Chronology of these short stories.
- ABBE - late January 1897
- MISS - February 1897
- DEVI - March 16, 1897
- REDC - October 1897, or maybe winter
ABBE begins on a "bitterly cold night and frosty morning, towards the end of the winter of '97" when Holmes wakes Watson up, announcing that the game is afoot. He doesn't even let Watson say anything, just urging him to get dressed before dawn. They skip breakfast and take a cab to the train station in silence. Only after they have hot tea on the train does Holmes explain himself by showing him the note from Stanley Hopkins, dated at 3:30 AM that morning. The reason for choosing January rather than February will arise later.
This is the last case featuring Inspector Hopkins. As I said before, Holmes claims that Hopkins has called him in 7 times, and he fancies that Watson has written up all 7 cases. Then he has the nerve to lecture Watson about his writing style again. Poor judgment, unless he deliberately starts the argument in hopes of making them warmer. "Why do you not write them yourself?" Watson bitterly complains. Holmes says he intends to, when he retires. Holmes does publish BLAN and LION as stories, but he never actually writes his planned textbook on "the whole art of detection."
I wonder if maybe Watson decides out of spite to only publish 4 of the cases (BLAC, GOLD, MISS, and ABBE) to prove Holmes wrong. Or maybe he stops publishing because Hopkins gets angry about being deceived in ABBE? The case was published in September 1904, only 7 years after 1897, so maybe Hopkins realized that Holmes was hindering him rather than helping him? He was a young guy, and yet he didn't outlast Lestrade in the stories.
Anyway, Holmes speculates on the case based on the expensive letterhead, and he thinks that "the lady" Hopkins mentions releasing was locked in her room, which turns out to be wrong. What happened to not theorizing without data, Holmes? Finally they arrive in Kent, then take a cab a couple miles out to Abbey Grange, a grand country estate. Hopkins greets them warmly but says he shouldn't have bothered them, because once the lady came to, she gave them a simple explanation of the burglary and murder. The Randall gang have apparently killed Sir Eustace Brackenstall last night.
The lady in question is Sir Eustace's wife Lady Brackenstall, née Mary Fraser. She is from Australia, along with her loyal maid Theresa Wright. Theresa was also her nurse, raising her from a child, so she's fiercely protective. Lady Brackenstall has been married about a year, and Sir Eustace was an abusive drunkard. She rails against England's unfair divorce laws (a frequent theme in the stories featuring love triangles).
She says she was checking that the windows and doors were locked for the night, when she discovered 3 burglars in the dining room. They knocked her out, tied her to the chair, and began robbing the place. Sir Eustace interrupted them, and got killed in front of her. She fainted, but witnessed the 3 robbers having some wine before they left. She called out to Theresa, who helped her and called the police. From the description, Hopkins concludes that the robbers are the Randall gang, a father and his two sons. Watson sees that Holmes is disappointed in the seemingly simple case.
Then they go to examine the crime scene, which they should have done first. Even worse than what Lady Brackenstall told them, Hopkins mentions that Sir Eustace soaked his wife's dog in petroleum and set it on fire! Fuck that psycho. This scandal got hushed up instead of leading to any arrest or punishment. Holmes examines the knots on the rope and is dissatisfied with the 3 wine glasses. Yet he dismisses his doubts and departs with Watson for the train.
But Holmes changes his mind and suddenly pulls Watson off the train. He explains that Lady Brackenstall's story doesn't make sense with the evidence, and they head back to Abbey Grange. Hopkins has left the house, so they return to the dining room. Holmes examines everything and even climbs the fireplace mantel to look at the cut bell-rope.
Then they interrogate the maid Theresa Wright again. She says that they first met Sir Eustace 18 months ago in London. They arrived from Australia in June, then they met Sir Eustace in July. The wedding was in January last year (that is, in January 1896). Well 18 months after July 1895 makes today January 1897, confirming what Lady Brackenstall said about it being a year since her marriage. (Hopkins had previously said they've been in England 18 months, apparently rounding off the extra month.) If Theresa herself is rounding off to 18 months, then maybe it could be February, to better fit Watson's description of the end of winter.
