Chronology of these short stories.
- SIXN - June 1900
- PRIO - May 16, 1901
Now we come to SIXN, first published in April 1904. Watson informs us that Inspector Lestrade is now a friend who sometimes drops by Baker Street just to chat in the evening. One such night, Holmes prods him to talk about his latest case. Lestrade laughs, then tells them, "Although it is trivial, it is undoubtedly queer, and I know that you have a taste for all that is out of the common." Lately there is a burglar who breaks in to places and smashes busts of Napoleon Bonaparte. Watson suggests that the vandal suffers from an obsessive hatred of Napoleon, but Holmes can see that the criminal has a method to his madness. It's another charming tale like BLUE, where a trivial incident leads to a serious crime.
Lestrade's friendly attitude to Holmes as opposed to his superior contempt in STUD or his adversarial competitiveness in NORW, leads many Sherlockians to date this case late in Holmes's career, when they've mellowed out. (And some Sherlockians even argue that HOUN must be post-Return due to Lestrade's reverential behavior to Holmes.) But it does make me wonder how old Lestrade is, and when he finally retired from the police. Even in STUD in 1881, Lestrade spoke of his "twenty years' experience" in Chapter 7. So he was at least middle-aged then. Yet 10-20 years, later, he's still active in post-Return cases like this.
Back to the Napoleon busts. Lestrade says the first case was 4 days ago, when someone smashed a bust in Morse Hudson's shop, then ran away. That seemed petty and random, but then last night, someone broke into 2 separate houses to smash busts belonging to Dr. Barnicot; he bought both busts from Morse Hudson. This morning, Dr Barnicot discovered that the bust in his house had been stolen and then smashed outside. At noon when he went to his surgery a couple of miles away, his duplicate bust there had been smashed inside that house.
That's when Watson proposes the diagnosis of an idéa fixee, but Holmes dismisses it because the burglar knew to take one bust outside, while he smashed the other in the empty house where no one would hear him. Holmes doesn't have an explanation, but looks forward to further developments.
The case develops into murder the next morning, and Lestrade invites them to the crime scene. The journalist Horace Harker heard noises downstairs at 3 AM, followed by a horrible yell. He went to investigate, noticed that his Napoleon bust was gone, and then found a body on his front steps. The throat was cut and there was a knife in the pool of blood. Lestrade says the body is already at the mortuary, and describes the unidentified man as tall and sunburned.
Lestrade also found a photograph in his pocket, and shows it to them. Watson calls it a "snapshot" so I researched the history of that term. Apparently the astronomer John Herschel coined the term "snap-shot" in 1860, but it took 18 years for photo technology to improve to capture split second images. Eadweard Muybridge took the "Horse in Motion" photos in 1878, with the unknown Black jockey, as mentioned in the Jordan Peele film Nope. The general public were able to take snapshots of their own with the Kodak Brownie camera in 1900.
When looking at the photo, Watson racistly describes the man as simian, like a baboon. Ugh. He's got to stop associating ugliness with evil and primitiveness. It's worse than Holmes's phrenology.
Holmes asks about the bust, which was found shattered by an empty house. They leave to go look at it, while Harker worries about writing up his news story. As Holmes examines the bust fragments, he points out that this empty house has a street lamp near it, unlike the other empty house they passed. The thief chose this house so he could see what he was doing when smashing the bust. Lestrade doesn't see how that helps solve the murder.
Lestrade says the practical thing to do is to identify the victim, then possible motives and enemies will become clear. Holmes doesn't care about seeing the corpse, though, and is going to pursue his own inquiries. He just asks Lestrade to tell Harker that the thief is a madman who hates Napoleon. Holmes doesn't really believe that, but he finds it useful to spread that wrong theory through the journalist. He also borrows the photograph from Lestrade, and asks the inspector to meet them at Baker Street tonight at 6 PM.
