A Second Look at "The Second Stain" by Rich Krisciunas

A Second Look at "The Second Stain" by Rich Krisciunas

After the public’s reaction to Sherlock Holmes’ death in "The Final Problem," Conan Doyle didn’t dare kill him off again, but he made a slight move towards ending the stories by retiring the detective to raise bees in Sussex Downs. At this point in his career, Conan Doyle was one of the world's highest-paid authors. For the six stories that would appear in the book The Return of Sherlock Holmes he had received $25,000 from the American magazine Collier's Weekly, and £100 per thousand words from The Strand.  

The last story in that book was “The Second Stain,” a story of murder, international spies, and blackmail.  It was first published in The Strand Magazine, December 1904 and Collier’s Weekly, January 28, 1905. For chronologists the story is thought to have occurred in the late 1880’s but Watson tells us he must be vague on the details of dates for reasons the public will understand and can only say that it began “on a Tuesday in autumn.” Baring-Gould sets the story in October 1886, while others like Historical Sherlock set it in 1888.

The story begins at a familiar Canonical place with Holmes and Watson together at Baker Street. Unlike earlier stories where Holmes is bored or reads Watson’s thoughts or makes deductions based on a client’s clothing, our story begins immediately with the arrival of two important people from the British government, Prime Minister Lord Bellinger and Trelawney Hope, Secretary for Foreign Affairs. 

Some scholars have guessed that the potentate was Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany. Holmes learns that if the information in the letter is revealed it could start a world war! Hope feels the letter is so important that he can’t leave it in a safe at his government office but has to bring it home. 

Hope last saw the letter at 7:30 pm. His wife, allegedly, went out and he went to bed after she returned at 11:30 p.m. so there is a four-hour window of opportunity for the thief.

After eliminating the household staff, who does Holmes first suspect as the possible thief?  Three international spies and secret agents, “… there are Oberstein, La Rothiere, and Eduardo Lucas.” Holmes plans to see each of them. But Watson tell Holmes that Lucas who lived near Hope’s home has been murdered last night. We’ll see Hugo Oberstein again in The Bruce-Partington Plans in His Last Bow.  As Holmes does on many occasions in the stories, we learn many details about the victim and the killing from a newspaper account.

The action stays at Baker Street. We haven’t left 221B yet as we get our first glimpse of Lady Hilda Trelawney Hope.  Lady Hilda wants Holmes to tell her the details of the missing letter. But, of course, Holmes cannot.  So she leaves and Holmes gives us one of his great lines. "Now, Watson, the fair sex is your department," said Holmes, with a smile, "What was the fair lady's game? What did she really want?"  

Holmes then tells us what he thinks about women.  “…the motives of women are so inscrutable. You remember the woman at Margate whom I suspected for the same reason. No powder on her nose—that proved to be the correct solution.”  For Holmes, Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. “Their most trivial action may mean volumes, or their most extraordinary conduct may depend upon a hairpin or a curling tongs." 

Does Holmes know women? Can he read their thoughts like he does with Watson or men?

Back to the story. I like to look at the structure of the stories. So far, we have met the three key characters; Bellinger, Hope and Lady Hilda. Where are we? Everything has occurred at 221B. This could be a script from a play. 

Two days pass and Holmes is lost in his thoughts. He smokes, runs in and out, visits the crime scene where Lucas was killed, plays his violin and munches on sandwiches. There has been a police investigation and a coroner’s inquest and Watson hasn’t left Baker Street during that entire time. “

What device does the author use to give us details of the status of the investigation?  In the Canon, some of the most important information and details don’t come to us from live characters we meet but rather, this critical information is provided through newspaper articles masquerading as characters. Conan Doyle uses this convenient vehicle in many stories to save time and fill in gaps as opposed to longer dialogue. Frequently, Holmes listens while Watson reads aloud a newspaper story providing details of a police investigation, a coroner’s inquest or the background of a person who has been murdered. 

There are at least 20 other examples of Holmes or Watson citing important information from newspaper articles in “the morning papers,” “the daily papers,” “the evening papers,” “the English papers,” “the society pages,” “the foreign papers” as well as advertisements in agony columns. Here, we learn that Lucas’ valet was initially arrested in relation to the murder but he had an alibi that cleared him.

After three mornings, Watson still hasn’t budged and the mysteries of the potentate’s letter and the murder remained unsolved. Another newspaper account provides us with more key details. As a former journalism major, I am amused by what the papers report: “Yesterday a lady, Mme. Henri Fournaye, was reported to the authorities by her servants as being insane.” Have you ever read such a story in your morning paper?

The police discovered that she was the wife of the murdered Lucas, who was leading a double life, and there is evidence to connect her with his killing.  “It is probable that the crime was either committed when insane, or that its immediate effect was to drive the unhappy woman out of her mind. … doctors hold out no hopes of reestablishment of her reason.” How these reporters get this medical information without making FOIA requests amazes me.

Note how Doyle’s writing reflects some 19th century stereotypes and prejudices of people of color who were considered to be more prone to emotional extremes than whites. The newspaper tells us: “Mme. Fournaye, who is of Creole origin, is of an extremely excitable nature, and has suffered in the past from attacks of jealousy which have amounted to frenzy.” 

So Holmes decides he has to revisit the crime scene where Lucas was killed.  And our chronicler, Watson, finally gets to leave 221B.  The scene shifts to Lucas’ apartment where Lestrade tells Holmes there is a problem and points to an ugly, irregular blood stain upon the carpet in the center of the room. 

There is no stain on the white floor under the blood-stained carpet. The blood should have soaked through. Then, Lestrade points out a second stain on the white floor covered by a carpet that doesn’t have blood on it. Holmes figures it out. "Why, it is simple enough. The two stains did correspond, but the carpet has been turned round." But Lestrade asks by whom and why?

Out of curiosity, why didn’t Holmes spot that issue the first time he went there?

While Lestrade pressures poor constable MacPherson to confess that he let a woman into the house to view the scene, Holmes finds an empty secret compartment under the carpet. 

