CRYPTOGRAMS

Evening Star, Issue 22633, 27 April 1937, Page 16

CRYPTOGRAMS

NONE INDECIPHERABLE The disclosure that a secret code, or cipher, was used by those on trial at Moscow tor alleged treason against the Soviet is not surprising, says the ‘ Manchester Guardian.’ From the earliest ages secret writing of some sort has been used. Julius Cmsar used a cipher of a simple kind, the transposition of letters of the alphabet, and music has been adopted in an English cipher, the notes, rests, expression marks etc., standing for letters of the alphabet. The Russians are not the first to use algebra as a cipher, and it was by algebraic methods tliaf Dr John Wallis, Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford, deciphered the private papers qf Charles'!., written in'code and seized in Charles’s coach on the decisive, day of the Battle of Naseby. “This,” says John Morley, “did him an injury almost as deep as the loss of a battle," for the letters disclosed his truthlessness and the impossibility of ever trusting him.” Carlyle’s comment is that the letters, when printed, “ made a sad impression against his Majesty—gave, in fact, a most melancholy view of the veracity of his

Majesty—‘ On the word of a King ’ all was Jost!” Although Do Quincy held that nocipher, even the “ most exquisite,” was proof against the deciphering skill of the mathematician, and quoted in proof Wallis’s decoding of Charles’s papers, several attempts have, been made to construct an impregnable cryptogram. A German professor in 1752 boasted that he had discovered a system that was “absolutely incapable” of' being deciphered unless lie gave the clue. He I rashly challenged all the savants and ! learned societies of Europe to discover the key. This was not to be borne, and a Frenchman took up the challenge and I managed to read the cipher after eight days’ study. On the other hand, the I groat cryptogram of Mr Ignatius Don- ! nelly, who sought to prove that Bacon wrote all Shakespeare’s works, was so elaborate that nobody but Mr Donnelly himself could follow its intricacies. And Shakespeare is still Shakespeare.