significance can be seen from the following translation of it:
REVEREND AND DISTINGUISHED SIR, FATHER IN CHRIST:
This book, bequeathed to me by an intimate friend, I destined for you, my very dear Athanasius, as soon as it came into my possession, for I was convinced it could be read by no one except yourself.
The former owner of this book asked your opinion by letter, copying and sending you a portion of the book from which he believed you would be able to read the remainder, but he at that time refused to send the book itself. To its deciphering he devoted unflagging toil, as is apparent from attempts of his which I send you herewith, and he relinquished hope only with his life. But his toil was in vain, for such Sphinxes as these obey no one but their master, Kircher. Accept now this token, such as it is and long overdue though it be, of my affection for you, and burst through its bars, if there are any, with your wonted success.
Dr. Raphael, tutor in the Bohemian language to Ferdinand III, then King of Bohemia, told me the said book had belonged to the Emperor Rudolph and that he presented to the bearer who brought him the book 600 ducats. He believed the author was Roger Bacon, the Englishman. On this point I suspend judgment; it is your place to define for us what view we should take thereon, to
whose favor and kindness I unreservedly commit myself and remain,
At the command of your Reverence,
JOANNES MARCUS MARCI,
PRAGUE, 19th August, 1665 (or 1666).
The key, here, is that the un-named “bearer” believed the author was Roger Bacon, the 13th century Franciscan monk, philosopher, magician, and alchemist. Bacon had been persecuted for his writings and scientific discoveries, and referred in his works to the necessity of hiding his great secrets in cipher. This emphasis on Roger Bacon’s authorship will become clear in later development. One should not confuse Roger Bacon with the Renaissance figure Francis Bacon (F. Bacon was also quite prolific on ciphering techniques) The testimony in the letter of Dr. Raphael, that the MS was once in the possession of Emperor Rudolph is fairly determinative. The signature of Jacobus de Tepenecz found inside the MS confirms the fact that the MS found its way to the Emperor’s court, as de Tepenecz was ennobled and befriended by the Emperor in 1608, and lived at his palace.
Further investigation by Mr. Voynich revealed that the MS had been in the possession of Dr. John Dee, the 16th century astrologer and magician. Dee had spent the years between 1584 and1588 at Rudolph’s court as a secret agent of Queen Elizabeth I, and probably brought the MS to Prague. Dee was an admirer of Bacon and collected many of his works (a catalogue of Dee’s library prepared in 1583 enumerates thirty-seven works of Bacon). Sir Thomas Browne, the inventor of the English word ‘cryptography’, claimed that Dee’s son Arthur had spoken to him about a ‘book containing nothing but hieroglyphiks, which book his father bestowed much time upon, but I could not hear that he could make it out’.
If we are to go back any further we might speculate that Dee obtained a good portion of his Bacon collection from the Northumberland family. It is known that Dee was closely associated with the Duchess of Northumberland, and that the Duke of Northumberland received the spoils from the dissolution of monasteries that began around 1538. It is presumed that from these spoils, the Duke (or more likely the Duchess) of Northumberland presented Dee with the MS.
A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE CONTENTS OF THE VOYNICH MS
The Voynich MS is a small quarto averaging about 6 by 9inches. The MS now contains the equivalent of 246 quarto pages, but may have originally contained not less than 262 pages. 33 pages contain text only, 212 with text and drawings, and the last page contains the Key. The text is written in an enciphered script, and the drawings are colored in red, blue, brown, yellow, and green. The contents of the MS are divided up into 5categories. The first and largest section contains 130 pages of plant drawings with accompanying text, and is called the Botanical division. The second contains 26 pages of drawings, obviously astrological and astronomical in nature. The third section contains 4 pages of text and 28 drawings, which would appear to be biological in nature.
The fourth division contains 34 pages of drawings, which are pharmaceutical in nature. The last section of the MS contains 23 pages of text arranged in short paragraphs, each beginning with a star. The last page (the 24th of this division) contains the Key only.
