My young friend—who wore a blue linen smock—conducted me down a paved passage, the walls of which bore each a long shelf on which was a row of plaster busts and statuettes, into an open yard in which a small, elderly man was working with chisel and mallet on a somewhat ornate marble tombstone, amidst a sort of miniature Avebury of blocks and slabs of stone and marble. Across the yard rose a great barn-like building with one enormous window high up the wall, a great double door, and a small side door. Into the latter my conductor entered and held it open for me, and as I passed in, I found myself in total darkness. Only for a moment, however, for my young host, having shut the door, drew aside a heavy curtain and gave me a view of huge, bare hall with lofty, whitewashed walls, an open timber roof, and a plank floor relieved from absolute nakedness by one or two rugs. A couple of studio easels stood opposite the window, and in a corner I observed a spectral lay-figure shrouded in what looked like a sheet. At the farther end, by a large, open fireplace, Miss Blake sat in an easy-chair with a book in her hand. She looked up as I entered, and then rose and advanced to meet me, holding out her left hand.
“How kind of you, Mr. Anstey, to come and see me!” she exclaimed. “And how good it was of you to take such care of me last night!”
“Not at all,” I replied. “But I hope you are not very much the worse for your adventures. Are you suffering much pain?”
“I have no pain at all,” she replied with a smile, “and I don’t believe this sling is in the least necessary. But one must obey the doctor’s orders.”
“Yes,” interposed her brother, “and that is what the sling is for. To prevent you from getting into mischief, Winnie.”
“It prevents me from doing any work, if that is what you mean, Percy,” said she, “and I suppose the doctor is right in that.”
“I am sure he is,” said I. “Rest is most essential to enable the wound to heal quickly. What sort of night did you have?”
“I didn’t sleep much,” she replied. “It kept coming back to me, you know—that awful moment when I went into the museum and saw that poor man lying on the floor. It was a dreadful experience. So horribly sudden, too. One moment I saw him go away, full of life and energy, and the next I was looking on his corpse. Do you think those wretches will really escape?”
“It is difficult to say. The police have the fingerprints of one of them, and if that person is a regular criminal, they will be able to identify him.”
“Will they really?” she exclaimed. “It sounds very wonderful. How are they able to do it?”
“It is really quite simple. When a man is convicted of a crime, a complete set of his fingerprints is taken at the prison by pressing his fingers on an inked slab and putting them down on a sheet of paper—there is a special form for the purpose with a space for each finger. This form is deposited, with photographs of the prisoner, in one of the files of the Habitual Criminals Registry at Scotland Yard. Then, when a strange fingerprint turns up, it is compared with those in the files, and if one is found that is an exact facsimile, the name attached to it is the name of the man who is wanted.”
“But how are they ever able to find the facsimile in such a huge collection, for the numbers in the files must be enormous?”
“That also is more simple than it looks. The lines on fingertips form very definite patterns-spirals, or whorls, closed loops like the end grain of wood, open curves, or arches, and so on. Now each fingerprint is filed under its particular heading—whorl, loop, arch, etc.—and also in accordance with the particular finger that bears the pattern, so the inquiry is narrowed down to a comparatively small number from the start. Let us take an instance. Suppose we have found some fingerprints of which the left little finger has a spiral pattern and the ring finger adjoining has a closed loop. Then we look in the file which contains the spiral left little fingers and in the file of looped left ring fingers, and we glance through the lists of names. There will be certain names that will appear in both lists, and one of those will be the name of the man that we want. All that remains is to compare our prints with each of them in turn until we come to the one that is an exact facsimile. The name attached to that one is the name of our man. Of course, in practice, the process is more elaborate, but that is the principle.”
“It is wonderfully ingenious,” said Miss Blake, “and really simple, as you say, and it sounds as if it were perfectly infallible.”
“That is the claim that the police make. But, as you see, the utility of the system for the detection of crime is limited to the cases of those criminals whose fingerprints have been registered. That is what our chance depends on now. The man who murdered Mr. Drayton left prints of his fingers on the glass of the cabinet, and the police have taken the glass away to examine. If they find facsimiles of those fingerprints in the register, then they will know who murdered Mr. Drayton. But if those fingerprints are not in the register, they won’t help us at all. And as far as I know, there is no other clue to the identity of the murderer.”
Miss Blake appeared to reflect earnestly on what I had said, and in the ensuing silence I continued my somewhat furtive observation of the great studio and its occupants. Particularly did I notice a number of paintings, apparently executed in tempera on huge sheets of brown paper, pinned on the walls somewhat above the level of the eye; figure subjects of an allegorical character, strongly recalling the manner of Burne-Jones, and painted with something considerably beyond ordinary competence. And from the paintings my eye strayed to the painter—as I assumed and hoped her to be—and a very striking and picturesque figure she appeared, with her waxen complexion, delicately tinged with pink, her earnest grey eyes, a short, slightly retrousse nose, the soft mass of red-gold hair and the lissom form, actually full and plump though with the deceptive appearance of slimness that one notes in the figures of the artist whose style she followed. I noted with pleasure—not wholly aesthetic, I suspect—the graceful pose into which she seemed naturally to fall, and when my roving eye took in a “planchette” hanging on the wall and a crystal ball reposing on a black velvet cushion on a little altar-like table in a corner, I forbore to scoff inwardly as I should have done in other circumstances, for somehow the hint of occultism, even of superstition, seemed not out of character. She reminded me of the Lady of Shalott, and the whispered suggestion of Merlinesque magic gave a note of harmony that sounded pleasantly.