Then Holmes and Watson go to the Harding Brothers shop where Harker bought his bust, and they go to Morse Hudson's shop too. They find out the original manufacturer of the bust, and Hudson recognizes the photograph as Beppo, an Italian man who worked for him briefly. He left last week, 2 days before the bust was smashed in the shop.
Going to the Gelder & Co. factory, they question a German manager about the Napoleon busts. He somehow identifies in his records a particular batch of 6 busts that were made last year, then sold to Morse Hudson and to the Harding Brothers. He says those plaster busts were cheap and common, no different than any other busts they made. He also recognises the photo of Beppo but doesn't remember any 2nd name for the rascal. Beppo actually worked at Gelder's last year, but went to prison after a knife fight with another Italian in the street. The police even chased Beppo into the factory and arrested him here.
That was "more than a year ago" and Beppo was sentenced to only a year because his victim survived. He must have been released by now, though he hasn't dared come back to this factory. Beppo's cousin still works here, but Holmes declines to question him. In fact, don't tell the cousin at all that anyone asked about Beppo, please. Holmes notes that the 6 busts were sold on June 3rd last year. When did Beppo get arrested? The manager looks up his pay records and finds that Beppo's last payday was May 20. (You'd think that his employment records would have Beppo's full name, at least to distinguish him from his cousin or any other similarly named Italian worker, but no, all we get is "Beppo.")
Holmes and Watson stop for lunch in the afternoon, and there's already a news account of the murder. Holmes laughs about Harker's story and says that manipulating the press can be useful.
After lunch, they return to the Harding Brothers to question the manager who was absent in the morning. He doesn't recognize Beppo's photograph but says that they have some Italian workers in the shop. He tells them the names of the people that they sold their Napoleon busts to. I wonder why they have records of names and addresses for their customers. Unless someone requests a delivery, can't they just go in shop, pay cash, and leave anonymously? Maybe they just have an account at the shop and put it on their running tab, I guess.
Anyway, Holmes is satisfied, and they return home to 221B. Lestrade is already waiting there impatiently. He can't believe that Holmes wasted time tracing the origin of the Napoleon busts. Lestrade meanwhile consulted Inspector Hill, who specializes in the Italian Quarter, presumably where the immigrants live. Hill recognized the dead man as Pietro Venucci from Naples. Venucci was an assassin for the Mafia; therefore Lestrade concludes that the murder is Mafia-related. The photo was probably of his target, whom he followed. Venucci must have attacked his target at Harker's house, but then he lost the fight, and the other man fled.
Holmes asks how the busts fit into that theory, and Lestrade dismisses the busts as irrelevant. He thinks that Holmes is unduly obsessed with the smashed busts. He asks Holmes to come with them to the Italian Quarter to find the man in the photograph. (Presumably he wants Beppo's photograph back now.) Holmes doesn't tell Lestrade that they know Beppo's name and some of his history. He instead asks Lestrade to come with them tonight on a vigil in Chiswick. If they have no success, then he'll go with Lestrade to the Italian Quarter tomorrow.
Lestrade agrees, and Holmes says they should all nap, because they won't go to Chiswick until 11 o'clock tonight. He does invite Lestrade to have dinner with them first, then lets him nap on the sofa. I do wonder why they have a spare room that comes and goes in Baker Street. Holmes also sends an important letter by express messenger.
Oddly, Holmes doesn't nap, for Watson says he spends the evening upstairs in the lumber room where he keeps archives of old newspapers. Really? Is that part of your princely rent, getting a room to hoard back issues when you could go to a library instead for archives? Holmes finds whatever he wants but mysteriously doesn't tell Watson or Lestrade about it yet. Ever the drama queen.
So at 11 PM, they go to Chiswick and watch a darkened house. They don't have to wait long tonight, though, for Beppo shows up, and Watson is racist again. Stop describing him as an ape! Beppo breaks into the house via a window and grabs the bust, then comes outside to smash it. While he's busy, Holmes jumps on his back, while Watson and Lestrade manage to handcuff and subdue him. Holmes then ignores Beppo to carefully look at the bust fragments.
