A comment left here today by Mark Pitt very kindly pointed me to the Elgar- and/or Dorabella Cipher-related Sotheby’s Lot 92 from May 2016.
The lot contained a rather distressed (“binding broken, pages loose, wear and some damp-staining“) first edition copy of Dora Penny’s (1937) “Edward Elgar: Memories of a Variation” apparently from Dora Penny’s own library (“D.M.P. 1937”, though by then the final ‘P’ then stood for ‘Powell’, her married surname), along with various photographs of Elgar and his coterie all “captioned by Dora in blue ink”.
Oh, And A Micro-Cryptogram, Too
Also included was a small fragment written by Elgar, noting that he “wrote to [musical instrument dealer] Hill offering to purchase Gagliano [violin]”, on a ~5.5cm x ~7cm piece of paper that had “traces of mounting to verso”. This is what it looks like (image taken from Sothebys’ site):
The expected price was £600-£800, but the actual hammer price was £1750.
What seems to have raised the level of buyer interest was the presence of a single three-letter cryptogram repeated six times (though with the first time crossed out), with three of the instances preceded by a ‘£’ sign. Given that this is arguably the shortest cryptogram I’ve yet posted here, I thought it was well worth dubbing it a “micro-cryptogram”.
But… what could this be? And, most importantly, might we be able to crack it?
Ah, It’s Also In His Diary
Fortunately, Elgar historians and biographers got there first (after a fashion). For if you turn to p.158 of Jerrold Northrop Moore’s (1984) “Edward Elgar: A Creative Life”, you will discover that the same micro-cryptogram appears in his diary: “[56] Elgar’s diary entry [for buying the eighteenth-century Gagliano violin] follows the £-sign with three squiggled marks“. (Figuring that out took me all of thirty seconds, much of which was spent trying to unwedge the copy of “A Creative Life” from the back of the bookshelf it was sitting on.)
So it would seem that what was on sale at Sothebys contained something like pen-trials or rehearsals on a scrap of paper for the same three-glyph cryptogram he added to his diary. Moreover, if we could discover by other means what price the Elgars paid for the Gagliano violin in 1891, then it seems we would be able to solve the cryptogram.
However, having now spent significantly more than thirty seconds trying to determine this (with no success), all I can do is throw it open to you all. How many pounds did the Elgars pay for their Niccolò Gagliano violin in 1891? Find that out and you presumably will have solved possibly the shortest genuine historical cryptogram ever. 🙂
Absence of Provenance Is Not Evidence Of Providence
All the same, I have to say it seems odd to me that the (normally very thorough) Sothebys people failed to pick up on this connection with Elgar’s diary. The catalogue entry for the preceding Lot 91 (Lot 91) was much more their normal style, with a rock-solid provenance (“From the collection of Edward Speyer, to whom Elgar gave these manuscripts“): unsurprisingly, that went for a handsom £72,500 (close to the middle of their estimated range).
So… what was the difference with Lot 92? What was its provenance? I can’t help but wondering whether the “binding broken, pages loose, wear and some damp-staining” condition of Dora Penny’s own copy of her book might be trying to tell us, along with all the photographs hand-annotated by her.
You see, there is one person who could very easily have been the source for this: Dora Penny herself (albeit indirectly).
When I tried to trace the history of the Dorabella Cipher itself a few years ago, I found that it had been part of a a sizeable set of Dora Penny’s Elgar-related papers, that had been presented to the Royal College of Music Library “by Mr and Mrs Claud Powell [in] 1986”. However, as an RCM archivist I talked with told me, several boxes of this Elgar material were somehow lost (possibly in Leeds?) while being transported to London, and that was the last that was seen of them.
What, then, are the chances that one or more of these cartons ended up in someone’s slightly damp garage for the next thirty years, and that this rather poor condition copy of the book is the first sight anyone has seen of these since 1986? Perhaps the seller didn’t want to be identified for that reason, in which case it could easily be why the lot was clearly marked as “sold not subject to return”, and without a hint of a flicker of a provenance.
Even So, Does It All Add Up?
Even if the above will turn out to be the story behind this item, I have to say that the picture as a whole still doesn’t quite ring true to me.
Put simply, I would be a little surprised if Dora Penny had had reason to mount this poor scraggly piece of writing on her wall. After all, she had the Dorabella Cipher itself: this micro-cryptogram is surely very much its poor relation, as well as being unprepossessingly tiny.
