I don’t think so, anyway. You’d better ask Martin.
I hope he meets someone else. He’s borne up remarkably well since Miranda died, but that’s Martin all over, never one to make a fuss.
I was always the one who made a fuss. Getting cancer then going crazy then marrying Ray. Martin was there for me through all of it, no matter how much I managed to screw up.
He can cook a mean curry, too.
“Have you ever heard of a watchmaker called Owen Andrews?” I asked him once we’d finished eating. I poured us both another glass of wine. It was odd, the way his face changed. A lot of people might not even have noticed, but I’m used to watching other people’s body language and I know Martin back to front. The moment I said the name Owen Andrews, it was as if someone had suddenly switched a light on inside him, then just as rapidly flicked it off again. Something he didn’t want to talk about? Or felt uncertain of? Could have been either. I’d been telling him about my research, my various theories about Irene Wilbur. I’d deliberately held off mentioning Arthur Rawlin because once you get Martin on to the subject of watches it’s difficult to get him off it again.
I knew he’d be interested, but the extremity of his reaction surprised me, all the same.
“I’ve heard of him, yes,” Martin said finally. “But what does he have to do with Irene Wilbur?”
This is going to sound strange, but I decided more or less in that moment that I wasn’t going to tell Martin I had Rawlin’s watch in my possession. Not yet, anyway.
It wasn’t that I didn’t trust him. I would trust Martin with my life, and perhaps that was the problem.
It was as if – and I know how bizarre this sounds, especially coming from an unreconstructed rationalist like me – I sensed already that something was going to happen, something involving the watch. I think I was afraid that if Martin got wind of what I meant to do, he would say it was dangerous and try to stop me.
I’m not good at taking advice – once I have a mind to do something, you might as well try advising a stampeding mare with a swarm of bees on her tail. No one knows this better than Martin and normally he’d stay out of it but in this case?
Let’s just say I wanted to keep my intentions under wraps.
“Nothing,” I said. “At least nothing directly.” I told him about Arthur Rawlin and Arthur Rawlin’s posthumous obsession with Helen Bostall, and then added that my old client Lewis Usher knew someone who knew someone who’d purchased Arthur Rawlin’s watch in a private auction.
“It’s by a London maker, apparently, this Owen Andrews,” I said. “Lewis seems to think that Rawlin attached mystical properties to the watch, that he believed it could reverse time, or something. He’s going to try and dig out the documents for me – Lewis, I mean. I wondered if you knew anything about this Andrews guy, that’s all.”
“Only that he trained in Southwark, and that his watches are vanishingly rare,” Martin said. He sighed. “There are entire internet forums devoted to Owen Andrews. He’s one of those people other people are always talking about, probably because we know so little about him. People are still having arguments over exactly when he was born. There’s speculation that he had access to Breguet’s late notebooks. I don’t believe it myself. I don’t see how he could have done. The notebooks weren’t in the public domain for at least a century after Breguet’s death.”
“Who’s Breguet?”
“Abram Louis Breguet, a Swiss watchmaker. He’s best known for making a watch for Marie Antoinette and almost losing his head for his trouble. But for horologists, Breguet is most famous for inventing the tourbillon.”
Martin went off into a long-winded explanation of what a tourbillon was and how it worked, how before Breguet, no pocket watch could keep accurate time over a long period because of gravity, which acted as a drag weight on the mechanism, speeding it up or slowing it down by as much as sixty seconds in every hour. Breguet placed the whole mechanism inside a revolving metal cage he called a tourbillon, or whirlwind. The tourbillon kept the mechanism in stasis, twirling it around its own axis like a sidecar on a fairground ride.
The tourbillon watch was like a planet, spinning in space. In every sense that mattered, it was weightless.
“Think of a tornado,” Martin said. “A wind itself has no substance, but it has incredible power. It renders everything weightless before it, even massive objects like houses and cars.”
