I’m cautiously optimistic that a breakthrough has just emerged to do with the Art History origins of the Voynich Manuscript’s puzzling zodiac pages, that would appear to connect them with Diebold Lauber’s fifteenth century manuscript copying house. Errrm… who he? I’ll explain…

The Voynich Zodiac section

Even though we cannot decrypt the Voynich Manuscript’s text, researchers have long noted that its illustrations strongly suggest that the manuscript isn’t just random, but is instead composed of a number of thematically-connected sections.

The Voynich zodiac section contains a series of roundels depicting the signs of the zodiac (though the folio at the end containing Capricorn and Aquarius has without any real doubt been removed). Each roundel is surrounded by 15 or 30 small naked women (‘zodiac nymphs’, though Pisces has only 29) posed somewhat awkwardly, each of whom is linked to a small fragment of text (‘zodiac labels’). Here’s Pisces:

[Note that one early owner seems to have added month names to its roundels (e.g. March to Pisces, April to Aries, etc) in a somewhat rough and ready hand, but that’s another matter entirely.]

I’ve argued for years (and the idea certainly wasn’t mine) that the central drawings were probably loosely copied from an astronomical calendar or hausbuch, of the type entirely typical of late 14th or early 15th century Germany, a good number of which had strikingly similar circular astrological or astronomical roundels.

But despite Voynich researchers’ Herculean efforts in recent years to cross-reference these medical/astronomical hausbuch drawings to the Voynich’s zodiac drawings, results have been mixed at best: a zodiac sequence with a good Pisces or Sagittarius match would for the other zodiac signs typically be accompanied by drawings that shared practically no similarities with the Voynich’s roundels. And so things, after a huge burst of collective enthusiasm a couple of years back, stalled somewhat.

Enter Koen Gheuens

In 2016, researcher Koen Gheuens was looking at the Voynich zodiac Gemini roundel drawing, and wondered what the curious double-handed handshake gesture depicted there might signify or mean.

After the usual long sequence of dead-ends, he discovered that in fact it was a pose used in some medieval weddings, and that it even had its own literature. He describes it as follows:

The type of medieval marriage we’re interested in is as follows: the man and woman hold one hand (in cross, so left to left or right to right) and with his free hand, the man puts a ring on a finger of the woman’s free hand. This results in the “double handshake” look. The “passive” set of hands is usually pictured below, while the putting on of the ring is above.

Koen found a number of depictions of the double-handed marriage – very ably documented on his Voynich Temple website – which progressively led him to the manuscript workshop of Diebold Lauber.

Diebold Lauber

In the days before printing, manuscript workshops had to find ways of churning out work for clients that was cost-effective: drawings in particular were time-consuming. The particular ‘hack’ Diebold Lauber’s workshop seems to have made most use of was to have a set of pre-drawn generic exemplar poses which were then lightly adapted (presumably by less skilled illustrators) multiple times. In this way, drawings were reused and recycled multiple times: the connections between these recycled drawings gives plenty of grist for Art Historians’ mills to grind.

Koen put forward the idea that there seems to be a connection between a particular Diebold Lauber crossed-hands-marriage drawing dated to 1448 and the Voynich zodiac crossed-hands Gemini roundel:

And once you see how the details parallel each other, it is indeed a very persuasive visual argument (Koen’s composite image):

Putting all the pieces of the historical puzzle together, it would therefore seem a perfectly reasonable inference that the Voynich zodiac roundel drawings were roughly copied from a zodiac sequence that appeared in an medical-astronomical hausbuch commissioned from Diebold Lauber’s manuscript workshop, where the Gemini pose had been recycled from an earlier Diebold Lauber crossed-hands marriage stock drawing exemplar.

Diebold Lauber References

For a German-language description of Lauber’s prolific workshop in Hagenau (just North of Strasbourg), the Ruprecht-Karls University of Heidelberg has put together a nice page here. From this we learn that researchers have collected together about 80 examples of the workshop’s output dating from 1427 to 1467 (lists here): and that the illustrators worked as long-standing teams, with the so-called “Gruppe A” active from about 1425 to 1450. Lauber was effectively a bookseller, and even included a handwritten advertisement in some of his manuscripts, such as this one (from Cod. Pal. germ. 314, fol. 4ar) from 1443-1449:

A transcription and translation of this would be much appreciated! 🙂

A Diebold Lauber Calendar

What might a Diebold Lauber medical/astronomical calendar look like? Luckily, we don’t need to wonder: there was one in the library of Colonel David McCandless McKell in Lexington, Kentucky, that Rosy Schilling wrote two short books about (one a facsimile of the MS, the other a transcription and English translation).

* Rosy Schilling: A facsimile of an Astronomical medical calendar in German (Studio of Diebolt Lauber at Hagenau, about 1430 – 1450): from the Library of Colonel David McC. McKell, Lexington, Ky., 1958
* Rosy Schilling: Astronomical medical calendar: German, studio of Diebolt Lauber at Hagenau, 15th century, c. 1430 – 50, Lexington, 1958

Here’s what January looks like (i.e. Aquarius):

And – because I know you’re going to ask – here are all twelve zodiac signs from the McKell Ms (click for a larger version):

McKell’s extensive library was bequeathed to the Ross County Historical Society, though according to the Handschriftcensus entry, it was sold by Bloomsbury Auctions (8th July 2015, Sale No. 36180) to Dr. Jörn Günther Rare Books AG. So anyone suitably rich who wants to own this can very probably do so. Which is nice.

So… What Next?

Personally, I’m not convinced every extant Diebold Lauber workshop drawing has been collected together yet. For example, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Pal. lat. 1370 has been mentioned before by Voynich researchers on one of Stephen Bax’s pages (it was written in Strasbourg in the mid-15th century, certainly before 1467): and I would be unsurprised if it was connected with Lauber. Here is its Sagittarius roundel:

I’m also far from convinced – given that medical/astronomical hausbuchen don’t have a huge literature – that there aren’t other Diebold Lauber calendars out there that haven’t yet been recognized for what they are. Perhaps this should be a good direction to pursue next? Something to consider, anyway.

Lots of fragments of research into the Hollow River Cipher to pass your way.

The Monthly Chronologer

Even though I haven’t (yet) had a chance to go into the British Library to trawl through 1738 newspapers, I did recently find scans via Google Books of a monthly magazine from 1738 called “The Monthly Chronologer”, which (seems to me to have) summarized information from official sources such as the London Gazette. It was also bound inbetween copies of a different monthly magazine called The London Magazine, which collected together news, articles, poems, overseas (though mainly political) news from a wide variety of different publications around the UK.

So, what do we find in the May 1738 edition of the Monthly Chronologer?

The short version is that there was indeed (it appears) a Royal Proclamation dating from the start of May 1738 relating to piracy in the Atlantic. Rather than the summary that I quoted before, the address to the King from the House of Lords was as follows (in the official Parliamentary History of England), all dated 2nd May 1738 and apparently published in London 4th May 1738:

Most gracious Sovereign ;

We your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, having taken into our serious consideration the many unjust violences and depredations committed by the Spaniards, upon the persons, ships and effects of divers of your Majesty’s subjects in America, have come to the following Resolutions, which we beg leave in the humblest manner to lay before your Majesty, for your royal consideration, viz.

1. Resolved, That the subjects of the Crown of Great Britain have a clear and undoubted right to navigate in the American seas, to and from any part of his Majesty’s dominions ; and for carrying on such trade and commerce, as they are justly entitled unto in America ; and also to carry all sorts of goods and merchandizes, or effects, from one part of his Majesty’s dominions to any part thereof ; and that no goods, being so carried, are by any treaty subsisting between the Crowns of Great Britains and Spain, to be deemed as contraband or prohibited goods, and that the searching of such ships on the open seas, under pretence of their carrying contraband or prohibited goods, is a violation and infraction of the treaties subsisting between the two Crowns.

2. Resolved, That it appears to this House, that as well before, as since the execution of the treaty of Seville, on the part of Great Britain, divers ships and vessels, with their cargoes belonging to British subjects, have been violently seized and confiscated by the Spaniards, upon pretences altogether unjust and groundless ; and that many of the sailors on board these ships have been injuriously and barbarously imprisoned and ill-treated ; and that thereby the liberty of navigation and commerce belonging to his Majesty’s subjects by the law of nations, and by virtue of the treaties subsisting between the crowns of Great Britain and Spain, hath been unwarrantably infringed and interrupted, to the great loss and damage of our merchants, and in direct violation of the said treaties.

3. Resolved, That it appears to this House, that frequent application have been made, on the part of his Majesty, to the court of Spain, in a manner the most agreeable to treaties, and to the peace and friendship subsisting betwixt the two crowns, for redressing the notorious abuses and grievances before-mentioned, and preventing the like for the future, and for obtaining adequate satisfaction to his injured subjects; which, in the event, have proved entirely fruitless, and of no effect.