Holmes confronts Lady Brackenstall with her lies, but she won't confess the truth. Holmes leaves, but sends a message to Hopkins to check the frozen over pond, where there's a hole in the ice. He and Watson return to London, where Holmes does further digging at a shipping office, finding out the ship that Mary Fraser and Theresa Wright took in 1895. There was a first officer Jack Croker (Crocker in American editions) who has since been promoted to Captain of a new ship. Holmes decides not to tell Hopkins about this, and they go home to Baker Street. Holmes worries about his conscience to Watson and considers taking the law into his own hands. "Once or twice in my career I feel that I have done more real harm by my discovery of the criminal than ever he had done by his crime." Maybe he means VALL, where if he hadn't discovered John Douglas alive, that guy could have started a new life with his wife, and not get killed by Moriarty?
Later, Hopkins tells them that he found the stolen loot in the frozen pond, but the Randall gang have been arrested in New York, so they can't have done the murder last night. Holmes hints the truth to him, but Hopkins clings to his burglar theory and leaves. After dinner, Crocker arrives and Holmes gets him to confess that he loved Mary Fraser and killed Sir Eustace during a fight. Jack gave Mary some wine for the shock, while Theresa helped stage the robbery. Jack's sailor knots on the rope gave him away. Holmes and Watson conduct a mock trial and acquit him, letting him go. Holmes tells him to return to the lady in a year, ever the matchmaker. I wonder if they got married and moved away, so that Watson doesn't have to worry about exposing the truth. But as I said, I think Hopkins would be mad about them letting Crocker go without telling him.
MISS is about a rugby player who disappears before a match, but Holmes and Watson seem ignorant of rugby. Watson himself played rugby according to SUSS, and Holmes didn't sound puzzled when Big Bob Ferguson referred to their Blackheath vs Richmond match years ago. But here Holmes is quite bewildered by Cyril Overton's telegram and his rugby-laden speech. Watson doesn't try to explain things to Holmes at all. Is he just playing a prank to see how confused Holmes can become, or is he puzzled by Overton as well?
He says he blesses Overton "whoever he might be" for bringing a case to Holmes; these have been stagnant days, and Watson fears the return of his drug mania. Watson weaned him off cocaine over the years, but knows a relapse is possible. (This rugby discrepancy is probably due to MISS being published first in August 1904, about 19 and a half years before SUSS; Doyle didn't remember the previous ignorance of rugby.) Anyway, Overton mentions that Inspector Hopkins referred him to Holmes, but Hopkins does not appear or send a note himself.
Watson dates the case to February, "some seven or eight years ago," so 1896 or 1897. However, the rugby game in question is Oxford vs Cambridge, and those games are held in December, leading some Sherlockians to reject February as wrong. Then they try to match Oxford's winning score, but I don't think there's an exact match. I know nothing about rugby, let alone historical games. At the end, Watson refers to the season as "winter" which can apply to either December or February. Maybe due to the "stagnant days" comment, I should put this case in December 1896, before the ABBE case, but it depends on exactly how many weeks have passed. Maybe ABBE was early January and this is late February, up to 8 weeks apart? I don't know how long Sherlock can go without cases.
Anyway, Godfrey Staunton is missing from the Cambridge rugby team, having left the hotel at 10:30 last night after a bearded man sent him a distressing note. The porter saw them leave together, and Staunton has not returned since. Overton wired to Cambridge and to Godfrey's uncle, the miserly Lord Mount-James. They question the hotel porter, who vaguely describes the bearded man again, and mentions an earlier telegram that Godfrey received at 6 PM. Holmes examines the blotting paper and finds the final words of Godfrey's reply telegram. He also finds a lot of medical bills among Godrey's papers. Lord Mount-James arrives, insisting that he won't pay for a detective, so Holmes suggests that Godfrey may have been kidnapped to get to the lord's money.