I zoned out a bit towards the end, not because what Martin was telling me wasn’t interesting, but because I couldn’t see how any of it related to Arthur Rawlin and a possible time machine. Then Martin said something else, something jaw-dropping. I was dragged back into the conversation with a physical jolt.
“What was that about the notebooks?”
“Breguet’s notebooks,” Martin repeated. “His doctors always insisted he was senile by then, but according to his son, Breguet was lucid and rational right up until he died. His late writings suggest he had been trying to create a kind of super-tourbillon, a mechanism he believed would eventually enable human beings to travel through time. He called it the time-stasis. I can’t believe anyone would take it literally, quite honestly, but some of the people on the forums believe Owen Andrews made it his mission to put Breguet’s theory into practice.”
“To make a watch that could turn back time?”
Martin shrugged. “If you like.”
“That’s incredible.”
“If it were true, maybe. But I’ve seen some of Andrews’s pieces and they’re just watches. Andrews was gifted but he wasn’t a magician. All that time travel stuff – it’s just the horological equivalent of urban myth.”
I thought there was something heroic about it, nonetheless – the lone mechanic, pitting himself against logic like a gladiator fighting a tiger. I reminded myself that all the most radical advances in science seem like lunacy before they are proven.
“It’s a beautiful word,” I said to Martin. “Horological.”
“Are you still convinced Helen Bostall was innocent?” he asked.
“More than ever. And I believe Arthur Rawlin thought so, too – that’s why he felt so guilty over her death.”
“You’re determined to prove it, aren’t you? Through your book?”
I laughed. “I suppose I am.”
I didn’t just want to prove it, though – I can admit that now. I wanted to change it. But I wasn’t about to blow my cover to Martin.
*
Three days later I performed an experiment. Just one little trip back, five minutes or so. Brain of Britain was on the radio, which made it easy to tell if anything had actually happened. I had a second go at some of the questions, which would have upped my score if I’d been keeping tally, which I wasn’t. It would have been cheating, anyway.
*
Jocelyn Bell turned out to be Jocelyn Leslie, an artist. She won a scholarship to study at the Slade, and when her father – a successful Yorkshire businessman of a conservative cast of mind – refused to let her go, she continued to paint in secret, making her own way to London two years later. She enjoyed moderate popularity for a time. Although there were those who dismissed her efforts as ‘primitive’ or ‘naive’, Lavinia Sable, who wrote art criticism for several London papers under the pseudonym Marcus Fell, insisted that in spite of having almost no formal training, Bell’s work showed a keener understanding of European modernism than many of her better-known contemporaries.
I liked the sound of Lavinia, who apparently attended private views and press gatherings for years as Marcus, with no one being any the wiser. Lavinia was easily interesting enough to fill a book in her own right, but Lavinia was not my mission and after spending a day or two reading up on her I laid the material reluctantly aside and went back to the matter in hand, namely Jocelyn Bell.
On arrival in London, Jocelyn found work first as an assistant housekeeper at a private boarding school for girls, then as a secretary and assistant to the curator of one of the more progressiv
e galleries on Cork Street. It was here, I’m certain, that she first encountered Leonard Bell, who was friendly with several of the artists represented there.
Leonard Bell was actually Leonid Belayev, a Russian émigré and a member of the radical socialist group based in Camden called the Four Brothers. The group was founded in the 1890s and, unlike many similar loose associations that fractured and splintered at the outbreak of war, the Four Brothers remained intact as a group well into the 1920s.
At some point during 1924, Edwin Dillon began attending their meetings.
Here at last was the breakthrough I’d been searching for. Jocelyn Leslie married Leonard Bell in 1902. They had one son, Malcolm, in 1903, although letters sent by Jocelyn to a friend in Manchester reveal that differences were already making themselves felt between the couple and by 1905 their marriage was over in all but name. Leonard Bell kept in close touch with his family, though – I think he was probably still living under the same roof for some years after he and Jocelyn separated, a fact that would almost certainly have led to gossip amongst the neighbours. Not that Jocelyn or Leonard gave much of a damn for bourgeois convention. They remained friends, and when Leonard eventually began a long-term affair with another woman, the woman quickly became Jocelyn’s friend, also.
