At last (Take #2): “Ronald Francis” was chemist John Freeman of 24A Jetty Road, Glenelg…

by ⋅ 130 Comments

Apologies again for previously repeating the incorrect identification of “Ronald Francis” as Dr Douglas Buxton Hendrickson. However I can fully rectify that in the best way possible, by passing on today’s announcement courtesy of Gerry Feltus: from which we can say (hopefully definitively) that “Ronald Francis” – in whose car the Rubaiyat was found – was in fact chemist John Freeman of 24A Jetty Road, Glenelg.

I have established that the person who owned the car in which the relevant copy of the Rubaiyat was located and his wife are both deceased. Their next of kin have recently given me permission to release identities and details relevant to the ‘Unknown Man’ investigation. John Freeman, in December, 1948, was a Chemist, and resided with his wife in premises attached to their Chemist shop, at 24A Jetty Road, Glenelg. Their family car, a small Hillman Minx was more often than not parked in Jetty Road, outside their shop/residence.

Gerry Feltus goes on to say that he will soon be releasing more details about the interviews he carried out, which I (unsurprisingly) very much look forward to reading.

Trove had no obvious reference to John Freeman: but in January 1945, a Colin Charles Freeman did have a thief in his Jetty Road flat stealing a purse containing four pounds and six shillings. This leads us to an announcement dated 11 Sep 1945:

To whom it may concern. Declaration is hereby made that on August 20, 1945, Colin Charles Freeman and John Christian Freeman, chemists, of Adelaide, disposed of all interest and share in, and connection with, Howard Products. Aust.

With this, plus a little help from a long-running Somerton Man thread on Reddit, we can see that the two Freeman chemists were both cremated in Centennial Park:
* Colin Charles Freeman died on 23 March 1985. (Last abode: Somerton Park)
* John Christian Freeman died on 20 January 2014. (Last abode: Belair)

Both brothers are also listed as associates of the University of Adelaide in the 1955 Calendar (p.140):
* Freeman, Colin Charles…..1944
* Freeman, John Christian….1943

Beyond that, however, there seems to be little in Trove or elsewhere about either of them. Though I suspect this may improve before very long…

John Christian Freeman

According to Rootsweb:

Birth: 10 Jul 1922 in Parkside, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Note: Born: John Christian FREEMAN. Father : Charles Herbert FREEMAN. Mother : Doris Sylvia BERNAN.
Source : South Australian Births 1907 – 1928. Book : 98A Page : 358 District : Ade.

Colin Charles Freeman

According to Rootsweb:

Birth: 11 Dec 1920 in Unley, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Note: Born: Colin Charles FREEMAN. Father : Charles Herbert FREEMAN. Mother: Doris Sylvia BERNAN.
Source : South Australian Births 1907 – 1928. Book : 67A Page : 109 District : Ade.

According to the MyHeritage site:

Colin Charles Freeman was born in 1922, to Charles Herbert Freeman and Doris Sylvia Freeman [nee Bernau]
Charles was born on May 4 1897, in West Thebarton, South Australia, Australia.
Doris was born on July 18 1898, in Eaglehawk, Victoria, Australia.
Colin had 2 siblings.
Colin married Margaret Cynthia Freeman (born Grasby) on [– –] 1944, at age 22 at [——].
Margaret was born on September 25 1922, in “Xarma” Nursing Home, South Terrace, South Australia, Australia.
They had 2 children.
Colin passed away on [March 23] 1985, at age 63.

While at the University of Adelaide, he passed his Practical Inorganic Chemistry examination in 1940.

Finally: for those interested in car-related stories, Colin Charles Freeman appeared in court in regard to a driving incident in 1941:

At an Inquest yesterday into the death of Elizabeth Matthew Harrod, 71, pensioner of Milner street, Prospect, the Acting city Coroner (Mr. G. Ziesing) found that she died at the Royal Adelaide Hospital on May 24 from multiple injuries received when she was struck by a motor car on the Main North road Enfield, on the same day.
Mr. Ziesing found that the negligence of the driver, Colin Charles Freeman, chemist, of Nottage terrace, Medindle Gardens, was not sufficiently culpable to warrant his taking further action.

Hendrickson REWIIIIIIIIIIIIND….?!?!?

by ⋅ 19 Comments

I’ve just had a nice email from Derek Abbott, who tells me that even though the recent documentary’s producer Wayne Groom was – for a long time – convinced that Ronald Francis was Dr Donald Buxton Hendrickson of 13 Pier-street etc etc, he is now no longer sure. Did someone come forward with a name? I now don’t know. Whatever happened to have been said or claimed at the Glenelg screening of the film, everyone involved now appears to be back-pedalling all the way off the end of Glenelg Pier. Which normally ends badly.

To be precise, the Hendrickson name first came up in 2011 when an online researcher (who had been working his way through a list of nearby doctors) ran it past Derek Abbott. Of course, because Dr Hendrickson died in 1979, Derek dismissed it as being incompatible with Gerry Feltus’s account: but as with all mildly-encrypted historical stories, there’s still plenty of room for substitution and adjustment, so who knows?

So now it looks like we may have had a false alarm here. Not sure. Really don’t know. Just thought I’d let you all know.

Trying to identify the mysterious letter ‘^’ on the top line of Voynich f116v…

by ⋅ 49 Comments

It is both interesting and intriguing that Voynich f116v – the final page of the Voynich Manuscript – contains several lines of as-yet-unaccounted-for text. What is interesting is that these lines are almost entirely unlike the “Voynichese” text that fills the rest of the manuscript, and are written in a recognizably European gothic hand typical of the 14th, 15th and indeed early 16th century. Hence they really ought to be easily readable – but what is intriguing is that this seems not to be the case at all.