We think it our duty, on this important occasion, humbly to represent to your Majesty, that we are most sensibly affected with the many and grievous injuries and losses sustained by your Majesty’s trading subjects, by means of these unwarrantable depredations and seizures ; and to give your Majesty the strongest and most sincere assurances, that in case your friendly and powerful instances for procuring restitution and reparation to your injured subjects, and for the future security of their trade and navigation, shall fail of having their due effect and influence on the Court of Spain, and shall not be able to obtain that real satisfaction and security, which your Majesty may in justice expect; we will zealously and cheerfully concur in all such measures, as shall become necessary for the support of your Majesty’s honour, the preservation of our navigation and commerce, and the common good of these kingdoms.

The King replied as follows:

My Lords ;

I am sensibly touched with the many hardships and injuries sustained by my trading subjects in America, from the cruelties and unjust depredations of the Spaniards. You may be assured of my care to procure satisfaction and reparation for the losses they have already suffered, and security for the freedom of navigation for the future ; and to maintain to my people the full enjoyment of all the rights to which they are entitled by treaty, and the law of nations.—I doubt not but I shall have your concurrence for the support of such measures, as may be necessary for that purpose.

What Does This Mean For Us?

There might at first seem no reason why a London newspaper report of a Royal Proclamation relating to Spanish depredations (made at the beginning of the exact same month that the Hollow River Cipher was made) should have sent the crew of a French pirate ship into such a tailspin that they would want to hide their cannon and treasure on a small Canadian island.

However, I suspect that what had been going on was that these particular French pirates had been using a Spanish flag as a pretence for stopping British ships: this was exactly what had been going on for some years, and what had so incensed the British Houses of Parliament. And now the game was up.

Prize Papers for Eagle / Aigle / Aguila

Separately, Paul Relkin wrote to me about his search for L’Aigle in the French marine archives (more on that another day). But it struck me that if that same ship’s luck ran out, it might well have been captured and its papers held by the British Admiralty. So I decided to have a look there (it’s all in the National Archives).

However, the picture that emerged was that the name Eagle / l’Aigle seems to have been extremely popular with British and French small boat owners: and so there is actually a long stream of these mentioned in the archives, from 1742 onwards:

1742: HCA 32/95/4 Captured ship: L’Aguila or Eagle of San Sebastian (master Louis Grenier) – a Spanish privateer (140 tons, 12 guns, 110 men); taken on 4 July 1742 by HMS Lyme (John Pritchard commanding) and brought into Plymouth.

1743: HCA 32/137/19 and HCA 32/138/27 Captured ship: Nuestra Senora del Rosario (El Aguila): master Francisco Ximenes – Spanish register ship for West Indies (95 tons, 43 men and passenger: formerly English?). Taken 24 Nov 1743 off Cape Cantin on the Barbary Coast

1744: HCA 32/95/23 Captured ship: L’Aigle Volant (master Dutertre Le Marie) – a French privateer (140 tons, 14 carriage guns, 9 swivel guns, 110 men); taken on 15/26 June 1744 about 40 leagues from the Island de Groy on the coast of France 26 June 1744. There is also a printed advertisement for the sale of L’Aigle Volant in HCA 30/232.

1745: HCA 32/124/11 Captured ship: Le St Jean Baptiste: master Jean Fignoux – French merchant ship, formerly British merchant ship the Eagle, recaptured coming from Guadeloupe.

1755: HCA 32/163/9 Captured ship: L’Aigle (master Jacques Samelin) – a French merchant ship seized in 1755.

1756: HCA 32/195/7 Captured ship: La Gabrielle (Lagabriell) of Nantes (master Pierre Alexis Ricard) – a French merchant ship for West Indies, with letter of marque, carrying troops, arms, stores, etc; formerly the Eagle (L’Aigle).

1757: HCA 32/161/13 Captured ship: L’Aigle (master Mathieu Desclaux or Mathieu Declaux) – a French merchant ship for West Indies.

1758: HCA 32/163/10 Captured ship: L’Aigle (master [unknown] Vessum) – a French merchant ship, apparently one of the French ships taken in the attack on Senegal, May 1758, since the docketing is L’Aigle, Vessum master’.

1758/9: HCA 32/258 Ship: L’Aigle, Master: La Porte, Remarks: French

1758: HCA 32/249/16 mention of a French privateer L’Aigle de Bayonne (master Georges Mathieu Forestiere) operating in the North Atlantic.

1761: HCA 32/168/23 Captured ship: St Antoine (L’Aigle) (master Germain Boyer) – a French merchant ship in the Levant trade with letter of marque.

1762: HCA 32/162/5 Captured ship: L’Aigle (master Augustin Fichet) – a French privateer.

An excellent article by Berthold Hub (though in Spanish) on Antonio Averlino’s Sforzinda appeared not long ago, where Hub attempted to trace through many of the ideas / preceding documents that fed into Averlino’s libro architettonico.

One of those ideas was astrology: for example, Averlino talks about working out the astrologically best date for starting the construction of the Sforza’s (putative) new city: “The best day and time to lay the first stone for the construction of the city will be in this year sixty [i.e. 1460] on April 15, at ten twenty.” [Incidentally, this date (15th April 1460) also arguably gives what I think is a sensible latest date for what I argue to have been Averlino’s first (Francesco Sforza-targeted) writing phase.]

Hub, following his programme of trying to link the virtual world of Sforzinda with the real world, suggests that the real Sforza-court astrologer Averlino (probably) had in mind could have been Battista Piasio (1410-1492).

Yet because so little has been written about him, the question I immediately wanted to answer was:

Who Was Battista Piasio?

As usual, the first place to turn to is Lynn Thorndike’s “History of Magic & Experimental Science” – in this case, though, Piasio merits no more than a page [vol. 4, pp.458-459]. Moreover, Thorndike has relatively little to say about him beyond what appeared in Liron’s “Singularités historiques et littéraires“, 1738, I, pp. 316-318, immediately following a chapter on Simon de Phares. (There were four volumes, Google Books seems to have scans of volumes 2-4 but not of volume 1.)

However, Liron’s account was itself taken entirely from the funeral elegy in Battista Piasio’s honour given by Nicolaus Lucarus / Nicolino Lugaro / Nicolas Lucaro (d. 1511). So rather than just reproduce Liron’s version, I thought it was a more worthwhile exercise to root out the original where that appeared.

The earliest version seems to have been first printed in Paris in 1492 (and, being pre-1501, was hence an incunabulum). It was then added to the end of a larger set of funeral orations entitled “Sermones aurei funebres” supposedly collected together by Gregorius Britannicus (though the writer of the ISTC entry strongly doubts this was true). This book was an early example of the (predominantly French) genre of collections of funeral sermons and orations: it was printed at least six times during the 16th century, which is where Liron found it.

However, because I was unable to find any transcription of this funeral oration at all on the web, I decided to transcribe the original 1492 version as best I could.

Apparatus: where a ‘q3’ [-que] abbreviation appears, I write q[ue]; where a superscript/macron appears, I make my best guess at what the missing letter was e.g. dilige[n]tius; and I have left the line breaks exactly as per the original 1492 incunabulum, hyphenating where words seem to be split over lines. I’ve modernised the f-style ‘s’: and the usual difficulties with ‘f’ versus ‘s’ should be kept in mind.

There are clearly many mistakes in the Latin: but given that this current post is already far too long, I shall endeavour to translate this in a later post. So… more to follow, and hopefully soon. 🙂

[PS: there’s a second copy of the same oration in Spain, available online here.]

“Baptistae Piasii astronomi peritissimi funebris laudatio”

[1r]
Baptistae Piasii astronomi peritissimi funebris laudatio Per Nicola-
um lucarum Rhetorem Cremonensem aedita
.