Might it be that the person who owned this had had it mounted on his or her wall in their study, sitting next to the Dorabella Cipher itself? What an incredible story that would be! Well… something to think about, anyway. 🙂
Nick,
It sounds to me as if “traces of mounting” mean little more than marks of glue or tape. Pity – if there were enough of the mounting material we might know whether it is more likely that Mr. Hill, delighted to have been approached by Elgar, had the note mounted and displayed in his house or shop. Question would then be how it came to light at the same time as Dora Penny’s now-distressed volume. In the same Sotheby’s lot suggests a common source, doesn’t it?
Diane: the probability that the book and Elgar’s Gagliano note travelled together (and never came into Hill’s possession) must surely be close to 100%. The big question is surely: if they were both part of the 1986 Dora Penny RCM donation (she died in 1964), where have they been for the last 30 years?
Yes, quite right. If Southeby’s knows, they’re not saying.
The state of them suggests to me either a deceased estate (obits. former removalist?). fairly recent demolition work preceded by a clear-out, and/or that a building once used for longer-term storage is being or has recently been sold, with owner (prior or new) asking in an appraiser for what lay within.
Perhaps they were just so poorly labelled that the transport agents found them left behind in the truck at the end of their daily run and stored them themselves, waiting for a “hoi!” which never came.
So – which company, I wonder, delivered the rest?
🙂
The Leeds geniza?
It’s most unlikely that Hill would have been sent Elgar’s enciphered note. Collectors commonly encipher the cost price of their objects on tickets and in records – more for discretion than anything else so that they can show things to their friends without the price ticket being embarrassingly obvious. (Actually, Sotheby’s used to use a simple letter-for-number code too, mainly for entering bids into the auctioneer’s catalogue).
It’s more likely, although only a guess, that this note might have been glued in the violin’s case or similar. That way Elgar would know what he paid should he sell it in the future.
Cheques at this period were normally returned after being cleared so if Elgar paid by this method he’d almost certainly have had the cheque back. Some people kept them meticulously; others didn’t. No idea whether any of Elgar’s are preserved? Worth asking?
Oh, and “sold not subject to return” is a pretty standard designation for a group lot. It’s designed to give the auction house some protection against people buying a lot with a brief, general description in the hope there might be something good in it, and then trying to sling it back on a technicality. It’s nothing to do with provenance and any claims on those grounds would still apply.
SirHubert,
about Hill’s having the enciphered note you are quite right. Nick already corrected me on that point. Thanks for clarification on the ‘sold not subject to return’. I know it’s not all that unusual but I was beginning to muse about whether, in this case (no pun intended) it mightn’t be because there was no individual person to whom it might be returned. Auction houses occasionally buy outright and sell on their own behalf.
Diane: you’re right, lots of firms do buy outright, but Sotheby’s are purely consignment auctioneers. When they do end up owning something (if a buyer defaults after they’ve paid a seller, for example), they sell it to recoup their losses – and this is marked with a triangle symbol in the catalogue to show it belongs to Sotheby’s. So you can always tell if they’re selling something in which they have a financial stake.
SirHubert: my point about “sold not subject to return” was simply that Sotheby’s used it to describe Lot 92 (in shonky condition and with no provenance given at all) but didn’t use it to describe Lot 91 (in great condition and with apparently perfect provenance). It would seem likely that despite both lots being Elgariana, these were two very different kinds of sellers.
Nick: all “sold not subject to return” means is what I said it means. It’s far more relevant that one lot has a specific provenance and the other doesn’t. They may come from the same consignor; no way to tell.
This is a very interesting find. Edward Elgar and Dora Penny offering to purchase a Niccolo (Nicola) Gagliano Violin. Looking at the note, I see the First Pound Mark (As Nick mentions above) with three following coded characters, followed by a Second Pound Mark (As Nick mentions above) with six following coded characters and then a Third Pound Mark ( As Nick mentions above) with nine following coded characters. Could this be, ” Pound Mark C A N “, ” Pound Mark C A N CA N “, ” Pound Mark C A N C A N C A N ” ? Can this tie into the ” Orpheus in the Underworld “, ” Parities for Solo Violin “, by J.S. Bach, or ” The Galop (Can – Can), by Jacques Offenbach ? In normal playing time, it takes approximately 36 seconds to play on violin (normally accompanied by piano). In (DString) = D D E G F # E. In (AString) = A A B. In (DString) = F # G E E. Could the cost for the violin in 1891 have been 369 Pounds ? Might there be some other tie between the music notes of the ” Can Can “, and the price offered for the violin ? What do think ?