As with all cipher mysteries, their unreadability has spawned a myriad of dubious readings, starting in the 1920s with Newbold’s “Michiton oladabas multos te tccr cerc portas” (which he squinterpreted as “Michi dabas multas portas”), through the 1970s with Brumbaugh’s “MICHI CON OLADA BA” (which Brumbaugh thought somehow referred to Roger BACON, *sigh*), and onwards and downwards from there. Even Rene Zandbergen, tongue firmly in cheek, once proposed that because the main f116v text block begins with “mich” and ends with “nich”, it can surely only be a veiled reference to Mich[ael Voy]nich himself. (As if Rich SantaColoma needs any more hoaxoline to hurl on his fire, *sigh*.)

Objectively, though, the text on f116v really ought to be the most obvious ‘way in’ to understanding the Voynich Manuscript’s physical history, simply because there’s no obvious reason why it would be enciphered or encoded: and hence careful codicological examination should normally be sufficient to work out not only what was originally written here, but also – as I carefully described back in 2006 – what emendations later owners made (presumably in the name of ‘preservation’) to leave it in such a parlously unreadable state.

Some multispectral imaging has been carried out at the Beinecke, but (unless you know better) only low-quality images leaked out and no paper was ever written. Here’s what the f116v text looks like at (“MB570AM_027_F”), which – I think – shows that there were at least two codicological layers that need to be separated:

Yet here we are, more than a decade after “The Curse of the Voynich” and not obviously any further forward. 🙁 But perhaps there are ways we can make progress… 🙂

A Closer Look At The Top Line

Rather than getting hung up on the bottom three lines, I’d like to focus purely on the top line.

I’ve previously proposed (in 2009) that the ‘^’ shape at the beginning of two of the words might be an ‘s’ shape, e.g. “simon sint (something)”:

Looking at this line in one of the multispectral scans (“MB625RD_006_F”), we can see that there is also evidence of emendation in the letters, but that the base codicological layer is different to that of the “a+hia + maria” layer (which I suspect was the earliest layer):

I think this provides strong evidence – though far from definitive, of course, because of the low quality of the images – that we are looking at at least three codicological layers of text on this page.

What Is That ^ Shape?

Over the last decade, I’ve looked at loads of palaeography books; I’ve read Derolez’s “The Palaeography of Gothic Manuscript Books”; and I just haven’t founf anything that looks like the ‘^’ shape on this line.

I’m not really comfortable with J.K.Petersen’s 2013 claim that “The first letter might be a ‘u'”. And similarly, though I understand where he’s coming from, David Jackson’s reading of this whole line as “Por seber vm cn autentico afecto” seems a little premature, given the codicological difficulties I think we continue to face with almost every letter.

I happily concede that it is possible (as Anton Alipov suggested in a 2015 comment, and also in a post on his blog) the two ^ shapes are the heads of two ‘p’ shape, where the descenders have disappeared. However, given that there seems to be not a hint of this in the multispectral scans, it is far from my preferred explanation. Johannes Albus’ rendering of this line as “poxleber umen[do] putriter” is an example of a reading that requires the second ^ shape to have been a ‘p’.

The alternative remains that this ^ shape is a rare way of writing a Gothic ‘s’ shape, albeit one I’ve not yet managed to find anywhere. But if someone does, I suspect that it will probably be in a mid-fifteenth century document that was written not too far from Konstanz, just so you know. 😉

Has any Voynich researcher already tried hunting for this particular Gothic letter shape in the archives? If yes, then did you find anything? (I know about CSG 754 that Anton mentioned in the context of its spell blocks.)

At last: “Ronald Francis” was Dr Douglas Buxton Hendrickson of 13 Pier St, Glenelg..

by ⋅ 56 Comments

Thanks to online commenter Clive (who was at a screening of the Somerton Man documentary in Glenelg a short time ago), we now know that “Ronald Francis” (in whose car the Somerton Man’s Rubaiyat was found) was in fact Dr Douglas Buxton Hendrickson of 13 Pier St, Glenelg. The information (announced by Derek Abbott at the showing) appeared online on Gordon Cramer’s blog, where it rapidly accreted additional notes courtesy of Byron Deveson and others.

Here’s a picture of Dr Hendrickson from 1950 (found by Clive in Trove):

We know a little more about his (non-medical) interests from this 1944 article:

DR. D. B. Hendrickson’s election to the Glenelg Council for St. Leonard’s Ward comes at an appropriate time, for it is just 105 years since his great-grandfather, the late Mr. John Lawrence) landed from Holdfast Bay at St. Leonards after a voyage from Fifeshire (Scotland). At 34. Dr. Hendrickson is the youngest member of the council. He is a brother of Lyndall Hendrickson, the violinist. He learned the piano for 18 months, when a boy. but says he then became lazy. There was certainly no sign of laziness about him in the boxing ring. A fine amateur boxer, he not only won his Adelaide University blue for boxing, but also displayed great gameness in the ring.

Other hobbies include debating, horse riding, surfing, fishing, and stamp collecting.

Dr Hendrickson’s Timeline

* 18th February 1911: born in Balaklava, South Australia.
* 15th June 1933: Married Eileen Ivy Schurgott at Claremont, South Australia
* Dec 1941: Divorced
* 25th July 1942: Married Doris Arculas Arculus Davis at Perth, WA
* 23rd September 1979: Died Adelaide

From this, it was immediately clear that Gerry Feltus (who was assigned the Somerton Man cold case after 2000, The Unknown Man pp.11) could not have interviewed Dr Hendrickson (who had died in 1979). So it seems a reasonably safe bet that it was not Hendrickson himself but rather Hendrickson’s brother-in-law with whom Gerry Feltus had talked (The Unknown Man pp.104-105). However, Dr Hendrickson had two younger sisters…

* Cynthia Elizabeth b. Gilbert, SA in 1914. (Died 7th April 2008 at Holly Residential Care, Adelaide.)
* Lyndall Maud b. Gilbert, SA in 1917.

…and hence two brothers-in-law…

* Cynthia married Sgt. John Hurst in March 1945.
* Lyndall married Surgeon-Lieut. Graeme Robson, son of Lieut.-Colonel and Mrs. O. W. E. Robson, of Mosman.