Quam difficile:laboriosumq[ue] negocium susceperim:uiri Magni-
fici desolatissimiq[ue] patres:tum ex rei ipsius conditione:tum ex
dicentis habitu perfacile iudicari potest.Nam cum mecum dilige[n]-
tius cogito quanto splendore orbata:qua[n]tisq[ue] ormamentis:ac de-
liciis spoliata co[m]munis patria sit:ob Baptistam Piasium omnium
gentium:omnium seculorum:omnisq[ue] memoriae:multiplici do-
ctrina:facile principem inuidae mortalitatis uinculo nobis subla-
tum:sequitir ut qui consolator acceleram consolandus ipse sim-
eo nanq[uam] animo erga patriam:alumnosq[ue] eius praesta[n]tissimos sem-
per fui:ut commoda mea ex eorum commodis metirer:nilq[ue] uel
triste:uel laetum eis acciderit: quin id mihi commune existimarim
Hinc itaque lachrymae:hinc suspiria: hinc a profundo pectore er-
rumpentes gemitus:& ( quod omnium maximum est) acerbissi-
mo moerrore consternatus animus:ingenii uim:dicendi copiam
imminuunt:attonitumq[ue]:ac prope allucinantem reddunt. sed cu[m]
dolori succumbere:rationemq[ue] ex arce sua dimouere effoeminati:
ac parum prudentis esse animaduertam: constantiae adminiculo
utendem censui:ut animi perturbatione procul expulsa tantae to-
tius ciuitatis frequentiae:omniumq[ue] ordinum splendori:supremis
deniq[ue] defuncti laudibus saltem pro uirili portione non defuisse
uidear. quem amiciciae uetustas:hominis dignitas:omnium scien-
tiarum cognitio in eo supra hominem effulgens:innumerabiliaq[ue]
in me beneficia adeo commendant:ut uel Pythicam uocem mihi
exoptem:uel Demosthenis grauitatem:uel Ciceronis copiam:no[n]
enim uideo ubi maius orandi argumentum se se mihi offere po-
tuiset: quippe in uno aliquo praeclaram: ac peculiarem scientiae co-
gnitionem reperies:qui autem disciplinas omnes non imbiberit
solum:sed abunde hauserit:uix unum ex plur[i]mis inuenes:in Ba-
ptista uero nostro:cuius memoria[m] lachrymabundus usurpo:an-
aliquid desiderandum esset ex iis quae ue ra bona stioci appellant:
percurrere operae praecium erit:ut unicuiq[ue] uestrum sit exploratisi-
mum tanti uiri iacturam:communemq[ue] calamitatem perpetuo de-
flendam esse:cum praeter uitae integritate[m]: moresq[ue] sanctissimos
uobis cumulatissime cognitos:uirtutum suarum seriem me lauda-
[1v]
tore percaeperitis. Superuacaneum uiri Cremonenses fore exi-
stimaui:patriam : generis claritatem: fortunae largissimas dotes
propinquorum longe lateq[ue] patentes gradus inter magnas uiri
huius laudes commemorare:Quem rerum gestarum numero:*
magnitudi[n[e:gra[n]de aliquod decus iis addidisse potius:q[uam] inde sple[n]do-
ris incrementum accaepisse constat.Illustrauit quidem Baptistam
nostrum Cremo[n]a patria:celeberrimi nominis urbs:ut nostis.Ba-
ptista uero patriam perpetuis immortalibusq[ue] praeconiis cele-
brandam reddidit:ita moribus sapientam per omnes aetatum
gradus coniunxit:Nam cum prima litterarum rudimenta sub la-
cobo Alierio uiro sane integerrimo:atq[ue] doctissimo in oculis pa-
rentum perciperet: magnitudine indolis statim inter aequales
excellens eam de se opinionem excitauit:quam olim Cicero de
se ipso pollicebatur : Sed hic Cicerone maior:Ille nanq[ue] iacta[n]tiae
a puero usq[ue] inhiabat:Hic uero solum Deum a[n]te oculos habens di-
sciplinarum incrementa soli deo accepta referebat: purus ore:
purior animo:Dei qua[m] hominum metuentior: Crescentibus mox
annis eloquantiam auidissime amplexus tantum in ea pro-
fecit:ut qui inter Gra[m]maticos poeticaeq[ue] studiosos emineret etiam
inter postremos oratores haben dus non esset:Caeterum pera-
ctis puericiae studiis cum uaria essent discendi genera:in quibus
egregia cum laude uersari posset triplicem philosophiam subcisi-
uis temporibus ardentissime perdidicit:logicen quae proprietates
uerborum exigit:Physicen quae rerum naturam scrutatur:Ethi-
cen quae animum componit:easq[ue] sub florentissimis praecepto-
ribus hausit:logicen sub Nicolino Cremonensi ordinis heremi-
tarum optimo & sacrae Theologiae professore acerrimo : in phi-
losophia uero praeceptorem habuit Apollinarem offredum o-
mnium sui saeculi doctissimum & Ciuitatis nostrae radiantissimum
sidus:celeberrimiq[ue] nominis apud omnes philosophantium con-
uentus eum supremas Delicias appellantium:ab eodem quoq[ue] be-
ne beateq[ue] uiuendi praecepta didicit Socratis exemplo qui rerum
naturam perscrutatus de moribus coepit differrere:unde philo-
sophia[m] e coelo in terras duxisse primus tradit:sed illo Athe[n]ae Hoc
[2r]
autem Tici[n]ense gymnasium gloriatur : ubi fere in ipso adoloscen-
tiae exitu comuni philosophoru[m] consensu philiosophiae professor
Declaratus e[?]:Medicinae praeterea:Quae humana corpora uel tue-
tur uel i[n]staurat:i[n]signia maximo applausu ibidem meruit Cum il-
lam ab Esculapio euisdem inuentore:uel ab Hippocrate Coo qui
primus Clinicen instituit percepisse uideretur. Sed maioribus
auspiciis profundum pelagus fulcandum erat:generosusq[ue] ani-
mus ad honestiora semper aspirans : mathematicas disciplinas:
numerorum: ac mensurarum rationes:musicosq[ue] concentus per-
cepit:Astronomiam deniq[ue] tanto ardore co[n]quisiuisse fertur:ut
quod pene incredibile est:uelut alter Carthaginensis Augustinus
nullo tradent ingenii sui sollertia pertinaciq[ue] studio percalluerit.
Vunde factum est ut omnium artium quas liberales uocant cogni-
tione instructus non in patra sub silentio diutius esse ualuerit.
Nam Ferarriam ab Illustrissimo Leonello Exte[n]si republicae suae
tunc optime consulenti accitus est:ut publica co[n]ductus stipe quas
secum attulerat preciosas merces philosophandi studiosis impar-
tiretur:sideralemq[ue] scientiam paucissimis tunc cognitam annis
octo publice traderet: tam frequenti auditorio:ut Athlanta ad
quem euis origo refertur:ad lucem rediisse: uel hunc a Memphiti-
cis Astronomis quicquid de motu coeli:astrorumq[ue] diffinitis cursi-
bus per moderata interua ilorum spacia praecipitur: hausisse con-
staret:ex qua si quantum auctoritatus: quantumue splendoris asse-
cutus fuerit :repetere uolueri[?]mus : iocupletissimi testes nobis
erunt Borsius olim Ferrariae Dux Inclytus: Francisus item Sfor-
cia omnium Caesarum famam supergressus una cum Bianca
Coniuge Digna quae mortalitati non esset obnoxia : Testis item
erit Pius Pontifex Maximus : ad quem eius multae extant epi-
stolae : cum Aeneas Siluius adhuc esset: litteratissimorum per-
fugium unicum : qui in Mantuano Amphyctionico Baptistam
nostrum orantem attentissime auidiuit: & de futuris uerissime
differe[n]te[m] ta[n]topere ad miratus est:ut honestissimo salario Ferraria[m]
Borsius: Mediolanu[m] Fra[n]ciscus sforcia:in urbe[m] deniq[ue] pontifex ille
[2v]
diuinus euocare tentauerint:ut qui patriae ornamentum erat: to-
tius Italiae oppida urbesq[ue] nominis fui celebritate co[m]pleret. Quid
plura: Cardinales:ac principes iluustres Mantuae commorantem
magna excellentiq[ue] hominis gloria compulsi ad eum uisendum
uenerandumq[ue] certatim confluxerunt. Pectore igitur indefesso
patauinaq[ue] elloquentia opus esset:in eo meritis laudibus extollen-
do:quem alterum Aristarcum in lineari scientia:in dicendi ar-
te Isocratem In Dialectice Leontinum Gorgiam In Phisice
Aristotelem In Ethice Zenonem: In Arithmetica Pytago-
ram In Musica Platonem In Geometria Archimedem
Syracusium In Astronomia Phtolomeum : Thaletem Mile-
sium: Anaxagoram: atq[ue] Hipparcum extitisse palam est Nam
tota Baptistae nostrae Astronomia erat: in qua solus regnabat uelu-
ti Cicero in iudicis. Quis enim uerius: firmioribusq[ue] rationibus
futura praenunciauit: testantur id eius scripta uenturas per singu-
los annos rerum uicissitudines praesagientia:quibus si caeterorum
iudicia conferantur: caligabunt in sole Apologian eius omitto:
qua Ioannem Sacroboschum:& Gyrardsum Sablonetam Astro-
nomos peritissimos tuetur aduersus imperitum Romanum que[m]
Barbarum in opere suo appellat: non minus acurate: quam subtili-
ter perscripto ad refutandam hominis barbariem:quod propedi-
em lucem accipiet:futurum illius artis studiosissimo cuiq[ue] admini-
culum non mediocre.O.Virum totius nostrae aetatis decus i[n]signe
O.rabidae mortis inaeuitabilem uiolentiam erat profecto uir iste
si unuidam illam atropon uincere fas esset immortaliitate donan-
dus:ne tot praeclarae artes uno eodemq[ue] tempore perirent. Qua[n]-
do autem Cremonenses moestissimi talem uirem secula uel prae-
ferentia:uel futura Dei optimi maximi indulgentia assequent[?]; qua[n]-
do praetor multiplicem doctrinam tot in uno homine congestas
uirtutes contemplabimur; An referam uius prudentiam; an ma-
gnitudinem animi; qua oblatos honores contempst; honestissi-
mas principum conditiones paruifecit; an modestiam:in amplo
patrominio excellentiq[ue] doctrina omnibus notam; Hic potentu[m]
amicus:tenuiorum amicior erat taceo praestitiam aegrotantibus
opem gratuitam:quis ulla un:q[uam] iniuria se uel lacessitum:uel affe-
ctum ab eo expostulauit. Religionem omitto si Baptistam quaere
res in hoc diui Augustini templi orante[m]:uel de rebus diuinis uer-
[3r]
ba facientem:uel familiari colloquio edocentem uidistes. Quis eu
malae mentis in Deum fuisse coarguat; nemo sane. Vidi patres
optimi:uidi inquam multos:plurimos quoq[ue] fuisse a maioribus ac-
cepi summo inge[n]io:atq[ue] doctrina praeditos:de orthodoxa autem
fide perperam sencie[n]tes:ausosq[ue] sanctissimorum uirorum scriptis
foede & immaniter derogare. Hic uero purissimae mentis uir unu[m]
Deum esse praedicabat: sapientem:ac potentissimum. Vunde fit ut
inter caeteros me ipsum excruciem: naturamq[ue] ipsam in cusem
Quae me deliciis meis: Ciuitatem uero nostram fulgentissimo fi-
dere orbauerit. Possum itaq[ue] Hoc in loco Metelli. Verba ad fi-
lios de Scipione uita functo in medium afferre ite Filii:celebrate
exequias nunq[uam] Ciuis Maioris funus uidebitis:& ad Romanos ac-
currite inq[uam] quirites accurrite Quia nostrae ciuitatis Decus & lu-
men extinctum est:Nam si quid Boni in Vita est id habuit:si quid
uero Mali id euitauit. iugete Patres Baptistam sanctitate:& omni
Virtutem Genere Venerabile[m] Claudantur officinae:deserta sint
Gymnasia:Desti tuantur Theatra : Fiat deniq[ue] in urbe iusticium
Publico in tanti uiri moerore:quem tamen non accelerata mors
non uiolenta absumpsit:sed paulatim sensuum:menbrorumq[ue] ui-
gore labefactato irrepsit:anteactae uitae respondens:quam tran-
quillam:ac suauissimam aegit:si tame[n] mortem appellare licet:qua
Baptistae mortalitas:magis finita[m]:q[uam] uita est. Vnum postremo
superest Magnifici Desolatissimiq[ue] patres:Tuq[ue] Helysee quem
moerore consternatum uideo:Francisce: Hieronymeq[ue] nepotes
afflictissimi:ut postq[uam] ab oculis recessit ciuis: pater:auusq[ue] suauissi-
mus plenus honoribus:plenus a[n]nis:integerrimo ad octogessimu[m]
secundum aetatis annum adhuc corpore:non multis lachrymis:
non singultibus assiduis abeuntum prosequamini:ne Coelorum
gaudia:soelicioremq[ue] patriam ei in uidere uideamini : Baptistam
cogitate:euis uestigia ante oculos habete:sinceritatis:ac sanctita-
tis exemplar:uobis omnino persuadentes:qui Coelorum motus
comtemplari non destitit:relicto terrestri domicilio cum superis
aeternam:omniq[ue] molestia carentem uitam agere.