Meanwhile the house owner Mr. Josiah Brown comes to the door and turns on the lights. He's not surprised by the burglar, and he thanks Holmes for his letter instructing him to go to bed early and lock all interior doors. (Oh so Sherlock Holmes can send warning letters to people to keep them safe, after all! Where was that impulse in DANC, huh?) Brown is glad that the burglar was caught and invites them inside for refreshments. But Lestrade is eager to take the burglar to jail, and he declines. Very wise to not risk Beppo getting free and stabbing someone; he's already killed Pietro Venucci and went to jail for knifing someone else. In my opinion, Holmes still risked Beppo killing someone while he searched Brown's house for the bust; in the letter, he should have told Brown to leave it in a prominent place by a window.
Anyway, Holmes, Watson, Lestrade, and their prisoner leave in a cab. (Holmes still hasn't said, "that man is named Beppo" to Lestrade, who still expects to ask Inspector Hill to identify the guy.) At the police station, Beppo just glares and refuses to talk, but they find on him a long knife with traces of blood on the handle; no doubt, it's the murder weapon. Lestrade is satisfied that his Mafia theory is correct. He thanks Holmes for helping in the capture, but he still doesn't understand how Holmes knew that the murderer would be at Brown's house tonight. Holmes says it's too late an hour to get into long explanations, so he asks Lestrade to come at 6 PM again to Baker Street. Presumably they leave to sleep at home.
So the next evening, Lestrade now knows who Beppo is, but his sources also don't know the man's 2nd name. Even in the Italian Quarter? Or are Beppo's friends and relatives hiding his full name to protect him or a loved one? Or is there a Mafia connection after all through Venucci? "[Beppo] had once been a skilful sculptor and had earned an honest living, but he had taken to evil courses and had twice already been in jail." They too found out that Beppo had worked at Gelder's factory and may have made the busts himself. Holmes listens patiently to Lestrade, but Watson can tell that he's distracted and expectant.
Then someone rings their bell, and Holmes eagerly greets Mr. Sandeford of Reading, who got the sixth and final Napoleon bust of the batch from last year. He had to take the train into London, and he confesses that he bought his bust very cheap, but Holmes says he's still willing to pay £10 for it. Sandeford then hands over the bust, and Holmes makes him sign a document saying he gives up all "rights" in it.
After Sandeford leaves, Holmes smashes the Napoleon bust and examines the fragments. He cries out in triumph and at last reveals the precious black pearl inside. He does so with such dramatic flair that Watson and Lestrade applaud him. Holmes flushes and bows to them. Watson appreciates seeing the human side of this reasoning machine.
Beppo stole the famous black pearl of the Borgias last year after May 20th, from a bedroom in the Dacre Hotel. The Prince of Colonna consulted Holmes on the theft, but he didn't find anything. The police didn't find the pearl either, though suspicion fell on the princess's maid Lucretia Venucci. Therefore Pietro Venucci must have been her brother, on the trail of the pearl, and Beppo killed him.
Holmes says that he researched old newspapers. "I find that the disappearance of the pearl was exactly two days before the arrest of Beppo." So that's what Holmes went to the lumber room for last night.
"Beppo had the pearl in his possession. He may have stolen it from Pietro, he may have been Pietro’s confederate, he may have been the go-between of Pietro and his sister." Holmes doesn't care which version is true; the main point is that Beppo had the pearl on the day he was arrested, probably late May, within a week of his last payday. Let's call it May 25th, and the pearl was stolen 2 days earlier on May 23rd.
Then Beppo knifed someone on May 25th, maybe for an unrelated reason, and the police chased him. He ran into the factory where he worked, found a still-wet plaster cast of the Napoleon bust, and quickly hid the pearl inside it. Then the police arrested him, but had no idea about him having the pearl. Beppo went to prison for a year, but got out recently and probably with help from his cousin and other friends, he has been searching the busts for the pearl.