There’s a nice picture of (the very talented violinist) Lyndall Hendrickson from 1942 here:

It was reported before Lyndall’s marriage in 1946 that she planned to move to England to continue her musical career there. So… might she still be alive and living in Penzance in Cornwall (at the tender age of 101)? It’s possible.

Two Hendrickson Car Stories

Here’s the first one from 1946:

Car Licence Suspended For an Hour

One hour’s disqualification from driving his car was imposed by Mr. Coombe, S.M.. in the Adelaide Police Court today on Dr. Douglas Buxton Hendrickson, of Pier street, Glenelg, who pleaded guilty to a charge of having driven his car at Adelaide on November 2 while it was uninsured.
In addition to the disqualification he was fined £5.
For having on the same day driven his motor car while it was unregistered he was fined £1 with 10/ costs.

MINIMUM REDUCED

Mr. Coombe said that he would not have ordered any disqualification in this case had he the power to do so. However, he could reduce the minimum term of three months.
Dr. Hendrickson told the court that owing to the pressure of work during the recent measles epidemic he had overlooked the matter of the renewal of his car’s insurance and registration.
When he was stopped by motor traffic police at 11.45 a.m. on November 2 he was returning from the city, where he had been to collect measles serum.
“If my licence is suspended for any great length of time I will find it difficult to carry on my practice without inconvenience to my patients.” said Dr. Hendrickson.

Mr. Coombe said that there were special reasons why, in this case, he had decided to reduce the minimum fine and term of disqualification.
Mr. J. L. Travers appeared for Dr. Hendrickson.

And (on a lighter note) here’s the second one from 1941:

Girl Charmed A Snake; Can’t Get Rid Of It.

MISS LYNDALL HENDRICKSON, TALENTED YOUNG ADELAIDE VIOLINIST, IS SORRY NOW THAT SHE CHARMED A PYTHON.

It followed her into a car at Whyalla, when, for a bet, she charmed it with her violin music.

She had to return to Port Augusta with the python a 6½ft. pet of a Whyalla storekeeper — behind the back seat.

It was still there the next morning. The owner wants it back alive, so, if Miss Hendrickson can’t charm it out of the car with her violin, part of the car will have to be dismantled.

(Lyndall had another snake-related story reported here.)

Introduction to Beale Cipher B2…

by ⋅ 5 Comments

To decipher the sequence of numbers that make up the second Beale Cipher (‘B2’), you use them to index into the words a slightly-mucked-around version of the Declaration of Independence (A.K.A. a “book cipher” / “dictionary cipher”): the sequence of initial letters this produces yields the decrypted plaintext. Errm… except that this isn’t the whole story: thanks to the Committee of Five’s inexplicable omission of a right to bear xylophones, yoyos, or zebras, the B2 cipher maker also had to improvise a second “rare letter cipher” to encipher rare word-initial letters such as x- and y-. (But that’s a post for another day.)

For book ciphers that literally use dictionaries as their code book, this wouldn’t be a problem (because they necessarily go all the way from aardvarks to zymurgy). Of course, given that the letters of the alphabet appear there in strictly ascending order, using an actual dictionary would probably be a bit dumb. Hence people use book ciphers instead, preferably ones with zebras playing xylophones. 😉

So: strictly speaking, then, Beale Cipher B2 doesn’t employ a pure book cipher, but instead uses a slightly hybridized one, where letters absent from the DoI get enciphered by some (currently) unknown means. So here are some numbers to introduce how the book cipher part of the B2 cipher system works.

B2’s Mapping Statistics

I haven’t seen B2’s letter mapping statistics anywhere on the Internet, so I thought this would be a good place to start (note q and z are not used in B2, so do not appear):

* a [43/15,av=2.9,34.9%]: 24[4] 36[2] 28[5] 147[2] 45[1] 81[4] 98[3] 51[4] 284[1] 150[6] 27[2] 230[4] 83[2] 25[2] 152[1]
* b [11/7,av=1.6,63.6%]: 308[1] 9[1] 77[4] 18[2] 134[1] 485[1] 194[1]
* c [19/7,av=2.7,36.8%]: 84[7] 65[2] 92[2] 4[3] 94[1] 200[2] 21[2]
* d [49/11,av=4.5,22.4%]: 52[10] 15[8] 211[3] 118[4] 63[11] 252[1] 135[2] 246[3] 320[5] 406[1] 582[1]
* e [103/14,av=7.4,13.6%]: 37[13] 49[6] 7[15] 79[4] 85[11] 138[15] 191[7] 620[2] 486[3] 511[6] 548[2] 603[4] 575[2] 33[13]
* f [21/8,av=2.6,38.1%]: 196[4] 160[4] 122[6] 273[1] 131[3] 360[1] 666[1] 11[1]
* g [15/4,av=3.8,26.7%]: 270[3] 48[6] 113[5] 133[1]
* h [37/8,av=4.6,21.6%]: 73[8] 107[5] 394[1] 6[4] 20[9] 301[2] 205[7] 466[1]
* i [55/12,av=4.6,21.8%]: 115[5] 647[1] 140[15] 2[7] 8[12] 154[4] 314[2] 159[1] 67[4] 185[1] 241[2] 370[1]
* j [2/2,av=1.0,100.0%]: 120[1] 581[1]
* k [1/1,av=1.0,100.0%]: 305[1]
* l [32/10,av=3.2,31.3%]: 42[5] 101[6] 102[7] 234[1] 400[4] 158[3] 197[1] 420[3] 177[1] 405[1]
* m [6/4,av=1.5,66.7%]: 58[1] 82[1] 117[2] 208[2]
* n [69/8,av=8.6,11.6%]: 47[13] 10[13] 287[8] 353[8] 607[2] 540[10] 44[13] 557[2]
* o [63/12,av=5.3,19.0%]: 31[7] 56[4] 5[4] 136[3] 46[4] 106[15] 12[6] 43[6] 57[2] 125[9] 143[1] 302[2]
* p [12/4,av=3.0,33.3%]: 17[1] 105[4] 30[5] 121[2]
* r [40/7,av=5.7,17.5%]: 59[5] 53[9] 96[8] 220[8] 248[2] 344[2] 112[6]
* s [48/12,av=4.0,25.0%]: 62[5] 35[6] 71[4] 78[2] 110[11] 38[9] 217[2] 505[3] 600[2] 297[1] 275[2] 285[1]
* t [69/17,av=4.1,24.6%]: 22[4] 29[5] 26[6] 554[1] 3[5] 41[6] 16[9] 34[5] 60[2] 61[3] 14[7] 50[6] 32[4] 64[2] 39[1] 643[2] 288[1]
* u [24/8,av=3.0,33.3%]: 239[3] 316[5] 95[3] 250[6] 371[3] 388[2] 409[1] 440[1]
* v [18/1,av=18.0,5.6%]: 807[18]
* w [13/6,av=2.2,46.2%]: 72[2] 290[1] 19[2] 66[2] 40[5] 1[1]
* x [4/1,av=4.0,25.0%]: 1005[4] (though note that the DOI has no word beginning with x-.)
* y [9/1,av=9.0,11.1%]: 811[9] (though note that #811 = FUNDAMENTALLY, i.e. the DOI has no word beginning with y-.)

