The Voynich Ninja

(26-08-2022, 03:48 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.a quick google gives the basics for archive permissions:

Quote:There is considerable variation in the form and contents of the rights information provided by archives and libraries, and it is not always clear who owns the rights to material. Archives do not automatically own the copyright of material in their holdings.
Donors or sellers can retain the rights for material, or they may not own the copyright of all the items they transfer to an archive.
For example, a donor may not own the copyright to letters written to them, or they may have transferred the rights to someone else, such as a publisher

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

And from Kings College London  "Physical vs. Intellectual Property"
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

My understanding is that normal copyright doesn't ever last much more than 100 years. In this case we are dealing with documents that are roughly 600 years old, so should not, I would have thought, be governed by normal copyright law. I think their restrictions are for reproduction of images of original documents. So I imagine if I were to get a photoreproduction of a letter from an archive and I made the text of that letter public, by retyping it, but not the image of the letter that would be OK. Obvious with enciphered letters and cipher keys reproducing them manually is quite a lot of work given in particular the widespread use of invented symbols in some case and even the size of them. The DECODE database who I have assisted a lot, started to manually transcribe ciphers, but are now working on an automatic transcription scheme. Once/if they get their system up and running a lot of the ciphers I have located will be found there albeit in transcribed form.

Anyway, the crux of your theory is how well you can produce statistically credible voynichese using  a multi-crypt medieval Milanese "diplomatic" cipher.

As an extant "Diplomatic cipher" is unlikely to be able to create voynichese
then it follows you would have to modify the cipher for it to do the job,
this modification would render any copyright issues moot therefore you could post it here with impunity.

It would be interesting to see how a modified medieval multi-crypt Milanese cipher could recreate voynichese.
Some related comments on medieval ciphers.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(26-08-2022, 05:47 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyway, the crux of your theory is how well you can produce statistically credible voynichese using  a multi-crypt medieval Milanese "diplomatic" cipher.

I don't know what you mean by "multi-crypt". I assume you mean "multiple encryption". I am not sure what you are implying by that term.

Quote:As an extant "Diplomatic cipher" is unlikely to be able to create voynichese
then it follows you would have to modify the cipher for it to do the job,
this modification would render any copyright issues moot therefore you could post it here with impunity.

I am not suggesting a theory of how Voynichese might work would be subject to archival restrictions. However historical examples of related ciphers probably would unless manually transcribed.

Quote:Some related comments on medieval ciphers.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

I am very familiar with comments like these. Through hard work and focus over a number of years I have developed quite a lot of knowledge on this subject. Most Voynich researchers have been relatively uninterested in historical cryptography at the time from which the Voynich dates; exceptions being David Scheers, Nick Pelling and Michelle Lewis. From my experiences all other Voynich researchers are fairly ignorant on the subject, which is fine, especially if you don't think the Voynich is written in cipher. Some researchers think the Voynich might be written in cipher, but has no historical basis or context and therefore efforts to locate ciphers from this time is pointless. Anyway, truth be told I have devoted a lot more time than any Voynich researchers to the topic of cryptography from the early 15th century and late 14th century, so much so that I normally find it much more profitable to engage with academics working in this area or related areas on the subject when trying to expand by knowledge of cryptography of this time, though even then in this very narrow specific area overall I think it is accurate to say I know more than anybody, if not I would be extremely happy to get in contact with someone who knows more than I do. I can't publicly share my collection of ciphers, for reasons I explained, so it is difficult to convey to you how far I have explored the subject of early 15th century cryptography; that is not to say that I cannot learn more, but probably not so much from other Voynich researchers, although I was assisted recently in identifying a letter incorrectly marked in an inventory as a Milanese cipher as being in fact written in Greek minuscule, something I have no familiarity with.

Mark: the 15th century history of cryptography is a topic I find fascinating, though I do find it annoying how dominant the "arms race" account of the period (most widely popularized by David Kahn) has become, particularly among those people who like to lecture others on it.

The central problem with that is that it relies on an absurdly flawed view of technological history as an inevitable progression that only ever ratchets forward, where knowledge percolates instantly, and where techniques are incrementally perfected. So be mindful that Kahn is merely the first word on this, not the last.

As an aside, I'm somewhat in awe of your resilience and persistence in finding so many 1400-1450 ciphers - the reference books I'd read were unanimous in asserting that there were almost none, but clearly they were wrong.

Reconstructing the secret history of cryptography in this half-century remains a huge challenge (one that I've tried to contribute towards in my own way), but the ciphers you've found surely make this more achievable.

