cipher

I know this word only in numerical and cryptographic contexts. Apparently there are others!

Definition of word:
“n.
1. (Arith.) A character [0] which, standing by itself, expresses nothing, but when placed at the right hand of a whole number, increases its value tenfold.
2. One who, or that which, has no weight or influence.
Here he was a mere cipher. --W. Irving.
3. A character in general, as a figure or letter. [Obs.]
This wisdom began to be written in ciphers and characters and letters bearing the forms of creatures. --Sir W. Raleigh.
4. A combination or interweaving of letters, as the initials of a name; a device; a monogram; as, a painter's cipher, an engraver's cipher, etc. The cut represents the initials N. W.
5. A private alphabet, system of characters, or other mode of writing, contrived for the safe transmission of secrets; also, a writing in such characters.
His father . . . engaged him when he was very young to write all his letters to England in cipher. --Bp. Burnet.

Cipher key, a key to assist in reading writings in cipher.” (dictionary.com, Webster’s).

Where I ran across it:
11/29/08 Washington Post review, “Faust Sells Itself Short at the Multiplex” by Anne Midgette, about the Met’s production and HD broadcast of Berlioz’ “La Damnation de Faust.”

“…As for John Relyea, he offered, in the house, a variant on the tried-and-true devil shtick that opera-goers have seen countless times before, in a voice that is competent enough, but expressively a cipher; the camera allowed it to appear as if something special was going on.…”

My two cents:
Recently I enjoyed the Met’s HD broadcast of “La Damnation de Faust” at my local theater. I read, with interest, the Washington Post critic’s review which runs both hot and cold, as does my opinion of her review. She makes some points with which I agree, and some I don’t. When she likens the baritone to a cipher, however, I’m curious.

I first learned the word “cipher” as a kid ordering secret de-coder rings from cereal boxes. I’ve always understood ciphering to be about numbers and words. But reading the word today in a different context altogether sent me directly to the dictionary. And now I discover that there’s this: “One who, or that which, has no weight or influence.” Now I’m really curious. (And how did I miss this all my life?)

A cipher is basically a big fat zero, and quite the versatile chameleon. It expresses nothing (ergo, the critic's baritone slap). It has no value in and of itself. When added to another number it adds no value. But when placed to the right of a number, its companion’s value is increased ten-fold! Unselfish Hero! But if you multiply a number by it, it reduces the number to zero. Devilish Scamp! But also, it means one or that which has no weight or influence. Ineffectual Fop!

What an odd Triune, a triple paradox. How can something which has no value or influence, but simply by virtue of its proximity to something else, exert an influence on the very magnitude of said something else ten-fold?! How, then, can that be considered a non-influential entity?

I’m feeling fairly stoopid over this. And all this consternation’s giving me a headache. Time for something mindless. Facebook, anyone?