by June Thomson
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Dating of cases: Although some of the cases from April 1894 to June 1902 can be dated without difficulty, the following present problems:
‘Wisteria Lodge’: Watson assigns it to the end of March 1892, clearly a mistake as in 1892 Holmes was still abroad during the Great Hiatus. D. Martin Dakin, who has disputed the date of Holmes’ return, preferring to place it in early February 1894, not April, has opted for March 1894 as the date of the Wisteria Lodge case. As evidence, he has used the reference in the Norwood Builder inquiry, dated to the summer of 1894, to the case involving the papers of ex-President Murillo, one of the unrecorded investigations which occurred soon after Holmes’ return. I see no problem with this. As Miss Burnett, a.k.a. Signora Victor Durando, makes clear at the end of the Wisteria Lodge inquiry, usually dated to March 1895, she and others had banded together into a secret society several years before to hunt down Murillo after the murder of her husband. They may well have stolen some of Murillo’s papers in 1894 in an attempt to prove his guilt, a case which Holmes was asked to investigate at the time, although I agree it is curious that Holmes makes no reference to this earlier inquiry during the Wisteria Lodge investigation. I have therefore assigned the Wisteria Lodge inquiry to March 1985, a date which other commentators have suggested.
‘The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire’: Watson dates this case to 19th–20th November but omits to state the year. D. Martin Dakin, together with other Sherlockian scholars, has assigned it to 1896, as Holmes was fully occupied with other cases in the Novembers of other likely years.
‘The Adventure of the Second Stain’: Watson has deliberately withheld the date of this case apart from a reference to autumn. Most commentators, among them D. Martin Dakin, have assigned this inquiry to a year before November 1895, the date of the Bruce-Partington case, because in the account of the Second Stain inquiry Holmes refers to Oberstein as one of only three spies capable of stealing the missing document. Oberstein is therefore clearly still at liberty whereas, at the end of the Bruce-Partington affair, Hugo Oberstein is arrested and sent to prison for fifteen years.
However, despite this evidence, I have dated the Second Stain case to January 1896 on the grounds that the international situation described by Watson in his account relates better to this year than to the period before November 1895. The reference to Oberstein as being still at liberty is therefore either a mistake on Watson’s part, who misheard Holmes’ remark or muddled up his notes, or, more probably, a deliberate attempt on his part to mislead his readers over the dating of the case. His reference to ‘autumn’ could also be intended to mislead.
The contents of the stolen document, which had been written by a ‘foreign potentate’, without the knowledge of his ministers, criticised Britain’s colonial policy in such provocative terms that, had they become generally known, would have aroused such hostility in Great Britain that it might have led to war, especially if the document was sent to any of ‘the great chancelleries of Europe’. This is a clear reference to Germany, partners with Austria-Hungary and Italy in the Triple Alliance.
There was only one area of British colonial policy which aroused such severe criticism during this period and this was in regard to South Africa, where events in late 1895 and early 1896 did indeed cause strong anti-British feeling in Europe, especially in Germany.
Briefly, the situation was this. In 1886, gold was discovered in the Transvaal, one of two states in South Africa founded and governed by the Boers, the original Dutch settlers of the area. The other Boer republic was the Orange Free State. With the discovery of gold, miners and developers poured in to the Transvaal, mostly British settlers from the Cape Colony, a British possession. These ‘Uitlanders’, or outsiders, soon outnumbered the Boers, who resented their presence. As a consequence, Paul Kruger, President of the Transvaal, refused to allow them certain civil rights, including the right to vote, and taxed them heavily, a policy deeply resented by the Uitlanders. Cecil Rhodes, Prime Minister of the Cape and founder of Rhodesia after his conquest of the native territory, Matubeleland, decided to take up the Uitlanders’ cause and use the situation as an excuse to seize the Transvaal. With the assistance of a close colleague, L. S. Jameson, whom Rhodes had appointed administrator of former Matubeleland, Rhodes planned to stage an uprising in the Transvaal among the Uitlanders to which Jameson would respond by sending in an armed force to attack the Boers under the pretext of protecting British interests. The plot, however, misfired. The uprising failed to take place but Jameson, unaware of this, sent in his force which was defeated by the Boers in December 1895. When the plot was uncovered, it caused a great outcry not only abroad but also among Liberal MPs in the British Parliament, which led to Rhodes’ resignation as Prime Minister of the Cape Colony. Anti-British feeling was particularly strong in Germany. In January 1896 Kaiser William II sent a personal telegram to Kruger, congratulating him on his success over the Jameson raid and promising the Boers friendship, a gesture which the British regarded as decidedly hostile. The situation eventually persuaded Great Britain to look for European allies and to sign an Entente with France in 1904 and an Anglo-Russian agreement in 1907, thus forming the Triple Entente which counterbalanced the Triple Alliance of Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy.
