Chapter VIII

Wherein is contained an Estimate and a Defence of the Term
Polygraphy and of the name of him who originated the same.

Having expounded both Direct and Inverted Preparation, I come now to Oblique Preparation, (1) which has been treated by Trithemius in the Polygraphia; see the last chapter of Bk.2. , above. But before I enter upon the real matter of this discussion, I find it proper to introduce two prefatory considerations, - one, having reference to Trithemius, the other, relating to the term.

With regard to the term, I mentioned above, in Bk.1.c.2, and in Bk.II.c.10, that, according to the usage of the art, it is understood of that part of the subject alone, which deals with a form of alphabet, prepared beforehand and consisting of complete words, and which shows the method of constructing such an alphabet and of using it. Thus each part of Cryptography has its own special name, and it is not necessary, when we have occasion to talk of or discuss this subject with a pupil or other person, to enter into long circumlocutions. The precedent for this narrower use of the terms was established by Trithemius, who devoted his Polygraphia, almost in its entirety, to the treatment of this part of the subject. I am aware, however, that Trithemius himself used the word in a wider sense and included under it not only that part of the subject to which I have referred, but also the other departments, dealing with Transposition and Substitution of Form. He thus devotes the whole of Bks.5 & 6. To these departments alone. (2) And so, if the reader look with favor upon this narrower use of the word, and, for this sake of greater accuracy, be inclined to follow me therein, I have now said that which I had to say about the term.

Let us now consider the author.  Cardano, in his De Rer. Variet., Bk.12.c.61, attacks Trithemius with the greatest bitterness and with a vehemence that ill befits a man of letters, ridiculing, among other things, this whole system of Polygraphy, and proclaiming the author a shameless imposter, if there ever was one, because, forsooth, he chose to put forth his own invention in allegorical disguise. These slanderous charges, idle and inconsiderate pratings that they are, we can clear aside in no more becoming way than by listening to Trithemius himself interpreting his own design. In the Preface to his work on Polygraphy, addressed to Maximilian , most extolled Emporor, he thus begins:  There are, in certain places in the subjoined system of Polygraphy, secrets involved in allegory, to the end that the sense of the inner art, (1) lurking beneath, may not be plain to the intelligence of every man.  You hear his design, and that he meant this in all seriousness the many protestations which are scattered up and down, throughout the Polygraphia and the several Books of the Steganographia, are proof. The motives for this secrecy were sufficiently important, (2) and they may be easily and clearly understood by any one, from the Preface to the Polygraphia and, above all, from the remarks contained in the Epilogue to the Sixth Book of the Polygraphia. Is there any reason therein that should induce us to call Trithemius the most shameless of mortals? Heaven forbid! With the same breath should we condemn Antiquity, most discreet dispensator of secret wisdom.   (But that…)