Adams Robyn, Cox Rosanna. Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
128 Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture
Leicester in person to hand over their letters, although Walsingham
takes responsibility for conveying other, less important letters. Second,
it makes explicit the way in which envoys had to memorize messages to
be given orally to particular recipients. Third, it reveals the importance
of reporting back how letters are received: to a modern reader, Bacon
may seem to be boasting of the ‘good wordes’ he won from Burghley,
Leicester, or the Queen, but they are in fact a signal to Paulet as to how
his letters have been received: Bacon has to detail when and where each
letter was handed over, and what the response was. To Paulet, he rea-
soned that Burghley was more interested in conveying the ambassador’s
letters to the Queen, while he was ‘only to render a report for the rest’,
of probable interest to Burghley, but not of pressing urgency. Bacon
goes on to acknowledge Paulet’s both bestowing on him ‘your own
good opinion’ and – by allowing him to deliver these letters – being ‘the
cause of the good opinion of others’. He also particularly thanks Paulet
for sending over his man with him.
28
His gratitude was well placed. Like
his initial departure to the embassy, when he kissed the queen’s hands,
29
this mission gave Bacon an opportunity to serve Elizabeth directly. He
was effectively being groomed to work as an intermediary or facilitator
in the world of international politics. After news arrived of his father’s
sudden death on 20 February 1579, Bacon returned from France for the
last time. Once again he acted as bearer for Paulet’s post, of 20 March.
In appointing him to carry the post again on his return journey, Paulet
provided Bacon with a further chance to place himself in the presence
of the Queen, and a last testimonial to present to her. ‘I know,’ he wrote
to the monarch, ‘your maiestie will take pleasure to hear of the toward-
ness of anie of your subjects, and therefore would not fail to advertise
you that this bearer, Master Francis Bacon, is of great hope, endowed
with many good and singular parts; and if God give him lyfe, will proue
a verie able and sufficient subject to doe your Highnes good and acceptable
servyce.’
30
It was in France, then, that Bacon had his first experience of the letter-
writing culture of embassy life. This culture also featured prominently
ciphers and cryptography, which were to play such an important role
not only in Bacon’s later life, but also in his posthumous reputation as
the shadowy figure whose authorial identity is cryptically contained in
anything from the works of Shakespeare to the Rosicrucian manifesto.
31
Paulet’s letters attest to the constant need for new ciphers. In a June 1577
letter to Walsingham, he implores the Secretary ‘to send me some Cipher
for the Prince of Oringe, P: of Condé, Don Jhon, Cazimer, D. of Guyse,
Dampuille, Vicont de Tourayne, and La Motte, the gentleman of
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1289780230239760_09_cha07.indd 128 11/8/2010 1:56:22 PM11/8/2010 1:56:22 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
Alan Stewart 129
Bretaine mentioned in my other lettres, yet not vnknowne to Monsuire
Villiers’.
32
A letter to the Earl of Leicester reveals that each correspondent
had his or her own cipher: ‘My zipher to Master Wallsingham hath
some other thinges which I dare not commit to your Lordship’s zipher,
and do wishe that yt would please you to give me a better.’
33
Sometimes,
the lengthy business of translating each character into cipher was not
feasible. Writing to Walsingham in July 1577, Paulet enclosed a dis-
course that ‘wyll partely decipher vnto you the presente state of the
King of Nauarre and his followers’. He explained that ‘I haue reducyd
this discourse into so fewe wordes and short sentences, as I could not
sett the same downe otherwys then in zipher, onlesse I would discouer
the matter, and I had rather be troblesome vnto your Honour with a
long zipher then to hazard hir Maiesties seruice, or to indaunger a good
frind. You shall fynd that in this zipher I have confounded moodes,
tenses, persons and nombers, therby to take as much helpe of my zipher
as was possibele, but it shalbe easy for you to conceaue the sense.’
34
(This explanation, taken from the copy-book, is not included in the letter
as sent to Walsingham.)
35
Bacon thus became intimately acquainted with ciphering during this
time with the embassy. His interest may have been spurred by another
member of the embassy, Thomas Phelippes, a client of Sir Francis
Walsingham, who had been placed with Paulet precisely because of
his skills in languages and ciphering.
36
The Bacon – Phelippes intimacy
endured: a letter from Paulet to Phelippes written in January 1586 sent
‘hearty commendations’ from himself and Lady Paulet to Phelippes
‘and their good friend Master Francis Bacon’,
37
and Bacon would later
recommend Phelippes to the attention of his patron Robert Devereux,
Earl of Essex, in or around 1591.