That is, ‘a’ appears 43 times in B2 and has 15 homophones, which means that the average number of instances per individual ‘a’ homophone is 2.9, and the proportion of ‘a’ homophones to ‘a’ instances is 34.9%: specifically, index #24 appears 4 times, index 36 appears 2 times, index #28 appears 5 times, and so on.

We can also list these results in order of the well-known ETAOINSHRDLU decreasing frequency mnemonic:
* E [103/14,av=7.4,13.6%]
* T [69/17,av=4.1,24.6%]
* A [43/15,av=2.9,34.9%]
* O [63/12,av=5.3,19.0%]
* I [55/12,av=4.6,21.8%]
* N [69/8,av=8.6,11.6%]
* S [48/12,av=4.0,25.0%]
* H [37/8,av=4.6,21.6%]
* R [40/7,av=5.7,17.5%]
* D [49/11,av=4.5,22.4%]
* L [32/10,av=3.2,31.3%]
* U [24/8,av=3.0,33.3%]

Hence the actual implicit frequency ordering (i.e. in terms of decreasing number of homophones used in B2) was more like:

* 17 T
* 15 A
* 14 E
* 12 O/I/S
* 11 D
* 10 L
* 8 F/H/N/U
etc

DOI letter statistics

We can also look at the letter statistics for the DOI (numbers corrected as per B2), and at how many times each index is used in the B2 ciphertext (i.e. ‘.’ = “index not used”):

* a occurs 166 times: (4)(2)(2)(5)(2)(1)(4)(4)(2).(3)…..(2)(6)(1)………..(4)……(1)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
* b occurs 48 times: (1)(2)(4).(1)(1)…(1)…(1)…………………………….
* c occurs 53 times: (3)(2)(2)(5)(2)(1)..(2)……………………………………..
* d occurs 36 times: (8)(10)(11)(4)(2).(3)(3)(1).(5)(1)….(1)……………….
* e occurs 37 times: (15)(13)(13)(6)(4)(13).(15).(7)….(3)..(6).(2)(2)(4)(2)…………..
* f occurs 64 times: (1)(6)(3)(4).(4)..(1)…(1)…………..(1)………………………………
* g occurs 19 times: (6)(5).(1)…(3)………..
* h occurs 78 times: (4)(9)(8)(5).(7).(2)………..(1)……(1)……………………………………………
* i occurs 68 times: (7)(12)(4)(5).(15).(4)(1)..(1)(2)……(2)..(1)………(1)……………………………..
* j occurs 10 times: (1)..(1)……
* k occurs 4 times: (1)…
* l occurs 34 times: (5)(6)(7).(3)(1).(1)(1)…(4)(1)(3)……………….
* m occurs 28 times: (1)(1)(2).(2)…………………..
* n occurs 19 times: (13)(13)(13)…(8).(8).(10)(2)(2)……
* o occurs 144 times: (4)(6)(7)(6)(4)(4)(2)(15)(9).(3)(1)……..(2)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………
* p occurs 60 times: .(1)(5)(4)(2)……………………………………………….
* q occurs 1 times: .
* r occurs 40 times: (8)(5)(7)(6).(8)(2)..(2)…………………………
* s occurs 62 times: (6)(9)(5)(4)(2)(11)……..(2)…(2).(1)(1)…….(3).(2)…………………………
* t occurs 252 times: (5)(7)(9)(4)(6)(5)(4)(5)(1)(6)(6)(1).(2)(3)(2)……………………………………………(1)………………………………………………(1)………..(2)………………………………………………………………………………………………………
* u occurs 28 times: (4)(3)(6)(5)(3)(2)(1).(1)……………….
* v occurs 2 times: (18).
* w occurs 59 times: (1)(2).(5)(2)(2)……(1)……………………………………….

Of course, this clearly confirms the theory that the DOI contains no xylophones, no yoyos, and no zebras. 🙂

As has been pointed out many times, the way that the usage patterns are heavily biased towards low numbers implies that the homophones were mainly taken from the start of the DOI, though with scattered exceptions.

B2’s Homophone Patterns

Because the encipherer used so few of the possible homophones (i.e. because A appears 166 times in the DOI, all 43 instances of A in B2 could have used different symbols, but only 15 homophones for A were used in B2), the ciphertext B2 is solvable as a pure homophone cipher: and in fact some automated homophone solvers can solve Beale B2 unassisted (though not B1 or B3, sadly).