As Holmes leaves the house, he shows the constable Lady Hilda’s photograph. This confirms to Holmes that she was the woman who was at the scene after the killing of Lucas and Holmes has solved the case. Holmes reveals, “You will be relieved to hear that there will be no war, … Trelawney Hope will suffer no setback in his brilliant career, … that the Prime Minister will have no European complication.”

So far, the action has been at Baker Street, Baker Street, then, moved to Godolphin Street where Lucas was killed and now shifts to the home of Lady Hilda for the grand climax.   

Holmes confronts her : “I know of your visit to Eduardo Lucas, of your giving him this document, of your ingenious return to the room last night, and of the manner in which you took the letter from the hiding-place under the carpet."

Ultimately, she gives Holmes the letter. Holmes replaces it in the dispatch box and Lady Hilda returns it to the bedroom. Holmes then asks Trelawney Hope to make sure that the letter isn’t still in the dispatch box and it is! The prime minister, sensing something fishy, asks Holmes what really happened and the story ends as Holmes gives the clever response, “We also have our diplomatic secrets.”

November Meeting: The Abbey Grange

2021 ended with another delightful meeting as Sherlockians from the St. Louis area, across America, and three other countries met on Zoom to discuss "The Abbey Grange."

As usual, we started off with some news:

Elaine had a fun post on our blog looking at what happens to people who fall in love in the Canon.

Anna Behrens has made some canonical connections to a local play, Trifles, on the blog as well.

The Crew of the Barque Lone Star has their latest collection, Holmes and Me, available on their website.

Our dates for 2022 are listed below.  The January meeting will be via Zoom, and the meetings past that will be TBD.

January 8: The Second Stain

March 19: The Valley of Fear

May 14: Wisteria Lodge

July 9: The Red Circle

September 10: The Bruce-Partington Plans

November 12: The Dying Detective

Brad announced the return of The Dangling Prussian on Zoom for anyone who is looking for something to do on the night of the BSI dinner.  And Madeline announced that her podcast, Dynamics of a Podcast, will be recording a live episode the following day.

And last but definitely not least.... The Parallel Case is planning to put out a book next year!  We are planning on including articles from our old newsletter, The Parallelogram, and blog posts.  Look for more news next year.

This month's story starts off with that great line from Holmes, "The game is afoot!"

Holmes wakes Watson with these words and they are off on a case.  Ten minutes later, our duo is in a cab on their way to Charing Cross station through "the opalescent London reek."  Once they are on the train, Holmes explains to Watson their task via a telegram from Stanley Hopkins:

"My dear Mr. Holmes:

"I should be very glad of your immediate assistance in what promises to be a most remarkable case.  It is something quite in your line.  Except for releasing the lady I will see that everything is kept exactly as I have found it, but I beg you not to lose an instant, as it is difficult to leave Sir Eustance there."

This is Hopkins's last appearance in the Canon, all of them have been part of The Return stories.  Andrew pointed out that all of his stories were published in 1904.

Along the way, Holmes gets in a jab a Watson's writing style, saying he laments that Watson has written his cases up as stories instead of instructions.  Arianna said this line always makes her cringe when she comes across it.  Watson tells Holmes to write them himself, to which Holmes says he will someday.

Rob noted that when he was reading this story, he realized that the title of Holmes's promised writing was not "The Whole Art of Detection," but that phrase was used as a description instead of a title.  He blamed Lyndsay Faye's great pastiche from a few years back for confusing him.

When Holmes and Watson arrive at the crime scene, the Abbey Grange, Hopkins meets them at the door and tells them that the lady of the house has come to and told him everything.  She says that it was the Randall gang that committed last night's crime.  Hopkins still wants Holmes to hear her story.  

This led to a discussion on Hopkins with our group.  Even though the case is solved in Hopkins's eyes, Elaine thought that he felt bad for having Holmes come all the way out so he went through the motions of having him hear the story.  Sandy thought maybe he wanted Holmes to double check his work.  Brad wanted to know why Hopkins was so excited when he wrote the note; was it because he was such a fanboy of Holmes?  And Heather said she thinks that Hopkins is smarter than anyone gives him credit for and he seems to be the one at the Yard that Holmes has the most esteem for.

And Watson REALLY likes the look of Lady Brackenstall...  Stacey said it was worth counting how many times Holmes uses the word "beautiful" to describe her.   Heather said there should be a drinking game where you take a shot every time he comments on a woman's beauty, but Rob warned that it could lead to alcohol poisoning.  And Alisha wondered how many women in the Canon Watson doesn't refer to as being pretty, the number must be a small one!

The lady opens her story with telling them that her late husband was a drunken jerk.  And then rails against the British laws that prevented her from getting a divorce from him.  But now, let's actually talk about the dead man.

Lady Brackenstall was turning in for the night after 11 and was checking the windows.  The dining room was open and a large, elderly man climbed in.  Two younger men followed him.  When she tried to scream, the old man hit her and she was knocked out.  She awoke tied to a chair with a bell rope.

Sir Eustance heard the commotion and came downstairs with a cudgel.  He rushed them and the old man hit him in the head with a fireplace poker, causing her to pass out again.  When she came to, the three men had collected all of the silver and where drinking wine.  They left and once she could get the gag loose, she screamed for the servants.

Holmes turns to the lady's maid and asks her what she has to say.  Theresa says that she saw three men loitering earlier in the night, but thought nothing of it.  Later in the night, she heard the scream and came down to find Lady Brackenstall tied to a chair and Sir Eustance dead.  She then told the investigators that they had asked enough of her lady, and took her away.

Hopkins tells Holmes that the maid has been with Lady Brackenstall since she was a baby and that they came over from Australia 18 months ago.

Sherlock Holmes has no interest in this case right now.  Alisha pointed out that Holmes has his own morality and a terrible man being killed isn't something that bothers him too much.  Arianna said we see the same thing with Charles Augustus Milverton.  

They go into the study and Eustance Brackenstall lay dead from a head wound.  A bent poker is next to him.  Holmes notes that the elder Randall must have been very strong to bend a poker over a man's head.  Sonia wondered how a man's skull could bend a metal poker.  Paul offered that since England left the UK, their standards of production have really gone downhill.  Michael wanted everyone to know that Paul delivered that information with a poker face.  Joe thought that Holmes knew quickly something was wrong because a gang would have definitely taken more than just the silverware.  Alisha agreed that none of Lady Brackenstall's story made sense.