Gelder's manager told us that Beppo's last paycheck was May 20, which we assume is a Saturday, like the Saturday paydays in REDH. The only available candidates for Saturday May 20th are 1883, 1893, and 1899. I pick 1899, and so the case must take place in June 1900. (During his questioning at Gelder's, Holmes at one point says "June 3rd of last year"; since he's clarifying that he doesn't mean this year, we've probably passed that June date this year also.) I don't think there's enough information to be more specific than that. Despite this, Brad Keefauver chooses June 4, 1902, on the theory that it took place the year that Holmes refused a knighthood.
Anyway, after Holmes explains how he solved the case, Lestrade gives a speech about how Scotland Yard are proud of Holmes, and all ready to shake his hand. This touches Holmes even more than the applause. But soon he's businesslike again, telling Watson to put the pearl in the safe. It's just like in BLUE when Holmes kept the blue carbuncle, and the story ends before we see Holmes return the stone to the owner. But we must assume he did so since Lestrade saw it and Watson published the case for the public to read.
Published in two parts, in January to February 1904, PRIO concerns the kidnapping of a 10-year-old boy. The story begins with Holmes and Watson receiving a visitor at Baker Street before noon. Dr Thorneycroft Huxtable arrives disheveled, then staggers and faints onto their bearskin hearthrug. It's a dramatic entrance, reminding me of Alexander Holder in BERY, who ran into the room out of breath, pulled his hair, and beat his head against the wall before they could calm him.
Holmes gets a cushion for Huxtable's head while Watson gets brandy for his lips. As they examine him, Watson diagnoses exhaustion while Holmes finds a return train ticket in his pocket. When the fellow revives, he scrambles to his feet and blushes in shame. Dr. Huxtable apologises for his weakness and only asks for milk and a biscuit (cookie in American), making his behavior all the more absurd. Maybe he abstains from alcohol and doesn't want Watson pushing brandy on him. And I guess they do ring Mrs. Hudson for some milk and cookies because their client does eat them as they continue talking.
Soon Dr. Huxtable says that he came personally (instead of just sending a telegram) hoping to persuade Holmes to return with him to Mackleton in the north of England.
Holmes says he's too busy at present to leave London. Only something very important could convince him to leave his current cases.
Huxtable asks if Holmes hasn't heard about the abduction of the son of the Duke of Holdernesse. "We had tried to keep it out of the papers, but there was some rumor in the Globe last night" and he thought Holmes must have heard it. (This is similar to the contradictory statement of Mycroft in BRUC where he's sure that Sherlock must have heard about the Bruce-Partington submarine, even though that's a state secret.)
Anyway, Holmes looks up the Duke in his encyclopedia, and it lists some lordship he received in 1900, so this case must take place after 1900, assuming that Watson isn't disguising the date. The Duke is very wealthy, and Huxtable says that his Grace has offered a reward of £1000 for the kidnapper's identity and £5000 for finding his son.
Holmes decides that he and Watson will take the case, apparently interested in the money without knowing the details of the kidnapping. This seems counter to his normal attitude of "art for art's sake" and his claim in THOR that his fees are "upon a fixed scale," save when he remits them altogether. Of course, Doyle is often inconsistent in characterization. Holmes at least can detect that the abduction must have taken place 3 days ago, and wants to know why the delay in consulting him.
Dr. Huxtable explains that the boy was a new student at his Priory School. He calls the boy by his title Lord Saltire, but later his father will call him Arthur. The Priory School is an exclusive prep school for prominent families, and the Duke's secretary James Wilder came 3 weeks ago to tell Dr. Huxtable that the boy would soon enroll.
