When I examined the scripts together, both that of the numbers and those
of the dots, I found distinct repetitions of groups of symbols; but no
combinations sufficiently recurrent to allow me to deal with them as
entities. In the number cipher the class of repetitions seemed more
marked. This may have been, however, that as the symbols were simpler
and of a kind with which I was more familiar, the traces or surmises
were easier to follow. It gave me hope to find that there was something
in common between the two methods. It might be, indeed, that both
writings were but variants of the same system. Unconsciously I gave my
attention to the simpler form--the numbers--and for a long weary time
went over them forward, backward, up and down, adding, subtracting,
multiplying, dividing; but without any favorable result. The only
encouragement which I got was that I got additions of eight and nine,
each of these many times repeated. Try how I would, however, I could not
scheme out of them any coherent result.
When in desperation I returned to the dotted papers I found that this
method was still more exasperating, for on a close study of them I could
not fail to see that there was a cipher manifest; though what it was, or
how it could be read, seemed impossible to me. Most of the letters had
marks in or about them; indeed there were very few which had not.
Examining more closely still I found that the dots were disposed in
three different ways: (a) in the body of the letter itself: (b) above
the letter: (c) below it. There was never more than one mark in the
body of the letter; but those above or below were sometimes single and
sometimes double. Some letters had only the dot in the body; and others,
whether marked on the body or not, had no dots either above or below.
Thus there was every form and circumstance of marking within these three
categories. The only thing which my instinct seemed to impress upon me
continually was that very few of the letters had marks both above and
below. In such cases two were above and one below, or _vice versa_; but
in no case were there marks in the body and above and below also. At
last I came to the conclusion that I had better, for the time, abandon
attempting to decipher; and try to construct a cipher on the lines of
Bacon's Biliteral--one which would ultimately accord in some way with
the external conditions of either, or both, of those before me.
But Bacon's Biliteral as set forth in the _Novum Organum_ had five
symbols in every case. As there were here no repetitions of five, I set
myself to the task of reducing Bacon's system to a lower number of
symbols--a task which in my original memorandum I had held capable of
accomplishment.
For hours I tried various means of reduction, each time getting a little
nearer to the ultimate simplicity; till at last I felt that I had
mastered the principle.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account