KATHAM1
by William R. Cochran, BSI OEH
“The Adventure of the Second Stain” has proven to be an enigma of the first order. It would seem that this narrative has more lives than Watson has wives — according to the dean of Sherlockian Scholars, H. W. Bell —who cites not one, nor two, but possibly three isolated mentions of the case in the Canon.2 No less a critic than Anthony Boucher relates Bell’s conundrum:
“The Second Stain” of 1888 (mentioned in The Naval Treaty), involving Monsieur Dubuque, of the Paris police, and Fritz von Waldbaum, the well-known specialist of Danzig, is certainly not the story later told in full. But “The Second Stain” referred to in 1890 (in The Veiled Lodger) is quite possibly the published story. In this (H. W. Bell’s Second Stain I) ‘it chanced that even when [Holmes] erred the truth was still discovered,’ which is true of the published Second Stain if one views it from the aspect of the murder of Eduardo Lucas, which was solved by chance, quite without the efforts of Holmes.3
It would seem that many critics believe this Canonical trinity were all were the same narrative. Many point to the extreme security surrounding the actual case being at fault for the omission of these facts in the published account.
To arrive at the truth, one must, first eliminate the impossible. It is mentioned in the canon in various forms 3 times. The first mention of the case is names the case, and appears to date the case based upon his mention of his marriage in “The Naval Treaty,” 1887-1889. However, since Watson was married more than once, one must ponder which one.
THE July which immediately succeeded my marriage was made memorable by three cases of interest in which I had the privilege of being associated with Sherlock Holmes, and of studying his methods. I find them recorded in my notes under the headings of “The Adventure of the Second Stain,” “The Adventure of the Naval Treaty,” and “The Adventure of the Tired Captain.” The first of these, however, deals with interests of such importance, and implicates so many of the first families in the kingdom, that for many years it will be impossible to make it public.
In regards to Mary Morstan, a perusal of 15 opinions about the dating of The Sign of Four, only Ernest Bloomfield Zeisler in his Baker Street Chronology lists a month for the case that would allow the Watsons to wed before July. Seven chronologists pick September; however, of the remaining opinions three select July or September, and only five select July. The arguments presented by the chronologists would fill volumes, and never reach a consensus opinion. Therefore, because the decided majority have selected September, it would seem that because “The Naval Treaty” states the case succeeded his marriage, it appears it cannot eliminate Watson’s marriage to Mary Morstan. If one examines “The Second Stain” referred to in “The Veiled Lodger” one is again confronted with some conundrums.
I may say that the writers of agonized letters, who beg that the honour of their families or the reputation of famous forebears may not be touched, have nothing to fear. The discretion and high sense of professional honour which have always distinguished my friend are still at work in the choice of these memoirs, and no confidence will be abused.
The reference to “The Second Stain” is rather oblique in this case which was not published until 1927. Chronologists date this case as having taken place in 1896. Mary Morstan died before Holmes’s return from ‘”The Great Hiatus” in 1894. It is probable that this reference refers to the time of this earlier case, but, it allows for the argument that ‘”The Second Stain” occurred before 1896. Once again, there is no tangible truth to unravel the conundrum.
An examination of the available evidence above does allow that these two mentions are referencing the published case. In the first instance, the narrative mentions “Monsieur Dubuque, of the Paris police, and Fritz von Waldbaum, the well-known specialist of Danzig.” Eduardo Lucas did live in Paris. It is probable that Holmes does contact these gentlemen about Eduardo, but it does not appear in the narrative because once Lucas is discovered murdered in his apartment, it does not concern Holmes who was hired to recover the important document, not solve the murder. In regard to the second mention above, the case does involve “discretion and high sense of professional honour.” However, all they establish is that the case did not take place prior to1888.
In an effort to refute the validity of the case many critics report that for one reason or another that facts were either changed, omitted, or possibly altered, to protect the great detective’s reputation. It is doubtful that the latter is true. Holmes has often allowed the police to handle the matter— when the consequence does not involve the outcome of his case. The death of Eduardo Lucas and the recovery of the missing letter brought Holmes’s involvement in the case to an end. Therefore, it is more probable that the facts that were suppressed were those involving the true second stain mentioned in the title.