VOYNICH AND NEWBOLD
After considerable historical research, Mr. Voynich submitted the MS to several cryptographers. When the symbols in the MS had been copied and classified, their appearance and frequency were found to be consistent throughout, and seemed to have been composed in a single-alphabet substitution cipher. But, this did not appear to be the case, much to the dismay of the cryptographers, and they could not extract an intelligible message in any language from the text. The MS was then surrendered to several botanists and astronomers (due to the nature of the drawings) and to many experts in ancient languages? all to no avail. Realizing the possibility that the MS might require the interpretation of someone versed in cabalistic lore (Roger Bacon was no stranger to this) Voynich finally turned over the MS to Dr. William Romaine Newbold, of the University of Pennsylvania, and one of the greatest students of medieval philosophy and science. Newbold possessed the advantage that he was familiar with medieval methods of thought, was versed in occult sciences, and, he was also a cryptographer. Newbold started work on deciphering the Voynich MS in 1919.
NEWBOLD’S DECIPHERMENT WITH SOME CONCLUSIONS
When Newbold first attacked the MS for decipherment, he realized that he needed to find a key which would allow him to understand how the MS was enciphered. On the last page of the MS was written a single sentence:
“michiton oladabas multos te tccr cerc portas”
Disregarding the obvious nulls used in the sentence (ton ola tetccr cerc) and exchanging the “o” in “multos” for “a”, the intelligible Latin sentence emerges:
“michi dabas multas portas”
translating into English, “To me thou gavest many gates.”
Counting the number of letters in the sentence reveals it to be22. Newbold then adapted the Latin alphabet to it omitting the letter “k”, replacing “x” with “v” and produced the first form of the cipher alphabet used by Bacon:
m i c h i d a b a s m u l t a s p o r t a s
a b c d e f g h i l m n o p q r s t u v y z
Here is what makes Newbold’s qualifications for decipherment of the MS so felicitous. Newbold understood that a major clue was to be found in the word “portas”, in that its interpreted cabalistic meaning of “gates” would be the secret to the clarification of the Key. Newbold knew that Bacon was well acquainted with the Cabala and would have used such a plan in his Key, for in Bacon’s Epistle on the Nullity of Magic, where he details several ciphering systems, the sixth such system is called, “The Kabbalah of the Nine Chambers”. From Newbold’s footnotes we find the following:
“In Cabalistic philosophy the universe consists of God’s thought; thought is expressed in speech; speech is composed of letters; hence the Letters are the ultimate constituents of Things. The “gates” are the 231 biliteral combinations of the Hebrew letters (doubles omitted; 231 permutated pairs added by later writers); they represent the primary combinations of the highest manifestations of the divine Being which are at once the forces which make other things, the material of which they are made, and the channels through which the divine energy streams forth into the lower world. A single quotation from the Sepher Yezirah, will suffice:
“He combined (the Letters), weighed them, exchanged them, Aleph with all and all with Aleph, Beth with all and all with Beth, and they go (each) all the way around (the Alphabet). And they are found (comprised) in 231 gates, and everything formed and everything uttered is found to proceed from one Name.”
Thus, “gates” not only implies a cipher of many steps, but it reveals that the gates are the channels through which alphabetic values are conveyed from Key Sentence to the 484 (admitting doubled letters) biliteral symbols.
To continue the thread from this point would certainly become more technical than is necessary, and it will be reserved for the section which clearly details Newbold’s methods.