Holmes wonders how the gang knew that no one in the house would hear when they pulled on the bell rope to tie the lady.  There were also only a few things taken from the sideboard.  Hopkins says that the robbers were too shaken by the man's death to do more.  But Holmes wonders why they stayed to drink the wine.  And Hopkins says it was to steady their nerves.

There were three glasses of wine left.  Only one of them had dregs of beeswing.  And now Holmes is suddenly interested in this case.

Holmes ends up taking Lady Brackenstall at her word, but is still troubled by the wine glasses, saying, "Perhaps when a man has special knowledge and special powers like my own, it rather encourages him to seek a complex explanation when a simple one is at hand."

Holmes and Watson leave, but Holmes is still puzzled on the way home, going so far as to jump off the train and go back to Abbey Grange.  "Every instinct that I possess cries out against it.  It's wrong - I'll swear that it's wrong."

Holmes sits Watson down, hoping he will be a conductor of light as he goes over the case.  The thieves had just made a good haul a few days ago, so they should be lying low.  They broke in earlier in the night than would be expected and thieves don't usually hit women as it makes them scream.  And why would they murder Sir Eustance when they had a three to one advantage over them?  And why didn't they finish drinking the wine?  

And speaking of wine: beeswing was in only one glass.  Watson says it's because it was the last glass poured.  Holmes says that all three glasses should have the beeswing.  But since that's not what they saw, the dregs of two glasses were actually poured into the third glass, proving Lady Brackenstall and her maid lied.

This led to conversation on Petri wine and plenty of people had thoughts on its taste and how scary it would be to drink.  Steve had a bottle at home and threatened to make everyone drink it.  Bill told about The Occupants of the Empty House tried a bottle one time and everyone spit it back out!  Susan remembered the Occupants publishing a series of articles on Petri wine as well.

Holmes and Watson return to Abbey Grange.  Hopkins is gone so Holmes investigates the dining room for two hours, paying close attention to the broken rope.  And there is also blood splattered on the chair where Lady Brackenstall had apparently been tied up when her husband was murdered.

Stacey really appreciated Watson's description of the Brackenstall dining room and getting to watch Holmes work step-by-step through the investigative process, saying it made this story one of her favorites.  Adam said there are a lot of readers who love to see the process.

They talk to Theresa and Lady Brackenstall, asking specifically for the truth.  The women stick to their stories.  On the way out, Holmes notices that the pond has a hole broken in the ice.  He sends a note to Hopkins and they visit the Adelaide-South Hampton shipping line.

There the two learn about Jack Croker (or Crocker in the American text) and they take a cab to Scotland Yard.  Holmes rethinks things, sends another telegram, and they go home.  Holmes tells Watson that he couldn't tell the police.  "I had rather play tricks with the law of England than with my own conscience."

Sandy thought that Holmes wanted to be the judge of the culprit before he was turned over to the law.  And Joe noted that the wife would automatically be included if he had turned Croker in.

Hopkins arrives at Baker Street and says he followed Holmes's suggestion and found the stolen silver in the pond, making his case harder.  And on top if it all, the Randall gang has been arrested in America this morning!  Holmes wishes Hopkins the best, and we do not see him again in any more stories.

After dinner, Captain Croker arrives and tells Holmes to do what he will with him.  But Holmes says, "I should not sit here smoking with you if I thought that you were a common criminal, you may be sure of that.  Be frank with me, and we may do some good.  Play tricks with me, and I'll crush you."

Sherlock Holmes is determined to hear the truth from someone involved in this matter.

Croker tells his story that he fell in love with Lady Brackenstall before she was married, when she sailed on his ship from Australia.  He recently ran in to Theresa, and she updated him on how miserable the Lady's life was now.  He started visiting her when Eustance was away, and made one last visit last night when Eustance came down and caught them.  He called his wife "the vilest name that a man could use to a woman," and hit her in the face before he and Croker fought.

Sonia said Croker's story of falling in love sounded obsessive.  Stacey pointed out that Watson told the readers how good-looking Croker was.  And Brad pointed out that even the corpse was good-looking as well.

Rob admitted that he was getting this story mixed up with "The Crooked Man" and expected Sir Eustance to hit his head on the mantle instead of being killed by Croker.

Croker and Theresa set up the whole charade and convinced Lady Brackenstall to go along with it.  He tells Holmes to do what he will with this information.  Holmes smokes for a minute and then shakes Croker's hand, telling him that this will all come out but Holmes will not stop him from leaving on his ship.  Croker gets mad that Lady Brackenstall will be tied to all of this as an accomplice and asks Holmes to arrange it where he takes all of the blame and leaves her out of it completely.

Holmes shakes the man's hand a second time, telling him that he has passed the test.  Holmes won't tell anyone about it and asks Watson to play the role of a British jury, saying, "I never met a man who was more eminently fitted to represent one."  Quite a nice change from his comments on Watson's writing at the beginning of the story!

Watson announces Croker not guilty, and Holmes says that as long as the murder isn't pinned on an innocent man, Croker can come back to Lady Brackenstall in a year and they can live happily ever after.

D. Martin Dakin noted that this story was published seven years after it took place, and the culprits could still be charged, which made him think that the lovers had died by the story's publication date.  Stacey offered that they could have moved to Australia and disappeared into the Outback.  This led us to a detour talking about all of the times Australia popped up in the Canon.

Stacey wanted to talk about how predatory Sir Eustance was and how quickly he married Mary after meeting her.  Sonia wondered if Mary was a gold-digger and she was the one who sped the marriage.  Rob said Brackenstall could've had a title and Mary had the money, creating a situation similar to The Noble Bachelor.  Kevin thought Eustance laid on the charm and then revealed his true colors after they were married.  Rich pointed out that he didn't set any dogs on fire until after the marriage.

And that's a wrap for The Parallel Case of St. Louis meetings in 2021!  Make sure to follow us on Facebook and Twitter to stay up-to-date on our happenings and other Sherlockian news.  See you in 2022!