38
It is perhaps not coincidental that
Phelippes was also famed for his ability to counterfeit any hand, for it is
in the relationship between cipher and handwriting that Bacon found
the inspiration for his bi-literal cipher.
In his 1605 Advancement of learning, Bacon identifies the three ‘vertues’
necessary to ciphers: ‘that they be not laborious to write and reade;
that they bee impossible to discypher; and in some cases, that they
bee without suspition’. He even very briefly limns the perfect cipher:
‘The highest Degree whereof, is to write OMNIA PER OMNIA; which
is vndoubtedly possible, with a proportion Quintuple at most, of the
writing infoulding, to the writing infoulded, and no other restraint
whatsoeuer.’
39
But Bacon’s readers would have to wait until his 1623
expansion of The advancement, De augmentis scientiarum for a fuller treat-
ment of this cipher.
40
Here, the perfect cipher is not the one that takes
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1299780230239760_09_cha07.indd 129 11/8/2010 1:56:22 PM11/8/2010 1:56:22 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
130 Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture
a long time to crack; it is the one that is never perceived to be a cipher,
and so is never subjected to ciphering. ‘For if Letters Missive fall into
their hands,’ Bacon explains, ‘that have some command and authority
over those that write; or over those to whom they were liable to exami-
nation and question; unlesse the Cypher be such, as may be voide of all
suspition, or may elude all examination.’
41
It is at this moment that Bacon introduces one of his own contrivances.
According to Bacon’s desire for a perfect cipher, the secret message (‘the
interior Letter’) would be encoded in another message (‘the exterior
Letter’) which, being intercepted and read, would give no sign that it
was a cipher, but rather would be ‘such as is probable the Writer might
send, yet without perill’. Each character of the interior letter would be
rendered in the exterior letter by five characters, so that the exterior
letter will ‘beare a quintuple proportion to’ the interior letter.
42
The con-
tent of these characters is irrelevant – but each character is to be formed
in one of two ways, and it is in this binary differentiation that the true
message will be encoded. Bacon realized that he had hit on something
important with this binary rendering of information: ‘Neither is it a
small matter these Cypher-Characters have, and may performe: For by
this Art a way is opened, whereby a man may expresse and signifie the
intentions of his minde, at any distance of place, by objects which may
be presented to the eye, and accommodated to the eare: provided those
objects be capable of a twofold difference onely; as by Bells, by Trumpets,
by Lights and Torches, by the report of Muskets, and any instruments of
like Nature.’
43
Or the telegraph or Morse Code, for that matter.
But for the immediate concern of ciphered correspondence, Bacon
achieves his binary differentiation through a ‘Bi-formed Alphabet’, pro-
viding two different handwritten versions (a and b) of each character, in
both its majuscule and miniscule forms (Figure 7.1). In some cases the
differences are obvious: the majuscule ‘E’, for example, has the a form
composed of angular, straight lines, while the b form is rounded. But
most are more subtly differentiated: the final loop on the b version of a
miniscule ‘d’, for example, or the final loop on the b version of a minis-
cule ‘h’. Bacon works through an example, where he wishes to send the
message ‘fvge’ (flee). First, with his ‘bi-literarie Alphabet’ he renders the
four letters F V G E as ‘Aababbaabbaabbaaabaa’. He takes as his exterior
letter the phrase ‘Manec te volo donec venero’ (I want you to stay until
I come). He then writes each character of this exterior letter rendering
it in either a or b form according to the quintuple rendering of the inte-
rior letter. So he writes the a version of the first character, a majuscule
‘M’; the a version of the second character, a miniscule ‘a’; the b version
of the third character, the miniscule ‘n’, and so on.
44
In order to decode
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1309780230239760_09_cha07.indd 130 11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
Alan Stewart 131
Figure 7.1 Bacon’s ‘bi-formed alphabet’, showing the different forms of each
character, majuscule and miniscule. From Opera … tomvs primvs: Qui continet de
dignitate & augmentis scientiarum libros IX (London: John Haviland, 1623), sig.
Nn4v.
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1319780230239760_09_cha07.indd 131 11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
132 Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture
the message, the recipient would have to recognize that the characters
were written in two different ways, and then, ignoring the content of
the ‘exterior letter’, work through each character ascertaining whether
it was in the a or b form, and then reading off each group of five a/b
through the cipher. It is a cipher that requires immense control and skill
in the penning of two alphabets character by character.
