Was the Dorabella Code
87 symbols a letter?
▲ Cover of events — opening records
In 1897, composer Edward Elgar sent Dora Penny a memo with 87 semicircular symbols. There are several decipherments, but no consensus plaintext.
The Dorabella Code is difficult because it is short and personal. The answer should come from a reproducible rule rather than a romantic sentence.
Prologue: A Record-Breaking Night
When I unfolded the incident data on the desk, the first thing I noticed was not the correct answer, but the imbalance. Some scenes were too clear, and some times were entirely empty. People try to explain the whole incident by holding on to a clear scene, but I marked the empty section first. Mysteries arise because there are many clues, but sometimes the distance between them is too far.
The symbol consists of one or three semicircles. Dora recalled that she couldn't read the contents while she was alive.
I didn't see this event as a work to confirm a known ending. The records were arranged in chronological order, the routes of the objects were drawn separately, and the sightings and interpretations were marked in different colors. The most famous explanation was then deliberately reviewed at the end. Because if you first read a famous hypothesis, all the clues appear to exist for that hypothesis.
▲ Reconfiguration on site — Last identified line of movement
Case Files: What I Could Believe
| Number | Verified Records | Current Reliability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The memo is known to have 87 symbols on three lines. | High |
| 2 | The symbolic system is compared to a similar private cipher that El used elsewhere. | High |
| 3 | Short length and possible proper nouns and private jokes make statistical analysis difficult. | the middle |
| 4 | The proposed deciphers are different in level from the rules and spelling correction. | the middle |
Exact symbolic value, language and abbreviation method, actual plaintext, and whether Dora was the intended decipherer remain.
The sentence 'unexplained' is not the same as the sentence 'supernatural' or 'someone intended'. I didn't use the blanks as evidence.
▲ Timeline — Flow before and after events
Reconfiguring Scene: The Last Definite Point
I changed the place where the incident took place to a real route rather than a stage in my head. I divided the starting point, the last check point, and the place of discovery, and calculated the time required in the meantime. Several dramatic descriptions of later generations were missing in the process. Instead, the recorded sound, weather, means of transportation, and the location of objects came forward. The fictional atmosphere arose from the texture of that very fact. There was no need to add an unidentified secret passage or an unnamed accomplice.
When I reconstructed the last scene, I did not make up the character's mind. Fear, planning, error, and fatigue can cause the same behavior. So, I wrote down my actions first and left my emotions only to the extent possible. The events became less colorful but more specific thanks to this principle.
Clue 1. The memo is known to have 87 symbols on three lines.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If we separate this clue, a conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. However, I immediately ran into the next record, "The symbolic system compares to a similar private password Elgar used elsewhere." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still a story. The hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Does Elgar's other sample of ciphers support the same symbolic value?" specifically ignores the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key Clue 1 — Traces left by records
Clue 2. The symbolic system is compared to a similar private password Elgar used elsewhere.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
If we separate this clue, the conclusion in one direction seems very plausible. However, I immediately ran into the next record, "Short length and possible proper nouns and private jokes make statistical analysis difficult." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Why didn't there be a shared key if the recipient couldn't read it?" ignores the rest of the record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 2 — An mismatched piece
Clue 3. Short length and possible proper nouns and private jokes make statistical analysis difficult.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
A conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if we separate this clue. However, I immediately confronted the following record, "The proposed detoxes have different levels of rule and spelling correction." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. The hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Is there a basis for seeing the direction of symbols as musical elements rather than sound?" specifically, instead of explaining a single clue, ignores the rest of the record.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
▲ Key clue 3 — Evidence that shakes the hypothesis
Clue 4. The proposed detoxes have different levels of rules and spelling correction.
I placed this sentence in the middle of the case record and checked the tense first. It started from who observed it, when it was written right on the spot, or whether it was added as a later memory. The longer the clues to the unsolved case get, the smoother it becomes. However, what is needed in the investigation is not the smoothness but the source. The outline of the case changed as soon as the clue was distinguished whether it was a direct observation, a trace left by an object, or someone's interpretation.
A conclusion in one direction seems very plausible if only this clue is separated. However, I immediately confronted the next record, "Memo is known as 87 symbols on three lines." If the two do not naturally coexist in the same explanation, the explanation is still only a story. In particular, a hypothesis that fails to pass the question "Does Elgar's other cryptographic sample support the same symbolic value?" turns away the other record instead of explaining one clue.
