trove is full of stories of butchers and greengrocers being prosecuted because they charged at the wrong price: this was a sustained failure of the social contract between a government and its people.

Really, the Price Commission made criminals of just about everyone: buying or selling a car almost inevitably became an exercise in white-collar crime. The main beneficiary of all this was organized crime groups, which clawed their way into dockside unions, off-track gambling, baccarat schools, betting on two-up, and dodgy car sales (particularly interstate, and particularly with imported American cars). Even with meat and vegetable sales!

Put all this together, and you see that the post-Second World War years in Australia were a time of Us and Them, with ‘Them’ being the government and the police. The police were really not loved: but neither were the gangsters who enabled and controlled lots of the activity on the other side of the same line. So the widespread dislike of the police was mirrored by a dislike of the gangsters, along with a fear of violent gangland reprisals.

To my eyes, this is the historical context that’s missing from people’s reconstructions of the Somerton Man’s world.

The Sound of Silence

We hear the sound of silence in the Daphne Page court case, and we hear it in Jo Thomson’s long decades of stonewalling: but I think we hear it loudest of all in the sustained lack of response to the Somerton Man. Remember:

  • Nobody saw him.
  • Nobody said a word.
  • No trace was found.

Bless Gerry Feltus’ heart, but he only allowed himself to draw inferences from what people did say: where they remained silent, he was blocked.

For me, though, this sound of silence tells us one thing above all else: that the Somerton Man moved in gangster circles. I have no doubt at all that there were plenty of people in Adelaide and elsewhere who knew exactly who he was, but chose to say nothing. He was, as per my post on this some years ago, not so much the “Unknown Man” as the “Known Man”: despite clearly having a surname, he was an Unnameable Man.

This may not superficially appear like much, but anything that can winnow down the (apparently still rising) mountain of historical chaff to even moderately manageable proportions is a huge step in the right direction.

But how does being sure he was connected to gangsters help us, exactly?

The Baccarat School Nitkeeper

In January 1949, “two prominent Melbourne baccarat players” came forward to say that they thought the man had worked as a nitkeeper in a Lonsdale Street baccarat school “about four years previously” (i.e. ~1945). They thought he had worked there for ten weeks before disappearing, never to be seen again (until his face was in the paper, that is).

Of all the mountains of Somerton Man-related speculation and punditry, this alone stood out for me as something that could be worked with, as a research lead that had some kind of archival promise. And so I have assiduously read hundreds of articles and new reports in Trove, to try to make sense of how this part of the post-war economy worked.

It’s true that a fair few policeman back then took bribes from the gambling bosses to turn a blind eye (this was remarked upon in numerous news stories of the day). But even so, one striking fact is that the laws in Victoria relating to nitkeeping were much harsher than elsewhere in Australia:

  • First offence: £20
  • Second offence: £250
  • Third offence: six months in prison

Because principals paid nitkeepers’ fines, it simply wasn’t in their interest to hire anyone with a prior conviction for nitkeeping, not when the fine for a second conviction leapt up to a staggering £250.

From this, my suspicion is that the man the two baccarat players were talking about had been caught in a raid after working in Melbourne for ten weeks and fined £20. And with a fine under his belt, none of the schools would then re-hire him as a nitkeeper: that would have been the end of the line.

Moreover, Byron Deveson uncovered SAPOL records for a John Joseph Keane (apparently born in 1898) who had been convicted of hindering / nitkeeping in Adelaide, and whom I then pursued through Trove.

If only I could see the Victoria court records for 1944 / 1945…

Victoria Petty Sessions Court

The records for the Victoria Petty Sessions Court are behind a findmypast paywall. So here’s what it threw up for John Keane (some or none of which may be our man John Joseph Keane):