On May 1, the boy arrived at the Priory School, "that being the beginning of the summer term." Summer term? They don't have summer vacation? Holmes had a "long vacation" at university. Is the summer term due to this prep school being a boarding school, so they're year-round? In any case, Huxtable says the boy wasn't happy at home due to the recent separation of his parents, the Duke and Duchess. After his mother left for the south of France, Arthur had moped at Holdernesse Hall, so that's why his father decided to send him away to school. After a fortnight, Huxtable thinks the boy had settled in well at school.
Arthur was last seen at school on Monday night, May 13th, and the school discovered him missing at 7AM on Tuesday morning. His bedroom window was open, and he could have climbed down the ivy. The German schoolteacher Heidegger also disappeared at the same time, along with his bicycle. He had been a teacher there for 2 years, but wasn't very popular. They suspected Heidegger of being the abductor, and police followed a red herring to Liverpool with no success. So that's why Huxtable is 3 days late to consult Holmes. (I thought that meant today was May 17th. However, Huxtable says today is Thursday, so it's actually only been 2 days since Tuesday morning. So Holmes was mistaken, or did he mean that Huxtable had 3 days worth of stubble on his face?)
Holmes is annoyed that Huxtable waited days to consult him, but Huxtable insists that the Duke wanted secrecy for fear of public scandal. Once again, Holmes says that 3 days have been wasted. He should not include Monday, because the boy was fine until bedtime on Monday. But if we believe Dr. Huxtable that today is Thursday, then today must be May 16th.
Holmes questions Huxtable a little more about Heidegger and the missing bicycle. Also, did the boy have any visitors or letters before he disappeared? No visitors, but a letter from his father the Duke. They decide to head to the train station, and Holmes says they'll be ready in 15 minutes.
So Holmes, Watson, and Huxtable arrive in Mackleton on Thursday evening; it's already dark and cold there. The Duke and his secretary James Wilder are waiting in Huxtable's study. Wilder initially complains that he shouldn't have gone to London without telling them, and claims that the police haven't failed yet. Huxtable suggests that Holmes can go back to London, but Holmes insists he'll stay a few days at least, even if they don't want him on the case.
The Duke relents and says that Holmes can investigate since he's already here. He even invites Holmes and Watson to stay at Holdernesse Hall, but Holmes declines to be near the scene of the crime. Holmes questions the Duke some more, but his secretary gets offended, and the Duke abruptly decides to leave for home.
Holmes and Watson investigate the school grounds, then presumably Huxtable takes them to rooms to spend the night. However, Holmes goes out again alone, not returning until 11 PM. He brings a large ordnance map into Watson's room and marks it up as they talk. The story illustration is instead a hand-drawn map showing the school, Holdernesse Hall, and local roads. (It also has a spoiler, labeling Heidegger's body on the moor, along with bicycle tracks.) Holmes theorizes that the boy and Heidegger must have gone north of the school onto the moor.
Huxtable comes in, excited about another red herring. Some gypsies found Arthur's cap on the moor on Tuesday, so now the police think they have something to do with the kidnapping. Ugh. The cops arrested them all, and Holmes doesn't think to try to free the suspects. He just tells Watson to be ready tomorrow morning to search the moor for tracks.
So Holmes wakes Watson early on Friday morning with cocoa. "A very different Holmes, this active, alert man, from the introspective and pallid dreamer of Baker Street. I felt, as I looked upon that supple figure, alive with nervous energy, that it was indeed a strenuous day that awaited us." Supple and subtle in subtext.
They hike on the moor, seeing mostly sheep and cow tracks. At last they spot a bicycle track, though the tire doesn't match Heidegger's bike. It seems a dead end, until they do find the correct bicycle tracks. They keep searching and eventually find Heidegger's body and his bicycle in the bushes. Watson offers to go report the body to the police, but Holmes says he needs him. Instead they ask a "peasant" peat cutter to report the body to Dr. Huxtable, while they continue following the bicycle and cow tracks. I wonder why he didn't send the message direct to the police? Perhaps he didn't trust them not to muck it up, and thought his client Dr. Huxtable should deal with them.
