<letter to L Strong, 17 july 1945>
The quality of the drawings also suggests an earlier
date. the "Wolkenband" ([snaky line drawn here]) shown on Plate
XXI appears over and over again in Italian XV century
manuscripts. I believe it came down from the north, but I am
unable to say when.
I shall look forward with the greatest interest to your
future publications on the subject.
Sincerely,
Erla Rodakiewicz
<L Strong's reply:>
I note you suggest that the dialect used as decoded material
does not coincide with the language used by Roger Askham in his
Scholmaster. Please do not confuse Roger with Anthony. I may
also say that the dialect does not coincide with that used by
Anthony Askham in the Little Herbal, a microfilm of the
Huntington copy of which I own. It is also very doubtful whether
Anthony Askham ever wrote the Little Herbal. I am still not
convinced that Dr. John Dee may have more to do with the origin
of the Voynich manuscript than mere ownership. Perhaps there may
have been more relationship between Anthony Askham and Dr. John
Dee than appears on the surface, similar to the relationship
existing between Billingsley and Dr. John Dee in the writing of
the mathematical books. You no doubt know that Dr. John Dee
wrote in several English dialects, Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, Greek,
Latin, German, and several others, he also had an interest in
cypher writing, was an astrologer, which the author of the
Voynich manuscript obviously was, and had all the characteristics
presented herein. Someday if I get the opportunity I shall
continue this investigation further but am convinced now that the
only place that this can be done is in the British Museum. A
recent letter from them states that for the duration their
original manuscripts have been removed from London and are not
available for study. I trust that you keep this information
concerning Dr. John Dee confidential for the time being as I am
not willing to publish this idea now.
the description of the birth of the child and all other
material from the Voynich manuscript were decoded according to
mathematical rules and the whole passage covering several pages
makes continued sense. It must of necessity therefore be
correct. I have not read anything into the passage that was not
put there in cypher by the original author.
<Letter to Ruth Mehrtens>
The
only reason why I have not published more of my decoded material is
because I have been advised by a newspaper man, and A. P. editor, that
the true contents is so frank it could not be published at the present
time, even after DeKruif published his book on the male sex hormone.
If your editors question any of these statements I should be delighted
to demonstrate, in person, before them the true cypher of the Voynich
Manuscript.
<Letter to Victor Freeburg>
I have your kind letter of July 19th at hand. I also felt a
sense of relief when I found that the Voynich Cipher was not
nearly as involved as either Newbold or Feely tried to make out.
Unfortunately the owners of the manuscript were unwilling to
cooperate to the extent of furnishing me with a photostatic copy
so that the work could go on.
... As a matter of fact, I still believe his influence
was tremendous on the real author, either as an author or friend.
His book on Demonology should be reinvestigated from the
statement by the distinguished biologist, Robert Hooke.
<Letter of the Curator of the British Mus to L Strong>
I am afraid you have been expecting to find more material
here relating to Dr. Anthony Ascham than we in fact possess. All
that we have in this Department is: -
A litle Herball of the properties of Herbes.
[1550] Press-mark:C.31.b.21.
An Almanacke and Prognostication ... M.V.C.L.V.
Press-mark: 1880.d.9.(1)
<Reply of L Strong to Woerdman>
thanks a million for your letter of January 2. Your contact
with the specialist of the opposite sex has posed a very
embarrassing problem in my mind. Most of the manuscript that I
have decoded is an extremely frank auto-biographical sexual
history of the author and I would be much embarrassed to consult
the lady about it. However, I shall have a copy of my decoded
material with me in Amsterdam and I shall let you read it and to
use your judgment whether further consultation with Mrs. Boer den
Hoed is desirable. We shall be in Amsterdam between May 15-21.
<Fron E knott to L strong>
The sentence "when ... crawknot" in the offprint you sent
(returned herewith) is not Irish Gaelic in vocabulary or syntax.
It is true that there is in modern Irish a demonstrative adj.
spell seo but that makes no sense in this context, where seo may
be quite another word. I cannot see any grounds for supposing
the sentence to be Gaelic.
<Reply of L. Strong to D. Leake>
It is still a mystery why so much
cypher was resorted to but of course there probably were several
reasons.
<L Strong to G Mille>
I was told by one of the legatees mentioned in Mr.
Voynich's will that as an undecypherable manuscript it would be
worth more than it would be with the cypher known, when then it
becomes another manuscript in the history of medicine. Whether
the owners still have this opinion I do not know and I would not
like to be quoted on the matter.
The key to the code can be found in Porta and Trithemius.
It is also discussed in the Cryptomenes of Gustavus Selenus, a
copy of which I own. This is all I can say on the method.
Frankly there is a personal matter involved here. I feel that
since I determined the method of the code that I should be given
the opportunity of decyphering the entire manuscript or at least
that part which appeals to me.
... I feel that the
Voynich manuscript is a very important one in the history of
medicine, perhaps not containing any great contributions in the
art of medicine, but perhaps an attempt has been made to
rationalize on medical lore possessed by the English peasant of
the early 16th century, also on the reinterpretation of astrology
and the influence on the stars of human disease and an evaluation
of a man's life (particularly sex physiology) in relation to the
community.
<L Strong to E Rodakiewicz>
If you will look on the last page
of John Dee's Actions with Spirits which was published in 1659
you will find a very interesting page. By dividing the page into
two parts you will find that one half has exactly the same
frequency distribution of word size that is found in the Voynich
manuscript. If anybody be interested in working out this cypher,
you will find the identical cypher which I determined in the
Voynich manuscript. The only difference being in the number of
alphabets used and the difference in the arithmetical
progressions." Hudson View Gardens
<L Strong to D. Kahn>
I have had a very interesting correspondence with
the Colonel among which is his statement that he wanted me to
publish nothing but to submit all my decypherment to him.