The situation in the Transvaal also led to the Boer War of 1899–1902, in which James Dodd and Godfrey Emsworth took part (‘The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier’). In 1909, after the end of the Boer War, the Union of South Africa was formed, uniting the separate states.
In dating ‘The Adventure of the Second Stain’ to January 1886, I am therefore linking the case with the events which took place between December 1895 and January 1896, including the Jameson raid and the despatch of the Kruger telegram by the Kaiser. In addition, I suggest that the document criticising British colonial policy was also written by the Kaiser, without his ministers’ knowledge. Had it found its way to the German Chancellery, it might have been made public and further exacerbated the hostility already aroused by the Kruger telegram.
This theory would positively identify Lord Bellinger with Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister at the time. Watson’s description of Lord Bellinger as ‘dominant’ and ‘eagle-eyed’ would fit Salisbury, a large, bearded man with an imposing presence. As Salisbury also served as Foreign Minister, I suggest Trelawney Hope, the Secretary for European Affairs, was, in fact, Joseph Chamberlain, Salisbury’s Secretary of State for the Colonies, who was indeed a ‘rising statesman in the country’, as Watson describes him. Chamberlain was also ‘elegant’, invariably sporting a monocle and an orchid in his buttonhole.
‘The Adventure of Abbey Grange’: Watson assigns this case to ‘the winter of ’97’. Dr Zeisler suggests late January 1897, as this accords with the meteorological records of that date.
‘The Adventure of the Red Circle’: A difficult case to date as Watson only mentions the season, which was winter, while his reference to a Wagner night at Covent Garden confuses rather than clarifies the situation. As H. W. Bell has pointed out, there was a Wagner season in January 1897 but it was at the Garrick Theatre, while a Wagner season at Covent Garden was held in October 1897. On the assumption that Watson has confused the theatres, D. Martin Dakin has opted for February 1897.
‘The Adventure of the Missing Three-Quarter’: Watson gives the month as February but university rugby matches were played in December. He also states that the events occurred ‘seven or eight years ago’, i.e. before publication of the account, which was in August 1904. This would therefore place it either in December 1896 or December 1897. However, Watson states that Oxford won by a goal and two tries but in December 1896, Oxford won two goals to one, while in December 1897, Oxford won by two tries. D. Martin Dakin has opted for December 1897, a date with which I concur.
‘The Adventure of the Dancing Men’: This case is undated by Watson apart from a reference by Hilton Cubitt to his visit to London ‘last year’ for the Jubilee. This could mean either the Jubilee o
f 1887 or the Diamond Jubilee of 1897. Cubitt also refers to a letter he received ‘about a month ago, at the end of June’. Most commentators assign the case to July 1897.
‘The Adventure of the Retired Colourman’: Watson has given no date for this case but internal evidence suggests August 1898. Amberley retired in 1896 and married early in 1897 but his wife left him ‘within two years’. There is also a reference to the ‘hot summer’.