There is Nothing So Important as Trifles by Anna Behrens

There is Nothing So Important as Trifles by Anna Behrens, MA, CCC-SLP

Recently I had the opportunity to watch an engaging film version of the one-act play Trifles, by Susan Glaspell. The performance was by a local play group called the Edge Ensemble, and happens to star my talented mother-in-law. So, what, if anything, could this play about a woman apparently having murdered her abusive husband have to do with Sherlock Holmes? 

In a serendipitous juxtaposition, I watched in the same evening as Trifles, the Granada Television adaptation of The Abbey Grange (ABBE) because I was creating a presentation on the story for my scion group, The Monadnock Sherlockians. After viewing both films, I had a fitful night of sleep, but I awoke with a feeling of clarity, where I realized that Trifles was in large part a re-telling of the ABBE story! 

For those unfamiliar with Trifles, I recommend the Edge Ensemble’s version on YouTube. It is a fine adaptation that sticks very closely to the original script. The play is out of copyright, and is available to read online as well. It is often studied in feminist studies college courses, and was published 12 years after ABBE. Because Arthur Conan Doyle was the most famous author of his day, and Susan Glaspell a budding journalist and writer, it is a fair assumption that Glaspell was more than somewhat familiar with his Sherlock Holmes stories. 

An obvious clue to the comparison is in the name of the play itself, Trifles, as in Holmes’ mantra “there is nothing so important as trifles.” In fact, Holmes’ success in solving crimes is largely based on his observation of trifles. And trifles ignored by the police are the very thing that lead the protagonist, Mrs. Hale, more in the guise of Miss Marple than Sherlock, to her secret conclusions about the murder of Mr. John Wright.

Mrs. Peters, the Sheriff’s wife who came to the Wright farmhouse to gather clothing for jailed Mrs. Wright, then, is Glaspell’s Watson. Mrs. Peters doesn't see the deeper meaning behind the trifles that Mrs. Hale does until Mrs. Hale enlightens her. Mrs. Peters, like Watson, tends to take things at face value, standing in for the reader or audience member.   

The County Attorney, Sheriff Peters, and Mr. Hale represent Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard or the police force that Holmes typically eclipses. While they go about pursuing the case using traditional methods, they clearly don't have Mrs. Hale's unique skills, so they miss the important clues. They diminish the women's skills as Scotland Yard often downplays Holmes' methods, until they are forced to admit his supremacy. In Trifles, Mrs. Hale does not reveal her superior methods to them, leaving them in the dark, as Holmes has also been known to do. Mr. Hale says dismissively in Trifles, “Well, women are used to worrying over trifles”.

The following similarities are too close to be dismissed as coincidence, and are what led me to the connection between the story and the play. There is an abused wife in both ABBE and Trifles. The husband’s killing of his wife’s beloved bird in Trifles parallels the husband’s killing of his wife’s beloved dog in ABBE.  Margaret Wright is the abused wife in Trifles who does not admit to her crime, and Theresa Wright is the lady’s maid in ABBE who tells of abuse her lady suffered at the hands of her husband and lies to help protect her. 

Mrs. Hale and Holmes use clues (trifles) missed by police as evidence to solve the crime such as the broken bird cage, the dead bird, and the poor stitching in Trifles and the cut bell rope, the bloodstain, and sediment in only one of three wine glasses in ABBE.

Mrs. Hale's sleuthing shows Wright to be the actual perpetrator of crimes against his wife that are unlikely to have been punished, let alone acknowledged, in the patriarchal society they lived in. This is also the case in ABBE, where the abused wife could not seek divorce from her abusive husband, nor have the law against him for his abuse. 

The wives share the initials MF, Minnie Foster in Trifles and Mary Brackenstall (nee Fraser) in ABBE.  And although the characters are not parallel, JW first name and initials are shared by John Watson and the murdered John Wright. 

In both stories, there is justifiable homicide due to abuse suffered by victims, according to Sherlock Holmes and Mrs. Hale, and supported by Watson and Mrs. Peters. In ABBE, Holmes takes the law into his own hands and appoints Watson the jury, while he himself is the judge, and they let Jack Crocker go free. Holmes justifies it by using the Latin phrase Vox Populi, Vox Dei (the voice of the people is the voice of God).

By staying silent and hiding the evidence of the dead bird, Mrs. Hale takes the law into her own hands as she deduces that Mrs. Wright is guilty of murdering her husband, but that she is justified because of the psychological abuse she suffered at his hands. As Susan Glaspell’s title of her short story version of her play indicates, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, much like Holmes and Watson, appoint themselves “a jury of her peers.”

Susan Glaspell masterfully used key elements in ABBE to fictionalize the true crime of a murdered husband that she reported on as a journalist. By embodying Holmes and Watson in two housewives, Glaspell penned a feminist masterpiece that is still relevant and taught in feminist studies courses today, more than 100 years after it was first published. Irene Adler would, no doubt, approve. 

Love in the Canon by Elaine Litzenich

Love in the Canon by Elaine Litzenich

When Rob first proposed I write something up for October's blog, I thought "Nah." Then I thought "Maybe." Followed by "Okay." 

I had just finished The Scottish Ploy by Quinn Fawcett, a Mycroft Holmes novel. Several modes of horse-drawn transportation, new to me, were mentioned so this seemed to be a topic to be researched. Not too interesting. Then I missed a Zoom from the Torists International of Chicago. The speaker's topic was "Villainesses of the Canon." I couldn't think of any woman who could be truly be termed a villainess, so I was sorry to miss this meeting. 

After this, The Bimetallic Question held its meeting and discussed BERY and, by Jove, along came Mary Holder. Poor Mary. She showed remarkably poor judgement, but could she be termed a villainess? One of the members of The Bimetallic Question had been Deputy of Corrections in Canada. He said that the majority of inmates in women's prisons were incarcerated because of their relationships with men. So you can see where this is leading. How perilous was it to fall in love in the Canon?

Having just read and discussed MISS in our group, poor Mrs. G. Staunton was dying throughout the story, finally succumbing to consumption at the end. The poor woman didn't even rate a first name. 

Not long past in GOLD, we have Anna the righteous militant betrayed by her husband and sent to Siberia. And, of course, also dead but by her own hand. 

