Chronology part 9

Chronology of extended visits

• FIVE - late Sept 1888 (refers to Mrs. Watson visiting her mother or aunt; let's say she visited either Mrs. Cecil Forrester or her school friend Kate Whitney from TWIS.)
• HOUN - Oct 1888 (let's say Mrs. Watson is still visiting friends, per T. S. Blakeney)

Similarly to SPEC, FIVE begins with Watson surveying his unpublished records. He says he has notes of Holmes's cases "between the years ’82 and ’90"; I can't figure out why he wouldn't include 1881. (FIVE was first published in November 1891.) But does that mean these are the "eight years" he was talking about in SPEC's introduction? No, 1882 to 1890, inclusive of both ends, is 9 years, not 8 years. Watson, how the heck do you read calendars? Thankfully, Watson then moves on to discussing the year 1887, listing many tantalizing titles and descriptions. He is also implying that this current case FIVE took place in that same year. But of course, nothing's that simple.

The case begins on a September evening with storms and a wind that "cried and sobbed like a child in the chimney." Holmes is working on his commonplace books while Watson reads a sea story by Clark Russell. He explains his presence in Baker Street by claiming that his wife is on a visit to her mother's (or in some editions it's her aunt). Aunt or mother, it doesn't matter because Mary Morstan was an orphan in SIGN and had no relatives in England when she grew up in boarding school, while her father served overseas. An aunt might have existed but not lived in England, I suppose, but you'd think she would have reached out to Mary to comfort her, when Captain Arthur Morstan disappeared in December 1882. Personally, I think we shouldn't be that literal about relatives. I think Watson just means that Mary was visiting Mrs. Cecil Forrester, her former employer when she was a governess. In SIGN, Watson had remarked on how Mrs. Forrester seemed motherly to Mary, and it's easy to imagine that he informally regards that lady as Mary's mother. Mary worked for her and lived in her house for at least 6 years by SIGN. I'm not sure why the reference was changed to aunt in FIVE, unless Watson meant it the way that wise, elder women are referred to as "aunties" regardless of blood kinship.

But September 1887 still seems a little early for Mary Morstan to be Watson's wife, because they just got engaged after only 4 days in SIGN. (The story would have worked better if Watson didn't mention his wife at all and let us just picture it taking place during their bachelor days.) I think a Sherlockian once argued that Mary was his fiancée in 1887, but that Watson was writing the story years later, so he called her his wife out of habit instead of using a construction like, "my then-fiancée, now-wife" but I do not remember which Sherlockian this was. I guess that could work, but you'd think that Watson would have remembered to clarify it whenever he changed it to aunt. Lest anyone think this is a pre-Mary wife, Holmes and Watson later explicitly mention SIGN and the Sholtos. I guess one could dismiss that as more self-promotion; Watson telling readers to buy his most recent novel. They also discuss Holmes's brain-attic theory and the list of Holmes's limits from STUD, advertising the first novel as well.

Anyway, the bell rings, and John Openshaw arrives to consult Holmes. Watson describes Openshaw as young, at most 22 years old. He has a wet umbrella and pince-nez glasses. Holmes invites him to sit and dry off. Openshaw mentions that Major Prendergast highly recommended Holmes; he can solve anything and has never been beaten. Holmes responds, "I have been beaten four times--three times by men, and once by a woman." Most readers believe that is a reference to Irene Adler, though I have also seen theories that this woman might be Rachel Howells for instance, who got away with murder in MUSG. If it's Irene Adler, that would mean FIVE needs to take place after SCAN. But as I have said before, I tend to discount these references between cases, at least in the Adventures.

Soon John Openshaw begins describing the history of his family, and how his uncle Elias emigrated to America, fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side, then returned to England in 1869 or 1870 after making a fortune. He was a drunk, foul-mouthed eccentric on his estate, living in seclusion. But he met his young nephew in 1878, and begged his brother Joseph to let the boy move in with him at Horsham. John Openshaw was 12 in 1878, so he was born in 1866; plus 22 years makes 1888. Hmm, another hint that the year might be off! So John lived with his uncle Elias and became responsible for running the household within a few years. He's got keys to everything except an attic lumber-room.