Without the entire manuscript and more time than I can spare from
a career in cancer research no further progress can be made. I
have decyphered all the charts available to me, the ones that
appear [in] "the Cypher of Roger Bacon" by Newbold.
I admit that I do not have the complete multiple alphabet,
but I have enough to convince me that I am on the right track.
If I would publish what I do have somebody, especially in
Washington, with all the modern machinery for decypherment, could
take my system and complete the entire manuscript and destroy
what little fun I have had in solving the "most mysterious
manuscript in the world".
You may be interested to know that the New Yorker
interviewed me about publishing an article in their magazine and
when I had finished they agreed with me that it would be
inappropriate to publish it at the present time. A good deal of
the manuscript deals with sex physiology and relations in the
middle ages.
<L strong to E baldes>
To me the Voynich manuscript was not written until the 16th
century. I have published two papers on this idea which are
enclosed in this letter. You have already referred to the one in
Science. I have much more of the Voynich manuscript deciphered
but shall probably never publish anything further on it due to
the fact that the original manuscript and the photostatic copies
are in as deep freeze as any section of Zeta which is a
characteristic of some of our educational institutions.
It was even suggested by one of our top cryptographers in
Washington that since they had the mechanical machine to do the
entire decipherment all they needed was my system of decoding
which I had obtained by hard work. This I was loath to do and so
the matter rests. As a matter of fact even if further
decipherment of the Voynich manuscript could be made available it
probably could not be published at the present time. To me the
Voynich manuscript is merely another manuscript in the history of
medicine.
<L Strong to D Kahn>
If the manuscript is undecipherable it may be worth all the
owners expect to get for it. If the ciphering were known, and I
certainly did decipher it, the manuscript would only be another
in the history of medicine. It is my firm conviction that some
of the material in the manuscript could not be published now, it
could even be called a Kinsey report from the 17th century.
However, news is news and you know that field a lot more than I
do.
<Gillogly to L Strong>
Dear Dr. Strong,
I recently was able to find your paper on the Voynich
Manuscript in Science (15 Jun 1945) from a citation in The
Codebreakers, by David Kahn. The description of your results was
very interesting (but tantalizing) to me. Have you published the
keys you used in the "double system of arithmetical progressions
of multiple alphabets"? I have a copy of the microfilm from the
British Museum with the first 67 pages of the manuscript, but
have made no progress with it.
I would be interested to see your method; I am particularly
mystified that a progressive multiple alphabet system could
produce situations like the three contiguous repetitions of the
work 40HC89 in the plate on p. 865 of The Codebreakers. I hope
this request is not an imposition on your time.
<L Strong to Gillogly>
At one time, I had the intention of publishing the complete
analysis of the decoding of the Voynich manuscript. But after
the insulting report of the early work by David Kahn, based upon
the sloppy work of Friedman, I decided never to publish further
on the research. Neither Kahn nor Friedman have ever seen my
original analysis, including work sheets and for them to draw a
conclusion without knowing all the evidence is unsound science
and should be considered unethical practice in crypto-analysis.
Friedman, in his correspondence to me admitted he was unable to
decypher the Voynich MMS himself, and thus expressed a vane of
vanity which probably was part of the reason why he tried to
discredit me. Some build up a reputation by trying to destroy
everyone else.
I was never able to find out whether Ascham ever had the
idea that his MMS would ever be decyphered. But if Ascham waited
for four hundred years before his code system was discovered, I
can wait just as long for recognition in finding Ashcham's
reason.
If you continue p. 865 you may find more repetitions of what
you call "the word 40HC89". You may conclude that this
combination is not even a single word and the combination may
have different meanings. In other words it is not a unit of
words but a unit for the entire passage. That is as far as I
will go in indicating my system.
My description of the system of decoding used is clear. But
even without this clear hint, any expert decoder should be a
master in his own field.
<Gillogly to L Strong>
Thank you also for clarifying your position with respect to
Kahn and Friedman (who died several years ago, I believe). I
certainly agree that Friedman's rejection of your solution was
sloppy and unscientific - a clear cryptographic method with few
degrees of freedom (unlike Newbold's attempt) would certainly
overshadow any linguistic objections. The correct conclusion for
him to have drawn was merely that your solution was unproven,
since the essence of science is reproducibility of experiments.
I must respectfully disagree with your inclusion of Kahn in the
same category, however. I didn't fee that his treatment of your
work was insulting, but that he had drawn the only conclusion
possible - that it was unproven (because unpublished). He
reports Friedman's opinion as opinion, and does not express his
own opinion. In his chapter about Friedman, by the way, he
echoes your comment about Friedman building his reputation by
tearing down others.
<L Strong to P Arnold>
It is a surprise to hear about some of my old work. Yes, I
am interested in the manuscript even after I received some pretty
rough treatment with the custodian for the former owner, Mr.
Voynich. As you may know there had been several copies made and
deposited in various libraries. The one at the New York Library
could only be seen by the permission of the custodian. She
denied my request. Colonel Friedman of our USA code division
also had access to a copy. With this, he had the audacity to ask
me for my system of decipherment since he had the wonderful
machines in Washington for decypherment. Hence I then determined
that if the machines were as good as they were claimed to be, one
should determine what system had been employed and I would be
holding a ?climbing? throttle! I shall never divulge the system
i used. I carefully described it in the Science article. you
can find the cypher in Trithemius.
I am certain that Anthony Ascham was the author.
I also have taken note that the manuscript is now at Yale
University - but several years after I had determined the nature
of the manuscript at the Medical School, Yale University where I
spent many hours in the wonderful Cushing Library.
I wish you all the luck in your search. I fondly remember
the hours of ?scout? work I did before the light broke.