Ungelöst: Die verschlüsselten Briefe von Karl I. an seinen Sohn

Kommentare (45)

1. #1 Matthew Brown

   11. April 2021

   There is an interesting repetition in the Benjamin Worsley letter;
   2,20,3,230,388,45,36 and later
   1,20,2,230,388,46,36.

   This seems to suggest the lower numbers are homophones, and that the homophones for the same letter are all grouped together sequentially.

2. #2 Thomas

   11. April 2021

   @Klaus

   Am 7. Nov. 1648 scheint es nur einen Brief gegeben zu haben: Der Text in der Transkription im vorletzten Abschnitt ist bis auf einen ausgelassenen Abschnitt doch identisch mit dem Scan von S. 219R im letzten Abschnitt, oder?

3. #3 Matthew Brown

   11. April 2021

   Here’s what I have so far for the Nov 6th letter;

   This day I have received yours of the 17th of Oct which is
   the only leter I have had from you, since your ? ? ?;
   for nothing of that particular ? in writing which he has told
   me of I should have from 189. I have written so fully to you by
   our former Dispatches Dated the 19 and 24 of Oct that I have nothing
   to ad, but that the Treaty is prolonged for 14 Dayes. 155 561 340
   ? 325 429 412 332 557 5 51 7 9 21 15 565 25 340 330 as for
   particulars, I refer you to Oudart, whom I have commanded to
   send you all our transactions 178 362 51 434 447 340 54 29
   21 52 30 557 615 345 7 56 27 2 5 39 I have now no more to say
   but to refer you to my former directions. So God bless you.
   You loving Father Charles R

   [PS]If Osborne (who has beene in
   troble for me about ? ?
   Rolphes business) comes to you
   use him well for my sake.

4. #4 Gerd

   11. April 2021

   > it seems … the homophones for the same letter are all grouped together

   There is a cipher mentioned on Satoshi’s site where the letters were represented by 10-12(y), 13-15(x), 16-18(w), …, 76-78(a). So 3 numbers per letter and the alphabet reversed.
   (Letter to Governor of Dover Castle)

   I played around with this, but was not successful.

5. #5 George Lasry

   11. April 2021

   As part of the DECRYPT project, I have been working on the decipherment of multiple letters to Charles, from 1645-1646. At that time, the majority of the codes had 2 digits and represented single-letter homophones. In those exchanges from 1648, it seems that the % of 3-digit codes is much higher, and those likely represent words. The amount of consecutive ciphertext sequences with only 2-digit figures is relatively low, much lower than the few hundred (cumulative) required by automated algorithms.

   So overall, this is a tough cipher, unless ones find some deciphered segments, or the code itself.

6. #6 Klaus Schmeh

   11. April 2021

   @Thomas:
   >Am 7. Nov. 1648 scheint es nur
   >einen Brief gegeben zu haben:
   Danke für den Hinweis. Ich habe die zwei Zeilen in der oberen linken Ecke übersehen. Jetzt passt es.

7. #7 Klaus Schmeh

   11. April 2021

   @Matthew Brown
   Thank you very much for the transcript.

8. #8 Matthew Brown

   12. April 2021

   There’s an earlier nomenclator from 1643 which has been deciphered in the notebook [f.152r + f.158v]. The partial key would look something like this;

   A = 17,18,19
   B = 13
   C = 11
   D = 5
   E = 7,8
   F = 15,16
   G = 22
   H = 31,32
   I = 27,28
   K = 25
   L = 23,24
   M = 42,43,44
   N = 40,41
   O = 35,36,37,38
   P = 33
   Q = 52
   R = 50,51
   S = 48,49
   T = 45
   U = 62,63,64

   , = 66
   . = 69

   174 = Hereford
   189 = King of England
   198 = London
   239 = Prince Charles

   I suspect the nomenclator of 1648 will be laid out in a similar way with a variable number of homophones per letter, which are numbered sequentially, and code groups in alphabetical order.

