by June Thomson
Watson’s Scottish connections: Dorothy L. Sayers bases her theory on the fact that in ‘The Man with the Twisted Lip’, Mrs Watson addresses Watson as James, not John. She suggests that the initial ‘H’ in Watson’s full name stands for Hamish, the Scottish form of James, which was given to him by his mother who was of Scottish descent. Mrs Watson uses ‘James’ as a pet name, in preference to calling her husband John, which had unpleasant associations in her mind with Major John Sholto who betrayed her father, Captain Arthur Morstan.
Watson’s marriages: Some commentators have suggested that Watson was married three times, the first occasion before 1887, the possible date of the Five Orange Pips case, which Watson assigns to September 1887 and in his account of which he refers to his wife. But if, as many commentators agree, this date is incorrect and the inquiry took place in 1889, not 1887, then the suggestion of three marriages is no longer supportable.
CHAPTER TWO
Holmes and Oxbridge: Dorothy L. Sayers argues for Cambridge on the grounds that, as dogs were not allowed in colleges, Holmes must have been bitten in the street on his way to chapel from lodgings in the town. But as Oxford undergraduates spent their first two years in college whereas Cambridge students lived in town lodgings, Holmes must therefore have gone to Cambridge. However, as other commentators have pointed out, rules were often broken and Trevor may well have kept a dog on college premises.
Holmes’ university dates: There is much disagreement among Sherlockian scholars over the date when Holmes entered university and the number of years he spent as a student. For example, Gavin Brend considers he entered Oxford in 1871 and left in 1875. William S. Baring-Gould, among others, claims Holmes was a student at both Oxford and Cambridge between 1873 and 1878.
The Gloria Scott dates: The Gloria Scott case is variously dated between 1872 and 1876. D. Martin Dakin, whose chronology I have largely but not always followed, assigns it to July–August of 1874.
Holmes’ first case: The internal dating of the events which took place on board the Gloria Scott is confusing, largely due to the reference to the Crimean War. I am inclined to agree with D. Martin Dakin that this was a later interpolation by Watson, who wanted to add a little historical colour to the narrative but muddled up the dates. Once the reference to the Crimean War is removed, the rest of the dating adds up satisfactorily to thirty years.
‘The Adventure of the Musgrave Ritual’: The Musgrave Ritual case is variously assigned to 1878, 1879 and 1880, D. Martin Jakin opting for 1879.
CHAPTER THREE
Watson at Army Medical School: In ‘The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place’, an account which is set in Berkshire, Watson speaks of his ‘summer quarters’ as having been situated near there. This may be a reference to his time at Netley, training to be an army surgeon, when candidates were sent on field exercises. If this is so, then Watson may have entered Netley in April 1879, not October, after having served as a house surgeon at Bart’s for less than a year. He would therefore have qualified as an army surgeon in September 1879, not March 1880. As a result, his subsequent military career would have been five months longer than the nine months suggested in Chapter Three, amounting in all to a year and two months up to the time he was invalided out of the army, and would better justify his claim to be ‘an old campaigner’. Shoscombe in Berkshire should not be confused with the village of Shoscombe in Wiltshire, near Bath, now part of Avon.
CHAPTER SIX
Dating of cases: Various theories have been put forward by Sherlockian scholars in an attempt to assign these undated cases to specific years. While it is impossible to refer to them all in detail, the following much shortened versions will give the reader some idea of the range of the hypotheses and the arguments on which they are based. Readers may make up their own minds as to the validity of the arguments.
‘The Adventure of the Resident Patient’: This case clearly took place in October and is dated by many commentators to 1887 on the grounds that the Worthington gang, referred to in the account, were arrested in 1875 and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Allowing the three and a half years’ remission to which Holmes also refers, they would have been released in 1887. However, when the account was first published (August 1893) Watson explains that, while he cannot be sure of the date because he had mislaid some of his memoranda, the case must have occurred ‘towards the end of the first year during which Holmes and I shared chambers in Baker Street’. This would place the case in October 1881. This sentence is omitted from later versions of the account.
