Chronology part 3

Some more reasoning on my Sherlock Holmes chronology.

• SPEC - April 1883
• COPP - early spring 1884
• BERY - Friday in February 1885
• YELL - Saturday in early spring 1886

"The Speckled Band" has long been undisputed by chronologists. Watson says it occurred in early April 1883, and there's nothing to contradict it. It was published in the Strand in February 1892, and Watson opens by discussing "my notes of the seventy odd cases in which I have during the last eight years studied the methods of my friend Sherlock Holmes." Chronologists all pounce on a similar opening in "Veiled Lodger" to calculate the length of Holmes's career, yet they forget that SPEC has this reference to the past 8 years. 1892 minus 8 years only gets back to 1884. Is there something else he's not counting? 1881 plus 8 years gets us to 1889. Oh, I see. He's not counting some months in early 1881 when he didn't go with Holmes on cases, he's not counting some months in early 1887 when Holmes is away in France solving a big case without him (REIG), and he's not counting some months just after his marriage (before SCAN) when he was busy with his new practice and not visiting Holmes. So assuming those months add up to a year, we can get to from 1881 to 1890. Per "The Final Problem," Watson barely saw Holmes for 3 cases in 1890, and then didn't see Holmes early the next year. Watson only saw Holmes because of Moriarty's threat from April to May 1891 and that wasn't a case so much as an escape to continental Europe. That's why he's not counting that year. So those are the years that he considers himself Holmes's biographer. Keep that in mind for when he recalculates for us in VEIL later. Odd how it's always the early months in the year that he misses recording cases.

There are other dates in the SPEC story, as Helen Stoner recounts the ancestral history of her stepfather and some of her family history in India. Roylotts were wealthy landowners in Surrey, but they lost most of their riches and property, until the sole heir Grimesby Roylott became a doctor and moved to India, where he set up a successful practice in Calcutta (now Kolkata). Meanwhile, Helen's unnamed mother (maiden name Westphail) married a Major-General Stoner in India, but was soon widowed, and she got married to Roylott when the twins were 2 years old. I suppose that means that Helen and Julia were born in India, and never sent away to boarding school in England. They stayed there until Helen specifies that Roylott got out of prison and took the whole family to England. At first he attempts to start a practice in London, but then tragedy struck or a sneaky murder happened. "Shortly after our return to England my mother died--she was killed eight years ago in a railway accident near Crewe." So that would mean that Mrs. Roylott's death was in 1875. Incidentally, why were they in Crewe, in Cheshire, nowhere near London? Was there maternal family there?

Anyway, Helen specifies that Julia was 30 when she died 2 years ago in 1881, so that means the twins were born in 1851, and we can now see that Roylott's marriage was in 1853, and that the Major General must have died in 1851 or 1852. The Sepoy Rebelllion or Indian Mutiny happened from 1857-1858, so maybe after that, Roylott became more suspicious of his native servants and that's when he killed the Indian butler while enraged about robberies? Make it 1860 at least, so that the killing can't be disguised as part of the mutiny, and Roylott gets sentenced for 15 years for it. The twins would be 9 years old then. Helen is a little unclear in how she narrates Roylott's prison time versus his marriage. But to me it reads as though Roylott married the widow, raised the girls for some years, then killed his native butler and went to prison for several years. That way the twins grow up at the same time that he's serving his sentence, so that he's not too elderly when he gets out of prison. When Mrs. Roylott died in 1875, the twins would be 24 years old, a prime age to get married. That must be why Roylott rushed them to Stoke Moran with him, so they wouldn't live with their maiden aunt Honoria Westphail in Harrow where they could meet eligible men and get married. And he got the animals and welcomed the gypsies on his estate to keep people away. Yet finally Julia got engaged in 1881, and that's when he did another murder, being careful not to get caught. Having succeeded once with the snake, he thinks he can do it again in 1883.

Another reason to keep SPEC in 1883 is that there's a big hole between STUD and SIGN, when Holmes and Watson are living as bachelors in Baker Street, before Watson gets engaged and married. That hole is the reason I scatter COPP, BERY, and YELL into it. "Copper Beeches" opens with Holmes expounding again on Watson publishing cases; he mentions SCAN, IDEN, TWIS, and NOBL, but as I said, I don't count those references in the Adventures. That's self-promotion and artistic license. Holmes may have read and remarked when Watson formally wrote up a case as a story, rather than just taking notes during the solving of the mystery, but Holmes did NOT comment on the publications, because the short stories were all published after he "died" in May 1891. Watson is just advertising his stories for sale to his readers. Chronologists who rely on these useless clues will try to force these cases to later dates, but that just creates a problem of explaining why Watson isn't married and living with his wife during them. Don't invite new problems in!

Onto "Beryl Coronet" which is only specified as a crisp, snowy February. I can't check any weather conditions myself, and the story only speaks of a Monday when the exalted royal expects to be able to pay back the bank loan. I've no idea what he'll say about the damaged coronet, but maybe he could be shamed into just getting it quietly repaired and not getting Alexander Holder fired. Don't make a fuss, since after all HE was the one using the country's prized assets as collateral for a stupid loan. What, were you gambling at cards, Bertie? I don't have any real reason for 1885 over another year. I was just picking a year in the great big hole of their bachelor days.

"Yellow Face" is another case taking place in early spring, and they have another long walk, like in RESI. Watson says they are silent, "as befits two men who know each other intimately" suggesting that they have lived together for years now. The story must take place after the 1882 Married Women's Property Act, because Effie Munro makes a show of giving Grant/Jack control of her money. Before 1882 he would get it automatically as her husband, but here she's making a gesture of "I trust you and love you. I don't need the money." But she DOES need the money to take care of her daughter. It's stupid of her to do this, especially when she confesses that she was afraid Grant would not accept his stepdaughter if he knew. No woman should voluntarily give up her power and money like that, especially when she married him after only knowing him a few weeks. No matter how much you love Grant/Jack, don't give him your money. (By they way, does she call him Jack because her first husband was John Hebron, and Effie called him Jack too?)

There aren't clear dates in the story, though Grant says they've been married for three years, and he met her 6 months after she moved back to England. Effie also claims there was a fire in Atlanta and she has no photos of John Hebron, but that's a lie, because she has a locket photo. The whole Atlanta history is difficult, as mixed race marriages would not have been legal there, yet Effie inherited money from John Hebron. So did they marry in a Northern state instead and then move to Atlanta to live in a Black neighborhood? And this was tolerated in the big city as opposed to a rural town? Georgia apparently did not issue death certificates until 1914 according to puzzling notes in the Annotated Sherlock Holmes. So not even the doctor witnessing the death can issue a certificate if you need one? Was the death certificate fake, and the yellow fever part of her lies? But John Hebron has to be dead because Effie did legally inherit, and they do have a surviving child. It's all so muddled. Anyway, 1882 plus 3 years makes it at least 1885. Holmes says he's "badly in need of a case" implying that it's been a while. I already had BERY in 1885, though I guess they could have coexisted. I just wanted to fill another year in the hole between STUD and SIGN. An extra year also gives time for the 1882 law to go in effect.