What is crucial here is that the content of the message remains utterly
irrelevant. Bacon writes ‘Manec te volo donec venero’ – of course, the
direct oppposite of the encoded ‘flee’ instruction – but he could have
written any phrase of twenty or more characters in any language using
the Roman alphabet: it is in the careful handwriting of each letter that the
message is encrypted. So we could write ‘Don’t forget to put the cat out’ or
‘Give my regards to Broadway’, and, as long as we use the correct form of
each letter, the result would still be ‘FVGE’. The exterior epistle can even
be a pre-existing text: in his next bravura example Bacon uses ‘a Spartan
letter sent once to a Scytale or round cypher’d staffe’
45
– ‘Perditæ Res.
Mindarus cecidit. Milites | esuriunt. Neque hinc nos extricare, neque | hic diutiùs
manere possumus’ (‘All is lost. Mindarus is killed. The soldiers want food. We
can neither get hence, nor stay longer here’) – and then encodes it in a pas-
sage from Cicero’s first letter.
46
His point is that a transcript of Cicero’s
first letter, a millennium and a half old, is not going to be suspected as
containing a cipher, because the cipher resides not in the content at all,
but in the rendering of the message in handwriting.
Various parts of these strategies are by no means unique or original to
Bacon: a comparative study of the work of Joannes Tritemius, Girolamo
Cardano, Giovanni Baptista Della Porta and Blaise de Vigenère reveals
many of the same features. Indeed, Bacon’s editor Robert Leslie Ellis felt
so strongly that Bacon should not be credited with inventing the bi-literal
cipher that he added an appendix of four pages to the 1857 volume
of Bacon’s Works that contained this section, noting Bacon’s possible
indebtedness to other cryptographers.
47
Ellis wrote that ‘The idea of a
biliteral alphabet, which Bacon seems to claim as his own, is employed,
though in a different manner, by Porta’: that is, Giovanni Baptista Della
Porta, in his De occultis literarum notis (book 5, chapter 3).
48
In describing
the detail of Della Porta’s method, however, Ellis does admit that at
a certain point it ‘departs wholly from Bacon’s . . . Porta’s method is
therefore not, like Bacon’s, a method scribendi omnia per omnia, but only
omnia per multa. Still the analogy of the two methods is to be remarked:
both aim at concealing that there is any but the obvious meaning,
and both depend essentially on representing all letters by combinations
of two only.’
49
It is the work of Blaise de Vigenère, however, that Ellis
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1329780230239760_09_cha07.indd 132 11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
Alan Stewart 133
sees as closest to Bacon’s: he sums up his discussion by claiming that
‘The transition from this [de Vigenère’s] to Bacon’s cipher is so easy
that the credit given to him must be reduced’.
50
De Vigenère’s work
was published (as the Traicté des chiffres, ou secrètes manières d’escrire) in
Paris in 1586, seven years after the period when Bacon claimed to have
developed his cipher; but the tract was allegedly first drafted in Italy
in 1567–1568,
51
so it may be that Bacon drew on de Vigenère’s still
unpublished work during his time with the embassy although de Vigenère
claims of his treaty that ‘he had revealed nothing of its contents’.
52
It is
indeed probable that Bacon met de Vigenère while in Paris – certainly
Bacon’s embassy mate Nicholas Hilliard made enough of an impression
on the Frenchman that de Vigenère penned a eulogy to him.
53
But, whatever the nature of his indebtedness to earlier writers, Bacon
does make an original contribution – in his deployment of handwriting.
This point has been steadily occluded in the nearly four centuries since
Bacon published his biforma and biliteral alphabets in 1623. Bacon’s
initial publication employed presumably woodcut alphabets to render
the differently handwritten characters. Editions published in Paris by
Pierre Mettayer (in quarto, 1624) and Strasburg by the heirs of Lazar
Zetzer (in octavo, 1635)
54
and Johannes Joachim Bockenhoffer (1654)
55
followed this example, as did Gilbert Watts’ 1640 English translation,
printed by Leonard Lichfield for Robert Young and Edward Forrest
.56
But even as early as 1645, Francisco Moiardus and Adrian Wijngaerden,
publishing a duodecimo version in Leiden, failed to understand the
importance of the handwriting, and printed the bi-literal alphabet as a
nonsensically doubled uniliteral alphabet
57
– as Wijngaerden did again
in his duodecimo Leiden edition of 1652,
58
and Joannis Ravestein in the
Amsterdam edition of 1662.
59
The great Victorian edition by Spedding,
Ellis and Heath attempted to render the different versions of each letter
by using different print fonts, but to the unpractised eye the differences
are almost invisible.