   There’s also a pattern to the way the latter half of the alphabet has been disarranged, with sets of four letters being reversed;
   DECBFAG LKIH PONM TSRQ U

9. #9 Matthew Brown

   13. April 2021

   Transcription of 2nd of September 1648 letter;

   Charles/ Yours of the 19 of Aug with a perfect and full account from 189
   of all your proceedings. I receaved upon Wednesday Last; to which my answer is
   that I disaprove nothing that you have done…
   … Wherefor my advyce is (for at this distance, I will give no positive com-
   mands, find that you are so steady to my Grounds) that 2 346 615 275 561 563
   528 236 2 156 12 330 51 53 7 20 1 27 5 29 156 351 157 557 24 9 22 15 142 61 485
   24 157 52 50 39 71 563 25 615 ought 428 557 300 345 557 530 432 49 563 528
   149 100 178 346 614 300 350 557 rather 609 216 563 364 447 530 51 62 352 ad
   heare 572 563 554 56 411 600 406 2 5 15 29 50 563 35 615 164 557 300 101 277 21 72
   347 possible 561 614 300 350 405 61 36 10 17 157 52 563 71 70 19 23 5 51 157 557 make
   559 6 15 7 33 164 277 406 561 46 563 29 593 61 595 90 3 9 345 51 62 406 9

   Nor is it reasonable or fit that I should leave it to the uncertainty of
   rumors to make you unsatisfied with my Actions, and I suppose there may be
   three things wherein I may be thought to have yealded too far, or not to have insist
   anufe in; to witt 210 563 9 6 24 347 51 351 447 528 345 557 563 554 66 100 536 350
   277 61 26 34 5 447 614 203 101 155 25 19 44 350 583 277 563 27 23 90 7 15 447 53
   76 78 102 Now to understand me right in all thease, you must first 199 5 61 410 100
   598 411 9 4 52 50 39 503 528 54 5 29 15 236 50 16 602 411 406 203 158 340 211 557 255 503 475 (as
   they calle them) 345 557 19 554 56 58 560 598 563 508 603 340 62 36 46 22 5 43 45 2

   45 26 72 21 17 15 501 558 595 50 55 70 33 53 16 5 503 528 103 561 340 238 428 429 455
   557 536 277 451 447 614 203 104 155 561 340 598 217 52 15 25 62 557 554 345 583
   105 178 503 528 543 428 179 50 65 7 43 63 60 5 6 68 277 340 609 14 15 17 2 559 345
   557 563 554 66 69 179 277 165 44 156 50 29 31 158 471 70 5 15 60 350 503 39 345 78 378
   593 51 340 543 530 277 451 447 614 203 106 155 for the Place of Treaty if I had refused
   it (for I chose it not, but it was claimed to my hand) it might have been to Treate 155 613 340
   325 1 21 52 345 410 562 61 157 428 339 27 36 71 51 31 8 23 5 557 554 410 61 15 33 4 5
   345 557 453 430 373 107

   Sep 5. Sr Peter Killigrews coming staid this Dispach untill now; by whom I
   perceave that the Treaty will certainly beginn the next Weeke…
   Your Loving Father
   Charles R

10. #10 Klaus Schmeh

    13. April 2021

    @Matthew Brown:
    Thank you very much! I’m now well prepared for the talk on Sunday. Of course, I will mention your contributions.

11. #11 Thomas

    15. April 2021

    This appears to be another cipher letter written by King Charles I from Newcastle to the Prince on Christmas day (Original Wallis’decryption in the scans at the bottom): https://www.dominicwinter.co.uk/Auction/Lot/375-wallis-john-a-collection-of-letters-intercepted-in-cipher-during-the-late-warres-in-england-1653/?lot=361781. Maybe the cipher key can be revealed with “reverse engineering”.

12. #12 Jozef Krajcovic

    Šelpice

    15. April 2021

    Letter to Benjamin Worsley (May 22, 1648), online:
    https://books.google.sk/books?id=TDYQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA239

13. #13 Norbert

    17. April 2021

    @Thomas(#11): Very interesting finding! This letter was written in Newcastle on “Candlemas”, so probably February 2, 1647 (somewhat unclear though: according to Wikipedia, Charles left Newcastle in January 1647). This is very close to the letters presented by Klaus.