Alone with Watson, Holmes theorizes that Arthur left school of his own free will, and that Heidegger witnessed this from his own room. He followed on his bicycle to retrieve the boy, not kidnap him, and after 5 miles he was struck dead by someone strong. The boy could not have been alone then. But why are there no tracks besides Heidegger's bicycle and the cow tracks? It's impossible, so they're missing something.
Holmes and Watson continue north to the Fighting Cock Inn, where they talk to the hostile landlord Reuben Hayes. Holmes feigns an injury and asks for a carriage, but he gets no sympathy from Hayes. Holmes pretends they have news for the Duke about the Liverpool search for his son. Hayes unbends enough to confess that he used to be coachmen to the Duke. He offers to lend them horses to ride to Holdernesse Hall. Holmes says they'll eat at the inn first.
Watson notes that it's nearly nightfall, and they haven't eaten since breakfast, which he told us was only cocoa. So Holmes actually agrees to have a real supper despite the squalid inn. Holmes is lost in thought, but occasionally goes to the kitchen window to look at the nearby smithy. Then he suddenly gets an idea and tells Watson that the cow-tracks were actually horse tracks. The horseshoes were disguised to look like cow hooves. They go to the smithy and see the horseshoes. Hayes catches them and calls them spies.
Holmes and Watson pretend to walk away, but circle back. Suddenly a cyclist speeds past them to the Inn. It's James Wilder looking horrified and agitated. They find a hiding place and watch the inn. After sunset, a dog-cart leaves the stables and races away on the road to Chesterfield. James Wilder waits at the door for someone who arrives on foot and goes into the house upstairs. Holmes climbs on Watson to peep in the window, but he doesn't tell Watson what he saw. Ever the drama queen wanting a big reveal at the end!
They hike back to the Priory School, though Holmes detours to Mackleton Station to send some telegrams. He even consoles Dr. Huxtable about the death of Heidegger before he returns to Watson's room. Holmes is "alert and vigorous," certain that the case is nearly solved. (But, if he knows where the boy is, shouldn't he have told someone by now?)
At 11 AM on Saturday, they go to Holdernesse Hall. James Wilder tries to stop them from seeing the Duke; he says that Dr. Huxtable's telegram yesterday afternoon about the body has upset his Grace. Still, Holmes insists on seeing the Duke, and an hour later they see him at his desk. Holmes insists that Wilder leave the room.
Then Holmes rather callously asks for the £6,000 reward, demanding the cheque right now, without explaining how he solved the case. "My friend rubbed his thin hands together with an appearance of avidity which was a surprise to me, who knew his frugal tastes."
The Duke thinks it's a distasteful joke, but Holmes says he's earned the reward. He says that the boy was at the Fighting Cock Inn last night, and that the Duke is involved because he saw him there with Arthur. (This is news to Watson, though the Duke assumes that Watson must know too.)
The Duke is shocked by Holmes's accusation, but he agrees to write the cheque. He says he offered the reward before he knew the truth of the situation. He asks if Holmes and Watson can be discreet, and he'll write the cheque for £12,000 rather than £6,000, attempting to bribe Holmes to not tell the police.
Holmes declines the larger amount and says they must have justice for the murdered Heidegger.
The Duke says "James knew nothing of that" and that he only hired the ruffian for a kidnapping, not murder.
Holmes protests that "when a man embarks upon a crime, he is morally guilty of any other crime which may spring from it."
The Duke says that "morally" that may be true, but legally it isn't so. (I think modern laws say that people can be guilty of crimes committed by their accomplices, but I don't know the state of the laws in Victorian times.) In any case, the Duke is just indulging James Wilder again and trying to deflect responsibility from him. He says that James only found out about the murder yesterday and that he immediately confessed the kidnapping plot with remorse. He confessed to the Duke, not to the police. The Duke begs for Holmes to save James.
Holmes says he'll help if the Duke can clarify some things about about the crime. He does know that Reuben Hayes is the murderer, and the police arrested him last night in Chesterfield.