Ne Achariston idest ingratum: sed potius. Euchariston idest gra-
tum Helyseum Piasium experiamini Magnifici Magistratus:Do-
ctores Consultssimi:uosq[ue] humanissimi patres cum frequentissi-
[3v]
mo:celeberrimoq[ue] conspectu uestro supremos cineres Babtiste
sui decoraueritis:Helyseus:filii: agnati:cognatiq[ue] oe[n]s i[m]mortales
agunt gratias habebuntq[ue] perpetuo:relaturi pro tempore sed uti
nam laetiori. Dixi.

Ioannis Cropelli Soncinatis ad lectorem Carmen.

Qui lachrymis oculos: gemituq[ue[ insana fatigas.
Pectora : Baptistae saeuaq[ue] fata gemis.
Heu iuctus pia causa tui est : quippe ille salutis.
Astrorumq[ue] : iacet iusticiaeq[ue] pater.
Nec tamen inuidiam Lachesis facinusq[ue] Mineruae
Pertulit Ausoniae : Caecropiaeq[ue] decus.
Excultaeq[ue] tonans Lugarus praeconia liuguae.
Funeribus iussit hunc superesse suis.
Hic postliminio reuocauit ad aethera:fatis
Fortior:& superum nectar amare dedit
Ergo uagos Coeli qui nouerat ante meatus:
Sidera nunc etiam cum Ioue summa tenet.

Vale Candidissime Lector

Acta Creomane In Frequentissimo Diui Augustini Templo De-
cimo Calen:Febru:Millesimo Quadringentesimo Nonagesimo
secundo

While trawling through the dear old Adelaide Advertiser’s Law Court section for the weeks following the Somerton Man’s death (where cases from Adelaide Juvenile court were occasionally reported), I found the following story about interstate car crime, which I wanted to keep a copy of on the blog.

Interstate Men Charged

Two interstate men — Aubrey Whittle, 26, mechanic, of no fixed abode; and Leo Walsh Meyers, 22, interstate transport driver, of Southy street, Elwood, Victoria — were charged on two counts involving a sedan motor car which had been stolen from Melbourne. A third interstate man — Maurice Gleeson, 22, seaman, of Bay street, Port Melbourne — who had allegedly been in company with Whittle lately, was charged with having had insufficient lawful means of support.

Whittle pleaded guilty to having unlawfully had a motor car in his possession on November 18 without the consent of the owner, Milton Trisler, of St. Kilda, Victoria; and on the same occasion illegally used the car without the consent of the owner.

He was imprisoned for six months on each charge, to be served concurrently. He had admitted 12 previous convictions. Meyers, who had pleaded not guilty to two similar charges, was acquitted, and discharged.

AFP Hender, who prosecuted, said that Trisler’s car had been stolen from his home at St. Kilda. Several days later, it was alleged, Whittle and Meyers had taken the car to a garage at the rear of the Centralia Hotel, North terrace, Adelaide, and asked the proprietor to reduce the car. Before this could be done, defendants collected the car, took it out to a secondhand dealer at Payneham and sold it for £600, receiving £150 in cash and a cheque for £450. Defendants had stayed at the Grosvenor Hotel, North terrace, and after they had left, a maid had found two car number plates from the stolen car wrapped in newspaper in a drawer in the room.

HAD LOADED PISTOL

Meyers was also charged with having unlawfully had a pistol in his possession on November 18, which was reasonably suspected of having been stolen; and on the same occasion had an unlicensed pistol in his possession. He pleaded not guilty to the unlawful possession charge and it was dismissed.

He pleaded guilty to the second charge and was fined £25, with 7/6 costs, and the pistol was confiscated. He admitted three previous convictions, including one for a similar offence.

PCC Bartlett, in evidence, said that he questioned defendant outside the Centralia Hotel on November 18 concerning a stolen car. He searched defendant and found a loaded pistol in his pocket. When asked whether he had a licence, defendant broke away and was not recaptured until there had bern a long chase through the yards of the Adelaide Railway Station.

Gleeson pleaded not guilty to having had insufficient lawful means of support on November 18, but was found guilty and imprisoned for two months. Admitting that he gave a false name and address to Detective Harper on the same occasion. Gleeson was imprisoned for 14 days. He admitted eight previous convictions. Detective Harper, in evidence, said that he questioned Gleeson outside the Centralia Hotel and asked him whether he knew Whittle. Gleeson replied that he had been “knocking about with him” for some days. He had deserted from the vessel Dalby at Port Adelaide several weeks ago, but did not have a job.

A few days ago, Cipher Mysteries commenter Paul Relkin very kindly sent me through a copy of a document listing James Crowshay’s marriage to Margaret Seaton in 1745:

This inspired me to hunt for more information, mainly via the LDS’s (frankly astonishing) familysearch.org website. And I was genuinely astonished at what I was able to uncover…

James Crowshay

As you can tell from the above, James Crowshay married Margaret Seaton on 18th August 1745 in Pontefract, Yorkshire. The LDS reference is:

“England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N2NT-VY9 : 10 February 2018), James Crowshay and Margaret Seaton, 18 Aug 1745; citing Pontefract,York,England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 990,759.