‘The Adventure of the Yellow Face’: This case took place in spring, probably April and possibly in the year 1882. As Mrs Munro’s first husband died of yellow fever in Atlanta, many commentators take this as a reference to the epidemic of 1878. We are also told that she was married to her first husband for three years and that there was a gap of just over six months between the two marriages. This evidence would date the case to 1882. Other commentators disagree and assign the case to various years between 1882 and 1889.
In ‘The Adventure of the Yellow Face’, Watson refers to ‘the affair of the second stain’ as one of the half-dozen cases in which, although Holmes ‘erred’ in his enquiries, the truth was nevertheless discovered. Quite clearly, this cannot be a reference to the adventure of the Second Stain, referred to in ‘The Adventure of the Naval Treaty’ which occurred, Watson states, in the July ‘which immediately succeeded my marriage’, that is in July 1889. Nor can it refer to the published account, ‘The Adventure of the Second Stain’, which is deliberately undated by Watson for reasons of state security and which, far from being a case in which Holmes ‘erred’, was successfully concluded by him. The title of ‘Second Stain’ is one which Watson evidently liked and used on more than one occasion, possibly on three: firstly, for the unrecorded case of the 1881–9 period; secondly, for the case which occurred in July 1889; and thirdly, for the published but undated case which involved the theft of a highly confidential state document.
‘The Adventure of the Copper Beeches’: This case is particularly difficult to date because in it Holmes refers to various cases which took place between 1888 and 1889. On this evidence, most commentators have dated it to 1890. However, this is after Watson’s marriage and yet he is clearly living in Baker Street. I am inclined to agree with D. Martin Dakin’s theory that Holmes’ remarks regarding the cases were made at a later date and Watson has mistakenly inserted them into this account whereas they should belong to a later publication.
‘The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet’: Watson refers to deep snow, weather conditions which Dr Ernest B. Zeisler in his Baker Street Chronology has traced through meteorological records as applying to Friday, 23rd February 1886.
The Valley of Fear: Watson himself assigns this case to the 7th January ‘at the end of the eighties’. As Watson is living in Baker Street, it must be before his marriage in 1888/9. However, the year 1888 does not agree with the dating of the Vermissa Valley narrative, which would suggest the much later date of 1895. This, however, is out of the question as Moriarty, who features in Watson’s account of the case, died in 1891. Mr William S. Baring-Gould and others have suggested that Watson’s dating was incorrect and that the trial of the Scowrers took place in 1865, not 1875, and is another example of either Watson’s bad handwriting or a mistake in calculation.
‘The Adventure of the Greek Interpreter’: This case took place in summer and must have occurred after the publication in December 1887 of A Study in Scarlet, as Mycroft Holmes refers to Watson as Holmes’ chronicler. Some commentators prefer to assign it to an earlier date on the grounds that Holmes would not have waited seven years before introducing his brother to Watson. However, as Watson himself refers to his ‘long and intimate acquaintance’ with Holmes, the word ‘long’ would tend to support the later date of 1888.
‘The Adventure of the Cardboard Box’: This case occurred in a particularly hot August before Watson’s marriage. The August of 1888 seems the most likely an
d is supported by Dr Zeisler’s researches into the meteorological records which show that on Saturday, 10th August, the temperature reached 87.7 degrees Fahrenheit, close enough to Watson’s remark that the thermometer stood at 90. However, in the account, Holmes refers to the Sign of Four case which did not take place until later, September 1888. This is probably another instance of Watson’s placing a comment by Holmes out of its correct context. If Watson recorded Holmes’ conversations in a separate notebook but failed to date them precisely on every occasion, this explanation would account for the mistake.
‘The Adventure of Silver Blaze’: It is generally accepted by most commentators that this case occurred in the autumn of 1888. As Holmes speaks of Watson’s memoirs, he must be referring to A Study in Scarlet which was published in December 1887.
