Distinguishing Characters

[Mark Knowles]

One thing which may be harder in ciphers other than the Voynich is identifying spaces. 

Even if it is just a "simple substitution cipher" the only thing I see consistently is inconsistency.

What I mean by that is: (1) the cipher shapes are not drawn consistently (thus making homophonic keys where maybe it is or maybe it isn't?), (2) word spaces are inconsistent -- particularly at line breaks, where you'd think that might be a "stronger" space but instead what I see (although it is dependent on the scribe) the cipher writer just keeps going until space runs out and then finishes the rest of the word on the next line (no difference if it is Latin or venacular plain text -- this is seen in all cases); and (3) the often recognized Medieval spelling and grammar inconsistencies of the time for both Latin and venacular not surprisingly continue in the ciphers' ultimate plain text.  It is particularly discouraging when you are trying to decipher maybe a few words or a short text and you can see in the plaintext that the same non-ciphered word is spelled different ways in the same line.  Makes things really hard.

And this doesn't even take into account all the possible abbreviations and variations that can be introduced with that extra layer (again, both in Latin and in vernacular).

So people can sneer at how the ciphers (other than the Voynich, if it is a cipher) are "simple" but in reality actually figuring out what was encoded is a multiple level puzzle that in the community (and even on this board, dare I say it) just doesn't get enough respect.  Until you've tried a few yourself --- then I want to hear how "simple" you think these things really are.  I found it gave me a very different view into the deciphering process and recommend it very highly to anyone who is working with the text.

There are plenty that have never been figured out . . .

This is particularly true with non-diplomatic ones -- which is where I have focused my efforts.

But I'd be interested in your view, Mark, on how it plays out in diplomatic correspondence.

Hi Michelle

I will try to give what you have written more thought and I will write a more detailed response. But so far I would say that I absolutely agree with most of what you have written, as is very often the case.

I think ranting from time to time is a good thing. As anyone knows I do plenty of it myself.

The most important point that you make I think is simply when you say: "There are plenty that have never been figured out." That is absolutely true. I would further add that there are plenty of ciphers from the time of the Voynich manuscript that are unknown to the Voynich community. In short, there is plenty more ciphers to be found. But they will only be found if people look for them.

Apart from a very small number of other individuals namely: Nick Pelling and David Scheers most Voynich researchers knowledge of ciphers from the time of the Voynich manuscript is at most having glanced at "Die Anfange.." by Meister and possibly the Tranchedino Cipher Ledger and possibly Bischoff's article and maybe the Steno Letter. Every so often someone will dredge up a cipher from the very end of the 15th century or the 16th century as if it constitutes a significant discovery whereas for me it isn't very different from them locating a 19th century cipher in its relevance. I created a poll, with the help of Koen, on the forum some time ago to get an idea of the percentage of people who think the Voynich is written in cipher and to my surprise a significant majority did and yet paradoxically there seems to be so little interest in ciphers from the time of the Voynich manuscript; to be fair most of what remains to be found is in archives and not online.(How about that for a rant?)

If I could mobilise people a little to do some searching that would push things forward.

Thanks again

Mark