Note: Margaret’s surname is mistranscribed as “Seuton” in the second record (a mistake that seems to have reached everywhere on the Internet), while the date of the wedding is moved to 17th August 1745:

“England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NXCX-CWB : 10 February 2018), James Crowshay and Margaret Seuton, 17 Aug 1745; citing York, England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,469,711.

However, I have to say that the dates given on the LDS page for James and Margaret’s births (1715 and 1718 respectively) seemed far more like computer-generated guesses to me than anything else. So when I found a James Crowshay who was born in Howden in 1722, it seemed far from unreasonable to predict that this was exactly our man. (Though because I don’t have a subscription to www.thegenealogist.co.uk , I can’t tell this for sure).

I then wondered: did James and Margaret Crowshay have any children? Anyone who has looked at old parish BMD registers for any period of time will know that the pattern back then was for the gap between the wedding and the birth of the first child to be small (sometimes even the same day). It may well therefore be no coincidence at all that in the registers of the parish of Howden (22 miles east of Pontefract), I found this string of birth entries:

* James, son of James Crowshow, of Howden Dyke. Sept. 23. [1746] [p.75]
* Ann, dau : of James Crowshow, of Howden Dyke. Nov. 27. [1747] [p.77]
* Mary, dau : of James Crowshow, of Howden. May 29. [1750] [p.79]
* Grace, dau : of James Crawshow, of Howden. Mar. 22. [1752] [p.81]
* John, son to James Crowshow, of Howden. Sept. 13. [1757] [p.87]
* Richard, son to James Crawshow, of Howden. May 20. [1759] [p.88]

And, of course, in those days of higher infant mortality, there were the inevitable burials listed too:

* Mary, d. to James Crawshow, of Howden. May 2. [1751]

There was also a Robert Crowshay of Howden, who married a Mary Westoby on 13th Feb 1739: they too had a daughter called Grace (born, errrm, 13th February 1739), along with a daughter called Jane (born 22nd September 1741). Moreover, given that a Grace Croashaw (widow) of Howden died in November 1744 [p.72], I think it would seem to be a pretty good bet that she was mother to both James Crowshay and Robert Crowshay, and hence grandmother Grace to the two little Graces (though only overlapping one of them).

As for Margaret Seaton, the LDS site lists three women with that name and of broadly the right age, though we can rule out the third because she married John Staveley in 1745:

* 10th December 1713, Mepal, Cambridge (daughter of John Seaton and Hannah)
* 31st March 1721, Luddington, Lincoln (daughter of John Seaton)
* 6th June 1723, Rothley, Leicester (married John Staveley, 1st October 1745, York)

If James Crowshay was born in 1722, it would surely seem likely that it was the Margaret Seaton born on 31st March 1721 in Luddington whom he married: but all the same it’s hard to be sure.

John Croshay

But wait! There’s also a John Croshay who married Jane Bland on 22nd May 1750, also in Pontefract (presumably All Saints):

“England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N2NR-TQT : 10 February 2018), John Croshay and Jane Bland, 22 May 1750; citing Pontefract,York,England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 990,759.

And then in 1751, a John Crowshay had (I think it’s safe to infer) a daughter Jennet (probably Jeanette?) Crowshay. Here are part of the banns for Jennet’s marriage to John Higgin in August 1767:

According to www.thegenealogist.co.uk website again, John Crawshey was born in Ilkley, Yorkshire, in 1718: so if we are talking about just a single John Crawshey, he would have been four or so years older than James Crowshay.

According to the LDS site, there was a John Crowshaw (son of John Crowshaw) who was christened in Mirfield (near Dewsbury & Batley) on 29 Oct 1727: and the timing for him would be consistent with the 1750 marriage date of this John Crowshay. However this is, for now, just a guess.

At the same time, if it was a 1722-vintage James Crowshay who was taken prisoner on board the Eagle in May 1738 having vigorously resisted the pirates’ attack, he could only have been 16 years old, which is perhaps only just feasible. While if it was John Crawshay instead, he would have been closer to 20 years old, which arguably fits the description slightly better (though not by much).

Unfortunately, I can’t currently tell how old John Crowshay was, so I therefore can’t tell whether our unidentified seaman JCROWSHAY was James Crowshay or John Crowshay (perhaps they were cousins?). But perhaps a Cipher Mysteries reader with greater genealogical skillz than me will be able to find out much more about these two men and their families – I don’t have any subscriptions (and I’m not a member of the LDS), so there’s only so deeply I can dive into this particular pool.

Other James Crowshaws…

Note that there was also a James Crowshaw in Sowerby Bridge, Christ Church, whose children listed on FindMyPast were:

* Ellen Crawshaw [1743]
* John Crowshaw [1745]
* Johanna Crowshaw [1746]
* Jane Crowshaw [1752]

However, given that the first James Crowshay is listed multiple times as “Crowshay” (rather than Crowshaw), the odds are still forever in his favour, one might say. (Though perhaps not by much.)

What do you think? 🙂

To my eyes, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle left two quite distinct legacies. The first, of course, was Sherlock Holmes, his searingly-flawed-but-unstoppably-insightful detective, whose long shadow still hangs over the entire detective fiction genre, 130+ years after A Study in Scarlet.

Yet the second was Conan Doyle’s literary conceit that one can combine wide-ranging observation with pure deduction (as opposed to merely providing a convincing scenario) so powerfully that it can completely reconstruct precisely what happened in cases of murder – which (with all legal caveats for accuracy) would need to be “beyond reasonable doubt”.

The first is fair enough, but the second… has a few issues, let’s say.

“Whatever Remains…”

“How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?” said Holmes in The Sign of Four, H&W’s second novel-sized outing. (Conan Doyle reprised the quote in the short stories The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet and The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier). Arguably one of the most famous Sherlock Holmes lines, this appeals not only to Holmes’ ultimate power of deduction, but also to his implicit omniscience.

Inevitably, this is precisely what the Rational Wiki’s Holmesian Fallacy web page skewers so gleefully, which itself is no more than a nice summary of numerous articles all arguing the same basic thing: that because Holmes could not possibly have conceived all the possible explanations that fitted a given case’s facts and observations, he could not have eliminated all the impossible ones.

Deduction by elimination is OK for maths problems (which are constrained by the walls of their strong logical structure), but it’s far from satisfactory for murder. My best understanding is that proof of murder is now far more often to do with demonstrating a direct forensic connection, i.e. proving a direct evidential connection between a victim’s death and the accused. Once this link is made, proving the precise details is arguably less important: that such a link has been made at all is normally enough to tell the lion’s share of a story beyond reasonable doubt.

All of which would be no more than a legalistic literary footnote for me, were it not the case that in (I would estimate) the majority of unsolved cipher theories, this kind of specious argument is wheeled out in support of the theorist’s headline claim.

Can we ever eliminate all the other possibilities in our search for the historical truth, thus rendering our preferred account the last Holmesian man standing? The answer is, of course, no: but in many ways, even attempting to do this is a misunderstanding of what historical research is all about.

Instead, once we have eliminated those (very few) hypotheses that we can prove to be genuinely impossible with the resources available to us, we then have to shift our focus onto constructing the best positive account we can. And we must accept that this will almost never be without competitors.

“The Curious Incident”

Gregory (Scotland Yard detective): “Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
Holmes: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
Gregory: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
Holmes: “That was the curious incident.”

According to Holmes, “I had grasped the significance of the silence of the dog, for one true inference invariably suggests others….Obviously the midnight visitor was someone whom the dog knew well. It was Straker who removed Silver Blaze from his stall and led him out on to the moor.”

The “curious [non-]incident” (i.e. one that really should have happened but failed to occur) is, according to this legal blog, the piece of Holmesian reasoning most often cited in court. [e.g. “Appellate Court of Connecticut cited in its recent opinion in State v. Rosado, 2012 WL 1003763 (Conn.App. 2012), to answer a hearsay question.”]

In lots of ways, noticing the absence of something is a trick that requires not only keen observation, but also a curiously un-Holmesian empathy for the rhythms, cycles, and sequences of human life. There are forensic voids (e.g. where a removed body covered a blood spatter pattern, as just about any viewer of CSI would know), but behavioural voids? Not so easy.

The Somerton Man

All of which brings me round to Australia’s curious incident of the Somerton Man. What would Sherlock Holmes have made of a death scene riddled with so many voids, so many geese that failed to cackle, so many dingoes that didn’t howl?

