Holmes and Watson

by June Thomson

  His own reading tastes almost certainly influenced his style. He enjoyed a good yarn, as can be seen in his appreciation of the nautical adventures of the American novelist William Clark Russell, while his admiration for the detective stories of Edgar Allan Poe and Emile Gaboriau, despite Holmes’ contempt for their fictional investigators, would have persuaded him to concentrate on the thrill and mystery of Holmes’ inquiries. Significantly, out of the four novel-length chronicles and the fifty-six shorter accounts, Watson has chosen to preface the titles of forty-six of them, nearly four-fifths, with the words ‘The Adventure of …’

  In further mitigation, it should also be pointed out that Watson was working from brief, handwritten notes, on some occasions months or even years after they were first scribbled down. It was easy enough for him to misread his own handwriting and to mistake a badly formed figure seven, say, for a nine or a scrawled three for an eight.

  Other mistakes, particularly over dating, could have occurred when his handwritten manuscripts were copied by a typist, if he employed one, or alternatively by the typesetter. In addition, some could be printer’s errors which were uncorrected at the proof stage, either by Watson himself or by the publisher’s reader, or by both. It is easily done, as I know from experience. One of my own books contains the description of a character sitting with his ‘things’ rather than his ‘thighs’ wide apart.

  During the 1880s, Watson was further handicapped in his task of chronicling Holmes’ exploits by the loss of his papers, as he reports in ‘The Adventure of the Resident Patient’ when it was first published in The Strand in August 1893. ‘I cannot be sure of the exact date,’ he writes, ‘for some of my memoranda on the matter have been mislaid, but it must have been towards the end of the first year during which Holmes and I shared chambers in Baker Street.’ When the account was reprinted in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes the following year, this sentence was omitted.

  On other occasions, Watson deliberately withheld dates and other information in order to protect the identities of those involved in some of the inquiries, or for reasons of national security, as he was to do in ‘The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton’, a notorious blackmailing case, or in ‘The Adventure of the Second Stain’, ‘the most important case’ Holmes ever handled, an account of which he gave Watson permission to publish only if its contents were ‘carefully guarded’.

  Nevertheless, it would have made the task easier for later commentators on the canon if Watson had shown a little more care over certain of the facts, while at the same time depriving them of a great deal of pleasurable diversion in speculating on possible interpretations.

  This lack of precision is, however, far outweighed by Watson’s other and more important skills as an author, as the continuing and world-wide popularity of his accounts has proved.

  * The Baker Street Irregulars may also have assisted Holmes during the Lady Frances Carfax inquiry. As well as the official police, Holmes used his ‘own small, but very efficient, organisation’ in an attempt to discover the whereabouts of the missing lady.

  † Thomas John Barnardo (1845–1905) founded more than ninety homes for destitute children, the first for boys in 1870, for girls in 1876.

  * In ‘The Adventure of the Retired Colourman’, Watson himself acknowledges that he has ‘a quick eye for faces’.

  CHAPTER SIX

  BAKER STREET DAYS

  1881–1889

  ‘I had no keener pleasure than in following Holmes in his professional investigations, and in admiring the rapid deductions, as swift as intuitions, and yet always founded on a logical basis, with which he unravelled the problems which were submitted to him.’

  Watson: ‘The Adventure of the Speckled Band’

  In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Holmes states that he had handled ‘five hundred cases of capital importance’ up to that time, by which he presumably means from 1877 when he turned professional to 1888, the date of the Baskerville inquiry.* It was a very heavy case load, averaging forty-five investigations a year. Of these, Watson was actively involved with about only a seventh. This is made clear in the opening paragraph of ‘The Adventure of the Speckled Band’, in which Watson refers to the ‘seventy odd cases’ of which he had kept notes over the past eight years.

  In this instance at least, Watson was correct in his facts. This period of their shared tenancy of the Baker Street lodgings and the initial stage of their association indeed lasted eight years, from the time of their first meeting in the early part of 1881, probably on 1st January, to the spring of 1889 when, as we shall see in a later chapter, an event occurred which was to affect both their lives, Watson’s in particular, and which might have brought an end to their friendship.

  He is less accurate in his other comment, already referred to in Chapter Two, in which he states that of the twenty-three years Holmes was in active practice, he co-operated with him ‘during seventeen of these’. If Watson is basing this calculation on the Study in Scarlet case, the first investigation on which he accompanied Holmes and which occurred in March 1881, then the number of years of his collaboration was nineteen, not seventeen.

  Of the over seventy cases of this 1881–9 period on which Watson says he kept notes, he wrote full accounts of only about a fifth of them, fourteen at most, and referred directly to only another seven.

  Because of the problems over dating, it is impossible to establish a definite chronology of these recorded inquiries that Holmes undertook during this period, although in some instances Watson has supplied dates, on occasions with admirable precision, as in A Study in Scarlet which is quite positively assigned to 4th March 1881, or the inquiry involving the murder of William Kirwin, which occurred on 26th April 1887, a date which can be established without any doubt from the facts supplied in Watson’s account, ‘The Adventure of the Reigate Squire’.* Other cases are less precisely dated. The Speckled Band inquiry took place in April 1883 while the Valley of Fear investigation occurred, Watson states, ‘in the early days of the late 1880s’.