With the Key now in hand, Newbold began to approach the actual text of the MS. With more cabalistic associations appearing, Newbold discovered 22 distinct symbols, among these 22 were recognized the 15 signs that composed the Greek system of shorthand. Bacon was quite familiar with this Greek system, having written a grammar including such information, and reading from the eighth chapter of Bacon’s Epistle on the Nullity of Magic, we will find the great significance he placed on secret writing, and particular reference to the shorthand system:
“The man is insane who writes a secret in any other way than one which will conceal it from the vulgar and make it intelligible only with difficulty even to scientific men and earnest students. On this point the entire body of scientific men have been agreed from the outset, and by many methods have concealed from the vulgar all secrets of science. For some have concealed many things by magic figures and spells, others by mysterious and symbolic words. For example, Aristotle in the Book of Secrets says to Alexander, ‘O Alexander, I wish to show you the greatest secret of secrets; may the Divine Power help you to conceal the mystery and to accomplish your aim. Take therefore the stone which is not a stone and is in every human being and in every place and at every time, and it is called the Egg of the Philosophers, and Terminus of the Egg.’ Innumerable examples of the kind are to be found in many books and divers sciences, veiled in such terminology that they cannot be understood at all without a teacher. The third method of concealment which they have employed is that of writing in different ways, for example, by consonants alone, so that no one can read it unless he knows the words and their meanings. In this way the Hebrews and the Chaldaeans and Syrians and Arabs write their secrets. Indeed, as a general thing, they write almost everything in this way, and therefore among them, and especially among the Hebrews. Important scientific knowledge lies hidden. For Aristotle in the book above mentioned says that God gave them all scientific knowledge before there were any philosophers, and that from the Hebrews all nations received the first elements of philosophy . . . In the fourth place, concealment is effected by commingling letters of various kinds; it is in this way that Ethicus the astronomer concealed his scientific knowledge by writing it in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin letters in the same written line. In the fifth place, certain persons have achieved concealment by means of letters not then used by their own race or others but arbitrarily invented by themselves; this is the greatest obstacle of all, and Artephius has employed it in his book On the Secrets of Nature. In the sixth place, people invent not characters like letters, but geometrical figures which acquire the significance of letters by means of points and marks differently arranged; these likewise Artephius has used in his science. In the seventh place, the greatest device for concealment is that of shorthand, which is a method of noting and writing down as briefly as we please and as rapidly as we desire; by this method many secrets are written in the books of the Latin-using peoples. I have thought fit to touch upon these methods of concealment because I may perhaps, by reason of the importance of my secrets, employ some of these methods, and it is my desire to aid in this way, at least you, to the extent of my ability.”
Center of the Nebula Drawing, Enlarged.
The other 7 shorthand signs of Newbold’s discovery all fit the same general character of the first 15, and were used by Bacon to fill out the Greek shorthand, which was lacking expression.
Newbold continued by employing the biliteral method to the converted shorthand, and found that frequency analysis of the resultant alphabet revealed it to be characteristic of Latin. The final stage in the process of decipherment was the anagramming process. The process of anagramming texts was probably the most popular method of the day used for concealing messages, and the necessity of concealment was due to political or ecclesiastical reasons of the time, making the information unpropitious for pronouncement. It is known that the Cabalists were professed anagrammatists, and the third part of their art — themuru (changing) dealt with transposition and recombination of the letters of words for mystical interpretation. The fact that it was also a tradition among the “orders” can be witnessed in the works of von Bingen, and certainly in the Abbe N. De Montfaucon De Villars’ “Comte De Gabalis” (Quod tanto impendio absconditur etiam solummodo demonstrare destruereest – Tertullian). It was even continued with the likes of Galileo (Haec immatura a me jam frustra leguntur – oy), Tycho Brahe (who also was at the court of Rudolph), Johannes Kepler, and many others.
At last, the plain text began to emerge, and without going too far afield for the letters of anagrammed text. The letters to be rearranged occurred in pairs next to one another, either indirect or reverse order, and only relatively infrequently did Newbold have to go as far as three or four words ahead in order to fill in the plaintext.