(26-08-2022, 12:43 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

(25-08-2022, 10:10 PM)tavie Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.It is a real pity that archives are so restrictive about their material being shared with a wider audience.

This is a subject I feel quite strongly about. To me it is absolutely disgraceful that the sharing of knowledge amongst academic researchers is so restricted. I never realised this prior to engaging in this research.

I am not a lawyer, so I don't know on what legal basis they are entitled to do so. However it is clear that certainly all the archives that I have dealt with make it quite explicit on their websites and in writing that one needs permission from an archive to share a document in public and they may well charge a fee for doing this. Given the concensus on this amongst the archives and the opinion of other academics that I have had dealings with it most surely be the case that they legally have the write to do so.

One other Voynich researcher in the past suggested to me that there was no legal restriction on this due to the copyright having expired. However it must be another law, not copyright, that they are governed by.

A while ago I compiled a list of structural obstacles and sources of frustration to be encountered in the study of the Voynich manuscript. Here are some:

*Compartmentalization

Occasionally you hear someone saying “Maybe we need an interdisciplinary approach to this?” Do you reckon?

*Careerism

Academics are career driven. They are not the paragons of objectivity they pretend to be. There are no careers in Voynich Studies and academics stay right away from it because it is perceived as a bad career move.

(The Dead Sea Scrolls are the classic case of this. Scandalously, for years after they were discovered academics were not interested because there were no careers in it. For several decades the whole thing was left to the Dominicans because monks don’t have careers and are not puffed up egotists.)

*Copyright

A huge hinderance to study in general. A massive Late Capitalism problem. Copyright laws are supposed to facilitate research; just as often they inhibit it. (The Voynich space resounds with voices saying: “I’ve made a great discovery but I’m not telling anyone!”)

*Circumscription

The internet made vast amounts of material available online, but a vast amount was also locked behind fire walls with restricted access. Many institutions are intellectually territorial and are driven by credentialism, reputation, "branding",  and greed dressed up as professionalism.

*Credentialism

You reach a firewall that asks what university you are with? Not with a university? Access denied, scumbag. Or someone begins their critique of your contribution with: “He’s not a qualified linguist like me!” (Talented amateurs make academics feel insecure and territorial.)

*Concensus thinking

Assumptions become embedded in whole communities of thought. Currier’s “Line as a functional unit” – but that is Currier’s interpretation of the phenomenon.

*Conceptual prisons

In general, the modern mind struggles to understand the medieval mind. This is endemic in Voynich Studies with many researchers entirely unaware of their own conceptual limitations, baggage and blindspots.  

*Commercialism

See careerism and copyright. Add the profit motive. If there’s no money in it, the research is unlikely to be done. There are many important studies of the physical manuscript that should be done but haven't been done and won't be done any time soon. No funding because no commercial outcomes. 

(It’s a huge problem in some fields, such a medicine, where common natural compounds aren’t researched because you can’t patent them. If there’s no money to be made, it won’t be investigated.)

*Corruption

Witness the interaction between Mr Voynich and Professor Newbold and the conspiracy to associate Roger Bacon’s name to the work purely to enhance its monetary vaue.

*I could go on. I could mention, for instance, the role of brainless journalists and the sensationalist media under another C word.

Most of these frustrations and obstacles aren’t peculiar to the study of the Voynich manuscript but Voynich Studies highlights them.

A world in which disinterested and selfless truth-seekers share their findings towards a common goal? That is the ideal, but in many ways it is not the contemporary reality in this or in other fields.

(26-08-2022, 05:47 PM)RobGea Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Anyway, the crux of your theory is how well you can produce statistically credible voynichese using  a multi-crypt medieval Milanese "diplomatic" cipher.

It will depend too on how was written the plain text before being ciphered. It is not the same to cipher: How do you do or hhoou dooo yoyoyo udddo. Using the same multi-crypt cipher, the properties of the ciphered text of the first style will be differerent from the second style.

Nick: David Kahn clearly did an amazing job, however in tackling such a broad sweep of history the energy he could devote to researching such a narrow piece of history as late 14th century to early 15th century cryptography was obviously limited. As such his account of this specific narrow period of history is very weak; I don't blame him for that as I couldn't produce an Opus like "The Codebreakers". However there is clearly plenty of room for people to specialise in and zero in on specific periods of history.