Rick: to be honest, I’d prefer to find out the actual price the Elgars paid for the Gagliano and only then start trying to work out the connection – otherwise we’re still stuck in “guess mode”. =:-o
Hey, Rick!
Nick, is there anyone ‘out there’ (besides Rick) who might be able to compare the musical score with the activities of the “can-can dancers” which were very popular in the late 1800’s – mid-1900’s ?
Not ever having had musical studies, I’m probably WAY out on the fringes of the musical world. However, at one point in my life, I made the acquaintance of Haig and Muriel. Haig was violin with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. Muriel was pianist.
ps: I’m going to follow up on a hunch (paddle-wheel ‘night-club’ dames, dancers, diners, gambling ,….. on the Mississippi River). @ Rick : Several months ago I went online to see if I could identify you amongst the numerous ‘Rick Roberts’ . Have you ever counted the number of Rick Roberts on the WWW ?
still beady-eyed — and obviously still curious . What do they say about “Curiousity killed the cat” ? I hope you are not offended !
beady-eyed wonder-er
bdid1dr, Nick & All,
Further looking at the Micro-Cryptogram, I believe it reads, ” Write to Hill offering to Purchase Gagliano Vio (Violin) Pound Sign ” C A N “, Pound Sign ” C A N C A N “, Pound Sign ” C A N C A N C A N “. The first character of code is ” C ” in each instance. The second character of code is ” A ” in each instance. The third character of code is ” N ” in each instance. I think that ” C A N ” = 3 (Characters) x 100 (Pounds) or 300 Pounds. The ” C A N C A N ” = 6 (Characters) x 10 (Pounds) or 60 Pounds. The ” C A N C A N C A N ” = 9 (Characters) x 1 (Pound) 0r 9 Pounds. The total equals 369 Pounds, which I believe is the cost of the ” C A N C A N ” Gagliano Violin. I don’t know how many Rick Roberts are on the WWW, but I do know that there are quite a few.
Can Can music composer “Elgar” ? I went on the WWW this morning to watch videos of CanCan dancers : a range of dance performers in 1902 right up to the present day. Fantastic! The music was so energetic (with a full orchestra) that I no longer wonder why a single violin (Gagliano) could be so outrageously expensive!
bd
Paddle wheel boats and New Orleans; I wonder if Elgar’s composition (fiddles or no fiddles) was ever danced to (on stage) in the bars and night clubs.
The first dance my parents taught me (when I was 4-5 yo) was “Little Foot”.
As usual with me, I’ve gone far astray; only this morning I figured out that Rick’s note was about money : Canadian Pounds. Am I on track, now, Rick? Nick?
bd
Ennyway, enjoy the show(s).
bd
bdid1dr,
I think that I may be on to something with my deciphering of the cost for the Gagliano Violin. I think that 369 Canadian Pounds or English Pounds could be correct for the year 1891. The ” Can Can Violin “, is referenced in many instances. I am not sure whether there is any further hidden meaning in the notes of the song when played in a certain String and or time. Nowadays, a Gagliano Violin can fetch quite a tidy sum. Taking into consideration how witty Elgar was, I would not be surprised that a hidden message was also contained in the Micro-Cryptogram.
So, ladies dancing the ‘galop’ — Elgar’s compositional dream made true by the Moulin Rouge ?
bd
I did some research and I found that some Gagliano Violins had been sold on September 10, 1895. Puttick and Simpson’s held a sale of Valuable Violins. Page 274 of ” The Strad ” (Vol. 6- No.65, SEPT.1895), show that three Gagliano Violins were sold. The first was, ” an Italian violin, by Gagliano, with case and bow”. It sold for 29 Pounds (29 0 0). The second violin was, ” an Italian violin, by Gagliano, with case “. It sold for 38 Pounds (38 0 0). The third was ” an Italian violin, by Gagliano with case and bow. It sold for 22 Pounds (22 0 0).