With a tip of the hat to Dave Oranchak’s zodiackillerciphers.com (where I saw it mentioned), the cipher news du jour is that hyperbullish tech magazine Wired has just posted a nice article giving the inside story on how the various collaborators all played their part in cracking the Copiale Cipher (which I covered here and here). I particularly relished the picture of the Oculist blindfold (a blindfold with lenses? Really?), but everyone’s different, right?

Anyway, no need for any more snarky comments from me, it’s a perfectly good article, so go and enjoy it! 🙂

Here’s a nice story that should bring heart to researchers struggling with uncracked homophonic ciphers (e.g. Zodiac Killer Ciphers, Beale Papers, etc). Kevin Knight, who Voynich Manuscript researchers may remember from various posts here, has now co-authored a 2011 paper with Beáta Megyesi and Christiane Schaefer from Uppsala University on how they cracked a hitherto unknown (to me, at least) 105-page ciphertext dated 1866 they call the Copiale Cipher.

Slightly unhelpfully, the authors refer only to the manuscript as having come “from the East Berlin Academy”: in fact, as far back as 1992/1993 the East Berlin Academy of Arts and the West Berlin Academy were merged into a single Academy of Arts, Berlin (i.e. the Akademie der Künste). I searched the Akademie’s archives to see if I could find the source but only managed to find one plausible-sounding hit:-

Record group: Döhl – Reinhard-Döhl-Archiv
Classification group: 6.1. Fremde Manuskripte
Lauf. Nummer: 3625
Dat. => Findbuch: o.O., o.D.
Titel: [ohne Verfasser]: die sentenzen verschlüsselter deutbarkeit […]

Perhaps someone with better German and more persistence than me will find the actual manuscript reference.

Anyway, Knight/Megyesi/Schaefer give a nice account of how they went about analysing the neatly-written ciphertext, the various hypotheses they came up with along the way, and how they finally managed to decrypt it (though admittedly they initially only transcribed 16 pages), apart from eight mysterious logograms (i.e. an eight-entry nomenclator “for (doubly secret) people and organizations”). Here’s their translation of the first few lines, which make it quite clear what kind of a book it is:-

First lawbook
of the [1] e [2]
Secret part.
First section
Secret teachings for apprentices.
First title.
Initiation rite.
If the safety of the [3] is guaranteed, and the [3] is
opened by the chief [4], by putting on his hat, the
candidate is fetched from another room by the
younger doorman and by the hand is led in and to the
table of the chief [4], who asks him:
First, if he desires to become [1].
Secondly, if he submits to the rules of the [2] and
without rebelliousness suffer through the time of
apprenticeship.
Thirdly, be silent about the [5] of the [2] and
furthermore be willing to offer himself to volunteer
in the most committed way.
The candidate answers yes.

The interesting thing about the date is that it predates the 1887 founding of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn by 20 years or so: and many (if not most?) regular Cipher Mysteries readers will recall that that was founded with a (quite different) mysterious cipher document allegedly referring to a certain “Fraulein Anna Sprengler” mentioned in the enciphered text. By way of comparison, Aleister Crowley’s favourite Ordo Templi Orientis was founded only in 1895 or thereabouts.

Hence the really big question about this enciphered document is whether there is any connection (perhaps even Anna Sprengler) between it and the Golden Dawn Ciphers. The answer may well lie in the 89 pages as yet untranscribed by K/M/S… hopefully we shall see!

Update: since writing this, I found that K/M/S have put up a detailed web-page including scans, transcriptions, and English translations of the whole 105 pages. Codicologically, they say it is “beautifully bound in green and gold brocade paper, written on high quality paper with two different watermarks [and] can be dated back to 1760-1780.”

They also note that they think it is a document of an “18th century secret society, namely the “oculist order”. A parallel manuscript is located at the Niedersächsisches Landesarchiv, Staatsarchiv Wolfenbüttel.” Which of course rules Fraulein Sprengler out. 🙂

To be honest, the part in the ceremony described where they pluck a hair from the eyebrow of the initiate reminds me not a little of the Simpsons’ Stonecutters episode (“Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star? We do! We do!”), but perhaps let’s not dwell on that too much… 🙂

Well, Kevin Knight gave his Voynich lecture (it’s the one I mentioned a few days ago), and an attendee (Jeffrey Shallit) has been kind enough to post a high-speed précis of what Kevin Knight said onto his “Recursivity” blog. Of course, since you already know the basics, I can strip that down even further. 🙂

As I mentioned before, Kevin Knight’s approach is based around using expectation maximization to try to algorithmically categorize the letters in the alphabet into one of two clusters – basically, vowels and consonants. However, despite the looming vowel-like presence of ‘a’, ‘e’, ‘i’, and ‘o’ (that so convinces linguists), this approach fails to produce “anything particularly meaningful” for Voynichese.

His more recent research has tried the same trick but with words instead of letters. According to Jeffrey Shallitt’s post:-

When you do so, you get two clusters: the words in the “herbal”, “astrological”, and “pharmacological” sections predominantly fall into one cluster, and the words in the “biological” and “cosmological” sections predominantly fall into another.

However, Knight’s attempts to further subdivide these two clusters failed to produce any (linguistically) helpful clusters.

I think that while this is manifestly unhelpful to linguistic VMs theories, it may yet prove to be codicologically very productive. My position is that Voynichese evolved over time, and that the VMs itself was composed in a number of writing phases: it may well be that the clusters that are emerging are clusters in time, not in content. Could it be that this kind of cluster analysis could be used to reconstruct the developmental arc of Voynichese?

I hope that Kevin Knight decides to make his clustering results available, so that they may be assessed in the context of quite different (non-linguistic) ways of looking at it…

If you plan to be near MIT (specifically Building 32, Room D463) on September 23rd 2009 (3pm-4pm), here’s something you’ll probably enjoy: a lecture on the Voynich Manuscript by Kevin Knight. According to the blurb:-

“I will describe the document, show samples, explain where it may have come from, and present some properties of the text and experiments with it.”

Attendance is free – no need to register. For more information contact Marcia Davidson, 617-253-3049, [email protected]

Here are some slides KK used for a 2007 Voynich talk: back then, his particular angle seemed mainly to revolve around using the EM (“expectation-maximization“) algorithm with a bit of Viterbi magic (don’t ask, I’d have to shoot you) to decipher unknown languages, which (in turn) seems to be based on hunting for consonants & vowels within language-like datastreams (though it apparently stumbles on Latin “i”, because if functions as both a vowel [‘i’] and a consonant [‘j’]).

Naturally, given that the Voynich ciphertext “vowels” linguists loved so much are (I am certain) inherently deceptive, my own “maximized expectation” here is that this approach would crash and burn abysmally when pointed at the VMs: and the attempted automatic Latin decoding presented (“quiss squm is ONUM pom quss hates s qum hatis“) is hardly likely to persuade anyone. Though, to be fair, KK does conclude “too many [Voynichese] letters can’t decide if they are vowels or consonants“, which would seem to be an academese way of saying “though my algorithm plainly doesn’t work on this particular text corpus, I published the results anyway“.

I look forward to finding out what his 2009 angle on the VMs will look like – if you attend, please let me know! 🙂