Maria Pinto Gibson in THOR also takes her own life when her husband's love fades and she is replaced by lovely Grace Dunbar. If Miss Dunbar decides to become the next Mrs. Gibson, her chances of keeping the Gold King's affection seem to be 50-50. 

Mrs. X in CHAS loses her husband ("he broke his gallant heart and died") and becomes a murderess although acquitted by Holmes. 

Julia Roylott also had the bad luck of falling in love in SPEC and, although she is murdered offstage, her sister comes close to the same fate.

Of course, falling in love in the Canon doesn't always lead to death, murder or suicide. Sometimes, it's just bad judgement as in Mary's case in BERY. 

Our story for November in Parallel Case ABBE involves another Mary nee Fraser. This Mary arrives from Australia and is swept off her feet by Sir Eustace Brackenstall. She is simply a wonderful person (much like the dead Mrs. Staunton) who can't tell her wooer is a confirmed drunk. After she marries him, Sir Eustace shows his true colors and she's stuck. The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 only allow a woman to sue for divorce if her husband's infidelity also involves rape, sodomy, incest, bestiality, physical cruelty or 2 years desertion. (From Klinger's Annotated) One may believe she wasn't 'really' in love with Sir Eustace but since she's such a good person, we must assume she just didn't marry him for his money. (Yes, there's an eye-roll there.) 

Perhaps the worst case of bad judgement is covered in IDEN in which Mary Sutherland (such a lot of Marys) searches for her lost fiancé who is in actuality her treacherous stepfather.

My conclusion: falling in love in the Canon often leads to dire consequences including death (Rather like side effects in those drug commercials). Granted, a few brave souls seem to live happily ever after such as Irene Adler & Godfrey Norton in SCAN. However, that is the first story. For a romantic, as I envision Watson to be, it must have pained him to relate all these failed love stories. Perhaps, with the death of his Mary, he himself felt that love was perilous indeed.

September Meeting: The Missing Three-Quarter

After our summer hiatus, we were back!  Sherlockians from across the country and around the globe met to discuss this month's story, "The Missing Three-Quarter."  

But first, announcements:

Howard Ostrom's Facebook group is always discussing adaptations of the Canon.

The Dynamics of a Podcast will be recording their latest episode soon.

If you haven't been to the Parallel Case blog lately, there have been some great blog posts over the past few months!

The Sherlockian Chronologist Guild has launched since our last meeting.

It's time for nominations for the Susan Diamond Beacon Award for anyone introducing young people to Sherlock Holmes.

The Watsonian is accepting material for their latest volume.

The latest Enola Holmes novel came out last week.

And then it was time to discuss "The Missing Three-Quarter"

Our story starts off with Holmes receiving a telegram from Cyril Overton saying “Please await me. Terrible misfortune. Right wing three-quarter missing; indispensable to-morrow."

Watson tells us that this time in Holmes's career was one of inaction, but Watson had weaned Holmes "from that drug mania which had threatened once to check his remarkable career."  Even though Holmes is off of drugs now, Watson worries that the habit is "not dead, but sleeping."  This is some great foreshadowing for later on....

Cyril Overton arrives to ask for help.  Godfrey Staunton has gone missing.  And Overton talks about how great Staunton is.  Holmes checks his commonplace book and finds Arthur Staunton, a forger, and Henry Staunton, whom he helped to hang, but nothing about Godfrey Staunton.

It turns out that Overton and Staunton are rugby players for Cambridge.  Andrew read Overton's discourse on rugby, and Shana said the whole passage reminded her of the adults in Charlie Brown cartoons!  Elaine said she wanted to read the rugby rules, but just couldn't get herself interested in it and Kevin was impressed with how many teeth rugby players lost.  Michael pointed out that could have been a little too reminiscent if you believe that Doyle wrote the stories.  He also told us that the etymology of "varsity" is a shortened version of "university."  

Edith said Overton talking about rugby reminded her of Oliver Wood talking about Quidditch: overly excited and singularly focused.  Elaine wondered why Watson didn't recognize either of the names from the team.  Srini found it interesting that rugby never made it to the Indian subcontinent while it did to so many other colonies.

Cambridge is playing Oxford tomorrow.  Last night, Staunton looked pale and bothered when Overton checked in on him.  When he was found missing this morning, Overton learned from a hotel porter that a bearded man sent a not to Staunton's room and he fell into a chair when he read the note.  Staunton left with the bearded man and hasn't returned.  Overton thinks that his teammate is gone and the team is doomed in the upcoming match.  Arthur shared that there is two types of rugby: union and league.

Since finding that Staunton was missing, Overton has wired Cambridge only to learn that Staunton was not there, wired Staunton's uncle, Lord Mount James, one of the richest men in the country, and been to Scotland Yard, who sent him to Holmes.

Holmes, Watson, and Overton return to the hotel, where the porter tells them that the bearded man was medium size and about 50.  The man and Staunton talked for a minute and the porter heard something about time before they hurried off.

The porter also reported that Staunton received a telegram a few hours before this visit and that he sent a reply.  Holmes looks at the blotting paper in the room and can see the end of Staunton's reply: "Stand by us for God's sake!"

Holmes notes that the use of the word "us" in this note proves that another person is involved.  He also finds a piece of paper that leads him to believe that Staunton may be ill.

While Holmes is looking through Staunton's papers, Lord Mount James arrives.  Mount James has a noticeable case of gout, and Srini took us through a medical digression on that and Arthur asked if King's Disease could lead to gout.  Sonia found him being dressed like an undertaker's mute very interesting.   Mount James demands to know what they are doing.  Overton explains, and when questioned about the cost says he would imagine that Staunton or his family would cover expenses.  

Mount James refuses Holmes any fee, but the detective says that maybe Staunton had been kidnapped to learn the layout of his rich uncle's house so that the old man could be robbed.  Stacey wondered why this wasn't the first idea to cross his mind.  Lord Mount James quickly changes his tune and offers "a fiver, or even a tenner" to Holmes to prevent this.  This led us to talk about how much that would translate to in our time.  Shaun pointed out that it would have been about one month's wages for the average workman.