It is also a misapprehension of this aspect of Bacon’s cipher that
catalysed much of the work attempting to prove that Bacon wrote
Shakespeare’s works. As Alexander d’Agapeyeff explains it, in the late
nineteenth century, ‘a Mrs Gallup, reading this cipher, wondered why
Bacon should invent it and use it in the printing of books. Ciphers gener-
ally are made to be used at a moment’s notice, and he himself says that
ciphers should be easy to read and write; but to set up a book in several
different types is an expensive process, and nobody would do it without
a reason.’ Thus prompted, Gallup ‘carefully studied the first edition of
one of Bacon’s early works, and on the title-page, hidden under two set
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1339780230239760_09_cha07.indd 133 11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM11/8/2010 1:56:23 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
134 Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture
of italics, she discovered the name of William Rowley [sic] – Bacon’s chief
secretary’.
60
But Mrs Gallup either used the wrong edition of Bacon, or
completely misunderstood what he wrote. For, as should be clear by now,
in describing his bi-literal cipher, Bacon is emphatically speaking not of
printing, but of writing in its most material sense, of the penmanship that
puts in ink on paper to form individual characters.
By resituating Bacon’s cipher in the milieu of its creation, however, we
can appreciate why Bacon focuses on handwriting, and how crucial that
handwriting was to the matter at hand: obtaining a safe and secure trans-
mission of intelligence between Paris and London. We can learn some-
thing of Paulet’s embassy from Jean Hotman’s The ambassador. But that
account needs to be set alongside the endless papers, letters, discourses,
and ciphers whose creation, copying, deciphering and hearing filled most
of the early modern ambassador’s waking hours. Bacon’s bi-literal cipher
reminds us that, beyond the abstractions of humanism and literature, the
world of early modern diplomacy was a world of constant, painful hand-
writing, a cipher whose secrets we may not yet have cracked.
Notes and references
1. This paper builds on, and furthers, research I undertook with Lisa Jardine for
our 1998 co-authored biography, Hostage to fortune: the troubled life of Francis
Bacon (London: Victor Gollancz). In addition to Lisa’s vital input, I am grateful to
responses to earlier drafts from participants at the Silent languages colloquium
(Birkbeck, University of London, 2002), and the Diplomats, agents, adventurers &
spies 1500–1700 conference (University of Kent, 2008).
2. Douglas Biow (2002) Doctors, ambassadors, secretaries: humanism and professions
in Renaissance Italy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
3. Timothy Hampton (2009) Literature and diplomacy in early modern Europe (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press).
4. ‘aliud Inuentum subijiciemus, quod certè, cùm Adolescentuli essemus Parisijs,
excogitauimus’. Francis Bacon (1623) Opera . . . tomvs primvs: Qui continet
de dignitate & augmentis scientiarum libros IX (London: John Haviland) Nn3
v
(278) (Gibson no. 129a). The translation is by Gilbert Watts: (1640) Of the
advancement and proficience [sic] of learning or the partitions of sciences IX Bookes
(Oxford: Leonard Lichfield for Robert Young and Edward Forrest), 2L1
r
(p. 265) (Gibson no. 141a). Bacon editions are cross-referenced to R.W. Gibson
(1950) Francis Bacon: a biblio graphy of his works and of Baconiana (Oxford:
Scrivener Press).
5. See Jardine and Stewart, Hostage to fortune, pp. 39–66, for the fullest account
of this embassy.
6. [ Jean Hotman] (1603) De la charge et dignité de l’ambassadeur (Paris), trans. as
(1603) The ambassador (London: V.S. for James Shawe). Subsequent references
to the English edition are in the main text.
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1349780230239760_09_cha07.indd 134 11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
Alan Stewart 135
7. Bodleian Library, Oxford [hereafter Bodl.], Rawlinson MS A. 331. A note
on the flyleaf by John Locker states that ‘This was made some use of by
Mr. Blackburne in his collections relating to Lord Bacon’.
8. Octavius Ogle (1866) ed., Copy-book of Sir Amias Poulet’s letters, written during
his embassy to France (A.D. 1577) from a ms. in the Bodleian Library (London:
Roxburghe Club) [hereafter Ogle].
9. Bodl. Add. MS C. 82; see Jardine and Stewart, Hostage to fortune, pp. 39–66.
10. Paulet to Sir Francis Walsingham, 12 October 1576. Allan James Crosby (1880)
ed., Calendar of state papers, foreign series, of the reign of Elizabeth [hereafter
CSPF], 1575–1577 (London: Longman et al.), 395–6.