  1. The Geelong ledger is dated 23rd September 1924. “Defendant at Geelong on the 7th September 1924 did behave in an offensive manner in a public place, to wit Eastern Beach”. Pleaded guilty, but case was dismissed.
  2. [John Francis Keane]: “Defendant between 10th and 11th December 1929 at [Geelong?] did break and enter the warehouse of the Geelong [???] Water Company Pty and steal therein 13 cases of Dewars whisky seven cases of Johnny Walker whisky five cases of Gilbeys gin and two cases of Hennesys brandy valued at £190”. Result: “Committed for trial at the first sittings of the Supreme Court to be held in Geelong 1930. Bail allowed accused in the sum of £200/-/-.”
  3. [J Keane] Colac Courts, Victoria. 17th March 1930, Conviction: “Drunk”.
  4. The Geelong ledger is dated 19th March 1940, but the stamp on the page is marked 10th Feb 1940. The Sergeant of Police was Arthur De La Rue. Keane (and indeed 49 others) were accused of: “Defendant at Geelong did commit a breach of Act 3749 Section 148 – Found in common gaming house”. The case was “Dismissed”.
  5. The Geelong ledger is dated 24th November 1944, but the stamp on the page related to Keane’s being found (along with 25 others) in a common gaming house on 25th September 1944, with a summons dated 11th October 1944. The case was adjourned until 8th December 1944. The Senior Constable of Police was Colin Egerton.
  6. On 8th December 1944, Keane returned to Geelong court and admitted that he had been present on that occasion, but pleaded not guilty. There seems to be no records of the court’s response (most of the other defendants on that occasion were represented by a Mr Sullivan, and pled that they had not been present), but the other defendants who also admitted being present while pleading not guilty were discharged with a caution.

So, no definitive results here. Bah!

John Joseph Keane – BDM

Finally: are there any fragments of Birth / Death / Marriages that we might stitch together to eliminate some or all of the possible John Joseph Keanes out there? Here’s what I found:

Findmypast lists:

  • John Joseph Keane born 1898, died 1950 in Shepp (registration 21625).
  • John Joseph Keane marrying Florence Mary Clancy in Victoria in 1930 (registration 6892)
  • John Joseph Keane marrying Alma Maude McKay in Victoria in 1939 (registration 346)

FamilySearch.org lists:

  • John Joseph Keane died 20th January 1941, buried West Terrace Cemetery, Adelaide (billiongraves image). Also with the same headstone: Delia McKague (died 15th January 1939, findmypast says she was born in 1863 and died in Glen Osmond), Kevin Newland Keane (died 29th June 1967, findmypast says KNK was born in 1902, married Alleyne Maud(e) Dinnis (born 1905) 19th December 1927, lived at 6 Smith St Southwark), and Marguerite Ellen Wilson (died 12th April 1984 aged 85 years).
  • John Joseph Keane (retired) died 7th August 1967, in Brunswick, Victoria
  • John Joseph Keane (grocer) died 17th June 1972, in Castlemaine, Victoria

If there’s a way of stitching all, some or even a few of these strands together, I for one certainly can’t see it yet. But perhaps you will?

Veronica Mary Keane of 63 Jetty Road, Glenelg…

by ⋅ 8 Comments

While (yet again) raking through Trove a while back for anything to do with the missing bookmaker’s clerk (and gambling nitkeeper) John Joseph Kean(e), I found two mentions (here and here) of a May 1948 divorce in a Sydney court between J. J. Kean and V. M. Kean in front of Mr. Justice Clancy in No. 2 Court.

Even though this trail had previously gone cold, I returned to it today to see if I could find anything more about “V. M. Kean”: and this time around, it turned out that the Gods of Trove were a little more on my side.

63 Jetty Road, really?

I first found a November 1945 open letter from “V. M. Keane” published in the Adelaide Advertiser on the 16th, 17th and 19th:

PERSONS who have left goods to be sold on commission make enquiries re same by December 1st, 1945, otherwise the undersigned will not be responsible (Signed) V. M. KEANE. 63 Jetty road. Glenelg

This then led me to find an article in the 30th October 1945 Adelaide News:

At Glenelg yesterday, while Mrs. Veronica Mary Kean was serving in her secondhand shop in Jetty road about 3 p.m., she left two rings on the counter. An hour later they were missing. […] One of them, an eternity ring, was valued at £4 and the other, a gold ring, at £3.

A similar article appeared here in the Adelaide ‘Tiser:

Two rings, together valued at £7, were stolen from the secondhand shop of Mrs Veronica Mary Kean, home duties, of Jetty road, Glenelg, on Monday. PCC Rawson is enquiring.

There’s a reference to “Kean, Veronica Mary” in the 1945 SA Police Gazette (category H: “Stealing In Dwellings etc”), the index to which is visible online.

In 1951, we see a business at the same address: “Miss Muffet 63 JETTY ROAD, GLENELG The Children’s Wear Specialists Large range of Over coats and Frocks in all shades and sizes.”