What Newbold discovered in the text was absolutely astonishing? enough to gather a lot of attention from the scientific community. The biological drawings in the text were described asseminiferous tubes, the microscopic cells with nuclei, and even spermatozoa. Among the astronomical drawings were the descriptions of spiral nebulae, a coronary eclipse, and the comet of 1273. One of the more baffling things about this was that many of the drawings of plants, and of the galaxies appeared to have been invented. There was no doubt that if Bacon were the author of such a text, he must have had some way of obtaining the information. For instance, Newbold’s translation of the caption near the drawing of the nebula of Andromeda (which clearly shows its spiral characteristics), gave its location by the following:
“In a concave mirror I saw a star in the form of a snail . . . between the navel of Pegasus, the girdle of Andromeda, and the head of Cassiopea”.
Now, Bacon is credited with the invention of the magnifying glass, but it should be certain that he did not invent the telescope or the microscope as many at the time of this discovery conjectured. The “concave mirror” is probably the single most important clue here. Many of the later prominent Renaissance figures would not only describe similar visions of travel to distant places, several also included such “shewstones” as their viewing apparatus. In the works of Dee, Kircher, and even the more famous Nostradamus, one will find reference to such a device, and in each case these individuals recorded the experience of visions associated with it. Some of their descriptions were later proven to be precise. The actual knowledge pertaining to the use of a device such as this is probably now lost, but in any case it is most worthy of mention considering the circumstances. Let us now turn to some of the objections to Newbold’s decipherment of the MS.
NEWBOLD’S DETRACTORS – AND HIS VALIDATION
Initially, upon the announcement of his findings in 1921, Newbold received some praise for his work. Even John M. Manly, a military intelligence cryptanalyst, wrote a favourable review in Harper’s Magazine. But, this was not to last very long, and soon the attacks proceeded. The first of such attacks came from research chemists who stated that the rough vellum surface upon which the MS was written had caused the ink to break up into spots and shadings with age. This break up of characters, they stated, was whatNewbold had actually seen when deciphering the shorthand characters.
This criticism that the ink had merely broken up into spots and shadings due to age was unfounded due to the fact that many documents nearly as aged as the Voynich MS, with comparable ink, do not display cracking similar to the individual characters in the MS. Also, if the arrangement of characters was due to this breaking up of the ink, certainly more than 22 individual shorthand symbols would have been discovered by Newbold.
The next attack was concerned with the biliteral method of Newbold’s decipherment. Cryptographers stated that by Newbold’s methods, Bacon could not have enciphered the text to begin with. But, Newbold clearly detailed the enciphering process, and revealed that Bacon did not use “orthodox” methods of enciphering to which the cryptographers were accustomed.
Attacked most heavily of all was the anagramming process Newbold used. These detractors maintained that one could anagram any text into anything one chose, and that this method would not have followed the qualifications of a “good” cipher, in that the first quality of any “good” cipher is that it must convey its message with absolute certainty. Newbold’s anagramming process did NOT use “blocks of 55 to 110 characters”, as had been put forth by these detractors, on the contrary, it can be shown from his own notes that he was very careful in his observations:
“The only indication that the recomposition is correct is the regular appearance, at intervals of NOT more than three or four words, of letter groups suggesting words appropriate, in syntax and logic, to the preceding text. If they fail to appear, if one is driven to arbitrary choice in order to make sense, the recomposition is probably wrong.”
I have observed this misrepresentation of facts of Newbold’s decipherment in a number of works (David Kahn’s gigantic work titled “The Codebreakers” immediately comes to mind) and find it quite an admonition to any other statements made by such authors. The fact that his detractors used such methods to anagram texts into any messages they seemed fit – designed to expose flaws in Newbold’s decipherment – is clearly disinformation. Newbold, by HIS method, equally tried other texts of the period including works of Bacon which were not meant to be in cipher, and while he could form Latin words for a time, he was soon left with unmanageable groups of consonants, and discontinued the experiment, as Latin requires between 40 and 50 percent vowels.