‘The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton’: This case is deliberately undated by Watson apart from a reference to a ‘cold, frosty winter’s evening’. Some commentators assign it to the late 1880s, before Watson’s marriage. However, the references to the electric lights in Milverton’s Hampstead house suggest a later date, as electricity was not brought to that part of London until 1894. Although some commentators have argued that Milverton could have had a private lighting system installed, as must have happened at Baskerville Hall, Mr William E. Plimentel has pointed out that these early installations were equipped with press-buttons to turn lights on and off whereas Watson refers to a switch which makes a ‘sharp snick’, a later system. Mr William S. Baring-Gould has therefore suggested January 1899 as the date for the Milverton case, a theory with which D. Martin Dakin agrees. The meteorological records support this date.
‘The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax’: Watson has failed to date this case. It must have occurred after 1889, as Holy Peters had his ear bitten off in a fight in that year. As Watson is clearly living in Baker Street at the time, it must also have taken place after Holmes’ return in 1894. It is assigned to various dates between 1894 and 1903. The fact that Holy Peters spent some time sitting on the verandah suggests it was summer. D. Martin Dakin has suggested the summer of 1899 as a possible date.
‘The Adventure of the Priory School’: Watson has dated the disappearance of Lord Saltire to Monday 13th May but failed to give the year. In 1901, 13th May was indeed on a Monday and this is the year most favoured by commentators. However, there was a full moon on the night the young lord disappeared and there was no full moon on Monday 13th May 1901. Dr Zeisler has therefore suggested the case took place on Monday 14th May 1900 when the moon was indeed full.
‘The Adventure of the Six Napoleons’: The case is undated by Watson. However, Beppo was last paid on the 20th May the year before. Assuming he was paid on a Saturday, the most likely year when 20th May fell on a Saturday was 1899. This would then date the case to 1900. William S. Baring-Gould has suggested the inquiry took place between 25th and 29th May. If this dating is correct, Holmes was particularly busy during May 1900, for, as well as the Priory School and the Six Napoleons investigations, he was also involved with the Conk-Singleton forgery case, the affair of the Ferrers documents and the Abergavenny murder trial.
‘The Problem of Thor Bridge’: Watson states the case took place on the 4th October but has failed to give the year. Although some commentators have assigned it to 1900, others, including D. Martin Dakin, have opted for 1901. Holmes refers to ‘a month of trivialities and stagnation’ which would apply to 1901 as Watson records no other cases for that year.
‘Shoscombe Old Place’: Watson only gives the month, which was May, but not the year. Both Dr Zeisler and William S. Baring-Gould, taking into account the date of the Derby and the phases of the moon, theories too long and complex to be explained here, have chosen 6th May 1902, a date with which D. Martin Dakin concurs.
Out of the thirty recorded cases which occurred between April 1894 and September 1903, fourteen concerned murder or attempted murder, including one old murder case which had taken place several years before and one attempt on Watson’s life. Three cases involved manslaughter or had mitigating circumstances which might have prevented a murder charge being brought. Four were cases of fraud or theft, or attempted fraud or theft. Of the rest, three involved no crime, four if one includes the Thor Bridge case, which was a suicide (although the attempt to make it appear a murder had criminal intent). The remaining three involved malicious wounding, an attempted abduction and a failure to register a death.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
Readers are referred to the entries under Chapter Fourteen for the dating of the Thor Bridge, Shoscombe Old Place and the Three Garridebs inquiries.
‘The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone’: This case is told in the third person and no date is given, apart from a reference to ‘the evening of a lovely summer’s day’. But as Watson has moved out of Baker Street and is practising as a GP, the case must have occurred after June 1902 but before Holmes’ retirement in the autumn of 1903. The case must therefore have taken place in the summer of 1903, possibly in late June of that year, as D. Martin Dakin suggests.
‘The Adventure of the Three Gables’: This case is also undated and some commentators have doubted its authorship. However, as Watson is not living at Baker Street, it must, like the Mazarin Stone inquiry, belong to the period between June 1902 and the autumn of 1903. The reference to ‘geranium beds’ indicates it took place in the summer. I have therefore assigned it to July 1903.