  In other accounts, only the month or the season of the year are given; in some not even these. It is only by internal evidence, such as references to ‘our sitting-room’, or the date of first publication, that the cases can be assigned to this period, while some commentators have turned to meteorological records or, in the Yellow Face inquiry, to such external evidence as the date of the yellow fever epidemic in Atlanta, in an attempt to establish the date.

  However, a tentative chronology can be established, although it is by no means definitive and many Sherlockian commentators will disagree with it. The asterisks refer to those cases where the dating is beyond doubt. The cases placed in parentheses are those referred to in the canon but not fully recorded. The question marks are self-explanatory.

  A more detailed explanation of the dating of the more problematic cases is given in Appendix One.

  Date Case First publication

  4th March 1881* A Study in Scarlet December 1887

  October 1881? The Resident Patient August 1893

  April 1882? The Yellow Face February 1893

  April 1883* The Speckled Band February 1892

  Spring 1885? The Copper Beeches June 1892

  February 1886? The Beryl Coronet May 1892

  February–April 1887* (The Maupertuis Scandal) unrecorded

  14th April 1887* The Reigate Squire June 1893

  January* 1880s (January 1888?) The Valley of Fear, in serial form September 1914–May 1915

  June 1888* (Vatican Cameos) unrecorded

  Summer 1888? (The Manor House Affair) unrecorded

  Summer 1888? The Greek Interpreter September 1893

  August 1888? The Cardboard Box January 1893

  September 1888* The Sign of Four February 1890

  Late September 1888? Silver Blaze December 1892

  October 1888? Hound of the Baskervilles, in serial form August 1901–April 1902

  October 1888? (King of Scandinavia) unrecorded

 
October 1888? (Grosvenor Square Van) unrecorded

  October 1888* The Noble Bachelor April 1892

  November 1888? (Colonel Upwood Scandal) unrecorded

  November 1888? (Mme Montpensier) unrecorded

  Of these fourteen fully recorded cases which may be assigned to this period, seven involved murder, in some instances more than one; four were crimes of either attempted murder, theft, wrongful imprisonment or attempted fraud; one was a case of accidental death while two, the affairs of the Yellow Face and the Noble Bachelor, involved no crime at all. If the Charles Augustus Milverton case also took place during this time, then blackmail as well as murder may be added to this list.* Out of the criminal cases, nine were motivated by greed, four by revenge and one by fear.

  Of the seven inquiries referred to during this period but of which Watson has left no written account, the nature of the crime can be established for only three: the Maupertuis investigation, which was a case of international fraud; the scandal at the Nonpareil Club, involving the infamous Colonel Upwood and which was presumably concerned with cheating at cards; and the case of Mme Montpensier, a French lady, wrongly accused of the murder of her stepdaughter, Mlle Carère, who was later found married and living in New York.

  Little is known about the others except that the Manor House affair concerned a man called Adams and was successfully concluded by Holmes. Holmes gives no details of the case of the Vatican Cameos apart from remarking that it took place at the time of the death of Sir Charles Baskerville in June 1883. As for the inquiry involving the King of Scandinavia,* we know nothing except that it occurred shortly before the case of the Noble Bachelor and that it was of a highly confidential nature. Readers are referred to Appendix One for fuller explanation of the case of the Second Stain and three other inquiries with which Holmes may have been involved between 1881 and 1889: the Bogus Laundry affair, the Darlington Substitution scandal and the Arnsworth Castle case.† Other cases which occurred towards the end of this period – the Trepoff murder, the Atkinson tragedy and the mission on behalf of the reigning family of Holland – will be examined in more detail in Chapter Nine.

  As Watson explains, out of this list of more than seventy cases, he found it difficult to choose which to record, selecting only those which best illustrated Holmes’ remarkable detective powers while at the same time avoiding either the over-sensational or those in which the facts were too slight or commonplace to satisfy his readers. Watson was not always to keep to this rule. The Cardboard Box inquiry, with its double murder and gruesome evidence in the shape of two severed ears, should surely come into the category of the over-sensational.

  Those he has chosen do indeed illustrate Holmes’ expertise in scientific detection, perfected during the latter’s five and a half years’ residence at Montague Street. Examples include the tracing of footprints and animal tracks (‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’, ‘The Adventure of the Resident Patient’ and The Hound of the Baskervilles); the effects of gunshot wounds (The Valley of Fear); the analysis of handwriting (‘The Adventure of the Cardboard Box’ and ‘The Adventure of the Reigate Squire’): the analysis of cigars and their ash (‘The Adventure of the Resident Patient’); the deciphering of codes (The Valley of Fear) and the use of disguise (‘The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet’).

  Holmes was probably 27 and Watson about 28 or 29 when this period began with the Study in Scarlet case, and 35 when it ended in the early spring of 1889, Watson then being about 36 or 37. For both men, this eight-year period was to see great changes, not least in the growth of their friendship. After the Study in Scarlet inquiry, Holmes began to treat Watson with increased respect and intimacy, addressing him as ‘my dear Watson’ or ‘my dear fellow’ rather than the more formal ‘Doctor’. By April 1883, the date of the Speckled Band case, he was referring to Watson as his ‘intimate friend and associate’, assuring his client, Miss Helen Stoner, that she could speak as freely in front of Watson as she could before himself. Watson reciprocated, using such terms as ‘My dear Holmes’.