That woman – and you can imagine my satisfaction when I was able to prove this for sure – was Irene Wilbur. There were in fact several dozen letters from Leonard to his lover, preserved amongst Jocelyn Bell’s papers at the Women Artists Forum in Hammersmith.
As a bonus, the letters also revealed to me the identity of Malcolm Bell’s soon-to-be fiancée: Louise Tichener.
*
Frustratingly, I was never able to find out much about Irene Wilbur herself, and I can only assume her willingness to go along with the murder plot had more to do with her wanting to protect Leonard Bell than with any active animosity towards Helen Bostall. The true identity of Dillon’s murderer also remained hidden from me, although I’m more or less positive it wasn’t Bell himself. Leonard was a hardened activist – he would have known better than to put himself directly at risk.
After weeks of rooting around in various archives of obscure research papers, I came to the conclusion that the most likely suspect was a much younger man, Michael Woolcot, who seems to have known Dillon when he was living in Manchester. The two had some sort of falling-out – either in Manchester or soon after Woolcot’s own arrival in the capital. So far as I know they were never reconciled, although mysteriously there was one final meeting between them, in a Camden public house, just ten days before Dillon’s murder. The meeting was remarked upon by a moderate socialist named West, a journalist who wrote a satirical column for an independent newspaper called The Masthead, lampooning many of the personalities associated with the more extreme wing of the movement.
They say that if you sup with the devil you should use a long spoon, West wrote in his January 20th column, just one week before the murder. Judging by the outbreak of cosy camaraderie at The Horse’s Head last Thursday evening, it would seem there are those who set little store by such sage advice, even those we might consider our elders and betters. West goes on to reveal the identities of both Dillon and Woolcot, referring to the latter as ‘an upwardly mobile cur of the Belayev persuasion’ and to the meeting itself as ‘a council of war’.
Which can only beg the question, West writes, of who exactly is at war here, and with whom?
Whether the police were ever made aware of West’s column, or possessed enough insider knowledge to make head or tail of it, I have no idea. Leonard Bell was questioned briefly, along with two dozen or so other regular and irregular members of the Four Brothers group, though the comrades’ universal disdain for the official forces of law and order would have meant the chances of anyone letting anything slip were practically nil.
*
Helen Bostall’s ticket for the boat train was forward-dated to February 3rd, a date that turned out to be less than a week after Dillon’s murder. It seems likely that someone – someone friendly with Leonard Bell or one of his cronies – knew about Helen’s travel plans. For Bell’s plan to succeed, it was crucial that Dillon be killed well in advance of Helen’s departure for the continent. I believe it was Dillon’s meeting with Woolcot, staged by Bell as an opportunity for reconciliation, that set the stage for the murder. No doubt Woolcot had been instructed to arrange a second, more informal meeting, to take place at Dillon’s flat.
*
Putting all the evidence together, it finally became clear to me that it was those ten days that formed the crucial time period, the ten days between Dillon first meeting Woolcot at The Horse’s Head, and his eventual death.
If Helen Bostall could have been persuaded to bring her journey forward – to leave London soon after New Year, say – then Bell would either have had to shelve his plans, or risk being exposed as complicit in Dillon’s killing.
Regardless of Dillon’s fate, Helen Bostall herself would have been saved.
If only someone could have told her, I thought, and almost immediately afterwards I thought of Arthur Rawlin. Had he tried to use the watch? I wondered. If so, he had obviously failed.
*
As to why Bell wanted Dillon dead in the first place, the reasons remained obscure to me. All I could think was that it must have been down to some intricate power struggle within the Four Brothers. Truth be told, I didn’t care much. Not then.