Holmes tricks the telegraph-office lady into showing him the whole telegram that Godfrey sent at 6 PM last night. Do people often send telegrams without signatures? He and Watson then travel to Cambridge to investigate. Sherlockians use this case to prove that Holmes didn't go to Cambridge university because he calls it "this inhospitable town" but that's ignoring that he later calls it "this venerable city." Either remark could have been sarcastic.
They reach town by dark and interrogate Dr. Leslie Armstrong about the telegram, but he has a low opinion of private detectives. He also doesn't care about the rugby match and rightfully won't answer prying questions about the medical bills. Dr. Armstrong assumes that they work for Lord Mount-James and throws them out of his house. That leads to the "inhospitable town" remark, but Watson is able to get them rooms at an inn easily enough. It's the doctor that's inhospitable, not the whole town. Holmes seems to think he's an evil guy like Moriarty.
Holmes tries following Dr. Armstrong for 3 hours, but fails and returns to the inn at 9 PM. He tells Watson that Armstrong's coachman was unfriendly too, and when Holmes tried following the carriage on bicycle, Armstrong spotted him due to the lack of cover. Holmes's lack of knowledge of the Cambridge scenery seems like convincing evidence that Holmes doesn't know this university town. The next day, Dr. Armstrong even sends them a note at breakfast, to warn Holmes to stop following him. Watson offers to try the bicycle himself, but Holmes tells him not to bother. He goes out investigating all the local towns, in a totally illogical order, apparently not having a map yet. In the evening, Overton responds to Holmes's telegram about a local dog he can borrow. The newspaper reports the bad results of the rugby match. Holmes says they should go to bed early tonight.
The next morning, Watson finds Holmes with a syringe and fears the worst, but Holmes laughs and assures him it's for the case. He tells Watson to eat breakfast, but we don't know if Holmes ate already or not. Holmes used the syringe to spray aniseed over Armstrong's carriage wheels. (Racing dogs are trained to follow the scent of aniseed.) Holmes has fetched the dog Pompey, and they are going to follow the carriage after it is long out of sight. That way they won't be seen, and Armstrong won't change his path. So Holmes and Watson follow Pompey's nose much like they did with Toby in SIGN. They finally find Godfrey Staunton at a remote house mourning his now dead wife.
Later, they make up with Dr Armstrong, who explains that Godfrey kept the marriage secret from his miserly uncle to avoid disinheritance, but the lady grew seriously ill, explaining his absence from the rugby match. So a sad story, but no crime, and Holmes merely imagined Armstrong as a villain because he's missing Moriarty again.
DEVI was published in December of 1910, and Watson tells us that Holmes recently sent him a telegram last Tuesday suggesting that he write up this case. So it's a vague glimpse of their life in 1910, when Holmes is presumably still in Sussex, yet he randomly reaches out to Watson on a Tuesday. (Is it because the case started on a Tuesday?) Later in the story, Watson also refers to the "Cornish Horror" being in the news 13 years ago, and at last he can reveal the truth.
In the spring of 1897, Holmes's health is failing again, like in REIG in 1887. Watson alludes to some "dramatic" way that Holmes met Dr. Moore Agar of Harley Street, but gives no details; it may have been a case, but I wonder why Holmes would then become Agar's patient. Was it Watson's suggestion? Anyway, in March 1897, Dr. Agar prescribes complete rest, so Holmes and Watson go on holiday in Cornwall and get a little Poldhu cottage together. Holmes takes long solitary walks on the moor and also indulges one of his obscure hobbies about ancient languages. I wonder what Watson did with his time alone. Did he just want to be close, to monitor Holmes's health, even though he's not his doctor?