Naturally, the biggest absence is the lack of any identity, followed by a lack of a definitive cause of death (though the coroner put it that the death was not natural [Feltus, Ch.10]), along with a lack of any preceding timeline for the man. Beyond these ‘macro-absences’, however, there are numerous micro-absences, all of which would surely have been grist to Holmes’ mental mill:

* Overcoat but no hat
* Tickets (one used, one unused) but no money
* No wallet
* No ration card
* Absence of dirt on his shoes
* Absence of vomit on his clothes or on the beach (despite blood in his stomach)

A particular suitcase (that had been left at Adelaide Railway Station on the morning before the man’s death) then appeared as potential evidence. Once it had been strongly linked with the dead man (thanks to cotton thread), it offered an additional set of absences to puzzle over:

* No shoes (apart from the pair he was wearing)
* He had five ties but no socks (apart from the pair he was wearing)
* Air mail blank letters and six pencils but no inkpen or ink, and no received letters
* Identifying marks (“Kean”, “Keane”, “T Keane”) that led the police investigation nowhere
* Places where Labels attached to a shirt and to the suitcase itself (?) had been removed
* No medicine of any sort (yet the dead man had a significantly enlarged spleen, so one might expect him to have been to a doctor or hospital not long before)

I’ve previously blogged about the “T Keane” marks, arguing that these might well have been donated to charity following the death of local man Tom Keane in January 1947: and separately that the slippers (which were the wrong size for the dead man’s feet) and dressing gown may have been given to him by the local Mission to Seamen (Mrs John Morison was probably the Mission’s hospital visitor). But this is a thread that is hard to sustain further.

I have also blogged about the Somerton Man’s lack of socks, something which vexed Somerton Man blogger Pete Bowes several years back in a (now long-removed) series of posts. I once tried to link these with the rifle stock mysteriously left by young Fred Pruszinski on the beach in a suitcase with lots of socks. Derek Abbott in particular has long been fascinated by what story the absence of socks may be trying to tell us, so perhaps there are more pipes to be smoked before this is resolved.

No Vomit, Sherlock

If this was a setup for a Conan Doyle short story, Sherlock Holmes would surely have pointed out that because the lividity on the dead man’s neck was inconsistent with his position laid on the beach (regardless of alternative explanations Derek Abbott might construct) and there was no vomit at the scene, he most certainly did not die there. And while the absence of a wallet would normally line up with a robbery, the body’s was clearly not so much dumped on the beach as posed, cigarette carefully put in place.

All of which Holmes would no doubt class as wholly inconsistent with any suggestion that the person or persons who did that was/were random muggers. Rather, this was a person who died elsewhere (and who Holmes would perhaps speculate had been laid out horizontally on a small bed post mortem, with his head lolling backwards over the edge), and whose wallet and money (and indeed hat, it would seem) were all removed before being carried to the beach [Gerry Feltus’ “Final Twist” has an eye-witness to a man being carried onto the beach, Ch. 14].

Holmes’ next waypost would be the absence of dirt on the man’s shiny brown shoes: having left his shoe polish in his suitcase, he would surely have been unable to shine his shoes in the time between the morning and his death in the night. And so I think Holmes would triumphantly complete the story told by the lack of vomit: that in his convulsions prior to death, the dead man’s vomit had surely fallen on his hat and shoes, and that someone else – dare I say a woman, Watson? – had cleaned the shoes prior to the man’s being carried off to the beach for his final mise en scène. And though he had eaten a couple of hours before his death, there was no trace of his eating out (another behavioural void to account for): he must therefore have spent some time that evening in a house with a man and a woman, eating with one or both of them.

So: they must have known him, or else they would not have cleaned him up in the way they did: yet they must not have wanted to be linked to his death, for they attempted (unsuccessfully, it has to be said) to stage a mysterious-looking death scene for him, one that would have had no physical connection to them (a pursuit which they were more successful in).

Did those people place the “Tamam Shud” scrap of paper in his fob pocket, as part of their dramatica staging? Holmes would surely think not: whatever its relation to the Rubaiyat allegedly found in the car around that time was, that was surely a separate story entirely, one quite unknown to them. And the car would form the centrepiece of an entirely separate chapter to Conan Doyle’s short story, one perhaps enough to tempt him to draw it out into a novella-sized accoun.

“The Case of the Missing Socks”

Finally, what of the missing socks? Sherlock Holmes would, I think, have first pointed out a sock-related mystery not previously noted elswehere: that even though the dead man’s suitcase had two pairs of Jockey underpants (one clean, one used) it contained not only no socks but no dirty socks either. In what circumstances would a man have dirty underwear but no dirty socks?

Hence once you have followed all the preceding Holmesian logic through, the three pipe problem that remains is this: why would someone walk around Glenelg with a pair of dirty socks, and not leave them in their suitcase back in Adelaide? Or, rather, why would someone travel with three pairs of underwear but only a single pair of socks?

For Holmes, the idea that the dead man would have carried anything around in smelly socks would be nonsensical. So I think the only conclusion the great fictional detective could have come to – having eliminated all he considered impossible – was that the dead man had arrived in Adelaide with something wrapped up in his spare pairs of socks in his suitcase – i.e. that he had brought spare socks with him, but that he was temporarily using them for a different purpose. He had therefore been able to change his underwear that morning but not his socks (because they were being used): moreover, Holmes would have said while tapping his pipe ash out, because the man was expecting to change into his spare socks later, he was without any doubt expecting to deliver what was wrapped up those socks to its destination during that day, and in doing so retrieve his socks.

But Holmes, Watson would ask, what was he carrying in those socks? Rolls of money, perhaps?

At this, Holmes would shake his head: my dear Watson, he would reply, this was not a man of money – his suitcase contents tell stories of ordinary life, of difficult times. He could not have been carrying anything bulky, or people would have noticed: it must have therefore been something valuable on the black market yet carryable beneath an overcoat on a train, bus or tram – and if so, why wrap it in socks for any reason apart from disguising its iconic shape? Hence, having eliminating all the impossible – as I so often do – the only object it can have possibly been was… a rifle fore-end.

My goodness, Holmes, Watson would reply, I do believe you have astounded me yet again. Derek Abbott was right: I shall have to call this The Case of the Missing Socks when I write it up in years to come. And… what of Fred Pruszinski?

What of him indeed, Watson…

“Whatever Remains…” (revisited)

From my perspective, I can see how Holmesian reasoning can almost be made to work: and I would argue that in the otherwise baffling case of the Somerton Man, the kind of short story reasoning I lay out above is just about as connected a positive account as can be genuinely fitted to the evidence. Had the Somerton Man brought something into Adelaide wrapped in his spare socks, expecting to deliver it during the day? It’s a good yarn, for sure, one that could easily be shoehorned into the Holmes and Watson canon. And, moreover, The Case of the Missing Socks does justice to pretty much every aspect of the case, both found and absent.

And yet, a small amount of prodding around the edges would surely display its many cracks and holes: it all remains no more than a story. We lack evidence: and ultimately it is evidence that persuades, evidence that proves, evidence that convicts. Reasoning from that which isn’t there and from that which did not occur all the way to that which did happen is a perilous argumentative tight-rope, a place surely only well-paid QCs and conspiracy theorists would feel comfortable balancing on.

As for me, I’m only comfortable writing this all up under cover of a Sherlock Holmes-themes blog post: but right now, perhaps building on a long series of absences to assemble this kind of novelistic take is as good as we can get. :-/

As a quick reminder, we’re looking for historical evidence (a) of a brig sailing out of England (probably London) to Massachusetts (probably Boston) in late April 1738, and (b) of a proclamation that appeared in a London newspaper listing a reward for the capture of a 4-gun French privateer sloop called “The Eagle” or “L’Aigle”. There may also have been mention of the capture of the brig by the sloop in the Boston newspapers in mid-late May 1738.

I listed the Boston newspapers active in 1738 in a previous post: but what of London newspapers?

Lloyd’s List

Without any real doubt, Lloyds’s List would have listed almost all the ships leaving London for Massachusetts in April/May 1738: and would also very likely have mentioned any proclamation made by the King against a French pirate ship. Unfortunately for us, the earliest (according to the website of the MARINER-L mailing list) extant copy of the post-1735 Lloyd’s List series dates only to 1740/1741:

About mid-March 1735, the list was revised again, with publication changed to twice a week, on Tuesdays and Fridays, and new numbering. Of this series, the earliest surviving copy is dated 2 January 1740/41, and is numbered 560 [reproduced in McCusker, op. cit., pp. 324-325, Fig. 6A and 6B]

All the same, if you’d like to see these for yourself, Google has made available many digitized early copies.

The Penny London post

“The Penny London post, or, The morning advertiser” is listed at the LOC.

Here are the copies I’ve managed to find of it:

* Worldcat lists copies in the Burney collection from 1733-1734 and 1744-1751
* The University of Queensland has copies from 1744 to 1751, which are also available on microfilm from Research Publications, Inc.
* Copies from 1747-1749 are available behind the newspapers.com paywall here –
* The Harry Ransom Center at U of Texas at Austin has a couple from 1750-1751

So… unless there are separate copies of the Penny London post in other archives, it looks very much as though we’re out of luck for 1738, sorry. 🙁

The London Daily Post

The London Daily Post was another London newspaper active in 1738, and is listed at the LOC.