11. Paulet to Elizabeth, 26 May 1577, Tours. Ogle p. 6.
12. ‘Monsieur de Vileroy’ is Nicolas de Neufville, seigneur de Villeroy (1543–1617)
who served under four French kings (Charles IX, Henri III, Henri IV and
Louis XIII) and was the most noted secretary of his day.
13. This paragraph draws on Jardine and Stewart, Hostage to fortune, pp. 45–6.
14. Bodl. Add. MS C.82, fos. 22
r
–29
v
, 36
r
–47
v
.
15. Paulet to Walsingham, 22 November 1579. The National Archives, Kew, State
Papers [hereafter TNA, SP], 78/3, art. 52; Arthur John Butler (1904) ed., CSPF,
1579–1580 (London: HMSO), p. 96.
16. Paulet to Walsingham, [22 June ⬍–⬎ 10 July 1577, Poitiers]. Ogle p. 50.
17. Paulet to Leicester, 6 October 1577. Ogle p. 152. See also Paulet to Burghley
[6 October 1577]: ‘the articles . . . came not to my handes vntill this last
eveninge, and was constrayed to restore them in the morninge, the same
beinge so longe and tedious as tyme did not serue me to make more then
one copie’. Ogle p. 153.
18. Paulet to Walsingham, 19 November 1577, Paris. Ogle p. 200.
19. ‘MONEY defrayed by Sir AMYCE POWLET knight, Ambassador Resident for
her Maiestie in Fraunce, as well in PROCURING INTELLIGENCES, as other-
wise for her MAIESTY’S SERVICE, from the last of May, 1577, to the last of
September in the said yeare’. Ogle p. 224.
20. Paulet to Walsingham, 22 June 1577. Ogle p. 48.
21. Paulet to Walsingham, [10 June 1577, Tours]. Ogle p. 25.
22. Paulet to Walsingham, 26 May 1577. Ogle pp. 7–8.
23. Paulet to Walsingham, [10 June 1577, Tours]. Ogle p. 25.
24. Paulet to Walsingham, [10 June 1577, Tours]. Ogle pp. 25–6.
25. William Rawley (1657) ‘The life of the honourable author’, in Bacon,
Resuscitatio, or, bringing into publick light severall pieces of the works, ed. William
Rawley (London: Sarah Griffin, for William Lee) (Gibson no. 226), b3
r
.
26. The letter is in British Library, London [hereafter BL], Additional MS 33271,
fo. 46
v
. For previous discussions see Jardine and Stewart, Hostage to fortune,
pp. 58–9; Alan Stewart (2008) Shakespeare’s letters (Oxford: Oxford University
Press), pp. 198–9.
27. Bacon to Paulet, n.d. BL Additional MS 33271, fo. 46
v
.
28. Bacon to Paulet, n.d. BL Additional MS 33271, fo. 46
v
.
29. Bacon dated his royal service from this moment. In January 1594/5, writing to
Sir Robert Cecil, he refers to having served Elizabeth ‘for these one-and-twenty
years (for so long it is that I kissed her Majesty’s hands upon my journey into
France)’ and at the same time recalls to Essex of serving ‘now these twenty
years (for so long it is, and more, since I went with Sir Amias Paulet into
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1359780230239760_09_cha07.indd 135 11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
136 Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture
France, from her majesty’s royal hand’. Putting to one side Bacon’s erratic
sense of time, there is no good reason to doubt that Bacon took his leave
directly from the Queen, as ambassadors and their household were expected
to do. Bacon to Cecil, January 1595. James Spedding (1861–1874) ed., Letters
and the life of Francis Bacon, 7 vols (London: Longman et al.), 1, p. 350. Bacon
to Essex, [January 1595]. Letters and the life of Bacon, 1, p. 351.
30. Paulet to Elizabeth, 20 March 1579. TNA, SP 78/3, art. 14; Arthur John Butler
(1903) ed., CSPF, 1578–1579 (London: HMSO), pp. 461–2.
31. This paragraph is based on Jardine and Stewart, Hostage to fortune, p. 55.
32. Paulet to Walsingham, Walsingham [10? June 1577]. Ogle p. 31.
33. Paulet to Leicester [1 Sept 1577, Poitiers]. Ogle p. 108.
34. Paulet to Walsingham, [10 July 1577, Poitiers]. Ogle p. 54.
35. Paulet to Walsingham, 10 July 1577, Poitiers. TNA, SP 78/1 fo. 2
r
.