The Hound of the Baskervilles: This is another case which presents great problems over dating and has been assigned by different commentators to dates as early as 1886 to as late as 1900. It took place in autumn and the internal evidence from the date of 1884 inscribed on Dr Mortimer’s walking stick, a gift from his colleagues at Charing Cross Hospital, suggests the late 1880s, a dating confirmed by Mortimer’s medical record quoted by Watson from his copy of the Medical Directory. As Watson is unmarried and still living at Baker Street, Holmes’ remark that Mortimer left the hospital five years before, which might suggest the year 1889, must therefore be wrong and he should have said four years, thus assigning the case to the autumn of 1888.
Despite the evidence put forward by such distinguished Sherlockian scholars as Dr Zeisler, Mr Gavin Brend and others in support of the year 1899, I am inclined to agree with that other great Holmesian expert, William S. Baring-Gould, that 1888 is the correct date. The fact that Watson’s leg wound was troubling him in 1888, which he refers to in A Sign of Four, also dated to September 1888, and that he could not therefore have run the great distances he covered in the Baskerville inquiry need not disprove this theory. As I point out in Chapter Eight, Watson walked from Baker Street to Camberwell to visit Miss Mary Morstan, a distance of some twelve or fourteen miles there and back, without any apparent discomfort.
CHAPTER EIGHT
The Sign of Four dating: Although Watson does not specifically state the year in which the Sign of Four case occurred, there are two references within the account which establish it as 1888. Mary Morstan states that her father disappeared on 3rd December 1878, ‘nearly ten years ago’, and that the advertisement appeared in The Times ‘about six years ago – to be precise on 4th May 1882’. The only problem arises over the month when the events took place. Mary Morstan states that she received a letter ‘that morning’ asking for the meeting outside the Lyceum theatre, the envelope of which Holmes notes is postmarked July 7th. However, Watson states that the meeting took place on a ‘September evening’. As all the descriptions of the weather point to autumn rather than summer, most commentators accept the September dating. The reference to July is therefore either a mistake on Watson’s part which he failed to correct, or on the printer’s which went unnoticed and uncorrected.
CHAPTER TEN
Although several cases for this period can be dated without any difficulty, the following are problematic:
‘A Case of Identity’: Watson supplies no date but there is a reference in his account to the Scandal in Bohemia inquiry. As Holmes also speaks of Mary Sutherland (‘A Case of Identity’) in ‘The Red-Headed League’, the investigation must therefore have occurred between March 1889 and October 1890. D. Martin Dakin dates the events of ‘A Case of Identity’ to September 1889, as there is a reference to a fire burning in the Baker Street sitting-room, suggesting autumn weather. However, the fire could as easily indicate early spring. As Holmes has recently received the gifts of the snuff-box and the ring from his royal clients for the services he had rendered them in March of that year, April 1889 would seem the more likely date, as neither of them would have waited over six months before sending Holmes these tokens of their gratitude.
‘The Adventure of the Naval Treaty’: Watson dates this case to the July immediately succeeding his marriage, that is July 1889. However, some commentators have dated it to July 1887, before his marriage, because of the connections with the Triple Alliance, signed in 1882 between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, a pact which was intended to isolate France after the Franco-Prussian war (1870–71). Although Great Britain, which preferred to follow an isolationist policy with regard to Europe, refused to join the Alliance, Lord Salisbury, then Prime Minister, did sign two secret Mediterranean Agreements with Italy and Austria in 1887. The first promised British support for Italian interests in Libya against French ambitions in that area in return for Italian support for British interests in the Sudan and Egypt. It was therefore vital that the stolen naval treaty, which dealt with Great Britain’s policy in the event of the French fleet gaining ascendancy in the Mediterranean, was recovered before it could be sold to France and Russia, traditional enemies of both Great Britain and Germany. In 1893, France and Russia signed the Dual Alliance in an attempt to counterbalance the power of the Triple Alliance. These alliances were to play a significant role in the events leading up to the First World War.
