The partie 776 + w5 ‡ 6 3 ∩ 6 remaineth here in London · He wisheth [3] to look well to Scotland · [3] = the Queen

London ↔ Paris · name codes in clear letters · November 1572

Walsingham’s letter-book, November 1572: Burghley, Leicester and Walsingham

Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester
fromRobert Dudley, Earl of Leicester
Francis Walsingham
toFrancis Walsingham

BL Harley MS 260 ff. 367r–369v (DECODE R8361, catalogue 125), listed as “unknown sender to unknown recipient”. The six pages are a fair copy of four English letters of Sir Francis Walsingham’s Paris embassy. They are in clear except for a few name codes and one short cipher run. The cipher items were transcribed; [3] = the Queen was identified from context, and the rest are not deciphered for want of a key. No earlier decipherment is known.

Daniel Bourdeau · posted · updated

Method: not solved · Extent: text not obtained

Summary. DECODE lists R8361 as a six-page ciphered letter from an unknown sender to an unknown recipient, November 1572, “short parts encrypted only”. The images show a later fair-copy letter-book of Walsingham’s embassy in France. It holds the end of a letter of the Earl of Leicester to Walsingham, Burghley to Walsingham of 7 November 1572, and Walsingham to Sir Thomas Smith and to Burghley, both of 27 November 1572. All four letters are printed in Dudley Digges’s The Compleat Ambassador (1655), pp. 297–301. Digges set the cipher as garbled figures (“vI9T#tw516p I 6”) and did not decipher it. The cipher is small: eight boxed name codes, a letter code H, and one run of nine symbols, 21 tokens in all. The boxed code [3] is the Queen: that is the only value that fits all four places it occurs. The codes [7] and [9], H and the nine-symbol run are not deciphered. No Walsingham–Burghley key of 1572 is known, and the run is too short to recover one from.

01 What the record is

The page heads carry the running date “November 1572”. The letters are copied one after another with their addresses, in one hand, so this is a register, not the letters as sent. DECODE images P5 and P6 are in reverse folio order.

ImageFolioContent
P1367rEnd of Leicester to Walsingham (“the [blank] of November 1572”); Burghley to Walsingham, Westminster, 7 November 1572, begins
P2367vBurghley ends; Walsingham to Sir Thomas Smith, begins
P3–P4368r–vWalsingham to Smith, Paris, 27 November 1572; Walsingham to Burghley begins
P6, P5369r, 369vWalsingham to Burghley, Paris, 27 November 1572; Walsingham to Smith of 5 December begins

02 The cipher passages

Harley MS 260 f. 367r: the boxed code 9 after Rome, then the line The partie 776 + w5 6 3 6 remaineth here in London
f. 367r, Burghley to Walsingham, 7 November 1572: “written to Rome [9]”, then “The partie … 776 + w5 ‡ 6 3 ∩ 6 remaineth here in London”. Image: British Library, Harley MS 260 f. 367r, via DECODE R8361 (image P1).

Burghley, 7 November:

Walsingham to Burghley, 27 November:

Harley MS 260 f. 369r, upper half, with the boxed codes 3, 9 and 3
f. 369r: “He wisheth [3] to look well to Scotland” and “If Steward himself, or the [9], shall learn any thing that toucheth [3]”. Image: British Library, Harley MS 260 f. 369r, via DECODE R8361 (image P6).

03 What was identified, and what was tried

[3] = the Queen. In all four places the code stands for a person English policy turns on: someone warned to look to Scotland, someone news may “touch”, someone France and Spain mean to “entertain with good words”. The Queen fits every time, and no other candidate fits all four. Grade C (consistent context, no key).

[7], [9], H. [7] follows “Glasgow” (the Bishop of Glasgow, Mary Stuart’s ambassador) and is also the man who swore never to rest while the Reformed religion survived. That points to the Cardinal of Lorraine or the Duke of Guise, but a code that follows a name may mark a title rather than a person. [9] follows both “Florence” and “Rome” and then stands alone (“the [9]”). Its three uses do not settle on one person, so it stays open.

The nine-symbol run. It mixes digits, a letter and graphic signs. Nine symbols of an unknown alphabet cannot be deciphered without the key.

What was checked: the sibling records from the same volume (R8357, R8363) have no key. The pages carry no glosses. Tomokiyo’s survey of Elizabethan ciphers (Cecil–Norris, Throckmorton, Stafford) has no Walsingham key of 1570–73. CSP Foreign vol. x does not calendar these letters. Digges prints them without deciphering the codes.

04 What remains

Leads: the originals Walsingham sent (Hatfield or SP 70) may carry Burghley’s clerk’s decipherment, and Digges’s other letters of 1571–73 use the same boxed codes, so a full inventory of them could fix [7] and [9].

05 Sources

Notes, transcription and profile: r8361/.