They make the acquaintance of the local vicar Mr. Roundhay, and at tea, they also meet his lodger Mortimer Tregennis. Abruptly on Tuesday March 16th, the vicar and Mortimer arrive after breakfast with a strange case. Watson glares at them, but Holmes is happy to listen. (Tuesday March 16, 1897 matches the real calendar, so this date is easy at least.) Last night, Mortimer visited his siblings at their house, but after he left, something mysteriously killed his sister Brenda and turned their brothers Owen and George raving mad. Whatever happened, it struck the Tregennis siblings with horror while they were still at the table playing cards.
Holmes questions Mortimer a bit about the exact time he left (10:15 PM), and why Mortimer doesn't live with his other siblings. Mortimer says there was a falling out over money, but claims they're all fine now. He also says that his brother George acted like he saw something in the window last night, but Mortimer only saw some movement in the bushes. Holmes goes to see the crime scene, and plays a trick to get some footprints. Then he returns to the cottage to think and smoke. He also goes for a two-hour walk with Watson; Holmes seems to like the sea air, so this may be why he eventually retires to Sussex, near the coast.
When they return to their cottage in the afternoon, Holmes and Watson meet Dr. Leon Sterndale, famous lion hunter and explorer of Africa. (Possibly modeled on Dr. David Livingstone.) Normally a recluse, Sterndale asks them about the Tregennis investigation, saying that the family are cousins on his mother's side. Holmes turns the questions back on Sterndale, about who telegrammed him the news this morning, and whether he lost his luggage on the ship to Africa. Apparently the vicar was the one who sent Sterndale a telegram. Holmes won't answer his questions, so Sterndale leaves in a huff. Holmes follows him and doesn't return until evening. He also confirmed Sterndale's alibi for Monday night, and has no other leads.
The next morning, the vicar hurries to their cottage in hysterics; Mortimer Tregennis is now dead too, and Roundhay is convinced it's the work of a devil. They skip breakfast to get to the vicarage before the police or the local doctor. Holmes finally finds some physical evidence in the lamp in the sitting-room; he collects the ashes in an envelope, but leaves some for the police to find.
The police don't contact them for help for two days, so Holmes does some independent research by buying an identical lamp to the one Mortimer had in his room. The reckless idiot also enlists Watson in his unjustifiable experiment, almost killing them both with devil's-foot root. But Watson saves them, and we get a tender moment between them at least. They would so die for each other.
Holmes apologizes and tosses out the lamp among some brambles. Then he explains his theory that Mortimer poisoned his family on Monday night by tossing the powder in the fire as he left. He in turn was killed by the same method, using the burning lamp, on Wednesday morning. Just then Sterndale arrives, after receiving a note from Holmes. (I suppose this summons was a failsafe in case the experiment went awry, that someone else could come check on them.)
Anyway, Holmes confronts Sterndale about Mortimer's death, confessing that he followed him on Tuesday. He also recounts Sterndale's movements on Wednesday morning, based on traces at the vicarage. Sterndale confesses that he loved Brenda Tregennis, but he could not marry her because he couldn't get a divorce from his estranged wife. (Doyle once again advocating divorce reform.) Sterndale waited for years, hoping to be free one day, and he made friends with Brenda's siblings for her sake.
Two weeks ago, he showed Mortimer his curiosities from Africa, including this devil's-foot powder. He realizes that Mortimer must have stolen some from him, and used it upon his family, probably for money. The horror of it angered Sterndale, so he took the law into his own hands and killed Mortimer in revenge. Similarly, Holmes disregards the law and lets another killer go free, allowing Sterndale to leave for Africa. Watson sympathizes and agrees with this choice. Holmes says "I have never loved" but speculates on what he would have done if he loved someone like that and saw her killed like that.
Published in March 1911, REDC has even less information than LADY about dates. All we know is "winter" and there's a Wagner concert that Holmes wants to see at Covent Garden afterward. Oh, also the landlady says that Holmes solved a case for her lodger Fairdale Hobbs last year, so this year can't be 1894. Mrs. Warren is one of a few landladies featured in the canon, like Mrs. Merrilow in VEIL, and Madame Charpentier in STUD. Doyle often gives them personalities and concerns about a strange lodger frightening them. Yet with how terrible a lodger Holmes is, one would think that Mrs. Hudson would be complaining constantly to her own cronies (mentioned in FIVE) about his bizarre behavior.