It wasn’t until after Newbold’s death in 1926 that more serious assaults would come. In 1931 John Manly (who earlier gave praise) published a forty-seven page article in Speculum Magazine of what he called “a detailed analysis” that attempted to make Newbold’s work seem entirely worthless. But many more would hinge their deprecations on Newbold’s interpretation of the drawings contained in the MS. Most said that the biological pictures were cabalistic (they certainly were!), symbolical, vague, and capable of various interpretations. I must note that I personally have given these biological drawings to persons well credentialed in the field of Biology, and asked them to give me an explanation of what they see in them. In every instance, and without any prior knowledge of the MS, they have given descriptions that very closely resemble the deciphered interpretations of Newbold.
Other assailants made particular note of the drawing that represented the nebula Andromeda. Based on the fact that the spiral nebula in Andromeda lies edge on to earthly observers, Bacon would have had to have an incredibly powerful telescope to view such a thing. But, as we have noted, no one was really claiming that he did.
It may be deduced from these painstaking onslaughts that maybe these assailants felt it was necessary to hide the true nature of the work. In Manly’s 1931 article, he blatantly reveals his real concerns with the warning to all that, “these results (of Newbold’s) threaten to falsify to no unimportant degree, the history of human thought.” Kahn, in “The Codebreakers”, devotes several pages to the MS decipherment, and groups Newbold into a category he later describes as oddballs and lunatics who believe in such things as water witching.
Of course, the depreciated Newbold decipherment did not discourage others from attempting to figure out the MS, and a few of the arguments put forward may have been somewhat conceivable. In 1944, Professor Hugh O’Neil, a botanist at the Catholic University of America, offered evidence that the MS could not have been written before 1493. He observed that the drawings in the MS include the likes of the common sunflower, and Capsicum, both plants native to the Americas which according to him, were unknown to Europeans before the return of Columbus from his second voyage. We needn’t go into the Columbus discovery here, as historically it is well known that he was hardly the first to venture to the Americas.
Not long after O’Neil’s observations, Dr. Leonell Strong, a cancer research scientist and amateur cryptographer, took on the project of deciphering the MS. Fancifully boasting that he could “unravel” the secret of any cipher, Strong said that the solution to the MS cipher was a “peculiar double system of arithmetical progressions of a multiple alphabet”. Even here, there was a great similarity to Newbold’s system, but Strong altogether bombastically stated that the plaintext revealed the MS to be written by the 16th century English author Anthony Ascham, whose works include A Little Herbal, published in 1550. Although the MS does contain one section resembling an herbal, it is unknown where the author of A Little Herbal would have obtained such literary and cryptographic knowledge.
The speculation of William F. Friedmann, another military cryptographer, was that the MS was actually a text in an artificial language, and may have held some merit if it were not for the fact that he was also responsible, and instrumental in the demolition of Newbold’s theory (again, after Newbold’s death). But, he, too never went any further than this simple hypothesis. Many others have invented their own versions of decipherment of the MS, but all of them fall short of making anything intelligible out of the mysterious characters. To the cryptographic orthodoxy, the MS is still “undeciphered”. I believe many have merely taken the disparaging words of others as proof that the Newbold solution is bogus, without actually examining the specifics. Had Newbold been an amateur with nothing but this decipherment for credentials, it would certainly raise some doubt. But, Newbold indeed practised his techniques on similar manuscripts such as the Tironian signs of the so-called Vatican Document (which I won’t detail here as it would necessitate the space of an entire article in itself) and many others. It is most probable though, that the Voynich MS actually cost Newbold his health, both physically and mentally. In the latter days of his work on the MS he began to grow weary and would often restructure his entire method without any sense of reason. Still, the heart of Newbold’s inspiration lies in his initial work on the MS, and there has not been anyone since who has even come close to the original genius of his solution to “the most mysterious manuscript in the world”.
NEWBOLD’S DECIPHERMENT IN DETAIL
The system of ciphers as used in the Voynich MS is based upon two distinct forms. The first is the “shorthand form”, and the second being the “Latin form”. We will start by detailing the Latin form, as it would have been the first used in encipherment.