With that in mind, it is also interesting to look at B2’s homophone pattern, to see if this tells us more about how B2 was constructed:

* a homophone sequence: ABCDAEFFCGHHIJKLLMLCFKNLDHOCGBJAMJAGJJJNFCH
* b homophone sequence: ABCCCDCDEFG
* c homophone sequence: ABCCADEFDGABAGFDA
* d homophone sequence: ABACDEAEADECBFEAABGEEBHCIHAIBJIIAIEEKADBABBGDEHEE
* e homophone sequence: ABCDECAFGBEGHGGEACIJAFDJKLCMNEFDBDFCAABFEFNAEABCNGEJCNCILNJKANCNFANCNFEFCCGFEFCANJHFNAEFENACNGJLBCEFIEMLF
* f homophone sequence: ABCCACADCCEAFEGBHBEBC
* g homophone sequence: ABCBCDBCACBCBAB
* h homophone sequence: ABACDEFEBEDAGAGEDEDFBAEBEEGAGGAHBAGEG
* i homophone sequence: ABCDCEFGACDHCEFFEACAAIECDCDEDIECGDCCIDEEJFEKCLCEECIKECC
* j homophone sequence: AB
* k homophone sequence: A
* l homophone sequence: ABCDEFGHBFCCBCFEIACHCEBEHBAAJABC
* m homophone sequence: ABCCDD
* n homophone sequence: ABCDACABDECFGCFAFGDHFEGBBDCAAAGBGDBCGBHAGBFDFAGBGGAFFBBDFGAGBGCCADFBA
* o homophone sequence: ABCDEFABGHIFFHFEFJJCIHGBJKGGAFHFALAFAJHHFEJBJDGFFJFFEAFCJFGCJDL
* p homophone sequence: ABCBDCCDCBCB
* r homophone sequence: ABBCAADCEDFADEBGFDBBDAGCGGDDGCCBCCDBBG
* s homophone sequence: ABCDBEBEAEFGCHBAACIFJFBEFFBGEEFCEAKELFDEHFEFKEHI
* t homophone sequence: ABCDEFGHIECJBKGHFLJKBBEKCHGFMLNOAEJMBLGKACHFLPMCQKILGLHGNAEPFKGGMFKCGR
* u homophone sequence: ABCDBEFFAAEBCDDBDDECGBDCH
* v homophone sequence: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
* w homophone sequence: ABCDEFEDCAEEE
* x homophone sequence: AAAA
* y homophone sequence: AAAAAAAAA

My Conclusions

One thing that stands out for me is that only a single homophone for V was used, (a) even though it appeared 18 times in B2, and (b) even though two were available (DOI #818 “VALUABLE” and DOI #1132 “VOICE”). To me, this seems a fairly clear indication that the search for homophones stopped earlier in the DOI. Combine this with the fact that X is #1005, and it seems likely that the highest genuine DOI index would have been (say) 1000: everything after that would be a special secondary code (e.g. for ‘X’).

The Usenet “Markovian Parallax Denigrate” mystery…

by ⋅ 1 Comment

During 5th August 1996, a number of unmoderated Usenet groups were deluged by computer generated spam.

Catherine Hampton, a group administrator for alt.religion.christian.boston-church, wrote:

We have a problem in alt.religion.christian.boston-church — a flood of vertical spam with varying From: lines, posted from different locations, and with no common string to allow us to killfile the slimeball.

The headers appear to be forged, and NNTP posting hosts don’t match Message IDs, which don’t match From: lines. Usually the Path: headers match the Message IDs. The majority of posting hosts/
sites appear to be European, and I recognize one as an open NNTP server used in the past for spamming/net abuse.

Both headers and message text consists of a string of unrelated English words, the majority long and somewhat complex.

Unfortunately, the Path headers have long since been stripped from the archived copies of the messages. However, we can get some idea of what they included from the workarounds Scott Forbes at Lucent suggested as it was all happening:

For YA-Newswatcher, use the following scorefile entries:

Kill where “Path” contains news.wvdp.com
Kill where “Path” contains news.speedline.ca
Kill where “Path” contains news.data.co.za
Kill where “Path” contains CINT_SRV02

For slrn, kill any post containing this header:

Nntp-Posting-Host: bagend.atl.ga.us

For trn 3.6:

/bagend.atl.ga.us/HNntp-Posting-Host:j

Other newsreaders:

If you can do string matching against arbitrary headers, kill any article
with the header “Nntp-Posting-Host: bagend.atl.ga.us”. Note that this is
*not* the same header as “NNTP-Posting-Host” — if your killfile only does
pattern matching against specified “standard” headers, don’t try this.

Which Usenet Groups Were Attacked?

Though there may well have been more, the groups I know to have been attacked were:

* news.admin.net-abuse.misc
* alt.religion.christian
* alt.religion.christian.boston-church
* misc.education.homeschool.christian
* pdaxs.religion.christian
* rec.music.christian
* uk.religion.christian
* alt.fan.jesus-christ

Oddly, some individuals also seem to have been attacked. Catherine Hampton wrote:

I have also been mailbombed by this idiot. I’m not sure how heavily, since after the first couple of messages appeared, I told procmail to send them to /dev/null and informed my ISP about this. I kept copies of the first two mailbomb messages, so if someone needs them to track the idiots down, let me know.

A Typical Message

Because MBOX files are just text files where the headers begin “From ” and there’s a double newline between the message headers and the message body, it’s quite straightforward to have a look at (most of) what was arriving. Here’s an archived message from alt.religion.christian.boston-church (though note that the “X-Deja-AN” line was almost certainly added later by Deja News, and the X-Google lines were added later by Google, who ended up owning the Deja News archives):

From 7995592138590870063
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: f788d,1ccdb08619d370e6,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidf788d,public
From: [email protected] (Dick Cerebrate)
Subject: Loft
Date: 1996/08/05
Message-ID: <d1pazxu [email protected]>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 172316810
organization: Fodder
content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ACSII
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church

treble pharmacology Arnold Sian pinball tsunami matte stockade heater
beauty paraffin keeshond inkling priori Romania proud Alphonse
prim histrionic ensconce meridional foil fob thereafter Thor Ronnie
belligerent Hoyt gerbil Ares boycott surprise Sandusky herb furlough
adoption Cahill accusation halogen plastisol drier Carib prank
Skopje devote uppermost negligent gibbet Rochester Linotype

The obvious things that emerge from reading even a few of these emails are:

* The “From:” email address field contents seem to be copied from a list (probably harvested from Usenet posts)
* The “From:” name (in brackets) is composed of a first name from a different list, followed by up to two words from the main list of body words
* The “Subject:” is composed of a word from a different list again, followed by up two two words from the main list of body words
* The words in the body seem to have been randomly pulled from a list of low-frequency words (again, probably harvested from Usenet posts)
* The “organization” header is filled in with a single word that appears to be randomized from a yet different list

So… Where Does “Markovian Parallax Denigrate” Fit In?