Considering Holmes’s errors, it is not as if the data provided by the Right Honourable Trelawney Hope, Secretary for European Affairs, was consistent and accurate. When asked how many had entered the room where the purloined document was kept, his answer was “No one is ever permitted to enter that room.” By definition, "No one” means: “no person : nobody.4 Every thing seems cloudy, because if nobody entered the room, how did the letter disappear? However, Hope elaborates: “save the housemaid in the morning, and my valet, or my wife’s maid, during the rest of the day. They are both trusty servants who have been with us for some time (my emphasis).” Need I mention that “both” relates to two, not three servants. Perhaps it was a slip by Watson, or something else altogether. Note carefully that the third person mentioned in this list is Mrs. Hope’s maid. Holmes, who usually notes such anomalies in someone’s narrative, begins to grow impatient with the subject — believing they may not have been forthcoming with the truth, and dismisses them altogether. For example, later in the narrative Hope refuses to tell him about the contents of the document that can ruin reputations and lead to war, Holmes threatens to leave. Yet, in this instance, he appears to not notice the reference to the third servant, and moves on. Such incidents as these raise questions concerning Holmes’s diminishing powers of observation.
One critic was certain that Watson was either in error, or he intended to show Holmes’s abilities have fallen into decay. “Could it be that Watson, in a sort of get-even-for-once mood, was somewhat pleased to be recounting how seven times in a single case Holmes displayed weaknesses one would expect only of a dull assistant?”5 Suffice it to say that John H. Watson, who has been the brunt of Holmes’s sharp tongue in the past, never tried to get even; therefore, why should he do so now? There is another, more probable resolution — Holmes has a plan, and he uses these strange, out of character behaviors in order to distract everyone else in order to discover why she was involved. Based on the plethora of critics discussing Holmes’s bumbling, it would seem that his plan his plan worked to perfection.
Perhaps a careful study of Watson’s use of noun stain in the title will reveal what it was that Holmes observes, and what others have completely missed. As noted above, many prominent scholars have found dating the case difficult, yet others have concentrated on the “out of character” behavior of the detective. Very few discussions have centered on the significance of the stain in the title. Remember that Holmes has stated, “There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact,”6 and the literal stains found on the rug, and the corresponding stain on the floor, are in fact the same stain. If this is so, then where is the second stain of the title? Like the three servants being mentioned as “both,” the purported two stains are but one stain. Thus, an examination of the varied meanings for the word stain may well be a good starting point.
A physical stain, such as the rug and the floor, can be removed through the use of soap, or a chemical cleaner. It is more likely that Watson’s title refers to a permanent stain that cannot be erased. Is it a mere coincidence that Holmes remarks “Now, Watson, the fair sex is your department,” said Holmes, with a smile, when the dwindling frou-frou of skirts had ended in the slam of the front door. “What was the fair lady’s game? What did she really want?” What did Holmes observe that Watson did not? Watson’s lengthy description of Lady Hope’s physical appearance is consistent with all of his Canonical descriptions of the ladies, but he did not observe. Following the departure of Lady Hope from their quarters, Holmes departs for 16 Godolfin Street alone. Why did he not invite Watson?
A careful study of the types of stains may well explain why Holmes went alone. The Oxford English Dictionary7takes three pages to define the word stain. Yet, It is definition one: “the action of staining, pollution, disgrace,” that reveals this mysterious state of being unclean. This would be the case of Cain who slew his brother Abel. Ironically, in his discussion with God, Cain protests that if banished, others might kill him. As much as God loved Abel, he decides to protect Cain by stating: “‘15 In that case, whoever kills Cain will suffer vengeance seven times over.’ And He placed a mark on Cain so that whoever found him would not kill him.”8 This mark was a brand, a stigma, a stain — a symbol of his disgrace. It cannot be removed.
There is also the case of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. As the play unfolds, the audience observes Lady Macbeth whose ambition has driven her to cajole her husband into murdering King Duncan to purloin the throne of Scotland. Her ambition has led to sleepless nights as she wrestles with her conscious, imagining the stain of her sin, something that no mortal can wash away.9 The behavior of Lady Macbeth, and her infamous nocturnal admission: “Out, damned spot! out, I say!” reveals a stain that is only present in her own mind. This is what Holmes observes in Lady Hope–her fear of being discovered. Having first judged her character, he suspects that someone has forced her to steal the document, and knowing Eduardo Lucas is involved, he deduces that she is somehow tied to him.