While we had been talking, her brother had been pursuing his own affairs with silent concentration, though I had noticed that he had paused to listen to my exposition on the subject of fingerprints. In the middle of the studio floor was a massive stone slab—a relic of some former sculptor tenant—and on this the boy was erecting, very methodically, a model of some sort of building with toy bricks of a kind that I had not seen before. I was watching him and noting the marked difference between him and his sister—for he was a somewhat dark lad with a strong, aquiline face—when Miss Blake spoke again.
“Did you find out what had been stolen?”
“Yes,” I answered, “approximately. There was nothing missing of any considerable value. Only a few pieces had been taken, and those were mostly simple jewels set with moonstones or cat’s eyes.”
“Cat’s eyes!” she exclaimed.
“Yes, a few posy-rings, some earrings, and. I think, one pendant.”
“Was the pendant stolen?”
“Yes, apparently. Sir Lawrence mentioned a cat’s-eye pendant as one of the things that he missed from the drawer. Does the pendant interest you specially?”
“Yes,” she answered thoughtfully, “it was this pendant that I went there to see. It was illustrated in the Connoisseur article, and I wrote to poor Mr. Drayton because I wanted to examine it. And so,” she added in a lower tone and with an expression of deep sadness, “the pendant became, through me, the cause of his death. But for it and me, he would not have gone to the house at that time.”
“It is impossible to say whether he would or not,” said I, and then, to change the subject
, as this seemed to distress her, I continued: “there was another thing missing that was figured in the Connoisseur—a locket—”
“Of course!” she exclaimed. “How silly of me to forget it.” She rose hastily, and stepping over to an old walnut bureau that stood under the window, pulled out one of the little drawers and picked some small object out of it.
“There,” she said, holding out her hand, in which lay a small gold locket, “this is the one. I recognised it instantly. And now see if you can guess how it came into my possession.”
I was completely mystified, and said so, though I hazarded a guess that it had in some way caught in her clothing.
“Yes,” said she, “it was in my shawl. You remember I said that the man whom I was trying to hold had something in his hand and that he must have dropped it when he drew his knife. Now it happened that my shawl had just then slipped off in the struggle and that he was standing on it. The locket must have dropped on the shawl, and this little brass hook, which some one has fastened to the ring of the locket, must have hooked itself into the meshes of the shawl—which is of crocheted silk, you will remember. Then you picked the shawl up and rolled it into a bundle, and it was never unrolled until this morning. When I shook it out to hang it up, the locket fell out, and most unfortunately, as it fell it opened and the glass inside got broken. I am most vexed about it, for it is such an extremely charming little thing. Don’t you think so?”
I took the little bauble in my hand, and, to speak the literal truth, was not deeply smitten with its appearance. But policy, and the desire to make myself agreeable, bade me dissemble. “It is a quaint and curious little object,” I admitted.
“It is a perfectly fascinating little thing,” she exclaimed enthusiastically. “And so secret and mysterious, too. I am sure there is some hidden meaning in those references inside, and then there is something delightfully cabalistic and magical about that weird-looking inscription on the front.”
“Yes,” I agreed, “Greek capitals make picturesque inscriptions, especially this uncial form of lettering, but there is nothing very recondite in the matter; in fact it is rather hackneyed. ‘Life is short but Art is long.’”
“So that is what it means. Percy couldn’t quite make it out, and I don’t know any Greek at all. But it is a beautiful motto, though I am not sure that I don’t prefer the more usual form, ‘Art is long but Life is short.’”
“That is the Latin version, ‘Ars longa, vita brevis.’ Yes, I think I agree with you. The Latin form is rather more epigrammatic. But what other inscription were you referring to?”
“There are some references to passages of Scripture inside. I have looked them out, all but one. Shall I get my notes and let you see what the references are?” She looked at me so expectantly and with such charming animation that I assented eagerly. Not that I cared particularly what the references were, but the occupation of looking them out promised to put us on a delightfully companionable footing. And if I was not profoundly interested in the locket, I found myself very deeply interested in the Lady of Shalott.
While she was searching for her notes, I examined the little bauble more closely. It was a simple trinket, well made and neatly finished. The workmanship was plain, though very solid, and I judged it to be of some considerable age, though not what one would call antique. It was fashioned in the form of a tiny book with a hinge at the back and a strong loop of gold on each half, the two loops forming a double suspension ring. To one of the loops a small brass hook had been attached, probably to hang it in a show-case. On the front was engraved in bold Greek uncials “O BIOC BPAXYO H AE TEXNH MAKPH” without any other ornament, and on turning the locket over I found the back—or under-side as a bookbinder would say—quite plain save for the hallmark near the top. Then I opened the little volume. In the back half was a circular cell, framed with a border of small pearls and containing a tiny plait of black hair coiled into a close spiral. It had been enclosed by a glass cover, but this was broken and only a few fragments remained. The interior of the front half was covered with extremely minute engraved lettering which, on close inspection, appeared to be references to certain passages of Holy Scripture, the titles of the books being given in Latin.