These three ‘signature’ words appeared more often than others in the body of postings to different Usenet groups (in the case of “Markovian”, roughly 8x as frequently as other body words, less so for the other two): but oddly, in alt.religion.christian.boston-church “Markovian” only appears twice in email headers, and never in any of the bodies.

So even though “Markovian Parallax Denigrate” has become the name by which these spam messages are generally known, the actual usage of them is much more nuanced than is generally thought or believed.

For instance, this was not at all true of the messages to the alt.religion.christian.boston-church group. There, most frequent spam words were “cindy” and “thimbu” (8 occurrences each), followed by “cress”, “pump”, “Denny”, “laissez”, “pussycat”, “photolysis”, “inflammation”, “millenarian”, “synergism”, “vet”, “Joss”, “Smithfield”, and “springboard” (7 occurrences each). “Markovian” only appears in two headers spammed to the alt.religion.christian.boston-church group. These are completely consistent with a purely random distribution, with no Markovian-style tweaking.

Yet at the same time, the rest of the body word list seems identical: for example, both contain “pornography” and “pornographer” but not “pornographic”. OK, there are too few words in the alt.religion.christian.boston-church spam messages to be completely sure (they only seem to use about a quarter of the overall body word dictionary), but this seems almost certain.

My suspicion is therefore that “Markovian” (plus “Parallax” and “Denigrate” to a lesser degree) may initially have been intended as trap words (i.e. for the spammer’s own killfile), e.g. so that he/she could easily filter out most/all spam traffic to news.admin.net-abuse.misc by deleting all messages with any of those words. I think this would have been important for the spammer, so that they could see the havoc they were wreaking as it happened, by reading the narked messages squeezed inbetween all the spam. The whole thing was, after all, surely a performance done more for the reaction than for the action itself, so where would the fun be in pissing admins off if you couldn’t see them being pissed off?

Who Was Behind This Attack?

At the time, Catherine Hampton posted:

There is some possibility that this is also a loon who hates Christians and/or Christianity, but IMHO it’s more likely that that side of things is a red herring to mislead people looking for the perpetrator.

It’s a little insulting to admit we’re probably irrelevant side-issues to this creep, but I think that’s the case. <sigh>

Since then, all manner of (to be honest, almost entirely speculative/rubbish) theories have emerged: one of the most famous of these was that the perpetrator was psychic-and-apparently-delusional “CIA asset” Susan Lindauer, because one of the email addresses used was susan_lindauer@…. However, in 2012 this theory was ably debunked by Kevin Morris, who showed that it had been a completely different Susan Lindauer (whose name had merely been randomly harvested, along with thousands of others), so we can leave both Lindauers and that theory well behind now. Which is nice.

Yet I think what we already know we can tell quite a lot about the spammer. The fact that he/she mailbombed Catherine Hampton would seem to me to be a sign that this was not one of America’s few angry atheists, virtually firebombing plucky Christians’ online temples: rather, I think this was instead a sign that the spammer was himself/herself a Christian (perhaps even one specifically living in Boston) who had been flamed or abused online, and had decided to pay back that grudge in a fairly public way. (Yet because the alt.religion.christian.boston-church group seemed to have purely random traffic (i.e. no “Markovian” trap word), it is possible that this was – as Catherine Hampton suspected – just a distraction from the news.admin.net-abuse.misc main event: so doubt remains.)

But even so: given that connection as a starting point, I strongly suspect that the choice of which groups to attack was also far from random. Rather, it would seem likely that the spammer was a subscriber to several (if not all) of those groups, and who held some kind of broader grudge. I’m sorry to have to point out the obvious, but from the 1996 group traffic I’ve gone through, online Christians had no obvious shortage of flamers (and indeed trolls) in their ranks: spam was already a significant Usenet-wide problem by then, and administrators were constantly having to cancel spam messages that sneaked past their extensive filters and killfiles.

So even though these were all unmoderated groups, the spammer still needed a pretty good knowledge of group post headers and spoofing tricks to get spam in: so we can say that this was someone who was very comfortable with the minutiae (and limitations) of current networking lore cirac 1996. (It would therefore seem reasonable to wonder whether he or she might well have been a group administrator at that time.)

Finally, from the number of different text lists that the spammer compiled to randomly fill the different fields, I think it is clear that he/she was someone who was not only computer literate, but also quite driven by the idea of producing unstoppable spam. I’m sure that this was an angry idea that (I think) had stewed and steeped over a period of time – that is, not something that impulsively happened in a single mad day (because nobody would produce so many different lists for merely a whim, however angry), but something premeditated that had built up over weeks or even months.

Bob Allisat?

The only non-Susan-Lindauer name I found suggested (trampolined by way of Emily D’s Ephemeral Curios) was by Phil Launchbury, who wrote (replying to Catherine Hampton on the same day):

The only common denominator is that the posting host has been set to Jan Isleys machine in Atlanta – probably as revenge for his legitimate cancelling activities.

The name of the perp that springs to mind is Bob Allisat… It may not be, but it has the same level of content and interest as the blank verse he spams across Usenet 🙂 He also has a long running (and on Bobs side) bitter feud with Jan & Atlanta in general.