  Both men gained enormous advantages from their growing friendship, in particular from the shared companionship, although Watson undoubtedly appreciated this aspect of their relationship more than Holmes, who was better suited temperamentally to solitude than Watson. As a consequence, Watson began to emerge from his depression and to recover his former good spirits to the extent that Holmes commented on ‘his pawky humour’. However, physically he had not yet fully recovered and the wound in his leg continued to trouble him throughout this period, particularly when the weather was cold or damp.

  When in a good humour, Holmes could be a stimulating companion, his conversation covering a wide range of topics: on one occasion miracle plays, medieval pottery, Stradivarius violins, Buddhism in Ceylon and warships of the future. On another, Watson reports how he was kept ‘amused and enthralled’ by Holmes’ ‘characteristic talk, with its keen observance of detail and subtle powers of observation’.

  Time no longer hung heavy on Watson’s hands. Apart from the investigations themselves, which absorbed much of their joint attention and took them to many different locations – not just in London but to various parts of the country including Sussex, Hampshire and, further afield still, to Dartmoor, and even on one occasion to France – he and Holmes went for walks, dined out and went to the opera together.

  In addition, Watson was busy keeping up to date with his notes on the cases and writing up full accounts of some of the inquiries with the intention of publishing them and thereby making Holmes’ name better known, not with much success until the latter part of this period. This aspect of Watson’s life will be examined in the next chapter.

  All these activities must have taken up much of his time for, during these eight years, there is no reference to his reading any of his medical books or to preparing himself to return to active practice, and it is safe to assume that at this stage he had abandoned any thought of resuming his former career as a doctor. He appears quite content to continue sharing the bachelor lodgings with Holmes, living on his army pension and acting as Holmes’ companion, assistant and chronicler. Any leisure time he had away from Holmes’ company was spent either at his club, playing billiards with a man named Thurston, or betting on horses, an activity which he was later to admit cost him half his pension. It was only in September 1888, towards the end of this period, that a meeting was to occur which was radically to change his attitude and to rekindle his old ambitions.

  The advantages of the friendship were, however, not all on Watson’s side. Holmes gained, too. Watson was a loyal and eager companion, prepared to accompany him even on potentially dangerous inquiries and, if necessary, to go armed, as Watson did on at least three occasions, the Speckled Band, the Baskerville and the Copper Beeches inquiries. In the latter case, Watson used his gun to save the life of Jephro Rucastle when he was attacked by his own guard-dog.

  Watson’s medical knowledge also had its uses. In the Resident Patient inquiry, he was able to establish the time of Blessington’s death from the degree of rigor mortis. He also saved the life of Mr Melas in the Greek Interpreter affair by the prompt administration of ammonia and brandy when that gentleman had been overcome by charcoal fumes, while in 1887, he was to give Holmes himself direct medical advice and assistance, as we shall see later in the chapter.

  On occasions, Watson helped with the inquiries themselves by acting as another pair of eyes and ears, helping Holmes, for example, to trace Silver Blaze’s tracks across the moor. In the Baskerville case, he was left virtually in charge of the inquiry, reporting back to Holmes, who had apparently returned to London, on all he saw and heard relating to the investigation.

  As well as these more practical contributions, Watson served as a sympathetic listener to whom Holmes could expound the facts of a case, thereby clarifying them in his own mind. Holmes expresses such a need in ‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’. ‘I shall enumerate them [the facts] to you,’ he tells Watson, ‘for nothing clears up a ca
se so much as stating it to another person.’ In the same inquiry, Holmes appealed directly for Watson’s help in solving the mystery of John Straker’s death. ‘If you can give me any light I shall be infinitely obliged to you,’ he says.

  By degrees, as Watson’s confidence grew, he began to put forward his own ideas as, for example, in the Greek Interpreter inquiry, in which he suggests that the young Greek woman found out about her brother’s arrival in England only by accident, a theory which Holmes greeted with the exclamation, ‘Excellent, Watson! I really feel you are not far from the truth.’ It was also Watson who suggested that an almanac might hold the key to the coded letter in the Valley of Fear case.

  But Watson’s chief role was still that of an appreciative audience. Holmes remained susceptible to flattery, as is seen in ‘The Adventure of the Reigate Squire’ when Colonel Hayter complimented him by suggesting the inquiry was too petty to interest someone of his reputation. Although Holmes brushed the remark aside, his smile, Watson observes, ‘showed that it pleased him’. And it was exceedingly flattering to Holmes’ ego to have Watson at his side, constantly exclaiming in surprise and admiration at his, Holmes’, brilliant detective skills and superior intellectual powers. However, while he was admittedly not as intelligent as Holmes, Watson was no fool and, one suspects that – kind man that he was – he sometimes deliberately exaggerated his bewilderment in order to give Holmes the pleasure of explaining how he had arrived at his conclusions.