*
I knew from the start that the best place to approach Helen would be at one of her suffragist meetings. The very nature of such gatherings meant there would always be new faces in evidence, strangers who might turn up for a couple of meetings and then disappear again. It ought to be relatively easy to mingle with the women without drawing undue attention to myself. The main thing was not to go overboard in trying to fit in. I chose clothes that were unobtrusive rather than authentic: the three-quarter-length coat I normally wore to court hearings in winter, a dark, paisley-patterned skirt I hardly ever wore but couldn’t bear to throw out because I liked the material so much, a pair of black lace-up shoes. Plain clothes, in every sense of the word.
*
By now you’re either wondering what on Earth I’m talking about, or if I can possibly be serious. Which is fine.
*
I kept putting off the actual – journey? I told myself I needed to do more research, which was at least partly true. To keep myself safe, I had to know that particular bit of Camden well enough to be able to walk around it blindfold, if need be. But mostly I was just scared. Scared in case the watch didn’t work and scared in case it did.
Five minutes and a hundred years were not the same thing. What if the watch refused to bring me back, or marooned me in a time that was not my own?
I wanted to know though, I wanted to see. The closer it came to the date I’d set myself, the more impatient I felt. Impatient with my fear. Impatient with my delaying tactics. When Ray phoned me the night before to ask me if I was going to some private view or other his agent was organising, I almost bit his head off.
“Are you okay, Dottie?” he said. He hadn’t called me Dottie for years, not since we separated.
“I’ll be there, don’t worry,” I said, not answering his question and not knowing if I’d be there, either. “I’ve got a lot on at work, that’s all. Say hi to Clio for me.”
Clio is Ray’s daughter, the child he has with Maya. I should make more of an effort with Maya, I suppose, but it’s difficult. We’re such different people, and although chumming up with her ex-husband’s new wife seemed to work for Jocelyn Bell, I’m not sure it’s for me.
Clio, though. She’s eight years old and a miracle. I could never tell this to anyone, not even Martin, but occasionally it breaks my heart that she isn’t mine.
*
There is a lever inside the watch, a silver pin that slides from side to side inside a moulded slit – imagine the back of an old wind-up alarm clock, the little lever you use to e
ngage the alarm function, or to turn it off. There is no clear indication of what the purpose of this lever might be, and when you first engage it, nothing seems to happen. Say ‘nothing happens full stop’, if you like. I won’t mind.
I once had a conversation with Martin, years ago when we were kids, about whether ghosts existed. When I asked Martin if he believed, he said it didn’t matter. “If ghosts exist, they’ll go on existing whether we believe in them or not.”
It’s the same with this. And if I tell you that what time travel reminds me of most of all is the time before my illness, I wonder will you believe that either? The time when I was so in love with numbers – when I could listen to numbers conversing the same way you might listen to music, when I felt the thrum of numbers in my blood, intricate as a crystal lattice, sound and rhythmic and basic as the beat of a drum.
I turned the lever, and the rush of numbers filled my head, blazing in my veins like alcohol, like burning petrol. The music of the primes, du Sautoy called it, and I could hear it again. I closed my eyes and counted backwards. I could feel the boundaries of reality expanding, unfurling. Bobbing deftly out of reach of my hands, like a toy balloon.
I ducked under the boundary wire and followed. Time filled me up, chilly and intoxicating.
Yes, but what’s it like? I can hear you asking.
Like a triple slug of Russian vodka that’s been kept in the icebox, that’s what it’s like.
*
I started going on practice runs. Just silly things: walking past my front door in the middle of last week, going to a concert at the Barbican I’d wanted to attend when it was actually on but happened to miss. I thought that getting the timing right would prove difficult, but in fact the mechanism was extremely accurate, once you got the hang of it. I found it mostly came down to imagining: knowing where you wanted to be and forming an image of the place and time inside your mind. This sounds irrational I know, but that’s how it was.
Now We Are Ten: Celebrating the First Ten Years of NewCon Press Page 21