To be honest, I’m quite certain that Bob Allisat’s not-really-very-good poetry – though he did resolutely spam it to multiple Usenet groups – has nothing at all in common with the whole Markovian ‘enterprise’. Though it is true that in 1995 he arranged an online “Poetry Slam [that] saw 15,000 plus wild poems, every poem differant, swamp the news.admin.net-abuse.misc newsgroup over the course of a few hours. The net.cops totally phreaked.” So I suspect Phil Launchbury may have named Bob Allisat just to annoy him back, rather than out of genuine suspicion. Just so you know. 🙂

 In future poetry is all
  that I'll be sharing with
   you good folks out there.
    I will be a plague of poetry,
     an endless stream of poetry,
      I will innundate you all with
       poetry, I will flood every
        discussion with poems, poems
         and more poems. The world of
          power guys and technotics
           needs poetry to heal it's
            twisted barbaric soulnessless

Could We Track Down The Markovian Spammer?

I think there is a reasonably good chance that the Markovian spammer subscribed to most (if not all) of the groups that were attacked during the year prior to 5th August 1996. Hence it might well be that if someone were to cross-check all the people who sent (genuine) posts to more than one of those lists during the previous year, we might have something resembling a short list of suspects (I’d expect no more than 4 or 5 people to remain). Looking for flamey reactions to their posts might also help order the list in terms of likelihood of being the spammer.

Perhaps someone has already tried this kind of forensic approach (Heaven knows the group admins were pissed off enough at the time): however, what remains of Internet commentary on “Markovian Parallax Denigrate” seems fairly lightweight, and I haven’t seen any clear attempt at doing so out there. Unless you know better?

Netta Fornario’s missing papers…

by ⋅ 5 Comments

It’s one of those strange stories that sounds oddly romantic at first, then somewhat confusing, before ultimately ending up sad. The tale of Nora Emily (‘Netta’) Fornario’s curious death on Iona in November 1929 was recently picked up by Mental Floss (which is where I first heard of it), and if you just want to read a fluffy mystery version of how an occultist came to die an unexplained death on a Scottish Island, that’s probably where your reading should begin and end.

But who was she? What happened to her? And what were the curious papers she had that police found, but which have since disappeared? Sorry, but rather than accepting magickal claims that she was killed by some kind of psychic attack (as Dion Fortune implied in 1930), I’d rather be completely boring and look at the facts.

Who Was She?

Curiously, though there are countless websites to be found regurgitating facts (and fact-like things), I found only one solidly reliable source: Dedemia Harding of The New Society of the Golden Dawn in Bradford. Dedemia’s short – and I mean extremely short – booklet called “The Netta Fornario Experience“, which is only available as a Kobo ereader ebook (£0.99), lays out the bare bones of Fornario’s life:

* She was born in Cairo, Egypt in 1897, the daughter of Norah Edith Ling and Guiseppe Nicola Raimundo Fornario, an Italian doctor.
* After her mother died in 1898, she was placed in the care of well-to-do tea dealer Thomas Pratt Ling, her maternal grandfather.
* She lived with him and his family at Leigham Holme, Leigham Court Road, Streatham

* Upon Thomas Pratt Ling’s death in 1909, his will (which was also reported here, here and no doubt in many other places) left money to his granddaughter Netta but with stringent conditions:

The will has been proved of Mr. Thomas Pratt Ling, of Bracondale, Dorking, Surrey, aged seventy-four, tea merchant, who died in February. He left £12,000 upon trust for his granddaughter, Marie Nora Emily Edith Fornario, “Provided that she shall remain under the guardianship of his son George or other person approved by his trustees and shall not for- sake the English Protestant Faith, or marry a person not of that Faith, or marry a first cousin on either her father’s or her mother’, side, under penalty of losing one-half of he; interest in this sum, and he also providel that the income should be paid to her in the United Kingdom, unless for a cause to be certified by medical certificate, or other cause to be approved by his trustees, she shall not be in the United Kingdom.”

* In 1911, she was (according to this site) at the Ladies’ College boarding school, 2 Grassington Road, Eastbourne.
* In 1921, according to Gareth Knight in a 2006 talk at the Canonbury Masonic Research Centre, Netta was appointed Outer Guardian of a co-masonic lodge in Sinclair Road in Hammersmith.
* On 4th July 1922, her naturalization certificate A9304 was issued, as per document HO 144/1765/431695 at the National Archives. Here, her name was listed as Marie Norah Emily Edith Fornario.

For her writings, this Strange History blogpost is pretty good. It lists:

* (1917) “Four sea idylls” written by M. Fornario, in “Memories of the Deep” by Gertrude Bracey, London: Boosey & Co
* a review of The Immortal Hour (an occult opera about fairies) under the name ‘Mac Tyler’, which she claimed to have watched “some three and twenty” times. (Full review here.)
* (1928) “The Use of Imagination in Art, Science and Business”, in The Occult Review

Death on Iona

As so often happens, there are a number of different accounts of her mysterious death on the Scottish island of Iona. What seems closest to the truth is the 1955 account by Alasdair Alpin MacGregor: this relied “on the testimony of two Ionan-dwelling friends Lucy Bruce and Iona Cammell”, the latter of whom wrote a (now-lost?) obituary for Netta in The Atlantis Quarterly. I believe (though I’m not sure) that MacGregor’s account appeared in his (1955) “The Ghost Book: Strange Hauntings in Britain”, Robert Hale, London: it was largely reproduced on this Strange History page.

Anyway, according to MacGregor: late one evening, Fornario left the place she was staying in on Iona (to which she had been attracted by its connections with fairies and magic) but then failed to return.

The customary knock on her door the following morning brought no response. She had gone! Whither, no one knew. Neatly arranged in the room were her clothes and jewellery. As the hours wore on, and she did not return, everybody became alarmed for her safety. Soon the islanders were searching the bays and inlets for her, searching the rocks and moorlands – searching for her on what remained of the short, dark northern November day. They failed to find her. The ensuing night was moonlit, calm and frosty. With the coming of dawn, the searchers were out again. Not until the afternoon did Hector MacLean, of Sligneach, and Hector MacNiven, of Maol Farm, find her. She lay between the Machar and Loch Staonaig, in a hollow in the chilly moor. She was quite dead, and, except for a silver chain turned black, quite naked. One hand clutched a knife: the other lay between her head and the cold moor. She had died of exhaustion and exposure.