36. On Thomas Phelippes, see William Richardson (2004) ‘Phelippes,
Thomas (c.1556–1625x7)’, Oxford dictionary of national biography [hereaf-
ter ODNB] (Oxford: Oxford University Press); Alan Haynes (1992) Invisible
power: the Elizabethan secret services 1570–1603 (Far Thrupp, Glos: Alan
Sutton).
37. Paulet to Phelippes, 25 January 1585/6. William K. Boyd (1914) ed., Calendar
of the state papers relating to Scotland, and Mary, Queen of Scots, vol. 8, 1585–1586
(Edinburgh: HM General Register House/HMSO), p. 201.
38. Bacon to Phelippes, n.d. TNA, SP 12/238, art. 138 (fo. 269
r
).
39. Bacon (1605) The twoo bookes . . . of the proficiencie and aduancement of learning
(London: Henrie Tomes) (Gibson no. 81), 2Q1
r
; Michael Kiernan (2000) ed.,
The Oxford Francis Bacon, vol. 4, The advancement of learning, (Oxford: Oxford
University Press), pp. 121–2.
40. Bacon, De dignitate, N3
r
–Oo2
r
; trans. Watts, Of the advancement, Kk4
v
–Ll3
v
;
see also the translation in James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis and Douglas
Denon Heath (1857–59) eds., Bacon, Works, 7 vols (London: Longman et al.),
4, pp. 444–7.
41. Watts, Of the advancement, 2L1
r
(pp. 264–5).
42. Watts, Of the advancement, 2L1
r
(p. 265).
43. Watts, Of the advancement, 2L1
v
(p. 266).
44. Watts, Of the advancement, 2L2
v
(p. 268).
45. A ‘scytale’ is ‘A method of secret writing practised by the Spartans, consisting
in writing the message on a strip of parchment wound spirally round a cylin-
drical or tapering staff, so that it became illegible when the parchment was
unrolled, and could be read only by the use of a staff of precisely the right
form and size’ (OED).
46. Watts, Of the advancement, pp. 268–9.
47. Bacon, Works, 1, pp. 841–4.
48. See Ioan. Baptista Porta (1563) De furtivis literarvm notis, vvlgò de Ziferis
libri IIII (Naples: apud Ioa. Mariam Scotum), and the English publication
(1591, London: John Wolfe); Blaise de Vigenère (1585) Traicté des chiffres,
ou secretes manières d’escrire (Paris: Abel L’Anglier). On Della Porta’s ciphers,
see David Kahn (1967) The codebreakers: the story of secret writing (New York:
Macmillan), pp. 137–43.
49. Bacon, Works, 1, p. 842.
50. Bacon, Works, 1, pp. 841–2, quoting from 1, p. 842.
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1369780230239760_09_cha07.indd 136 11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14
Alan Stewart 137
51. Bacon, Works, 1, p. 841, quoting de Vigenère, Traicte des chiffres, fo. 285
v
; see
Kahn, Codebreakers, pp. 145–8.
52. Quoted in Bacon, Works, 1, p. 843.
53. Mary Edmond, ‘Hilliard, Nicholas (1547?–1619)’, ODNB.
54. Paris: P. Mettayer, 1624 (Gibson no. 130); Argentorati [Strasbourg]: hæredum
L. Zetzneri, 1635 (Gibson no. 131).
55. Argentorati [Strasbourg]: sumptibus Iohan. Ioachimi Bockenhoferi, 1654 (Gibson
no. 134).
56. Trans. Watts, Of the advancement (Gibson no. 141a).
57. Lugd. Batav [Leiden]: F[rancisco] Moiardus & A[drian] Wijngaerden, 1645
(Gibson no. 132).
58. Ludg. Batavorum [Leiden]: ex officina Adriani Wijngaerden: 1652 (Gibson
no. 133).
59. Amstelædami: sumptibus Ioannis Ravesteinij, 1662 (Gibson no. 135).
60. Alexander d’Agapeyeff (1939) Codes and ciphers (London: Oxford University
Press), pp. 38–9, quoting from p. 38.
9780230239760_09_cha07.indd 1379780230239760_09_cha07.indd 137 11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM11/8/2010 1:56:24 PM
10.1057/9780230298125 - Diplomacy and Early Modern Culture, Edited by Robyn Adams and Rosanna Cox
Copyright material from www.palgraveconnect.com - licensed to Universitetsbiblioteket i Tromso - PalgraveConnect - 2011-03-14