"I have Mr. Holmes’s authority for saying that the whole story concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant will be given to the public. There is at least one reader who will understand."
So what is the whole story behind that? Well, some of our members had thoughts:
Brad Keefauver:
The was a very active steam barge named "The Cormorant" on Lake Superior from 1873 to 1907, which carried lumber for the Edward Hines Lumber Company, a company which also had lumber trains and most certainly dealt with many a politician. In 1927, the year "Veiled Lodger" came out, Hines had attained just status that the following year he would meet the Pope and Mussolini, and his family would have most certainly have been looking to clear his name some illegalities involving a secret lighthouse where the Cormorant would dock to unload stolen goods on to a train.
.jpg)
Sandy Kozin:
Once there was a politician, married of course, who found a young lady of interest; they eventually began an affair. Since both of them were well known in society, he purchased an old lighthouse in a quiet shore area where they could meet in safety. To ensure that safety when they were busy with each other, he trained a cormorant to flap around and make noise so the woman could hide and the man come out and announce that this was his private retreat, no visitors welcome.
I believe this because I can easily imagine politicians behaving this way, from events I have personally witnessed. (Yes, that's the truth, and no, I don't think I care to tell THAT story, but it really happened, during JFK's inauguration.)
Edith Pounden:
The opening paragraphs of The Veiled Lodger make clear that certain people involved in past cases are afraid that John Watson will share too much information in his stories: “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.” He then states that he will rescind this protection for one such party, who has attempted to steal papers relating to his own case. Watson describes this case as concerning a politician, a lighthouse, and a trained cormorant, but if this case had involved these three elements literally, then what secret would there be left to keep?
He must therefore be speaking in a kind of code, which only the receiver would understand. My theory is that the “cormorant” Watson refers to is not a bird at all, but a person. A cormorant is trained to retrieve fish for the benefit of a fisherman; its motivation is to feed itself, but it is prevented from fully swallowing its prey by the fisherman’s noose. So, the “cormorant” that Watson refers to could be a person who had tried to obtain something of value for his own gain, but was manipulated into giving it to someone more powerful. If, for example, this person came to Sherlock Holmes as a client, he may even have made the comparison himself while telling his story. With this one line, Watson communicates to this mysterious person that he can share the true details about the case at any time, while casual readers of the Strand think he describing a case involving a bird.
Alisha Shea:
I think the story of the politician, the lighthouse and the trained cormorant is likely a tale of espionage. Cormorants are sent by their masters to obtain fish. Lighthouses are designed to convey messages. It seems only reasonable, therefore, that cormorant is code for "spy" who "fishes" for information, which is then conveyed via lighthouse to their "master" who waits in a vessel lurking just off the coast.
Bob Sharfman:
ACD was saying in his best "Nicely Nicely" words that politicians don't have the brains of a trained cormorant. They just head for the brightest light like a moth to a flame.
Case closed!
*Nicely Nicely" Johnson was a bookie in the Damon Runyon stories.
.jpg)
Michael Waxenberg:
“Politician” is Winston Churchill.
“Lighthouse” is the Mehmetçik Lighthouse on the Turkish coast, at the entrance to the Dardanelles and Gallipoli, the site of the worst defeat of the Royal Navy in the Great War, at a time when Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty.
“Trained cormorant” is a coded reference. A cormorant is a marine bird that is good at fishing. Admiral John Fisher, the First Baron Fisher, was the First Sea Lord serving under Churchill at the start of the Gallipoli campaign. Fisher had advised against the campaign, which was a disaster and resulted in Fisher resigning as First Sea Lord, and Churchill being fired from the position of First Lord of the Admiralty, in 1915.
Explanation:
In the 1920s, Churchill was busy building his political climb to power, and furiously writing a vast history of the Great War in six volumes, titled The World Crisis, which were published between 1923 and 1931. Churchill was writing to make money, and to bolster his own reputation for leadership. He has been accused of whitewashing his own culpability for the failure of the Gallipoli campaign, and blaming others, including Lord Fisher. For example, see here.
Lord Fisher died in 1920, and was deceased before the first volume of Churchill’s war history was published, but it is likely that Fisher’s family were distressed at Churchill for putting blame for the Gallipoli campaign disaster on Admiral Lord Fisher. It is likely that they consulted Holmes to protect the reputation and honour of the late Lord Fisher, and to persuade Churchill to correct his writings about Fisher.
Watson’s warning to the “politician” is contained in The Veiled Lodger which was first published in January 1927. That same month, Churchill traveled to the Mediterranean and visited Italy, Greece, and sites of the naval battles of the Gallipoli campaign. It is possible that Churchill was gathering additional information for his history of the war in that part of the world around the “lighthouse.” Watson’s warning to the “politician” would have been just in time to prevent further defamation of the late Admiral Fisher, a/k/a “The Trained Cormorant.” As Watson wrote, "There is at least one reader who will understand." That one and only reader who understood the coded message was Churchill, until now.
Here is an illustration of Churchill and Fisher consulting when they were in charge of the Royal Navy in January 1915, before the Dardanelles (Gallipoli) campaign, which I found on the website cited above:
At long last, now the world knows the true meaning behind the enigmatic phrase from Watson’s writing. One can only hope that the fracas between Holmes and Watson, on one part, and Winston Churchill, on the other part, did not detract from the warm friendship between Churchill and the literary agent and occasional author, Arthur Conan Doyle.
So, readers, what say you? Do you buy any of these explanations, of do you have one of your own?