To be precise, it wasn’t just her silver necklace that had turned black – in fact, all her silver jewellery had turned black. When she had been asked about this, she had replied that “this always happened to her jewellery when she wore it”.

According to her death certificate, she died between 10.00pm on 17th and 1.30pm on 19th November 1929, of “exposure to the elements” or “heart failure”. She is buried in a simple grave on the island, which – according to Laura from faeryfolklorist, who took the photo I found on Strange History [linked above] – looks like this:

According to the View From the Hills blog (again):

Netta died with the sum of £424 18s and 6d in her estate — worth roughly £25,000 in today’s money.

The Scotsman, 27th November 1929

This “alien” woman, who dressed in the fashion of the Arts and Crafts movement – with long cape and hand-woven tunic – settled into the house of someone only known as Mrs MacRae. The 33-year-old Fornario spent her time walking the island and in long trances, some of which could last for days.

Initially MacRae was intrigued by her guest’s “mystical practices”, but her interest turned to concern one morning when her lodger appeared in a panic-stricken state. In Francis King’s book Ritual Magic in England, Fornario told her landlady that “certain people” were affecting her telepathically. MacRae was particularly alarmed to see her silver jewellery had turned black overnight.

Fornario was determined to get off the island, but after hastily packing her belongings she appeared to have second thoughts and decided to remain.

The next day, 12 November 1929, she rose early and left the house. The alarm was raised when she failed to appear and two days later her near-naked body was found on isolated moorland.

No police investigation was carried out as the presiding physician noted the cause of death as heart failure from exposure. This explanation has never satisfied Ron Halliday, a psychic investigator and author of Evil Scotland who thinks the death should have been properly investigated.

Her unclothed body was lying on a large cross which had been cut out of the turf, apparently with a knife which was lying nearby.

There were other newspaper reports of her death, e.g.:
* “Iona Mystery – London Woman Found Dead. Mysterious Circumstances.” Glasgow Herald (27th November 1929).
* “Fate of an Iona Visitor – London Woman Found Dead.” Oban Times (30th November 1929).

As Usual, My Rationalist Account

The reason why her silver jewellery turned black was almost certainly because of acidosis – i.e. that her body acidity was particularly high. This is a condition surprisingly common in Type 1 diabetes, where it is called diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Even though Type 1 diabetes usually first presents either in young children or in mid-teens, a surprisingly large number (~25%) of cases present in adults: it can also be triggered by stress, changes in environment, etc.

Even though her father was a doctor, she believed (as a young woman) that she was able to cure others telepathically: so I would suggest that she perhaps wasn’t really the kind of person who would sit themselves down in front of a general practitioner to talk about her health issues. Hence it would not surprise me at all if she was suffering from Type 1 diabetes, and that this was largely what her trip to Iona was all about – to try to harness the power of fairy magick to heal herself, even though (as MacGregor describes) she was clearly becoming increasingly unwell.

Had she always been unwell? Even though (the wonderfully flaky) Dion Fortune believed that her friend Netta had died of some kind astral excess or psychic attack, she did concede that perhaps:

She was not a good subject for such experiments, for she suffered from some defect of the pituitary body.

Dead on a chilly Scottish moor in November, naked apart from a silver chain and a knife? Once she reached Iona, far from London’s hospitals, that would seem to me to be how her life would inevitably come to an end. Really: if you tell Fornario’s story like that, there doesn’t really seem to be any other route it could have taken.

Netta Fornario In Art

Dedemia Harding was, it has to be said, more than a tad miffed that her research into Fornario had (she believed) been co-opted by playwright Chris Lee and turned into a play – The Mysterious Death of Netta Fornario – that toured Scotland. “The Gothic tale of magic, madness, murder and mystery is a stylish production inspired by true events on the Isle of Iona.” There’s an interview with Chris Lee here.

But this was not the first artistic reinterpretation of Fornario’s death. Going back to 1952, “An Iona Anthology” by Marian McNeill (according to the Strange History blog again)…

[…]tells of a lady visitor who fell victim to the fairies of the fairy hill on Iona. She apparently slipped out one night to the fairy hill naked carrying only a knife with which to open the hill, and she was found dead in the morning beside the fairy hill (Sithean Mor, it’s just by the road to Machair – aka Angels’ Hill where Columba spoke with the angels). According to the story she was buried at Reilig Odhrain.

This is immediately followed by the “Ballad of lost ladye” by Helen Cruickshank (the words are online here, where you can also buy the music), which describes “[t]he unexplained discovery of the body of a visitor in the early morning beside the Sithean Mor (great fairy mound) on the small, lovely and historic island of Iona”.

But What Of Her Letters?

There are plenty more places where people have discussed Fornario’s death online: Reddit (of course), and Fortean Times (did you ever doubt it?).

There is also Chapter 17 of Classic Scottish Murder Stories online, which brings together yet more strands. e.g. “Richard Wilson quotes from the Glasgow Bulletin a report which describes the body as lying in a sleeping posture on the right side, the head resting on the right hand. A knife was found a few feet away. There were a few scratches on the feet […]. Otherwise, there were no marks on the body.

But the part of the whole story which I’d like to know more about appeared in the Oban Times article (which I haven’t actually seen, but would like to). There, it was reported (according to here, and many other places) that “a number of letters of ‘strange character’ were also taken by the police, who passed them on to the Procurator-Fiscal for ‘consideration’.”

What were these? If there was a cipher mystery angle to this, I’d certainly like to know it. Might – as with the Somerton Man – a local paper have taken any photographs of these letters? Perhaps one day we’ll find out. Just asking. 🙂

Voynich Zodiac Gemini and the workshop of Diebold Lauber…

by ⋅ 35 Comments

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.

Searching for L’Aigle…

by ⋅ Leave a Comment

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.

Notes on Battista Piasio [Part 1] – Nicolaus Lucarus’ funeral oration…

by ⋅ 54 Comments

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