I had just concluded these observations when Miss Blake returned with a manuscript book, a Bible, and a small reading-glass.
“This,” she said, handing me the latter, “will help you to make out the tiny lettering. If you will read out the references one at a time, I will read out the passages that they refer to. And if any of them suggest to you any meaning beyond what is apparent, do, please, tell me, for I can make nothing of them.”
I promised to do so, and focusing the glass on the microscopic writing, read out the first reference: “Leviticus 25. 41.”
“That verse,” she said, “reads: ‘And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.’”
“The next reference,” said I, “is ‘Psalms 121. 1.’”
“The reading is: ‘I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.’ What do you make of that?”
“Nothing,” I replied, “unless one can regard it as a pious exhortation, and it is extraordinarily indefinite at that.”
“Yes, it does seem vague, but I feel convinced that it means more than it seems to, if we could only fathom its significance.”
“It might easily do that,” said I, and as I spoke I caught the eye of her brother, who had paused in his work and was watching us with an indulgent smile, and I wondered egotistically if he was writing me down a consummate ass.
“The next,” said I, “is ‘Acts 10. 5.’”
“The reading is: ‘And now send men to Joppa, and call for one Simon, whose surname is Peter.’”
“I begin to think you must be right,” said I, “for that passage is sheer nonsense unless it covers something in the nature of a code. Taken by itself, it has not the faintest bearing on either doctrine or morals. Let us try the next one, ‘Nehemiah 8. 4.’”
“That one is just as cryptic as the others,” said she. “It reads: ‘And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijali, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishad, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.’”
At this point an audible snigger proceeding from the direction of the builder revived my misgivings. There is something slightly alarming about a schoolboy with an acute perception of the ridiculous.
“What is the joke, Percy?” his sister asked.
“Those fellows’ names, Winnie. Do you suppose there really was a chap called Hashed Banana?”
“Hashbadana, Percy,” she corrected.
“Very well. Hashed Badada then. But that only makes it worse. Sounds as if you’d got a cold.”
“What an absurd boy you are, Percy,” exclaimed Miss Blake, regarding her brother with a fond smile. Then, reverting to her notes, she said: “The next reference appears to be a mistake, at least I don’t understand it. It says ‘3 Kings 7. 41.’ Isn’t that so?”
“Yes. ‘3 Lib. Regum 7. 41.’ But what is wrong with it?”
“Why, there are only two Books of Kings.”
“Oh, I see. But it isn’t a mistake. In the Authorised Version the two books of Samuel have the alternative title of the First and Second Books of Kings, and the First Book of Kings has the subtitle ‘Commonly called the Third Book of the Kings.’ But at the present day the books are invariably referred to as the First and Second Books of Samuel and the First and Second Books of Kings. Shall we look it up?”
She opened the Bible and turned over the leaves to the First Book of Kings.
“Yes,” she said, “it is as you say. How odd that I should never have noticed it, or at any rate, not have remembered it. Then this reference is really
‘1 Kings 7. 41.’ And yet it can’t be. What sense can you possibly make of this: ‘The two pillars, and the two bowls of the chapiters that were on the top of the two pillars; and the two networks, to cover the two bowls of the chapiters which were upon the top of the pillars.’ It seems quite meaningless, separated from its context.”
“It certainly is rather enigmatical,” I agreed. “This is an excerpt from what was virtually an inventory of Solomon’s Temple. If the purpose of this collection of Scripture texts was to inculcate some religious or moral truths, I don’t see the bearing of this quotation at all. But we may take it that these passages had some meaning to the original owner of the locket.”
“They must have had,” she replied earnestly. “Perhaps we may be able to find the key to the riddle if we consider the whole series together.”
“Possibly,” I agreed, not very enthusiastically. “The next reference is ‘Psalms 31. 7.’”
“The verse is: ‘I will be glad and rejoice in thy mercy: for thou hast considered my trouble; thou hast known my soul in adversities.’”
“That doesn’t throw much light on the subject,” said I. “The last reference is ‘2 Timothy 4. 13.’”
“It reads: ‘The cloak that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.’” She laid down her notes, and looking at me with the most intense gravity, exclaimed: “Isn’t that extraordinary? It is the most astonishing of them all. You see, it is perfectly trivial, just a message from St Paul to Timothy on a purely personal matter of no importance to anybody but himself. But the whole collection of texts is very odd. They seem utterly unconnected with one another, and, as you say, without any significance in respect of either faith or morals. What is your opinion of them?”
“I don’t know what to think,” I replied. “They may have had some significance to the original owner of the locket only, something personal and reminiscent. Or they may have been addressed to some other person in terms previously agreed on. That is to say, they may have formed something in the nature of a code.”
The Second R. Austin Freeman Megapack Page 23