Open main menu
WikiProject Cryptography / Computer science  (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as Low-importance).

Untitled sectionEdit

I think this article should indicate in what part of his works Bacon devised this cipher (if in fact he devised it.) Rick lightburn (talk) 03:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Keeping this page and cleaning it up seems better than merging into Francis Bacon. At the very least it should be merged to a page on ciphers or codes. Notcarlos 12:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the cipher can stand alone from Francis Bacon and his supposed authorship of Shakepeare's plays. However, should it be moved to Bacon's cipher? RJFJR 04:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Under "Cipher details", it says "Note: A second version of Bacon's cipher uses a unique code for each letter. In other words, I and J each has its own pattern." But that is the version that's listed above. The note would only make sense if the article showed the version of the cipher that didn't do that. (talk) 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


It seems to me it should be noted that the AAAAA, AAAAB pattern is accurately depicted as a binary numbering of the alphabet. Eg, number the letters A-Z from 0-25 where A is 1, B is 2, C is 3, etc. Then convert the number of the letter to its binary form. Then exchange the 0s in the form for As and exchange the 1s for Bs. This would allow the pattern for any letter to be calculated instead of forcing the memorization of the entire table. An even cleaner set of directions would leave out the ABAAB notation entirely and convert directly from typeface into binary.

Although I can't find supporting evidence, I'm fairly certain that this would be the method used by Bacon in the application of the cipher.Tritium6 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In noticed the similarity immediately the first time I used the cipher.Edain Narsil 08:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, done. This change took nearly 5 years. The word 'binary' now finally appears in this article. Bacon led the way for Leibniz and they opened the door for electronics devices that have become an integral part of our world. Instead of calling them 'computers', we could pay them tribute and call our devices "BLTs" (Bacon-Leibniz Tools)!--Tdadamemd (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


Why is this steganography and not a true cipher? Surely this is just a simple substitution cipher, where you are replacing five letters for one. You are not really just hiding messages, you are actually creating a cipher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Ciphers use keys. If you know the cipher that was used to encrypt a message but not the key, then it should still be difficult to decrypt the ciphertext. The replacement of letters by other letters without using a key (as it is done here) is called a code not a cipher. The main point of Bacon's cipher is to hide a message in anouther message. Hence classifying Bacon's cipher as steganography is correct. The title "Bacon's cipher" is therefore a misnomer, but Wikipedia generally prefers the most commonly used name to corrected but unused names. 10:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

flimsy speculationEdit

This section "Bacon and Shakespeare" is flimsy speculation and should be cut from the article. We should not put every half-baked, unsubstanstiated conspiricy theory in articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Return to "Bacon's cipher" page.