Rob read a citation from the Sherlock Holmes Reference Library that noted "Holmes later 'assured Dr. Armstrong that he was 'not employed by Lord Mount-James' and, as he had to keep Godfrey Staunton's confession a closely guarded secret, it seems ridiculous to suppose that he was ever able to claim any reward from the parsimonious nobleman.  Presumably nobody paid Holmes anything, despite the relatively heavy expenses which he must have incurred in investigating the case'"

Holmes and Watson go to the telegraph office to follow up on their lead and Holmes pretends to need to check on a telegram that he sent the previous night, actually checking on Staunton's communication.  After reading the man's telegram, he tells Watson that he "had seven different schemes for getting a glimpse of that telegram."

Rob noted that in The Staunton Tragedy, Lou Lewis wrote an article hypothesizing what those schemes may have been: using personal charm, disguise, acting ill, creating a distraction in the office, a riot in the street, faking a bet, luring the clerk away from the desk, or just plain old burglary.  Arthur wondered if Holmes just liked the number 7 from his days on a seven per-cent solution.

On the way to Cambridge, Holmes tells Watson that since the disappearance occurred on the eve of the big match, he suspects that it is related to Staunton's importance to the team or that he might be being held for ransom.

Once they arrive in Cambridge, Holmes and Watson visit Dr. Leslie Armstrong, the head of the university medical school.  He tells Holmes that he does not approve of his profession, to which Holmes replies, "In that, Doctor, you will find yourself in agreement with every criminal in the country."  Sonia pointed out that a private detective would not have been a respectful profession to many people, no matter how popular Holmes was.

Stacey found it interesting that Watson was not familiar with Dr. Armstrong, which led Brad to discuss the chronology of the case and where it would fall in Watson's medical career.  Shana said that Armstrong would have been someone who published regularly but Sonia wondered if his specialty was outside of Watson's purview.  

Dr. Armstrong tells Holmes that he is butting into other people's business and claims to have no knowledge of Staunton's whereabouts.  He also answers Holmes's question about Staunton's health and says that he was a healthy man to which Holmes produces a receipt for medical services made out to Dr. Armstrong.

Holmes asks the doctor if he heard from Staunton last night and Armstrong says no, but Holmes tells him he knows of the telegram that Staunton sent him just four hours before his disappearance.  Armstrong has had enough of Holmes and kicks them out after telling them that they can tell their employer, Lord Mount James, that he won't have anything to do with him.  Sonia found it interesting that Holmes didn't correct the man and could have prevented a lot of complications if he had.  Rob said he felt that Holmes immediately took an antagonistic view towards Armstrong.

Holmes tells Watson that Dr. Armstrong could be the next Moriarty!  This made Charlene feel that Holmes wasn't antagonistic towards Armstrong, he was more respectful.  Shana agreed and cited Holmes's talk of Armstrong's character.  Brad wondered if Holmes's testiness had to do with him being weaned off of drugs.  

Watson secures a room at the inn across the street from Dr. Armstrong's house while Holmes goes to collect some information.  When he comes back, Holmes tells Watson that Dr. Armstrong leaves in his brougham once or twice per day and is gone for a few hours each time.  Holmes tries to follow Armstrong on a bike the next time he leaves, only to have the doctor stop and call him out on his efforts.

The next day, a note from Dr. Armstrong arrives at the inn:

"Sir,

can assure you that you are wasting your time in dogging my movements. I have, as you discovered last night, a window at the back of my brougham, and if you desire a twenty-mile ride which will lead you to the spot from which you started, you have only to follow me. Meanwhile, I can inform you that no spying upon me can in any way help Mr. Godfrey Staunton, and I am convinced that the best service you can do to that gentleman is to return at once to London and to report to your employer that you are unable to trace him. Your time in Cambridge will certainly be wasted.

Yours faithfully,

Leslie Armstrong"

Shaun found it interesting that the author used the word "dogging."  It's was some foreshadowing!  Stacey loved Armstrong taunting Holmes.  Brad wondered if Doyle was getting aggravated with Holmes eight stories into The Return and let some feelings towards the character come through in Armstrong's views.

Holmes searches the nearby villages for sign of Armstrong's carriage, but has no luck.  In the meantime, Cambridge lost their match against Oxford.  Elain offered a theory on why Holmes was taking so long to find Staunton: he had a bet on Oxford!  

The next day, Watson comes into their room to find Holmes standing with a syringe in his hand! But Holmes says that it will prove to be a solution to their mystery.  Outside, Holmes introduces Watson to "a squat, lop-eared, white-and-tan dog, something between a beagle and a foxhound."  It's Pompey, the real detective in this story!  Michael pointed out that the dog's name may have been a nod to Portsmouth's football team, the Portsmouth Pompey, on which Doyle played for a time.

Holmes had sprayed aniseed oil on the rear wheel of Dr. Armstrong's brougham and Pompey will follow the scent.  Sonia appreciated how similar this was to the use of Toby in SIGN, but Andrew pointed out that Holmes may have learned from his mistake in that previous case.  He leads them to a lonely cottage where they see Dr. Armstrong leaving.  Holmes says, "I fear there is some dark ending to our quest."  Arthur said this reminded him of Holmes's line that the worst things happen out in the country.

They barge into the cottage only to find a young woman lying dead in the room.  Godfrey Staunton is sobbing at the foot of the bed, and thinking Holmes and Watson to be some medical men, tells them that they are too late and the woman has died.  Armstrong comes back and is angry with Holmes and Watson for interrupting the grieving man.  They all go to another room to explain themselves.

Holmes explains to Armstrong that since there has been no crime or trouble, he has no reason to tell anyone of this matter.  Armstrong fills in the backstory by telling them that Godfrey Staunton met and fell in love with his landlord's daughter.  They married but kept it a secret because they knew his uncle would disinherit him for marrying below his class.  She got "consumption of the most virulent

kind."  When it worsened, Staunton came to the cottage to visit her despite the rugby match.  Bruce said it would've made for a better story if Staunton had played in the match.

Armstrong says to Holmes, "I am sure that I can rely upon your discretion and that of your friend" to which Holmes agrees.  (That is, until Watson publishes this story for every Strand reader a few years later...)  Stacey was impressed with what a great confederate Armstrong was in this secret.  There was a very good discussion connecting this story to Doyle's personal experience having a wife suffering from consumption.