‘The Five Orange Pips’: Watson ascribes this case, as well as the five unrecorded cases, to the year 1887, obviously a mistake as he is married at the time of these investigations. The mistake could have easily arisen through a badly-written 9 being mistaken by the printer for a 7 and left uncorrected by Watson. However, this theory causes problems with the internal dating of Joseph Openshaw’s death, which should have occurred four years and eight months before, not two years and eight months as stated in ‘The Five Orange Pips’. I am inclined to agree with D. Martin Dakin’s suggestion that, once the mistake over the year remained uncorrected, someone, possibly the printer or even Watson himself, altered the figures relating to Openshaw’s death to make it accord with the incorrect year, 1887. On meteorological evidence, Dr Zeisler assigns the case to 24th September, a particularly stormy day which matches Watson’s description of the weather.
‘The Boscombe Valley Mystery’: As Holmes states that ‘Monday last’ was 3rd June, most commentators date this case to June 1889, when 3rd June was on a Monday. However, in the light of the evidence, referred to in the Chapter Ten’s footnote about Anstruther, I am inclined to date this case to June 1890 and to relate it to Watson’s move to Kensington, because in June 1889 Watson was still living in Paddington, as is made clear in accounts of the Stockbroker’s Clerk and the Man with the Twisted Lip inquiries.
‘The Red-Headed League’: The year is undoubtedly 1890 as, in his account which was published in August 1891, Watson states that he called on Holmes in ‘the autumn of last year’, i.e. 1890. It is the references to the months which are confusing, Watson referring to 27th April, the day on which the advertisement appeared in The Morning Chronicle, as being ‘two months ago’ while Jabez Wilson speaks of eight weeks having passed since he read the advertisement. Both references would suggest June which is hardly autumn. However, the Red-Headed League was disbanded on 9th October, according to the notice pinned up on the door of its premises. D. Martin Dakin has offered a brilliantly simple explanation for this tangle of dates, suggesting Watson’s hastily scrawled Aug 4th for the date of the newspaper advertisement was incorrectly read by the compositor as Ap. 27, for April 27th. Once this theory is accepted, the other dates fall into place.
Of the thirteen recorded cases for this period, 1889–91, four involved no crime, three involved theft or burglary and six involved murder or attempted murder, two of which, the Dying Detective case and the Final Problem, concerned attempts on Holmes’ life.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
Continental express trains: There is some confusion over which Continental express Holmes and Watson caught that morning and what precisely was Holmes’ intended destination. According to Mr Bernard Davies, who has studied Bradshaw’s Monthly Railway Guide for April 1891, there were three morning bo
at trains: the 8.30 a.m. and the 11 a.m., both bound for Calais and neither of which stopped at Canterbury, and the 10 a.m. for Ostend which did stop at Canterbury. As Watson had to present himself at the far end of the Lowther Arcade at precisely 8.45 a.m., this suggests that both he and Holmes caught the 10 a.m. Ostend train, a supposition confirmed by the fact that they got off at Canterbury. Why, then, was their luggage labelled for Paris? I suggest it was part of a plan by Holmes to throw Moriarty or one of his agents off the scent should one or other of them attempt to follow. Holmes may have intended either waiting at Dover for the packet which connected with the 11 a.m. Paris boat train from Victoria or, alternatively, taking the Dover-Ostend packet and travelling to Paris from Ostend to collect his and Watson’s luggage. However, once he realised that Moriarty was following them, Holmes dropped this plan and decided to abandon the luggage and travel instead by the Newhaven route to Brussels, assuming Moriarty would track their bags to Paris, where he would wait two days before returning to London. According to this assumption, Moriarty should have arrived back in London on Monday 27th April on the same day Inspector Patterson was supposed to arrest the Professor and the members of his gang.
Some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that the whole Continental trip was an elaborate ruse on Holmes’ part to lure Moriarty abroad and so give Holmes the satisfaction of either arresting or killing him himself.