The Duke is relieved that Hayes was caught, so long as James isn't implicated. He confesses that James Wilder is his illegitimate son by a woman who's now dead. He has indulged and favoured his older son so much that his wife Edith left the marriage. James hated his younger half-brother, and the kidnapping plot was meant to force the Duke to help him inherit instead of Arthur.
James confessed to his father that he slipped a note to Arthur on Monday claiming that his mother missed him, and that he needed to meet a horse rider in the wood at midnight, to be taken to his mother. Reuben Hayes was that horse rider, but they didn't anticipate the German bicyclist following them. Arthur has been confined to the Fighting Cock Inn for days, under the care of Mrs. Hayes.
After Huxtable's telegram about the body on the moor, James confessed to the kidnapping, knowing his father would not betray him to the police. "Then he implored me to keep his secret for three days longer, so as to give his wretched accomplice a chance of saving his guilty life. I yielded–as I have always yielded–to his prayers, and instantly James hurried off to the Fighting Cock to warn Hayes and give him the means of flight."
So James is not actually repentant after all, if he's going to let the murder escape the police. But it does explain what Holmes and Watson witnessed at the inn yesterday, with the dog-cart rushing away. Then the Duke visited Arthur last night, but allowed him to remain there due to his promise to James.
Holmes criticises him, "You have condoned a felony, and you have aided the escape of a murderer, for I cannot doubt that any money which was taken by James Wilder to aid his accomplice in his flight came from your Grace’s purse." Even more culpable is his behavior to Arthur. "You leave him in this den for three days." (But Holmes is a bit hypocritical, given that he also let Arthur stay there another night and all this morning, as if the boy was safe.) "You have no guarantee that he will not be spirited away again. To humour your guilty elder son, you have exposed your innocent younger son to imminent and unnecessary danger. It was a most unjustifiable action."
The Duke gets upset at Holmes speaking to him like that, but he feels enough guilt that he takes the reprimands in silence. He also presses an "electric bell" to call the footman. Given the Duke's wealth, he probably could have installed electricity at the Hall any time, so that's not a useful clue for dating the case.
Despite his hypocrisy, Holmes sends the servant to rescue Arthur from the Inn. Then he tells the Duke that he won't reveal James to the police. The Duke will need to persuade Reuben Hayes financially to not squeal either. Let the police believe that Hayes kidnapped the boy for ransom only. But James Wilder cannot be allowed to stay in the house hating his young brother like that.
The Duke agrees and says that he'll send James to Australia to seek his fortune there. Then why didn't he leave already? Did he mean to leave in 3 days so his departure wouldn't be too close to Hayes's escape?
Holmes advises the Duke to make up with his estranged wife too, now that the sore point in their marriage is gone. He's satisfied with the case and only asks about the special horseshoes that make cow-tracks.
The Duke shows them the special horseshoes that belonged to his ancestors, and they have recent mud on them.
Holmes is pleased and then folds up his cheque to put in his notebook. He pats it and claims "I am a poor man."
Sherlockians have noted that his behavior in solving this case makes him look greedy and out of character. Watson doesn't even say if the cheque was just the £6,000 reward or the whole £12,000 bribe, so we don't know how much Holmes was paid. I think Holmes is putting on the greed a little too thick, like it's an act or a joke, but it's unclear what he wanted to convey. I hope the police released the gypsies. Maybe Holmes gave some cash to them, for being harassed by the police. I don't know.
Also, Holmes didn't suspect that James Wilder was the Duke's son, so what did he think their relationship was? That James was blackmailing him for some other reason? Anyway, about the date: Huxtable already said that Monday was May 13th, and that works for the year 1901. The next possible year would be 1907, but that's after publication, and after Holmes retired from Baker Street. So assuming Watson hasn't disguised the date to protect the Duke, Holmes started the case on Thursday May 16th, and worked through Saturday morning.
No comments:
Post a Comment