    The nomenclator of Wallis’ decipherment is approximately as follows:
    
1  o     25 s           52 t
2  e     26 e           53 r
3  a     28 i           54 u
5  a     30 (null?)     55 g
7  ?     32 l           56 m
8  f     34 l           58 r
9  o     39 n           60 t
10 i     40 s           61 m
11 e     41 h           62 g
12 r     43 n           63 t
13 f     44 p           66 u
15 ?     45 s           68 t
17 l/a   46 h           69 b
18 f     47 s           71 y
19 i     49 n           76 b
22 e     50 (null?)     79 y
23 a     51 t           81 c

    ----------

    82  d        131 le(t)     207 may   
    85  c        132 est       208 made  
    87  r        136 ever      211 make  
    88  c        141 for(e)    215 men   
    90  d        149 great     217 me    
    100 all      161 here      227 new   
    101 are      162 have      229 not   
    102 as       168 hope      230 no    
    103 at       173 I         233 lay   
    108 and      174 in        236 of    
    109 be       175 ion       237 or    
    111 by       176 ing       238 on    
    116 can      179 it        242 only  
    118 come     180 is        275 send  
    122 con      188 kind      279 should
    124 day      192 least     293 so    
    127 do       206 my        304 this  

    ----------

    305 that                 351 "MR" (Montrose?)
307 thought              364 "CP" (Charles II)
308 thank                412 assure
312 tell                 429 believe
313 to                   450 charge
315 then                 466 estate
320 upon                 502 England
325 will                 513 express
326 with                 534 expert
327 which                543 find
329 when                 548 God
330 where                608 special
331 who                  613 letter
334 what                 643 ight
341 whether              769 safe
342 you                  784 true
347 "CR" (Charles I)     859 ten


    Some of Wallis’ guesses appear debatable, e. g. “you have so true a sense of my estate” misses two code groups and ignores Charles’ spelling “… sence”. Maybe it has to do with the “subsistence of my estate”? Also, “expert in my special pleas” does not really fit imho (I would like to suggest “my royalties” but this appears problematic too). The “straight charge” (643 = ight) might as well be a “strange charge” (643 = nge) and so on. Nonetheless, Wallis’ decipherment is once again admirable and brilliant, and by and large the nomenclator above should be very close to the original.

    It seems that the 3-digit part was originally sorted purely alphabetically (plus a part with proper names), but at some point underwent an expansion that was sorted alphabetically in itself as well (412=assure, 429=believe …) The range above 800 could be reserved for numbers.

    It is not to be expected that the nomenclator for the letters in question is less complex in structure. However, one can hope that the three-digit code groups are sorted completely alphabetically, since it is apparently a new cipher (“This Cypher which now I write in …”).

14. #14 Norbert

    17. April 2021

    Wallis’ letter has a total of 256 code groups (140 different ones). The letters in question (excluding the one to Worsley) have 515 code groups (161 different ones). Does not look so bad. You would have to be John Wallis …

15. #15 Thomas

    18. April 2021

    @Norbert

    Awesome, excellent work!

    Most likely Wallis had more letters written with the same nomenclator. Otherwise it would have been impossible to decrypt for example 233 17 25 68 12 5 643 to “lay a straight”, since these numbers occur only once in this letters (if I haven’t overlooked anything), so that there is no unambiguous assignment. Only here I’m not sure if your assignments are correct: 233=lay doesn’t match the alphabetical order of the “dictionary” part. Moreover, if there was a particular number for “ight”, why didn’t Charles use it in the last line (“blessing light”), instead of breaking it up into separated letters “i g h t”?

    315 was decrypted by Wallis in two different ways: In line 7 to “than” and in the third to last line to a shorthand-like character that he used for “you” in other places. Apparenty he wasn’t sure here either.

    It seems that Wallis hadn’t any plausible solution for 30 50 in the second to last line, since there is missing something in his decipherment (two consecutive nulls??).

    The single letter part of the nomenclator used in the letter from Sept. 1648 might have been slightly longer than the one used in the Candlemas (which I took for Christmas, haha) letter: there are three groops (277-451)-447-614-203-101/104/106-155 which indicates that 101/104/106 are homophones representing a single letter (homophones for words/syllables are unlikely). A longer single letter part would line up with your observation that the Candlemas letter contains more different numbers.

16. #16 Matthew Brown

    18. April 2021

    I think I’m making some slight progress on this.

    I’ve managed to reverse a second key using the ciphertext and decryptions from this source; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=u5gBAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA151#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Looking at these 2 keys as well as the summaries on Satoshi Tomokiyo’s site its clear that the code part is usually split into 2 alphabetical blocks, one for common words (which usually comes first) and one for more specific terms.

    The words within the blocks are in alphabetical order but are shuffled within each letter group, so all the A words are before the B words but not necessarily in order.

    The vocabulary of the common words block doesn’t seem to vary much between different nomenclators. It seems like a good method of attack if its region in the code numbers can be worked out.

