Voynich Authorship

[Mark Knowles]

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.