Prof. Beata Megyesi of Upsala University in Sweden told me that 17th century Papal ciphers are actually simpler and less sophicated than 16th century Papal ciphers. I haven't verified this statement myself, but given my experience the idea of a smooth linear progression in the evolution or usage of cryptography does seem overly simplistic. I agree with you, I think reality is often not that neat, but it is more interesting and complex. So I wholeheartedly agree with you on your point about this flawed view of technological history. I would say that I do think that in certain situations there are more incentives to improve the cryptographic capabilities of one's state/country than in some other circumstances. I am inclined to the perspective that in wartime cryptography tends, everything else being equal, to be more important to a state/country than in peacetime and therefore states/countries are inclined to devote more resources to improve their cryptographic techniques in wartime. Whilst, I am no expert on the subject, the role of cryptography during the second World War seems like an example of this.

To use a phrase that I first notice you using: "Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence". I think there has been a tendency amongst researchers to assume that if one hasn't seen a cipher key or enciphered letter then it doesn't exist. I am sure that I haven't seen everything that survives of early 15th century ciphers. In fact, sadly, I am sure that I will never see everything that survives of early 15th century ciphers. There may be a lot that survives out there that I haven't seen, there may be only a little more. I have learnt that often archivists don't know very well what they have in their archives; this is not intended as a criticism as I daresay I would be exactly the same in their position. As one academic told me, archivists aren't trained in recognising ciphers. And these documents can end up anywhere from an enciphered Sforza letter in a Moscow archive to a collection of enciphered Milanese letters in a Paris archive to enciphered letters in small minor Italian archives; these documents can find their way anywhere. It wouldn't completely shock me if it turned out there were early 15th century enciphered letters somewhere in an Oxford University archive/library in my hometown. I am though very conscious of how much history has been lost forever. I would guess that less than 1% of the original early 15th century cipher documents have survived, which I find a bit dispiriting. I am just scrambling around trying to find the documents that escaped the fires and the rubbish bin. I can't search manually throughout European archives for early 15th century ciphers; I don't have the resources or time to do that. I have to rely on the clues that I can find, which means I will miss the documents for which there are no clues.

Independently of the Voynich this project is of value. Even if my hypothesis about the Voynich manuscript is completely wrong I have made through hardwork a significant achievement. Of course if my thinking about the Voynich is correct that makes it still more significant.

What irritates me a little is that you refer here exclusively to encrypted correspondence. In my opinion, that is something different from (partially) encrypted manuscripts. Or is my impression wrong ?

(27-08-2022, 06:30 PM)bi3mw Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.What irritates me a little is that you refer here exclusively to encrypted correspondence. In my opinion, that is something different from (partially) encrypted manuscripts. Or is my impression wrong ?

It is true I have a tendency to focus on encrypted correspondence. This is mainly because the main use of ciphers from my evidence was for the very practical purpose by states of ensuring secret communication. So the vast majority of examples of the use of ciphers appear to be by states.
However I am interested in the kind of non-diplomatic ciphers that Bischoff refers to in his paper. Clearly there are well known examples such as the works of Giovanni Fontana. I don't regard the Voynich manuscript as a diplomatic document, so in that respect I put it in this other capacity. However for most examples of non-diplomatic ciphers from the early 15th century I wonder about the extent to which they are borrowing techniques used by the diplomatic community. Take Giovanni Fontana's ciphers, they are pretty simple compared to some contemporary diplomatic ciphers, nevertheless I wonder if he learnt his cipher techniques from some of the acquaintances he had in the diplomatic arena. It fact diplomatic ciphers of the time appear significantly more complex than non-diplomatic ciphers, though sometimes one can find features in non-diplomatic ciphers absent from diplomatic ciphers.
I believe there is an example of a 14th century cipher used by a firm when doing their accounts, so ciphers are not only used in correspondence or manuscripts, however this seems much more rare.
If you know of any early 15th or late 14th century partially enciphered manuscripts that I don't I would love to hear about them.

(27-08-2022, 07:04 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.Clearly there are well known examples such as the works of Giovanni Fontana.

Giovanni Fontana was also the first one that came to my mind. I suppose his cipher was more of a "finger exercise" than an attempt to seriously hide anything. This is exactly the difference with diplomatic ciphers. Here, the information should be hidden as well as possible. What is striking about the VMS is the fact that there is not a single reference to a key in plain text ( like Fontana in Cod.icon. 242 ). This would indicate, if it really is a cipher, that the entire document should be seriously protected from access by others (non-initiates?). I know of no other manuscript from this period that would be comparable in this respect.

(27-08-2022, 07:04 PM)Mark Knowles Wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.However I am interested in the kind of non-diplomatic ciphers that Bischoff refers to in his paper.

Do you mean this work ? Do you know a link with full access ?
Übersicht über die nichtdiplomatischen Geheimschriften des Mittelalters by Bernhard Bischoff
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.

Edit: It's done, I was able to login via the university.