The Latin Form
Bacon’s fundamental objective in the Latin form was to construct a cipher which would present no indication of being a cipher at all, and hence, arouse no curiosity, and prompt no one to attempt its decipherment. It will be seen that in the event the reader would choose to undertake decipherment, h/she should be well equipped. A good knowledge of Latin is essential, but one must be versed with the styles of mediaeval Latin, as found in virtually all manuscripts of the period. The majority of words were never written out in full, and remaining letters were supplemented by a complicated system of abbreviation symbols by no means free from ambiguity. An example of this, taken from Bacon’s Perspectiva, is seen below with the lines translated into fulltext beneath them.
De visione fracta maiora s..t Na. de facili p..et per canones
De visione fiacta majora sunt; nam de facili patet per canones
supr.d.c.os quod maxima pos…t apparere m…ma & econ..a & I..ge
supradictos, quod maxima possum apparere minima, et e conlra, et longe
distan..a videbu.t.r propi.q..ssime & econ..a Na. possumus sic
distantia videbuntur propinquissime et e converso. Nam possumus sic
fig.rare perspicua & tali…r ea ordiari r……v n…ri visus
figurare perspicua, et taliter ea ordinate respectu nostri visual
& rerum qua fizngetr radii q.orumcunquc volu.rimus & ut s.b
et rerum quod frangentur radii guorsumcunque voluerimus, ut sub
quo vider.mus Na. distacia n.. facit ad h.ius…. visiones n..i
quo videremus, nam distantia non facit ad hujusmodi visiones nisi, etc…..
Although this is not necessarily the order in which the text appears, generally some 30-40 percent of letters are indicated by abbreviations or omissions. Mediaeval scholars accustomed to this may have no difficulty with its translation, but even excellent students of Latin have been troubled by this.
Let us now continue with the cipher. We have already discussed the alphabet used earlier:
a b c d e f g h i l m n o p q r s t u v y z
Each letter is combined with each other letter in the alphabet as follows:
aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av ay az
ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bl hm hm bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv by bz
ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cy cz
and on to z to form 22 alphabets composed of 22 pairs of letters, a total of 484 biliteral symbols composing Bacon’s primary alphabet. Very shortly before Newhold’s death he would include “k” in the alphabet, but it only figured rarely, and was not even really necessary. Now the biliteral alphabet contains all the possible pairs of letters which occur in the Latin alphabet, and some that do not such as bg, cz, and zf. In typical biliteral fashion, the pairs are now assigned to singular alphabetic values to build up other Latin words. The next step is to strip any two consecutive pairs of letters in the biliterally composed text (within the same word). The first pair must end with, and the second pair must begin with the same letter, and these repeated letters are then omitted from the biliteral word. For example:
or – ri – it – tu – ur
would be assigned to the alphabetic values:
or – ri – it – tu – ur
U N I U S
If the repeated letters are omitted, one has the Latin verb oritur for the covertext. While it may be possible to write two or more words in proper grammatical relation, it would be impossible to write continuous text of any length that would make sense. At this point, many of the biliterals were assigned additional values.
Next, the 22 letters of the ordinary alphabet were reduced to eleven on purely phonetic principles (Bacon gives the basis for this simplification in his Oxford Greek Grammar, pp 48 ft), and thus approximately doubles the total number of symbols available for representing each individual letter. Four letters only, of this new alphabet, have but a single sound, a, t, m, n. Of the vowels, i and y are regarded as a single letter, and o and u are regarded as a single letter; v is not distinct from u any more than j is distinct from i. Of the consonants, the labials p f b are taken as one letter; so also the dentals t d; the gutturals c g kq; the liquids l r; and the sibilants s z. The letter h is omitted except in the words mihi and nihil, which are written mini and nicil. Instead of x, as is used invariably. Thus the phonetic alphabet comprises the following eleven letters:
a b-f-p c-g-k-q t-d e i-j-y I-r m n o-u-v sz
The following table details the alphabet and its total number of equivalent symbols:
||Total Number of
|A ( = a)
|P ( = b f p)
|C ( = c g k q)
|T ( = d t)
|E ( = e)
|I ( = i j y)
|R ( = I r)
|M ( = m)
|N ( = n)
|U ( = o u v)
|S ( = s z)
The Script Form
After the text was enciphered using the Latin form, it was then replaced by a superficial system of seemingly alphabetical symbols:
These signs are actually made up of the shorthand symbols discussed earlier, and are composed of individual strokes of the pen. One should refer to figure at left for the actual table of shorthand characters and their values. Since t is expressed by 4 symbols, and u by 2 symbols, there are a total of 22 individual signs. When reading the characters, one should start at the lower left, and proceed upward follorving the ductus of the pen.