So I made three compartments in my case notes. The first is confirmed facts, the second is reasoning that has only taken one step from facts, and the third is the possibility that you cannot choose without additional evidence. This clue is a mixture of the parts that are close to the first compartment and the parts that stay in the second compartment. I did not erase that boundary. Because leaving boundaries is the only way to correct reasoning when new records emerge later.
Putting the three hypotheses on the same scale, the
hypothesis did not evaluate them in a nice sentence. The number of clues to be explained, the number of newly requested assumptions, and the degree to which they can withstand opposite evidence were written down, respectively. A complete explanation of one clue is not a good hypothesis if the other three are discarded.
Hypothesis A. A letter that combines simple substitution with Elgar spelling and abbreviations
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the clue "the note is known as 87 symbols in three lines" as a relatively small assumption. I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-staged the event from start to finish. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and what he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "short lengths and possible proper nouns and private jokes make statistical analysis difficult." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis in place, you can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I raised the score only when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis B. notation cipher including musical direction and rhythm
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts the assumption as a relatively small assumption that "the symbolic system compares with similar private ciphers that Elgar used elsewhere." I first assumed this hypothesis to be true and re-stalled the time of the event from beginning to end. I connected where and what the character saw, what judgment he made, and moved to the next place one sentence at a time. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the proposed detoxes have different levels of rule and spelling correction." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis alive, you can explain anything, but that explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the hypothesis' score the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
Hypothesis C. Playful symbols that express intimacy without precise plaintexts
The advantage of this explanation is that it accepts as a relatively small assumption that "short length and the possibility of proper nouns and private jokes make statistical analysis difficult." I first assumed that this hypothesis was true and re-staged the event from beginning to end. I connected where the character saw what he saw, what he made, and where he moved to the next place one sentence by one. At the point of disconnection, there must have been a hidden assumption.
The biggest weakness is that it does not fully explain "the note is known as 87 symbols in three lines." If you keep adding exceptions to keep the hypothesis in place, you can explain anything, but such an explanation does not predict anything. I lowered the score of the hypothesis the moment the two exceptions were exceeded. Conversely, I only scored when two independent clues pointed in the same direction.
In the end, this hypothesis cannot be completely discarded, but it cannot be concluded as it is. If you read an event like a novel, the blanks will naturally fill in. If you read it like an investigative record, the blanks will remain the same. I chose the latter. Even if the blanks left are uncomfortable, the inconvenience protects the extent to which the evidence can speak.
▲ Hypothesis Comparison — Explanatory power and gaps
The conclusions I abandoned
I was also drawn to the most famous explanation at the beginning of the investigation. It organized the case in one sentence and gave everything intention. However, when the data were compared, the explanation required a new coincidence for each blank. Then I erased the conclusion and started again. Good reasoning was more about removing unnecessary assumptions than adding anything.
Deciphers should give consistent values to all symbols and minimize random spelling corrections. Only natural sentences do not mean the answer.
In particular, the details repeated on the Internet and later testimonies were separated from the original record. Just because the same sentence appears in multiple places does not mean that there are multiple independent sources. The possibility that one wrong sentence was duplicated was first confirmed. The size of the case decreased after this process, but the weight of the remaining clues increased.
▲ Counterfeit Checks — The Conclusion I Abandoned
Final Reason: The Results I Reached
The Dorabella Code is difficult because it is short and personal. The answer should come from a reproducible rule rather than a romantic sentence.
This conclusion is not a complete final decision. It is a direction that requires the least assumptions in the currently disclosed records and explains the most clues at the same time. It can be corrected when new evidence comes out. However, it is also clear that the conclusion changes when it comes out. Reliable original records, verifiable legal and scientific data, and independent evidence that directly connects objects and people are needed.
I don't write that I closed the case. Instead, write how far you can close it. That boundary is the result of this investigation. The fun of the mystery is not that anything is possible. It is in finding out what can be thrown away among the possible explanations.