Watson notes the stunning presence of Lady Hilda Trelawney Hope, yet Holmes observes something quite unique. He discovers that in her mind, she has committed not one but two sins. The first was the indiscretion that led to her being blackmailed by Eduardo Lucas in the first place. The second was taking the letter to Lucas to save her marriage. She did not realize that her impulsive act to save her marriage will destroy her husband. Holmes’s concern for Lady Hope would tend to indicate that the narrative must have taken place after Holmes returned from the Great Hiatus in 1891, because before this time he was not concerned with how his results will affect the lives of those involved. This would quantify Bell’s third theorem, SECO III,10on the dating of the case as the correct version of this adventure. Bell places the date of the case that was published as occurring in the year 1894 — post-hiatus.
Lady Hope has intimate secrets that she has kept from her husband. Will she share these secrets with her husband? “‘Take your husband into your confidence.’ he tells her.” To which she pleads she cannot. It makes one wonder what types of secrets these young Victorian/Edwardian women write in these letters? Lady Hope’s offense was “an indiscreet letter written before my marriage—a foolish letter, a letter of an impulsive, loving girl.” It is hard to imagine that the man she came to love would throw her out for something that happened long before their marriage. Read Watson’s detailed description of her. I would dare say Watson would have kept her if she had written these letters the night before the wedding. However, we have her word on it: “For his own honour stands so high that he could not forget or pardon a lapse in another.” This view of her husband would tend to indicate that the title may well relate to her husband’s arrogance, pride, and his refusal to forgive her for “a foolish letter, a letter of an impulsive, loving girl.” Lady Hope admits what she did was foolish, but it is not a crime, nor a sin to be foolish. The sin is all in her own mind.
It would appear that Lady Hope would be better off without such an unforgiving man, but Holmes realizes that his wife is the source of Hope’s backbone. Without her he is the sniveling, anxious man who first visited Holmes at Baker street. She is a woman of action, though sometimes too impulsive. She is honest to a fault. It is clear that Sherlock Holmes has determined that saving Lady Hilda Trelawney Hope’s reputation and her marriage is more important than the discovery of who murdered Eduardo Lucas. Lucas is a blackmailer and an international spy. Contrary to what some may suggest, allowing the official force to sort out who killed him is not new behavior for Sherlock Holmes. In “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton,” Holmes reacts in the same manner as he remarks to Lestrade:
“I knew this fellow Milverton, that I considered him one of the most dangerous men in London, and that I think there are certain crimes which the law cannot touch, and which therefore, to some extent, justify private revenge. No, it's no use arguing. I have made up my mind. My sympathies are with the criminals rather than with the victim, and I will not handle this case.”
It is evident that contrary to what one sees in the narrative, one observes that Sherlock Holmes knew what he was doing every step of the way. The only evident mistakes are those were made by those who overlooked the obvious facts.
End Notes
1. Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary: a primitive root; properly, to carve or engrave, i.e. (by implication) to inscribe indelibly:--mark.
2. Bell, H. W., Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson: The Chronology of Their Adventures, New York: The Baker Street Irregulars, 1953.
3. Boucher, Anthony. in “From the Editor’s Commonplace Book,” BSJ (os) 2:1 (January 1947) pp. 60—61.
4. “no one”: retrieved from The Miriam-Webster online dictionary.
5. Roberts, Aubrey C. “The Real Second Stain: A Tarnished Idol, The Baker Street Journal, ed. Peter Blau, 32:4 (December 1982) p. 227.
6. “The Boscombe Valley Mystery”
7. The Compact Edition of The Oxford English Dictionary, vol. II, Oxford, England: Oxford UP, May 1979, pp. 774-6.
8. The Holy Bible, “Genesis 4"
9. Jeremiah 2:22. “Even if you wash with lye and use a great amount of soap, the stain of your sin is still in front of Me.”
10. Bell, p. 78.
No comments:
Post a Comment