    Looking at frequency graph for our cipher there is a flat region in the centre which makes me speculate that the blocks have been swapped and the common word block is at the end in this cipher.

    There is a large gap in the code numbers between 300 and 325 which could mark the boundry. This would mean the common words block runs from 325 to 615.

    The final word in the common word block for the 2 known keys is YOU. The frequency for [615=YOU] looks about right and it makes grammatical sense in 2 places in the ciphertext; “615 ought 428” and “And now I must command you to answer me freely to a
    Question, (I am confident that you will not dissemble with me) which is, if 615 211 179”, which makes me think I’m headed in the right direction…

17. #17 Norbert

    18. April 2021

    @Matthew: I also assume that 615=you, but I am still hoping that we are looking at just one alphabetically sorted block instead of two …

    Let me make some more suggestions:
    614 = your
    563 = the
    561 = that
    557 = to

    (I first assumed that 572=to, because of “adheare 572”, but 572 appears only once, while “to” must be a fairly frequent code group. I therefore suggest the archaic “unto”:)

    572 = unto
    447 = of
    428 = now (or another adverb, because of “you ought 428 to”)
    340/345/347/350 = is/it/if/in (in another order maybe)

    The code group 528 occurs only in the letter of September 2, and once in the one of November 6: “I gave you a conditional advice concerning 563 (=the?) 528 456”. Could it be about considerations how to free Charles I from captivity? So 563 528 456 = the rescue/salvation plan? Just a very speculative thought …

    If 563=the is correct, then the parenthesis in the October 3 letter is very interesting: “(36 563 29 1 39 5 51 37 15 7 72 61)”. It could begin with “o-the-r” or “o-the-r-s”. Maybe something like “others redeemed”, “others returned” (I think he may be talking about financial and estate matters)?

    All this could lead to the completely wrong track – it’s only suggestions …

    @Thomas: Yes, you are absolutely right, the letter section likely ranges from 1 to 107!

18. #18 Matthew Brown

    18. April 2021

    @Norbert

    I’ve penciled in the same for; YOUR,THE,THAT,TO.

    Looking again, a single block might make more sense as the cluster of “i” words lines up nicely.

    I think 277 could be FOR, because the frequencies match and it fits in the ciphertext,
    “404 277(for) 615(you); to this I would have your speedy resolution.”

    A possibility I had for;
    (36 563 29 1 39 5 51 37 15 7 72 61)
    o the r w a i s

    I think there may be a block of names around 180-200 because of;
    “a perfect and full account from 189 of all your proceedings”

19. #19 Norbert

    19. April 2021

    I am now convinced that not only the letter to Worsley, but also the one of August 1 to Charles’ son is written in a separate cipher. There is simply too little overlap of code groups with the subsequent letters to Charles II. Furthermore, we can assume with some certainty that the code group 379 stands for “you” in this letter, while in the subsequent letters it is 615, as Matthew has pointed out.

20. #20 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    I think I have finally cracked it. Here is my proposed nomenclator for the letters starting September 2, 1648. Of course it is incomplete and will surely still have errors in it.
    Will provide the plaintext tomorrow…

    
1  _     17 c     33 l     53 u     78  i   
2  h     19 a     34 m     54 w     90  a   
3  g     20 h     35 n     55 x     101 m   
4  f     21 i     36 o     56 y     102 n   
5  e     22 k     37 p     57 x     104 m   
6  d     23 l     39 r     60 t     106 m   
7  c     24 m     43 e     61 s     142 able
8  b     25 n     44 m     62 t     155 and 
9  a     26 o     45 n     63 p     156 at  
10 _     27 p     46 o     65 c     157 as  
12 h     29 r     49 r     70 c     158 all 
14 f     30 s     50 e     71 s     164 are 
15 e     31 i     51 s     72 t     179 be  
16 d     32 k     52 t     76 a     203 com 

    ----------

    211 can        442 order           561 that
217 con        447 on              562 thought
277 for        448 one             563 the
278 friend     471 of              572 unto
328 her        475 parliament      593 way
334 here       509 regard          595 would
339 im         516 request         598 will
340 it         528 restoration     613 yet
345 in         536 spouse          614 your
347 is         543 shall           615 you
350 ing        554 take 
351 ion        557 to   
410 my         558 this 
428 not        559 them 


21. #21 Thomas

    20. April 2021

    @Norbert Wallis

    Amazing! Fantastic! Congratulations! I’m looking forward to tomorrow.