Sonia pointed out the reference to Sleepy Hollow, written by Washington Irving.  Charlene said that there were a few poems during this time called Sleepy Hollow, so it may not be a direct reference to the classic story.  Kevin said that Holmes talks about Poe a few times in other stories, so maybe this was meant to be a reference to American literature.  Shana felt that Mrs. Staunton's death scene had a very Poe-like feeling to it.  This led to a small sidebar where Michael and Adam shared some Mark Twain-Arthur Conan Doyle connections and fun stories.  

Holmes and Watson leave the cottage, and that's the end of the story, a very abrupt end to the story.

Shaun said he kept expecting there to be a villain in this story, but one never appeared.  In fact, the antagonist turned out to be pretty cool!  Rob felt that this story was similar to YELL: Holmes follows someone to a house, has a wrong idea, and leaves quietly when he sees what's really going on.

While no one was going to put MISS on their top ten list, Elaine pointed out how well-written all of the characters were and Michael appreciated the chivalrous aspect of the story.  Stacey was reminded of the Brontes as she read.  Shana found it interesting that the title character was the least interesting one in the story!

Rob brought up another point from the SH Reference Library: "What is it that Dr. Leslie Armstrong, the head of a medical school and a 'thinker of European repute' who is devoted to his literary work, saw in Staunton, a man regarded by his coach as a 'sportsman...down to his marrow'?..."

Kevin offered that maybe Armstrong patched up Staunton.  Stacey and Elaine said maybe he was just a fan of the sport.  Arthur wondered if Armstrong really was a villain, the Moriarty of medicine!  Madeline thought he could have been a friend of Staunton's parents, Brad said of Staunton's in-laws, and Andrew thought he was friends with the dog!  Shana won the discussion by connecting Armstrong and Staunton in a Doc Brown/Marty McFly friendship.

Join us again in November, for our next meeting on "The Adventure of the Abbey Grange."  Come at once if convenient!

Post Script: The Watsonian Weekly followed up this month's meeting on their latest episode and Brad Keefauver did his own recap on his blog.

The Breaking Water: Moriarty, Math, Music, and The Questions That Lie Between Them by Joshua Harvey

In a world of many Sherlocks, the game cascades.

Having reached a meta level of post-canon knowledge, compounded by The Great Game, we harbor expectations for translating a story into other mediums, holding certain guidelines, like nets, in which interpretations are revealed. Personal lines are set by individual tastes, ranges of Holmesian knowledge, life experience, and other factors. A question (to be addressed another time) is: how do we pursue such boundaries for adaptation? The answers are soritical in nature and vague. Do five pips a good interpretation make? How many monographs equal a pile of pipe ash? How many Holmesian pursuits doth a Sherlockian make? Are we owed a certain interpretation?

When it comes to character translations certain patterns seem less ephemeral. The line for Watsons, for example, seem fairly porous. We accept the variations: the vaudeville/music hall buffoonery of Nigel Bruce; the strong, kick-ass intelligence and perseverance of Lucy Liu; the subtle shades of boyish and gleeful David Burke versus the mature and capable Edward Hardwicke; the whiny emo girlishness of Shihori Kanjiya’s Wato-san; and the faithful, action-addicted, soldierly Martin Freeman.

Lestrades are most often, well, Lestrades.

But when it comes to Moriartys (Moriarties? Moriartae?), there are fewer seas to navigate.
Moriarty is inevitable. He is fate. There are many paths to Reichenbach, but they all have one terminus—a reckoning.

This is played upon in the BBC Sherlock series, where the nemesis constantly reminds Sherlock of his “I.O.U.” Moffat and Gatiss, along with script writer Stephen Thompson, call upon the old powers. The Fates, the Moirai, were the keepers of the life-line to which even the gods were bound. They created the boundary of birth, life, and death: the allotment in which every entity exists before the string is cut. This apportionment is a loan—not a gift—and, being a loan, requires a debt to be paid. Life itself is an “I.O.U.” In all instances, Moriarty becomes Moira-rty, the reckoner and debt collector of the final problem—Sherlock’s death for his life.

In the realm of BBC Sherlock, Moriarty is prefigured “mythologically” twice: in one of his many employees, the cab driver Jeff Hope, bringer of two-pilled life and death (one of the first times we hear the Moriarty musical theme); and in Mr. Ewart of two-faced Janus Cars, a for-hire faker of deaths—and new lives (and an anagram for “water,” of which Moriarty is the captain). The masking-unmasking of many faces continues with Moriarty’s Hansel-and-Gretel torturing of children with a Sherlock look-a-like as well as his creation of the “Secret Life of Sherlock Holmes”-esque Richard Brook.

Of course, this duality was pre-ordained by the canonical meeting:

‘All that I have to say has already crossed your mind,’ said he.

“Then possibly my answer has crossed yours,’ I replied. [FINA]

Subsequently the professor lists his descriptive notation of being “inconvenienced” by the detective, followed by the dire warning: “It has been a duel between you and me, Mr. Holmes….You hope to beat me. I tell you that you will never beat me. If you are clever enough to bring destruction upon me, rest assured that I shall do as much to you.” [FINA]

This tone continues in several of the new adaptations of the scene, enhanced with diagetic music (that is, music known and acknowledged by the characters within the world of the scene), whether the time, context, and locations differ.

Game of Shadows has a wide-range of Moriarty-attached musics: their initial meeting in Moriarty’s college office was soundtracked diagetically by Schubert’s Fischerweise and by low strings (a common orchestration that we will see again), and even the torture scene where Holmes is hooked like a fish is underscored by classical music. Moriarty tosses Irene’s death handkerchief on the pristine chessboard and navigates an opening gambit towards the camera. The villain’s soundtrack theme is also accompanied by a common Zimmer trope, a clock, like the ticking of fate, the limit of Holmes’ life approaching him: “The laws of celestial mechanics dictate that when two objects collide there is always damage of a collateral nature.”