Mrs. Warren tells them about her bearded lodger who moved in 10 days ago, and she doesn't even know his name. She recounts his weird behavior and the notes she gets. Holmes says that it's not enough information to go on, but she can come back when she has fresh evidence. In the meantime, Holmes searches the agony columns of the Daily Gazette, the only paper that the lodger requested. There appear to be messages from G. to someone else about a code. Holmes suggests to Watson that the lodger left the first night, and someone else may have switched places with him when they returned later.
The next day there's an agony column message about signals at dusk. Plus Mrs. Warren reports that her husband was briefly kidnapped this morning; she's upset and wants to throw the lodger out. Holmes and Watson convince her not to yet; they will investigate her place by hiding out in a boxroom and trying to see the lodger via a well-placed mirror. They do so at 12:30 PM and discover that the lodger is a woman. She has been substituted for the bearded man who originally paid for the rooms. Holmes doesn't tell his client about this discovery, just leaving and saying he'll be back in the evening. He wants to be there for the signalling.
The signalling appears to be from another house, with someone using a candle to flash letters to the lodger. It really is a slow method of signalling. You'd think he'd try a shorter code, or just write her a letter at the house. Also, Gennaro Lucca seems to be signalling using the English alphabet rather than the Italian alphabet. But he could be doing that on purpose to throw off Black Giorgiano. He would just get gibberish if trying to decode with the Italian alphabet. The messages aren't that useful, either. Mrs. Lucca already knows she's in danger. Why not communicate some new information instead? Anyway, the signals suddenly stop, so Holmes and Watson go to investigate the other house.
Inspector Gregson shows up in this story, and Holmes quotes "Journeys end with lovers meeting" to him, like he did to Moran in EMPT; I'm not sure why he thinks that Shakespeare quote is appropriate. Some Sherlockians argue that, unlike Lestrade, Gregson did not feature in a lot of stories, so he must have retired early. But then again, he showed up in WIST, which is post-Return. Maybe he just decided not to call Holmes in to help him, as often as Lestrade or Hopkins did. Or maybe he was in a police division that didn't happen to bring many cases to Holmes over the years; there were at least 16 divisions in London, according to Wikipedia.
Anyway, Gregson introduces Holmes to a Pinkerton detective named Leverton from New York. Gregson and Leverton have been watching this house, yet they let 3 people walk out without investigating them. Also, didn't they see the light flashes too? They were only looking at the door for Black Giorgiano apparently. When they go inside, they find the body. Holmes flashes signals to ask the lodger to come over. She's afraid at first that her husband died, but then she's ecstatic to realize that he killed their tormentor Black Giorgiano instead. Then Emilia Lucca narrates her history with her husband, but she gives no dates, as if Doyle has learned finally not to give dates on flashbacks, lest they fight the present timeline.
D. Martin Dakin reports from H. W. Bell that the Garrick Theatre had a Wagner season in January 1897, and that Covent Garden had it in October 1897, which is autumn rather than winter. What does it mean by "season"? Is it only for the named month, or should it last properly 3 or so months to be called a "season"? Perhaps Watson's illegible handwriting confused October and December, so he put "winter" into the story description. It could also be a deliberate misdating to protect the Luccas from any other Red Circle members after them.
The story ends abruptly with Holmes wanting to go to the concert at 8 PM, so that we never learn what happened to Gennaro Lucca, and Watson doesn't give us any wrap-up details even about what they told the client Mrs. Warren. With all these vague uncertainties, it's hard to know what to do, but since I have this blank space in my chronology, the case might as well fit here. I'll tentatively put REDC at about October-December 1897. The case itself only lasts a couple of days, but it could be either month.
No comments:
Post a Comment