    It’s interestig how Charles or his cipher clerk composed the assignments of numbers to parts of the alphabet in this case: backward, backward, forward, forward …

22. #22 Matthew Brown

    20. April 2021

    Fantastic work! Congratulations Norbert!

    I’d spotted an odd pattern that words tended to contact with homophones that were spaced 10 apart but wasn’t sure if it was coincidence, so it’s satisfying to see the explanation for that.

23. #23 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    First corrections: 536 = send, 554 = treat
    and additions: 66 = y, 105 = a, 178 = by, 583 = Westminster

    I am still very unsure about 528: restoration? restitution? reinstatement? something completely different? For now, I’ll change it to “return” and think it over further …

    Decipherment of the September 2 letter. Cleartext in italics.

    [f. 209r]
    Cairsbrook [=Carisbrooke Castle] Saterday 2. Sep: 1648
    Charles/yours of the 19. of Aug: with a perfect & full account from 189
    of all your proceedings. I receaved upon Wednesday Last; to w[hi]ch my Answer is,
    that I disaprove nothing that you have done (…)
    (…) wherefor my advyce is (for at this distance, I will give no positive com-
    mands, seing that you are so steady to my Grounds) that 346 you 275 that the
    return 236 h-at-h 330 s-u-c-h _ o-p-e-r-at-ion as to m-a-k-e-able s 485
    m-as-t-e-r-s the-n you ought not to 300 in-to 530 432 r the return
    149 100 178 346 your 300 ing to eather 609 216 the 364 on 530 s-t 352 ad-
    heare unto the treat-y 411 600 406 h-e-e-r-e the-n you are to 300 m for i-t
    is possible that your 300 ing 405 s-o _ c-as-t the s-c-a-l-e-s as to make
    them d-e-c-l-are for 406 that o-the-r-way-s would a-g-a-in-s-t 406 a
    Nor is it reasonable or fitt that I should leave it to the uncertainty of
    rumors to make you unsatisfied with my Actions, & I suppose there may be
    three things wherein I may be thought to have yealded too far, or not to have insist
    anufe [=enough?] in; to witt 210 the a-d-m-is-s-ion on return in-to the treat-y 100 send-ing
    for s-o-m-e on your com-m-and n-a-m-ing Westminster for the p-l-a-c-e on v-
    a-i-n; now to understand me right in all thease, you must first 199 that my 160/166[?]
    will 411 a-f-t-e-r the return w-e-r-e 236-e-d 602 411 406 263 all it can to 255 the parliament (as
    they calle them) in-to a treat-y 58 560 will the 508 603 it t-o-o-k-e e [catchword: n-o-]

    [f. 209v]
    n-o-t-i-c-e that this would e-x-c-l-u-d-e the return 103 that it 238 not 429 455
    to send for 451 on your com-m-and that it will con-t-e-n-t to treat in Westminster
    a-by [=Abbey] the return shall not be e-c-c-e-p-t-e-d 68 for it 609 f-e-c-h them in-
    to the treat-y 69 be for 165 m-at-e-r-i-all of c-e-e-t-ing the r in i 378
    way-s it shall send for 451 on your com-m-and for the Place of Treaty, if I had refused
    it (for I chose it not, but it was claimed to my hand) it might have been said, with some
    probability, that I desyred more to continue Distractions then to Treate and yet it
    325 _ i-t in my thought-s (as not im-p-o-s-s-i-b-l-e) to treat my-s-e-l-f-e
    in-to 453 430 373 107.

    Sep 5. Sr Peter Killigrews coming staid this Dispach untill now; by whom I
    perceave that the Treaty will certainly beginn the next Weeke (…) So God bless you.
    Your Loving Father
    Charles R

24. #24 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    Newport, Tuesday, October 3 1648.

