De Augmentis Scientiarum. London Edition, 1623.Plate i.
De Augmentis Scientiarum. London Edition, 1623.Plate i.
Plate ii.
Plate ii.
Plate iii.
Plate iii.
Plate iv.
Plate iv.
De Augmentis Scientiarum. Paris Edition, 1624.
De Augmentis Scientiarum. Paris Edition, 1624.
In the 1624 edition the secondiinofficiois changed by the law of tied letters; the seconduinnunquamhas position or angle of inclination, to make it an 'a fount’ letter;qinconquiestiis from the wrong fount, and theuhas features of both founts but is clear in one distinctive difference—the width at the top; theqinquiais reversed by a mark; thea's in the firstcausaare formed like 'bfount’ letters but are taller; theqofquosis from the wrong fount; the secondainaderasis reversed being a tied letter;linvelintis from the wrong fount, also thepofparati, thelofcalumniamand thelofreligione.
In line twelve 'pauci sunt’ in 1623 ed. is 'parati sunt’ in the 1624 ed. The correct grouping isntqui velin tquip ratis untom nesad, the firstain 'parati’ must be omitted to readdiutiusaccording to the Spartan dispatch. Otherwise the groups would bearati sunto mnesa. Themandnare both 'bfount,’ thus bringing twob's at the beginning of this last group, indicating at once a mistake for no letter in the bi-literal alphabet begins with twob'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 withbb, 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 digraphctinperfectare, and the doubleff's andpp'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.
Were the confirmation of this cipher of importance to the government—a matter of life or death to an official, or likely to concern the strategic movement of an army—the energies of many minds would be centered upon deciphering it. But itwould appear from the writings we have recently seen, the greatest effort is to prevent its development or acceptance—that the ideas of a lifetime be not overturned, and the satisfaction remain that the individual has already compassed the limits of information. It is so much pleasanter to be satisfied with what we have than to delve for things we do not want to know.
Personally, it is a matter of no vital importance to me whether the cipher is accepted or not. I have put my best efforts into its discovery and elucidation. I know that I have accomplished what others have failed to do, and I can look on with equanimity as the world wrestles with the evidences, and finally comes, as it will, to the conclusion I have reached.
The impetus given the movement by this discussion will result in important research, and other discoveries concerning Bacon that I am unable to make, will, with the light that has now been thrown upon the subject, confirm what has been set forth and much more besides. As I write, an article inBaconianamakes a suggestion which should be acted upon at once:
“Our attention has also been called toa sealed bag of papers at the Record office. It was, it is said, sealed at the death of Queen Elizabeth, and to be opened only by joint consent of the reigning Sovereign, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Lord Chancellor. Is not the time come when we may fitly memorialize His Majesty, King Edward, to command or sanction the opening and revelation?”