Concerning the bi-literal cypher of Francis Bacon discovered in his works

by Elizabeth Wells Gallup

I have to admit there are some printers’ errors in my book that escaped the closest proof reading, much to my regret. The proof reading was extremely difficult because of the care required to keep the unusual spelling and occasional abbreviations. Some errors were corrected in the third edition. Mr. Bompas found two or three—probably not all. I have had no opportunity to note the errata in a later publication. I can, however, make the broad assertion that in no single instance has any of these slight technical errors changed the meaning of a phrase, or made it obscure, or been of sufficient importance to affect in the least the overwhelming evidences of the existence of the system of the cipher and the correctness of its deciphering.

Manifest errors occurred in the text of the old books, which were corrected in the deciphering, but they were so few and so evident as to prove rather than to disprove the system. They occur mostly in long groups, as in the example of the cipher in De Augmentis, occasionally a short group of four letters, once in a while a wrong font letter, but the meaning of the context was always sufficiently clear in itself to correct the error. I cannot better illustrate this than by quoting from my “Replies to Criticisms,” issued in pamphlet form, but which has not appeared in public print. The explanation covers explicitly a number of points raised by Mr. Bompas, and being an analysis of Bacon’s own illustration of the cipher in the 1624 De Augmentis, has the weight of the author’s own methods of correction, and the suggestion, at least, that the errors were purposely made to educate the decipherer as to what would be encountered in the books; also the manner of overcoming the difficulties as they should arise.

“In the 1624 edition the second i in officio is changed by the law of tied letters; the second u in nunquam has position or angle of inclination, to make it an 'a fount’ letter; q in conquiesti is from the wrong fount, and the u has features of both founts but is clear in one distinctive difference—the width at the top; the q in quia is reversed by a mark; the a's in the first causa are formed like 'b fount’ letters but are taller; the q of quos is from the wrong fount; the second a in aderas is reversed, being a tied letter; l in velint is from the wrong fount, also the p of parati, the l of calumniam and the l of religione.

“In line twelve 'pauci sunt’ in 1623 ed. is 'parati sunt’ in the 1624 ed. The correct grouping is ntqui velin tquip ratis untom nesad, the first a in 'parati’ must be omitted to read diutius according to the Spartan dispatch. Otherwise the groups would be arati sunto mnesa. The m and n are both 'b fount,’ thus bringing two b's at the beginning of this last group, indicating at once a mistake, for no letter in the bi-literal alphabet begins with two b's and wherever encountered may be known to indicate either a wrong fount letter or a wrong grouping. It is one of the guards against error. To continue the groups after the one last given several would be found to commence with bb, and the resulting letters would not 'read.’

“Here, too, is an example of diphthongs, digraphs, and double letters, which are troublesome to 'A Correspondent.’ The diphthong æ of 'cæteris,’ the digraph ct in perfectare, and the double ff's and pp's are shown as separate letters and must be treated as such in deciphering Italics.

“A very important feature, that most seem to forget, is that ciphers are made to hide things, not to make them plain or easy to decipher. They are constructed to be misleading, mysterious, and purposely made difficult except to those possessing the key. Seekers after knowledge through them must not abandon the hunt upon encountering the first difficulty, improbability, inaccuracy, or stumbling block set for their confusion.”

The article says: “The plain inference is that the Cipher and Cipher story are imaginary.”

Well, this is at least complimentary, but I doubt whether Mr. Bompas stopped to think what that statement would mean with all that it implies. I do not think he would, on reflection, give me credit for a genius so broad, for it would be equal to the production of the plays themselves.

Were I the possessor of an imagination so boundless, I would certainly not have spent it upon a production foredoomed to be unpopular, or have subjected myself to the strain upon nerves and eyesight of six years’ hard study of old books and their typographical peculiarities for a Baconian cloak to hide the brilliancy of that imagination. Yet if the material for the three hundred and ninety pages of my book were not found in Cipher in the old originals, then it must be the conception of my own brain. First, the plot of each story worked out; the account of Bacon’s discovery of his parentage; the variations from historic records; the death of Amy Robsart; the tragedy of Essex, and that of Mary, Queen of Scots, and other scraps of added history; the love of Bacon for Margaret, and all the rest. All this thought out, in diction, much of it, of the highest order, in the old English spelling and phraseology of the 16th century and fitted with such nice exactness to the Italic letters of the old books, “separated into groups of five”—letters that even the sceptics admit the capitals at least agree with the alleged system—the study of months in the British Museum; the explanations and demonstrations to numberless people—all to hide a genius so magnificent! In the language of Mr. Bompas, “Absurd!” And yet, I repeat, if not Cipher it must be my own production.

It is useless to discuss the probability of Bacon’s committing State secrets to such a Cipher. It is not a time to ask the question, “Is it likely?” The Cipher is there, and it only remains to master its intricacies and search out what it has to reveal.