EPILOGUE
The Irish problem continued to trouble British politics. The Liberal Government, which needed the support of Irish MPs in order to keep in office, tried between 1912 and 1914 to pass a Home Rule Bill, giving Ireland self-government. This, however, was opposed by Protestant Ulster which feared that a majority of Catholics would dominate an Irish Parliament. Ulster’s resistance to Home Rule was supported by Sir Edward Carson, a Protestant MP, who spoke against the bill and encouraged the formation of the Ulster Volunteers, a military organisation which tried to import arms from Germany. The Ulster Volunteers were challenged by the rapidly growing Sinn Fein movement which also opposed Home Rule, preferring instead complete independence from Britain. In turn, they set up their own military force, the Irish Volunteers, which also tried to acquire German arms. The situation was extremely volatile and, had the Home Rule Bill been passed, might have led to civil war in Ireland. However, the outbreak of the First World War in 1914 led to its postponement.
Although many Irishmen, both Catholic and Protestant, remained loyal and enlisted in the British army, an uprising did take place at Easter 1916, when a force of about 2,000 Sinn Feiners, some equipped with German guns, took part in an armed rebellion in Dublin and, having seized some public buildings including the Post Office, declared an Irish Republic. After five days of fighting, the Republicans were defeated and their leaders executed, among them Roger Casement who, for his attempt to gain German support for the Republican cause, was found guilty of treason and hanged.
Holmes’ direct knowledge of Irish politics in the years 1912–14 would have been extremely useful to the British Government during World War I, especially with regard to events leading up to the Irish Uprising of Easter 1916. Under his cover as Altamont, he may even have become personally acquainted with some of the leading figures in the Irish Volunteers and the Sinn Fein movement.
APPENDIX TWO
THE SITE OF 221B BAKER STREET
Various theories, too numerous to describe in detail, have been suggested for the site of 221B Baker Street. These include, among others, 21, 27, 49, 59, 61, 63 and 66. Mr James Holroyd’s claim for number 109, based on evidence in ‘The Adventure of the Resident Patient’, was apparently supported by Dr Chandler Brigg’s discovery that the house opposite, number 118, was actually called Camden House and must therefore have been the same house from which Holmes and Watson kept watch on 221B Baker Street in ‘The Adventure of the Empty House’ (1894). Unfortunately, it has since been shown that Camden House was then in use as a private school and would therefore not have been empty.
Mr Bernard Davies’s claim for number 31 seems more likely. Basing his theory on a large-scale map of Baker Street, he demonstrated that number 34, opposite number 31, fitted the description of the Empty House, having rear access through a mews and a yard, its front door to the right when faced from the road, and no street lamp nearby. Number 31 has since been demolished to ma
ke way for a block of flats.
However, according to the street directory for the period, in 1894 number 34 was occupied by Arthur Canton, a dentist and surgeon, and therefore would also be ineligible as the Empty House.
Wherever 221B was situated, it was almost certainly on the east side of Baker Street, facing west, for in ‘The Adventure of the Cardboard Box’, Watson refers to the morning sun shining on the façades of the houses opposite. It must also have been far enough away from the station in Marylebone Road for Alexander Holder (‘The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet’) to consider taking a cab there.
Watson’s references to a ‘bow’ window are confusing. When the houses were built in the eighteenth century, all of them had tall, narrow sash windows. There is no record of any of them being bow-shaped. Nor is there any evidence either in nineteenth-century photographs or other documentation that a bow window was installed in any of the houses prior to Holmes’ and Watson’s time. As the properties were leasehold, it is doubtful if the ground landlord, the Portland estate, would have allowed such an alteration to the fabric of the building.
It is also significant that in Watson’s initial description of the sitting-room in A Study in Scarlet, recording his first visit to the lodgings, he refers only to ‘two broad windows’. There is no reference to a bow window until much later in the ‘The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet’, published in May 1892, and ‘The Adventure of the Mazarin Stone’, published in October 1921, by which time not only was Holmes’ fame as a consulting detective already established but also Watson’s as his chronicler.
It is possible Watson introduced the bow window as a deliberate ploy to throw curious readers off the scent in case they came looking for 221B Baker Street. It would have been embarrassing for Holmes’ clients, many of whom were important and influential people, to find sightseers gathered outside the house.