    Charles
    Yours by Oudart I received upon Sunday last, and am very well
    satisfied with your account, and his relation; only I some-
    what wonder that you give me no account of my last Letter, which
    was of the 6th of September our Stile, wherein I gave you a con-
    ditional advice concerning the return 456, of which you was then
    more able to judge than I; but now being at some more freedom,
    I hope shortly to give you a reasonable clear advice: As for my Di-
    rections to you at this time, the issue of this Treaty must be your
    chief Guide; in the mean time, cherish the Fleet as much as you
    may, and stay where you are, until you hear farther from me, or
    that you find you cannot hear from me; and in that case, you are
    to guide your self according to your best Intelligence, in order to
    my relief: And now I must command you to answer me freely to a
    Question, (I am confident that you will not dissemble with me)
    which is, if you can be con-t-e-n-t to m-a-r-
    r-y _ m-a-d-a-m-o-is-e-l-l-e in regard
    on her p-e-r-s-one it 275-ing her in (o-
    the-r _ r-e-s-p-e-c-t-s) _ a 285 404 for
    you; to this I would have your speedy resolution, for I am told that
    lost time now in it, will not be recovered, and I believe it may be
    of much advantage to my Service, wherefore it were pity to let flip
    this opportunity; so referring you to Oudart for a relation of this
    Treaty, I rest
    Your loving Father

25. #25 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    Newport the 6 of No[vember] 1648

    Charles/ this Day I have receaved yours of the 17th of Oct: w[hi]ch is
    the only letter I have had from you, since your Man Mason came;
    but nothing of that particular account in writing w[hi]ch tould
    me of I should have from 189 100. I have written so fully to you by
    two former Dispaches Dated the 19 & 24 of Oct. that I have nothing
    to ad, but that the Treaty is prolonged for 14 Dayes; and that it
    325 429 412 332 to e-s-c-a-i-e [escape] 565 n it 330 as for
    particulars, I refer you to Oudart, whom I have comanded to
    send you all our transactions 178 362 s 434 on t-h-o-s-e 564 s 602 it w-r-
    i-t-s to you in c-y-p-h-e-r. I have now no more to say
    but to refer you to my former direction: So God bless you.
    Your loving Father
    Charles R

26. #26 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    Newport 7 No[vember] 1648

    Let none decypher this but your selfe, or my Lord Culpeper.

    Charles/ I have had so hopefull a reporte of your Sicke-
    ness by Dr. Fraiser, that I hope you will be fitt to read
    a letter, before that this can come to you; & though now
    I will not troble you with long discourses, yet, I must
    desyre of you an account of the receipt of my former letters, to witt fyve
    in October, besydes one yesterday; in some of w[hi]ch I gave you
    an advice on send-ing the friend to here be-ing yet on the
    s-a-m-e order as all so 210 my o-w-e-n request to e-s-c-a-p-
    e _ on 602 429 it 325 299 332. for other things I refer
    you to my former letters, & to the obedience of your Mo-
    thers Commands: So God bless you, & send you perfect
    healthe & Prosperity
    Your loving Father
    Charles R

27. #27 Matthew Brown

    20. April 2021

    Some possible adjustments/additions;
    100 = advice
    236 = end
    330 = had
    406 = me
    554 = treat
    593 = wai
    602 = with

28. #28 Matthew Brown

    20. April 2021

    I think 447 = on and 471 = of should be swapped.

    528 could be a persons name?
    563 9 6 24 347 51 351 447 528 345 557 563 554 66
    “the a d m is s ion of R. in to the treat y”

29. #29 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    @Matthew: Thank you very much! Another correction:
    278 = fleet. The last letter then reads

    … an advice on send-ing the fleet to here …

    (“friend” is a leftover from an old version when I believed Charles I would repeat the request to marry “Mademoiselle”, i. e. Lucy Walter.)

30. #30 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    @Matthew: I am not convinced of 100 = advice:

    a) In the September 2 letter, 100 occurs twice. The instance where we have context could simply be taken for a comma.

    b) The person “189” is mentioned twice: “perfect & full account from 189” (Sep 2) and “nothing of that particular account … I should have from 189 100” (Nov 6).

    So – how about a null? This would look very nice:

    nulls: 1, 10, 100.

31. #31 Matthew Brown

    20. April 2021

    @Norbert Yes that fits nicely.

    I also think;
    447,448 = on
    451 = one

32. #32 Jozef Krajcovic

    Šelpice

    20. April 2021

    This is Great achievement, @Norbert, Thomas and Matthew! Congratulations!

33. #33 Klaus Schmeh

    20. April 2021

    Norbert: Congratulations and thank you very much for this great contribution! Thanks also to Matthew and Thomas! This is a really amazing codebreaking success.