The shop was already called “Miss Muffet” in January 1946, as per this article:

In aid of the RSL Building fund, a variety show and mannequin parade will be held in the Glenelg Town Hall at 8 p.m on Wednesday February 13. Organiser is Mrs. S. Eitzen and compere Malcolm Ellenby. Mannequins—Mary Rennie (bathing beauty candidate), Zita Minagall, Beth Habib, Patricia Rennie, Mary Abbley, Gipsy Rowe, Lorraine Hart, Barbara Jacob. Cynthia Marshall. Mona Allison Stella Minney and June Lord. Clothes displayed by courtesy of leading Glenelg stores. Bookings at “Miss Muffet,” Jetty road, Glenelg.

Was Veronica Mary Kean also the owner of the Miss Muffet shop? I suspect not, because the letter in the Advertiser seems to imply that she had had the lease of her second hand shop’s premises withdrawn as of 1st December 1945. But a branch of The National Bank of Australasia opened at 63 Jetty Road on 2nd January 1952, giving any Miss Muffet searchers an end date to work with.

Marriage or Death?

So, can we find details of her marriage? The only SA marriage I found for a Veronica Mary Keane was from 1946:

KEANE — SMITH.— The marriage of Veronica Mary, only daughter of Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Smith, of St. Peters, to Hillary Ignatius, fifth son of the late Mr. and Mrs. B. J. Keane, of Goodwood, was solemnised at St. Francis Xavier’s Cathedral on July 20, at 6 p.m.

However, NSW’s BDM website found me a 1926 marriage between James J Kean and Veronica M O’Brien in Glebe (refs: 11392/1926 and 11392/1926). Sadly, images for these aren’t available online.

As for her death, the LDS FamilySearch website yields only a death on 20th December 1968 of a widow called “Keena, Veronica Mary” in Warrnambool: but I somewhat doubt that that was her. Similarly, GenealogySA only suggests a Veronica Mary Keane (whose deceased husband was William Joseph Keane) who died in 1971.

What do I think?

OK, I admit I got a little bit excited when I found Veronica Mary Kean(e) running a second hand shop on 63 Jetty Road, Glenelg in 1945. But it does seem as though she was not the same V. M. Kean who divorced J. J. Kean in Sydney in May 1948 – realistically, that was almost certainly James J. Kean and Veronica Mary Kean (nee O’Brien) terminating their 1926 Glebe marriage.

My best guess is therefore that the Veronica Mary Keane of 63 Jetty Road was in fact the Veronica Mary Smith who married Hillary Ignatius Keane on 20th July 1946, and whose engagement was announced in the Adelaide Advertiser on 3rd November 1945:

SMITH—KEANE. —Mr. and Mrs. A. H. Smith, of St. Peters, wish to announce the engagement of their only daughter, Veronica M., to Hillary I. (RAAF. Pacific), fifth son of the late Mr. and Mrs. B. P. Keane, of Goodwood.

Like another Adelaidean with whom Somerton Man researchers are thoroughly familiar, it seems that Veronica Mary was using her married surname after getting engaged but prior to getting married.

So, it would appear to be no more than normal frustrating chance that put Veronica Mary Keane and her 63 Jetty Road second hand shop in the path of my research steamroller. Well worth a look, undoubtedly close, but… no Tamam Shud cigar this time, sorry! 🙁

Ethel Voynich talk in Dublin…

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

Anyone in Dublin this week with even a passing interest in Ethel Voynich could surely do no better than drop by Dr Angela Byrne’s talk: Ethel Voynich, Transnational Revolutionary at 5.30pm to 6.30pm on Thursday 10th October 2019, at EPIC (The Irish Emigration Museum), Custom House Quay, D01 T6K4 Dublin 1. And did I mention it’s completely free?

The talk’s synopsis:

Cork-born Ethel Voynich was raised in London, where she became involved in anarchist circles and translated the writings of exiled Ukrainian revolutionary, Stepniak. She travelled around Russia in 1887–9, teaching music and associating with radicals. Her novel, The Gadfly (1897) inspired communists worldwide for decades – but by 1917, she had moved away from radical politics. This talk details her transnational radical networks and asks, what was the extent of her involvement in the Russian revolutionary movement?

Ah, yes: and I can confirm that it’s a pleasure and a delight to finally have some Ethel Voynich-related news that isn’t related to lingerie.