Then Openshaw tells them about the weird letters with five orange pips in them and the letters KKK. Modern readers know exactly who the KKK are; they're not an obscure secret society. The first pips letter arrived on March 10, 1883, striking fear into Uncle Elias. He sent for his lawyer, then got a box from the locked attic and burned the papers from it. Elias then made out a will and died seven weeks later on May 2, 1883; it was ruled a suicide. Joseph Openshaw inherited the estate, and the next pips letter came on January 4, 1885. Despite John trying to warn his father about the sinister pips, Joseph would not go to the police, and he died 3 days later. John Openshaw says that "two years and eight months" have elapsed since then, which adds up to September 1887. He hoped the family curse might be over, but he received the latest pips letter yesterday. He already went to the police, who laughed at him, but let him have a policeman stationed at the house in Horsham. (If only he had a police escort!)

Holmes urgently tells Openshaw to go home and put the final paper on the sundial, explaining that the rest were burned years ago. He warns Openshaw to be careful, but don't you think he should have just invited Openshaw to stay the night at Baker Street? To sleep on the couch, even if there was no spare room? Then they could have gone with Openshaw tomorrow to keep him safe, and possibly even captured the KKK guy getting the stuff off the sundial. But no, Sherlock Holmes just stupidly sends off his client to die. He's no better than the police in this case, and his "That hurts my pride" remark the next morning seems callous to me, despite his agitation and pacing the room.

So Watson reads the news about John Openshaw's death between 9 and 10 PM last night. Holmes resolves to solve the case and get revenge on the KKK, but much like RESI, this case ends with a distant shipwreck. I would definitely count this story among Holmes's failures. It is interesting that, despite Holmes's extensive knowledge of American slang, that he still doesn't know that "lone star" refers to Texas. Overall, FIVE seems to be set in September 1887, but there is a possibility that it should be a different year, which is why I dated it to 1888 to link up with HOUN. 

Like FIVE, HOUN also has clues pointing to a certain month and year, but it also runs into difficulties with Watson's marriage. HOUN was first published serially from 1901-1902, the first new story since Holmes's death in FINA, published in December 1893. Conan Doyle wasn't yet committed to resurrecting Holmes, so he set HOUN in the past, pre-FINA. The engraving on Dr. Mortimer's walking stick says 1884, and Holmes says that's 5 years ago, so presumably it's 1889. Meanwhile, Watson's letters from Baskerville Hall are dated in October, so that should mean October 1889. Unfortunately, this in the middle of Watson's marriage to Mary Morstan, whether it started in 1887 or 1888.

From the first chapter, Watson appears to be living with Holmes as a bachelor, and when Holmes tells him to stay out all day so he can think, Watson goes to his club, not to his house in Paddington. He doesn't make a mention of his wife or his medical practice when Holmes volunteers him to go with Sir Henry to Dartmoor. The climax of the case takes place on the Friday the 19th, when Sir Henry dines at the Stapletons' house and then gets chased by the glowing hound. To make October 19th be a Friday, I can set it in 1883, 1888, 1894, or 1900. So I choose 1888 as being before "Final Problem" and close to the 1889 references. Some Sherlockians think that HOUN doesn't have to be pre-FINA at all. They say that Lestrade's admiring attitude to Holmes indicates that this story should be closer to SIXN in 1900. HOUN could have taken place after Holmes returned in EMPT, and Watson just pretended it was in 1889 because Holmes still wasn't giving permission to reveal that he was alive yet. That's plausible too, and one could even argue that making October 19th a Friday isn't that crucial. Why that date and not any of the other dates in the story? (There are some problems about when Selden escaped from prison versus what day Watson traveled to Dartmoor for instance.)

But I recently read T. S. Blakeney's Sherlock Holmes: Fact or Fiction book; he had a theory that Mrs. Watson just extended her visit from FIVE, and that explained why Watson was free as a bachelor throughout HOUN. That seems good enough to solve my chronology problems on theses two cases. If Watson gets to have extended visits with his old friend, then why shouldn't Mary get extended visits too? I think Mary visited Mrs. Cecil Forrester during FIVE in September, and then she decided to visit her school friend Kate Whitney in October. Maybe Kate's husband went on an opium bender again, so Mary decided to stay with Kate for some weeks to monitor Isa and attempt to make him quit. Why didn't they ask Watson to help with this? Maybe Isa initially had a different doctor, and he only agreed to change doctors later after pressure from Kate and Mary. That's what I'm going with, anyway.