The British Library’s holdings are as follows:

The London Daily Post, and General Advertiser. no. 1-109, 111, 113, 115-119, 136, 203, 205, 207-210, 213, 219, 220, 223, 225, 227, 230, 231, 236, 238, 247-254, 259-677, 854, 1006, 1009-2244, 2558-2908.; 4 Nov. 1734-10 March 1735, 12, 14, 17-21 March-10 April. 27, 30 June, 2-5, 9, 16, 17, 21, 23, 25, 29, 30 July, 5, 7, 16-26 Aug., 1 Sept. 1735-31 Dec. 1736; 27 July 1737; 19, 23 Jan. 1738-31 Dec. 1741; 1 Jan.-10 March 1744.

This is my red-hot top tip for where to look!

Read’s Weekly Journal, or British Gazetteer

The British Library holds the following issues: 283-789, 1331, etc. 22 Aug. 1730-22 Dec. 1739; 3 March 1750-2 May 1761. So this too is a newspaper of the day that needs checking.

Other London newspapers of the time

The British Library also lists:

* The Universal London Morning Advertiser. London, 1743-1744
* Parker’s Penny Post. no. [1-]414. 28 April 1725?-29 Dec. 1727.

I also saw a brief mention of an unnamed Irish newspaper dating back to 1738, which might possibly be a additional source for North Atlantic shipping- and piracy-related news of the day.

Incidentally, webpages posted up by assidous historical newspaper raiders can often list numerous publications that rarely appear in formal lists of newspapers. For a good (if slightly startling) example, I can recommend The Rabbit Woman as collected by Rictor Norton from various obscure sources: and also an online bibliography of the Slave Trade, both of which I am now following through carefully.

Many Eagles

Just so you know, by 1744 there was an English privateer called Eagle sailing out of Dover (Captain Bazely): and in 1745, a new incarnation of HMS Eagle had also been launched. So please try not to get too excited about finding mentions of the Eagle in post-1738 newspapers. :-/

I’ve been carefully reading the diary entry scanned in from the Prince Edward Island Magazine by Matt Malone, and wondering if it might be possible to reconstruct the secret history yet further. We now have what seems likely to be a name for the person who constructed the cryptogram: while the account gives a number of pointers to specific pieces of historical evidence that could feasibly be tracked down. Hence I thought I’d post a list of possible research leads to follow.

J Crowshay?

What little I can see beyond ancestry.com’s paywall is that a James Crowshay (born 1715?, hence aged 23 in 1738) married a certain Margaret Seuton. This seems to have been in York (according to this Spanish Geneanet page).

Might this J Crowshay have been the same young man who was (according the diary account) a seaman on a brig (presumably sailing out of London) bound for the (then British colony of) Massachusetts in late April or early May 1738 that was accosted by the French sloop L’Aigle (The Eagle); and who was rewarded for his zeal in defending the brig against French pirates by being taken prisoner by them? “The ship escaped without serious injury”, but was most likely relieved of all its cargo (and the single fighty seaman taken prisoner).

The Attacked Brig?

If the account of the French seaman (who had returned to Prince Edward Island to dig up the treasure, but had found his memory wanting) is correct, the ship from which the young seaman was taken prisoner was a brig (only lightly armed merchant ship) on its way to Massachusetts, so probably sailing into Boston.

Might there have been a mention of this action in the Massachusetts press of late May 1738 not long after the brig presumably arrived there?

As far as I can see, there were six newspapers published in Massachusetts during 1738, all from Boston (none of which are in the LOC, while Harbottle Dorr Jr’s newspapers all start from 1765, while BGSU doesn’t list any from 1738 as being freely available on the Internet). GenealogyBank has copies from 1735 for name searches, but behind a paywall.

The newspapers I’d like to have a look at for May 1738 are as follows, two of which are listed on the Massachusetts Historical Society’s ABIGAIL database:
* Boston Evening-Post
* Boston Gazette
* Boston Weekly News-letter
* The Boston Weekly Post-boy (Massachusetts Historical Society: OFFSITE STORAGE SH 18R2 )
* The New England Weekly Journal (Massachusetts Historical Society: OFFSITE STORAGE SH 18XP Q (1733-1738) )

If anyone has shelfmarks in different archives for the other newspapers, please let me know, thanks!

Other newspapers may be listed in (1907) Check-list of Boston Newspapers, 1704-1780, which I haven’t yet consulted.

The Eagle or L’Aigle?

The diary account includes no names or details of the French pirate ship The Eagle (L’Aigle). However, the French seaman telling the story to the diarist relates that the young seaman taken prisoner had in his possession a newspaper account (published “in the city of London”) that detailed how the King (presumably of England) had made a proclamation offering several hundred pounds for the capture of The Eagle.

If this is correct, it should be possible to find a copy of this proclamation – it (and/or any copies of it in the London press) may well have additional information. However, all I have found so far for 1738 relates specifically to Spanish attacks on British shipping than with the French:

Alderman Perry, on the 3d of March [1738] brought into the house of commons a petition from the merchants, planters, and others, interested in the American trade, specifying these articles of complaint, which they recommended to the consideration of the house. This petition with others of a like nature, which produced warm debates, were referred to a committee of the whole house, and an order was made to admit the petitioners to be heard by themselves or by counsel. Sir John Barnard moved for an address to the king, that all the memorials and papers relating to the Spanish depredations, should be laid before the house, which with some alteration proposed by Sir Robert Walpole, was actually presented, and a favourable answer was returned.

This parliamentary debate appears in the History and Proceedings of the House of Commons Vol. 10. The King of England in 1738 was George II, for whose coronation Handel wrote “Zadok The Priest”: his response to the petition made no mention of the French:

Gentlemen,

I Am fully sensible of the many and unwarrantable Depredations committed by the Spaniards; and you may be assured, I will make use of the most proper and effectual Means, that are in my Power, to procure Justice and Satisfaction to my injured Subjects, and for the future Security of their Trade and Navigation. I can make no Doubt, but you will support me, with Chearfulness, in all such Measures, as, in Pursuance of your Advice, I may be necessitated to take, for the Honour of my Crown and Kingdoms, and the Rights of my People.”

Any good suggestions as to where to look next?

Thanks to help from Cipher Mysteries commenters Paul Relkin and Thomas, it became clear that though my initial attempt at cracking the Hollow River Cipher was close, it wasn’t as close as it could have been. Essentially, even though I worked out the upper case / lower case trick and what I thought was a single cipher, it turned out that there were actually two separate ciphers in play (i.e. for lower case letters in the cryptogram) that the encipherer could choose from, either a +1 Caesar Shift or a -2 Caesar Shift.

It then became acutely clear that the otherwise mysterious line “2 = 1. 1 = 3. A = A.” in the cryptogram was therefore the key to the cipher, where the two Hollow River Cipher alphabets are as follows:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z A  (+1 Caesar Shift)
X Z A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X  (-2 Caesar Shift)

This means that we can decrypt almost all of the cryptogram, leaving only a handful of letters ambiguous. Here are the workings out:

e q E m e g u k O O o k A I k E    [= cryptogram]
F R E N F H V L O O P L A I L E    [= +1 Caesar Shift if lower case]
C O E K C E S I O O M I A I I E    [= -2 Caesar Shift if lower case]
F R E N C H S L O O P L A I L E    [= Most likely plaintext]

i U k e u s k A y q E m E o A Y 10, 1738
J U L F V T L A Z R E N E P A Y 
G U I C S Q I A W O E K E M A Y
G U L F S T L A W R E N E M A Y 10, 1738

o q I u O m E q f U A q c E c e q e y O
P R I V O N E R G U A R D E D F R F Z O 
M O I S O K E O D U A O A E A C O C W O 
P R I S O N E R G U A R D E D C R E W O

m u g O q E
N V H P R E 
K S E M O E 
N S H O R E

k E A i M E y E u s m A U e q A i E
L E A J N E Z E V T N A U F R A J E 
I E A G K E W E S Q K A U C O A G E
L E A G U E W E S T N A U F R A G E

I . u s i o
I . V T J P
I . S Q G M
I . ? ? ? M

g m o k A m w m m O y m I m s E m c y q
H N P L A N X N N O Z N I N T E N D Z R
E K M I A K U K K O W K I K Q E K A W O
E N P L A N U N N O W N I N T E N D W R

E e m u g I o s O O m A k k i U m u A m c s q E A u U q E j I c c E m k I m
E F N V H I P T O O N A L L J U N V A N D T R E A V U R E K I D D E N L I N
E C K S E I M Q O O K A I I G U K S A K A Q O E A S U O E H I A A E K I I K
E C K S H I P T O O K A L L G U N S A N D T R E A S U R E H I D D E N ? I N 

e i u E E I i g s u O m E g U m c q g c A m c E k E n E m Y e w w o u o A k k
F J V E E I J H T V O N E H U N D R H D A N D E L E O E N Y F X X P V P A L L 
C G S E E I G E Q S O K E E U K A O E A A K A E I E L E K Y C U U M S M A I I
F I V E E I G H T S O N E H U N D R E D A N D E L E V E N ? ? ? U P S M A L L

u s q g A o - k I m E g A k e k E m i s g m . y E u s e q O o u O u s g E m e - o
V T R H A P - L I N E H A L F L E N J T H N . Z E V T F R O P V O V T H E N F - P
S Q O E A M - I I K E E A I C I E K G Q E K . W E S Q C O O M S O S Q E E K C - M
S T R E A M - L I N E H A L F L E N G T H N . W E S T F R O M S O U T H E N D - P

I s u o I c c k k E u E e O m c . i e q O y u g A Y .
I T V P I D D L L E V E F O N D . J F R O Z V H A Y .
I Q S M I A A I I E S E C O K A . G C O O W S E A Y .
I T S M I D D L L E S E C O N D . J C R O W S H A Y .