BBC Sherlock has Holmes playing the violin as Moriarty creeps up the stairs to 221B Baker Street (Bach, followed by the tale of the “unfinished melody”). Throughout the series Jim Moriarty is variously tied to music like Rossini’s overture to “The Thieving Magpie” and, more tellingly, “Staying Alive” by The BeeGees. He wants to solve the final problem of their mutual existence: “Every fairy tale has an old-fashioned villain.” And he and Holmes meet to duel on the roof of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, eternally twin rivals.

Nowhere is this duality more perspicuous than in the musical clues left by BBC Sherlock’s composers Michael Price and David Arnold. The motivic themes of the two characters suggest great interconnectedness and “propinquity” (as Nero Wolfe would say).

Much has been said by Michael Price himself about the main Sherlock theme and the “hero’s theme” (the jaunty, slightly humorous call-to-action music, derived from the chords of the main opening, that accompanies the setting off of John and Sherlock in innumerable instances). The main Sherlock theme is the recognizable first few measures, played in the strings, right after the iconic drum pick-up into the iconic blurred London opening titles. Here is what it looks like, from the piano arrangements by Anthony Weeden

Contraposed to this is the Moriarty theme, heard (or felt) nearly anytime he is mentioned, but most famously employed in the “Prepared to Do Anything” cue leading up and through “the jump” scene atop St. Bart’s. It is always low strings, ominous, active, prowling (this example is both lines in the bass clef, taken directly from the original score).

When we move things about on the staff a bit, simplify meter and note length for the sake of visual patterns, take the Moriarty theme up into treble clef, then transpose it, a very clear relationship emerges.

The Moriarty theme shares the first musical intervals as his rival—but where Moriarty hangs, Sherlock, well…falls. They are two sides of a coin awaiting the toss and the landing.
And, oh, what a landing.

The interpretations of the Reichenbach scene range from the faithfulness of Granada to the (spoilers!) London-scenarios of Rathbone’s The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (in which Moriarty dives from the Tower of London) and The Woman in Green (Moriarty, solo, from a drainpipe); to Moriarty the Patriot’s dive from Tower Bridge under construction (this is a slight deviation in intent that, for the sake of spoilers, we won’t discuss further); to the similar Tokyo tumble of Stella Maris herself (another great play on Moriarty’s nautical name), Dr. Moriwaki of Ms. Sherlock; to the metaphorical (perceived) moral collapse of Holmes in Elementary. All feature roadblocks, rivals, and plummets. Downward.

This cascading motion is set by Granada composer Patrick Gowers in his representation of Moriarty. First appearing in the episode for “The Red-Headed League” and continuing, naturally, through “The Final Problem,” Gower’s Moriarty shares the bass clef, low strings—plus erudite church organ—with the Zimmer and Arnold/Price renditions: borrowing operatic conventions that the villain is often played by bass voices or accompanied by bass instruments, sinister and craven.

Not only does the serpentine line tumble down, it also features three groupings of the tritone, the interval which splits the chromatic octave in two: the first two separated by a middle note, the final immediately side by side. (This last is a common motive of Gowers to signify distress or darkness—to be discussed another time.)

It is this interval that ecclesiastic authorities allegedly banned for centuries due to its sinister angularity, the difficulty in singing it correctly, and its dissonance. It was, and is still, referred to as “The Devil’s Interval.” And it is in the eternal battle of angelic and demonic forces that the struggle continues.

Though it was cut from the final product, one of the original scripts floating around on the internet for the BBC Sherlock episode “The Reichenbach Fall” has a reference to "the 64,” the number of digits in Moriarty’s all-access code which the assassins are trying to gain from Sherlock. The popular Netflix show “The Queen’s Gambit” reminds us that the 8 x 8 square of chess is one of the oldest metaphors for a battle of wits between equals. The great game of chess is used just prior to Reichenbach in the Guy Ritchie film in a clear and intentional way and is even featured in the toy shop scene against Ratigan in The Great Mouse Detective.

A very famous game theory problem involving an infinite chess board is the Angel problem, first proposed by John Conway—also known as the “Angel and Devil” game. This title calls to mind one of the most famous lines from the BBC show: "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for one second that I am one of them.” Often interpreted moralistically as Moriarty tempts Sherlock to suicidal despair and ruin, with this statement Sherlock reveals that he is, indeed, “prepared to do anything” and has arranged for his own death (or at least a fall)—he will not fly. Finally beaten, Moriarty pulls the final “check” with his own suicide, but not until after thanking Sherlock for the endgame—the hero is not a “boring” angel after all. Not just heroic language, the quote may be grounded more simply in the Conway game. BBC script writer Stephen Thompson is a mathematician and was a maths teacher (and it goes without saying in a forum such as this: Moriarty is a professor of maths). In the game, the Angel can move to any square in any direction, while the Devil leaves a block for the Angel’s path. “The angel may leap over blocked squares, but cannot land on them. The devil wins if the angel is unable to move. The angel wins by surviving indefinitely.” On an infinite 2D chessboard, the Devil will always win—which seems impossible considering how the Angel can infinitely maneuver. On an infinite 3D chessboard, the Angel has been shown to be able to win. He needs an infinite height—the infinite height of the Reichenbach in our minds—and a landing spot. In the episode, Sherlock has been trying to move from Moriarty's blocks but, at the last moment, is prepared to lose/take the fall/leap on to the Devil's block by anticipating: he loses on purpose. The Devil is revealed to be only working in dualities—but Sherlock sublimates the game altogether.

"I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second I am one of them.” Checkmate.

The math no longer adds up (though the final problem is solved) and the limits of the board are shattered (though the limits are infinite); the net is cut (but is used for Sherlock to be caught). The hero chooses to sacrifice, to protect friends, and the tables are turned. As we have been expecting the duality of “So Sherlock, so then Moriarty,” we also surmise (along with Moriarty) “So not-Sherlock, so then not-Moriarty.” The excitement is to see how, in each interpretation, Holmes sidesteps the syllogism altogether. That makes us, as viewers, move from “So Reichenbach, so then The Fall” to “So Reichenbach, so how The Fall?” From our height, post-canon, we are excited to see how Holmes is the better, not the equal. How will he appear to cut his own thread?

The board is turned over completely and the great game spills over—until the next time.