34. #34 Norbert

    20. April 2021

    @Klaus: Danke 🙂 Falls du planen solltest, einen neuen Artikel darüber zu schreiben: Nomenklator und Klartexte bitte nicht von meinen Posts übernehmen, sondern mich kontaktieren – wir haben inzwischen so viele Verbesserungen, dass die Posts schon Schnee von gestern sind.

    @Matthew:
    Thank you again. I agree with 448 = on, 451 = one and think 447 = of (which actually was your correction to my first version), leaving 471 without assignment for the time being.

    More corrections:
    – 340 = I (uppercase), just like in the letter that Wallis had deciphered! This makes much more sense, e. g. “I took notice that …” instead of “it tooke notice”.

    – 406 = me is weak assumption, so I dropped it.

    – 285 404 = good match (seems almost too obvious, but Google books finds some 17th century examples of it, so why not).

    – 275 = ensure

    – 346 = instantly (or immediately)

    – After some Wikipediation, I decided that 528 236 must refer to the Engagers, so my latest version for it is 528 = Scots / 236 = Engager army, while “the 528 w-e-r-e 236-e-d” could mean “the Scots were engaged”.

35. #35 Matthew Brown

    21. April 2021

    The decryption is looking pretty good now, changing it to I was a big improvement. Here’s a few more suggestions;

    325 = had
    475 = parliamentarians (instead of parliament)
    602 = which

    “… of send ing the fleet to here be ing yet of …”
    I think here(334) is more likely a place name starting with H.

36. #36 Matthew Brown

    21. April 2021

    Here are some more speculative suggestions;

    105 = ,
    149 = army
    178 = but (instead of by)
    275 = find (instead of ensure)
    346 = if (instead of instantly)
    405 = may
    503 = presbyte/presbyterian

37. #37 Norbert

    21. April 2021

    @Matthew: Thanks for constantly improving the nomenclator! All your suggestions are convincing – except 503: I think that’s a transcription error and it actually reads 563 in all cases.

    So the idea of “Westminster Abbey” has failed and I’m crossing out “Westminster”. But that doesn’t matter: I have ordered two books on the Second Civil War and am confident of finding out where exactly Charles wanted to hold the negotiations (they finally took place in Newport).

    So, we’re getting closer! Hopefully closer still, if the following ideas are correct:

    100 through 107 are all nulls! (mostly used as punctuation)
    160 = arrest
    199 = claim
    203 = choice
    325 = have
    330 = had
    362 = know
    406 = me
    411 = made
    434 = none
    485 = real
    560 = there
    564 = which
    598 = was

    What do you think?

38. #38 Norbert

    21. April 2021

    And also:
    65 = x
    299 = great
    332 = hope
    429 = now

    (Sorry, guys, it’s getting a bit confusing. It will soon be time for a new version, which I might send directly to Klaus.)

39. #39 Norbert

    21. April 2021

    Wow, it’s starting to fill up by itself:
    68 = a
    76 = y
    78 = (null)
    216 = cause
    300 = go
    352 = ill
    364 = king
    406 = me
    432 = no
    530 = Scotland
    600 = with
    609 = will

40. #40 Norbert

    21. April 2021

    508 = response
    603 = whether
    corrected again (and now solid): 203 = Council

    (Sorry again for cluttering up the thread – maybe it’s kind of amusing to follow … At least the text of the letters has become pretty clear now.)

41. #41 Matthew Brown

    21. April 2021

    165 = any
    238 = did
    378 = lyke

    Almost complete now, just that mysterious verb at 300 to find.

42. #42 Norbert

    21. April 2021

    364 = “king” is nonsense. (“The king of Scotland”? Haha, that was Charles I himself). Maybe “kirk”? I’ll leave it for today …

43. #43 Norbert

    21. April 2021

    @Matthew: go

44. #44 Matthew Brown

    22. April 2021

    A few final suggestions;

    58 = null
    166 = assurance or assistance?
    255 = enter
    412 = more
    455 = offer
    508 = reason (instead of response)
    560 = that (instead of there)
    565 = tha
    564 = text
    603 = why

    I think it’s now in a pretty readable state and just needs a little bit of tweaking.

    Some of the more ambiguous terms we’ll likely never be sure of and might be better left blank.

45. #45 Norbert

    22. April 2021

    @Matthew: I asked Klaus to send you my email address. I’d be happy to get the nomenclator and the text up to the best possible shape with you together (leaving out the words that would be too speculative). I will then send it to Klaus, who will post it.
    @Thomas: Could you also help with this? That would be great.