This gives the following net decryption:

FRENCH SLOOP L’AI[G]LE
GULF ST LAWREN[C]E MAY 10, 1738
PRISONER GUARDED CREW ONSHORE
LEAGUE WEST NAUFRAGE
I. ???
MEN PLAN UNNOWN INTEND WRECK SHIP TOOK ALL GUNS AND TREASURE HIDDEN ? IN
FIVE EIGHTS ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN ??? UP SMALL
STREAM – LINE HALF LENGTH N. WEST FROM SOUTH END –
PITS MIDDLLE SECOND. J CROWSHAY.

If the “L’Aigle” was the French Sloop ‘Eagle’ mentioned in the diary entry, then I’m almost certain that the “FIVE EIGHTS” were five 8-pounder cannon boxes. Moreover, my best guess for the final ??? is that this is YDS (i.e. “ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN Y[AR]DS UP SMALL STREAM”).

Hence it seems that what we have managed to decrypt is indeed exactly the kind of treasure map every schoolboy since Treasure Island has fantasized about:

1) TOOK ALL GUNS AND TREASURE HIDDEN ? IN FIVE EIGHTS
2) ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVEN Y[AR]DS UP SMALL STREAM (i.e. the Hollow River)
3) LINE HALF LENGTH N[ORTH] WEST FROM SOUTH END
4) PITS MIDDLE SECOND
5) [Signed] J CROWSHAY

So, if you walk 111 yards up Hollow River, then follow a line roughly half that length (say, 55 yards) in a north-westerly direction from the south end, you might well find pits containing five eight-pounder cannon stuffed out with treasure. (The “Legend” specifically mentions five pits!)

Of course, I’d say that there’s a 90+% chance that this Hollow River Treasure has been cleared out or robbed out over the centuries (particularly given what was related in the “Legend” article), but you can never be 100% sure of what’s still there, eh? So… do we have any Cipher Mysteries readers on Prince Edward Island? (Asking is free, right? 🙂 )

Here, courtesy of Cipher Mysteries reader Matt Malone, is a new historical cipher that he calls the “Hollow River Cipher”, which he found in a magazine from the early 1900s called “The Prince Edward Island Magazine” while on vacation. (There are 67 issues scanned online here from 1899 to 1905, so other interesting stories may well be lurking there for the persistent.)

The first part of the story, related by Mr Senachie, was on pages 163-164 of the July 1900 edition:

This mentioned a pair of strange rectangular pits that appeared near the Hollow River around 1840 one March, that some thought might be to do with treasure pits.

A follow-on article by “D. A. W.” appeared on pages 241-248 of the October 1900 edition:

This related a story copied from “a remnant of a comprehensive diary”, dated 1749, that described a cryptogram dated 1738 that the diary writer had found written on folded parchment in a floating bottle, as well as a story of how some treasure was buried (allegedly in 1738) in similar size holes to the ones (presumably uncovered by the winter’s frost) found in 1840.

All the pages can be conveniently found on a single imgur webpage, courtesy of Matt Malone. Or, if you want to download all the pages in one go, Matt has very kindly placed a single zipfile here.

The Hollow River Cipher

Of course, we cipher people have long learnt not to put too much trust in the stories that end up backfilled around unsolved ciphers (e.g. the Beale Ciphers etc). Rather, we must instead start with the cryptogram itself as reproduced in the PEI Magazine:

Here’s my transcription of the cryptogram in the magazine:

e q E m e g u k O O o k A I k E              |    m u g O q E
i U k e u s k A y q E m E o A Y 10, 1738     |  k E A i M E y E u s m A U e q A i E
2 = 1.          1 = 3.        A = A.         |    I. u s i o
o q I u O m E q f U A q c E c e q e y O      |  g m o k A m w m m O y m I m s E mc y q
E e m u g I o s O O m A k k i U m u A m c s q E A u U q E J I c c e m k I m
e i u E E I i g s u O m E g u m c q g c A mc E k E n E m Y e w w o u o A k k
u s q g A o-k I m E g A k c k E m i s g m. y E u s eq O o u O u s g E m e-o
I s u o I c c k k E u E e O m c. i eq O y u g A Y.

My initial decryption notes:
1) the letters appears to have been spaced apart for clarity (which is nice)
2) the two panels of lines 1-4 appear to be intended to be read left-half then right-half
3) the top left of lines 1-2 is probably the place/date where/when the note was composed
4) the left half of line 3 appears to have a somewhat mysterious structure
5) some pairs of letters have no space between: mc (lines #4 and #6), eq (lines #6 and #7)
6) there are a few hyphens and a few full stops, almost all in the final two lines.
7) having been found off Canada, the plaintext language is probably French or English

Now, I could leave this for my readers to figure out (which is what Klaus Schmeh does with his messages found in bottles)… but many apologies, becauseI’ve basically cracked most of it already. So here’s what it (mostly) says:

Nick’s Decryption

Using the above transcription carefully, CryptoCrack was able to help move me far enough in the right direction to work out the basic idea behind this cryptogram. The big trick is that only lower case letters are enciphered, i.e. upper case letters are completely unenciphered (and these are usually vowels).

Once you’ve got that idea worked out, you then have to try to read past the inevitable enciphering errors and copying errors that cryptograms almost always include. (Here we have parchment -> diary -> copy of diary -> article passed to editors -> article typeset in magazine.)

Where a letter seems to have been omitted in the plaintext, I’ve inserted an underscore. A few letters have been manually corrected to the most probable, but it’s pretty much all as it should be:

eqEmegukOOok_AI_kE
FRENCHSLOOPL'AIGLE

iUkeuskAyqEm_EoAY10,1738
GULFSTLAWRENCEMAY10,1738

2 = 1.   1 = 3.   A = A.
(No idea what these mean)

oqIuOmEqfUAqcEceqeyO
PRISONERQUARTERCREWO

mugOqE
NSHORE

kEAiMEyEusmAUeqAiE
LEAGUEWESTNAUFRAGE ---- ("naufrage" = "shipwreck" in French)

I.usio
I.STGM   (no idea about this bit)

gmokAm_wm_mOymImsEmcyq
ENGLANDUNKNOWNINTENDWR    ("England" is a bit of a guess here, though very close)

EemugIosOOmAkkiUmuAmcsqEAuUqEJIccemkIm
EFNSHIMTOONALLGUNSANDTREASUREHIDDENLIN

eiuEEIigsuOmEgumcqgcAmcEkEnEmYewwouoAkk
FGSEEINGITSONEISDTHDANDELE?ENYFUUMSMALL

usqgAo-kImEgAkckEmisgm.yEuseqOuOusgEme-o
STREAM-LINEHALDLENGTHN.WESTFROSOSTHENF-M

IsuoIcckkEuEeOmc.ieqOyugAY
ITSMIDDLLESEFOND.GFROWSHAY

My best guess is that “GFROWSHAY” is the name of the English sailor writing this note, though there may well be errors in his name. 🙁 And might the “SMALL STREAM” be the Hollow River (which was indeed little more than a creek)?

Overall, here’s my attempt at reconstructing the enciphering table, though many of the cryptogram’s slips and miscopies have made it hard to be 100% certain:

a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z
C - D - F Q H - G - L - N - M - R - T - S - U - W -

My best guess is that “2 = 1. 1 = 3. A = A.” is somehow an aide-memoire for the cipher table. But I don’t know exactly how.

But It’s Not All Over Yet…

Tantalizingly, the lines containing the phrase “ALL GUNS AND TREASURE HIDDEN” onward are extremely hard to make out. So now that I’ve got this started, this is where my talented readers come in, to try to resolve all the genuinely difficult stuff that I’m unable to.

What can you clever people make of the rest of this? Does it describe where to find treasure? 🙂