Summary of Newbold’s Methods
For the deciphering of the Latin texts, four processes must be applied:
1. Syllabification: Double all but the first and last letters of each word, and divide the product into biliteral groups or symbols.
2. Translation: Translate these symbols into their alphabetic values.
3. Reversion: Change the alphabetic values to the phonetic values, by the use of the reversion alphabet.
4. Recomposition: Rearrange the letters in order, and thus recompose the true text.
For the reading of the cryptogram or sharthand texts, there are six processes in the interpretation:
1. Transliteration: Identify the shorthand characters and transliterate them in order.
2. Syllabification: Double all but he first and the last character, for there is no word—division; and arrange in biliteral symbols.
3. Commutation: In any symbol where the second letter is a commuting letter, namely c o n m u t a andq, change the prior letter by the conversion alphabet; where the first letter is a commuting letter, change the second by the reversion alphabet; where both are commuting letters, change both in the ways just stated.
4. Translation: Assign to the commuted symbols their alphabetic values.
5. Reversion: Change alphabetic values to phonetic values.
6. Recomposition: Rearrange the letters in order, as with the cipher Latin.
For further reading and investigation, the complete folios of the Voynich Manuscript have been made available in digital, high-resolution format by the Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library of the Yale University Library: http://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3519597
- “The Cipher of Roger Bacon” by William Romaine Newbold, edited by Roland Grubb Kent. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1928.
- “Secret and Urgent – The Story of Codes and Ciphers” by Fletcher Pratt. Blue Ribbon Books, 1942.
- “The Secret Teachings of All Ages” by Manly Palmer Hall. Philosophical Research Society, 1977.
- “Cryptography – The Science of Secret Writing” by Lawrence Dwight Smith. W.W. Norton, 1943.
- “Opus Majus” by Roger Bacon. Complete Latin version by Howard R. Bayne, 1946.
- “Comte De Gabalis” by the Abbe N. De Montfaucon DeVillars. Paris 1670.
- “The Incredible Roger Bacon” by Manley Mills. Fate, April 1951, pp 69-72.
- “Cipher of the Secret Book” by Betty McKaig (Interview with Leonell Strong). North County Independent, Oct. 7, 1970.
- “The Insignificant Cry of Roger Bacon” by Malachi Martin. Intellectual Digest, August, 1972, pp 52-55.
- “Codes and Ciphers” by Peter Way. Encyclopedia of Espionage, Aldus Books London, 1977.
- “Oddities and Curiosities of Words and Literature” by C. C. Bombaugh. J. B. Lippincott, 1890.
- “Riddles in History” by Cyrus H. Gordon. Crown Publishers, 1974.
- “A True and Faithful Relation of What Passed for Many Years Between Dr. John Dee… and Some Spirits”, edited by Meric Casaubon. London, 1659.
- “The Hieroglyphic Monad” by Dr. John Dee, translated by J. W. Hamilton-Jones. Neil & Co. Edinburgh, 1947.
- “The Curious Lore of Precious Stones”, pp 188-196, by George Frederick Kunz. 1938.
- “The Codebreakers” by David Kahn. McMillan Co., 1967.