▲ Final Judgment — Description that requires the least assumption
Additional Investigation Records 1. Redraw the Timeline
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only the record was written, "Memo is known as the 87th symbol on three lines." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a simple substitution mixed with Elgar spelling and abbreviations." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Does Elgar's other cryptographic samples support the same symbolic value?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from the moment it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only use the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and do not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation records 2. Missing links
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only a record was left: "The symbolic system compares to similar private passwords used by Elgar elsewhere." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of it, I put a hypothesis that it is a notation code including musical direction and rhythm. At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "If the recipient couldn't read it, why didn't there be a shared key?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses have to endure questions. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 3. Eyewitness Distance
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only a record was left saying, "Short length and the possibility of proper nouns and private jokes make statistical analysis difficult." If you erase the conclusion, even events that you thought you already knew will take a completely different shape. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis that explains the section.
On top of it, I put a hypothesis that "a playful symbol that expresses intimacy without precise plain text." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Is there any basis for seeing the direction of the symbol as a musical element rather than a phonetic?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Further investigation record 4. The path through which the item passed
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only the record was written, "The proposed detoxes have different levels of rule and spelling correction." Even events that I thought I already knew reveal completely different shapes when I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The space between the records was marked with a blank square without filling it with imagination. The larger the square, the lower the reliability of the hypothesis explaining the section.
I put the hypothesis on it, "a simple substitution mixed with Elgar spelling and abbreviations." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Does Elgar's other cryptographic samples support the same symbolic value?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure the question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid the question, from the moment it becomes creation, not reasoning. I only use the sense of creation in the atmosphere of the sentence and do not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 5. The Temptation of False Clues
At dawn, the event table was opened again. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only the record was written, "Memo is known as the 87th symbol on three lines." Even events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to move. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled with imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of it, I put a hypothesis that it is a notation code including musical direction and rhythm. At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question, "If the recipient couldn't read it, why didn't there be a shared key?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypotheses have to endure questions. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questions, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used the sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
Additional Investigation Records 6. Reconstruction of the Last Scene
At dawn, the event table was reopened. This time, the conclusion was obscured and only a record was left: "The symbolic system compares to similar private passwords used by Elgar elsewhere." Events that I thought I already knew will take on a completely different shape if I erase the conclusion. I connected the place and time in a line and wrote the minimum time required to travel. The spaces between the records were marked with blank squares instead of filled in by imagination. The larger the square, the less reliable the hypothesis was to explain the section.
On top of it, I put a hypothesis that "a playful symbol that expresses intimacy without precise plain text." At first, everything seemed to fit. However, when the question "Is there any basis for seeing the direction of the symbol as a musical element rather than a phonetic?" was substituted, the weak part of the explanation was revealed. Hypothesis must endure question. If you keep calling new people or coincidences to avoid questioning, from that moment on, it becomes creation, not reasoning. I used my sense of creation only in the atmosphere of the sentence and did not put it in the place of fact.
The result I got from this section is not the name of the criminal or the complete decryption. Instead, it became clear which explanations required fewer assumptions and what would be reversed if new findings were made. Even if the case is not completed, it is possible to narrow the scope of the investigation. This record is intended to leave that narrow boundary.
▲ End of investigative record — questions still to be asked
· The Elgar Society — Dorabella Cipher
· The National Archives — Edward Elgar
※ This article is a commentary in the form of personal investigation records based on public records and reliable data. We have distinguished between facts and reasoning, and when a new official announcement is made, the judgment is updated.
Image Source and Edit
We used Wikipedia Commons public license data cut, ratio adjustment, and color correction to fit the body flow. Circles with generated images are not included in the list below.
- Dorabella Cipher Cleartext “EDU” Signature.png — Robert W. Padgett, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Music manuscript with Edward Elgar's signature. Wellcome L0000509.jpg — Wikimedia Commons contributor, CC BY 4.0
- Dorabella Cipher Cleartext with Spanish words highlighted.png — Robert W. Padgett, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Edward Elgar - Last page of Gerontius score with quotation.jpg — Edward Elgar, Public domain
- Dorabella Cleartext With Spanish Terms Highlighted.png — Robert W. Padgett, CC BY-SA 4.0
- Lower Broadheath, 'The Firs', Sir Edward Elgar's original manuscript for 'Salut d'Amour' - geograph.org.uk - 8284634.jpg — Michael Garlick, CC BY-SA 2.0