Baker Street Confidential: Trollheart's Most Singular Sherlock Holmes Journal

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Engineer's Thumb"
Year first published: 1892
Type: Short Story
Chronology: 9th short story, 9th in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, 11th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Watson's Practice; Baker Street; Paddington; Reading; Eyford, Berkshire
Date: Summer 1889
The crime or the mystery: No mystery really; it's a straight-forward attempt to catch a gang of counterfeiters, which fails.
The time (if given): 7:00 am or just before

The Players
The client: Victor Hatherley, an engineer
The victim(s): Same
The accused or suspected: Colonel Lysander Stark/Fritz; Mr. Ferguson
The arrested: None
The investigating officer(s): Inspector Bradstreet
The advocate(s): None
The real culprit(s): Colonel Lysander Stark/Fritz; Mr. Ferguson
Others: Elise, a woman in the house who helps Hatherley

The clues: None really; Stark's actions show they were counterfeiting coins
The red herring(s): None
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: Again, none really
The result: The criminals get away


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case: None

Before the case

The client comes to see Watson with a cut-off thumb, and when he tells the doctor his story Watson brings him to see Holmes at Baker Street.

Synopsis:

One morning Watson is woken to attend to an early morning client who has come up on the train. The man is an engineer, and shows the doctor that he has lost his thumb; it has been hacked off and he has bound it as best he can before coming up to see him. Having heard his story and how he wonders if the police will believe him, Watson takes him to see Holmes. There he pours out the story, how he had set up in practice for hismelf as an engineer, but business was slow, when yesterday a man called Colonel Lysander Stark appeared in his office, with an offer of a job. He wanted him to look at a hydraulic stamping machine that had got out of gear, and as Hatherley is an engineer, this seemed in his line. He also offered to pay handsomely, both for the work and in exchange for the engineer discussing his commission with nobody. Absolute secrecy, warned the colonel, was of the utmost importance, and he secured a promise from Hatherley to that effect.

He said he must come by train to Eyford in Berkshire that night, that the work must be carried out under cover of darkness to preserve the secret. He told the engineer he and some friends were trying to mine fullers-earth from his field, and the press they had been using had broken down. So Hatherley did as he was asked, and was met at the station by Stark and taken to a dark house, where a woman met them. Hatherley tells Holmes that he had the impression both were German, and when Stark went off to check something and left he and the woman together, she tried to warn him in broken English, but though he was uneasy about the whole deal now, he didn't quite understand the danger he was in, and anyway it was a long way back to the station, to say nothing of the fact that he had no clue where he was now.

A moment later Stark returned with another man whom he called Ferguson, and took Hatherley to the machine, which was the size of a room, so much so that the roof was the lower part of the piston. After examining it and explaining what the problem was, and how it could be fixed, Hatherley then returned to the room to re-examine the floor, whereupon the Colonel, returning, and angry at his intrusion, slammed the door on him and trapped him in the press, which he then turned on. It was only the merest good luck that he managed to escape, and ran for it. The woman he had seen then appeared, led him to a bedroom from which he could drop to the ground and escape, but as he did, Stark entered with an axe, and chopped at his hand as he hung from the ledge, severing his thumb and causing him to lose his grip and fall. He lost consciousness.

When he awoke he was away from the house, in fact by a hedge near the railway station at which he had arrived. Anxious to get away, he waited there for the first train of the morning and then came up to London, where he was recommended to Watson, who then brought him to see Holmes. Having listened to his story, Holmes shows him he is not the first who has fallen foul of the murderous "colonel": an advertisement he has kept begs for news on another engineer who went missing. Holmes has worked out that the gang are coiners, making counterfeit money, and he enlists the help of Inspector Bradstreet when he and Watson and Hatherley return to Eyford, but they find the place on fire and the criminals gone.

After the case

Nothing really. Evidence surfaces to show that it must have been the woman, Elise, and Mr. Ferguson who carried Hatherley to safety away from the house, probably at her instigation, lest he be killed by the so-called colonel. It's also construed that the fire was due to Hatherley's oil lamp, which he had dropped when being trapped inside the press, setting fire to the wooden walls of the room.

How the case is solved: It's not really, to be fair. There's no real mystery here.

Comments:

An unusual story. Doyle gives us no mystery for Holmes to solve, and really it's more in the way of an adventure, but in flashback, one which does not involve Holmes at all. It's probably one of the stories which features him the least; he's a passive listener really, and even when he musters the troops to go after the forgers he is too late, so you'd have to say on the face of it this is a pretty impotent case for him. It's also one of the few (so far) told almost entirely in flashback, and with someone else as the actual narrator. There is, to be fair, more for Watson to do in this story than there is for Holmes, and he remarks indeed at the beginning that this is only one of two cases he has brought to Holmes, rather than the other way around.

I find the ending quite abrupt and unsatisfactory, and I get the feeling Doyle was trying to go for as realistic a tale as he could, to show that not everything wraps up in a neat bow at the end, as we already learned with "The Five Orange Pips". It doesn't do much to satisfy the reader's thirst for a good ending, but it does make you feel that Holmes is a real man and that sometimes things simply don't work out, and circumstances conspire against him. It's a story, too, with no winners. The criminals get away, the engineer loses his thumb and his commission, though the gang are identified and located they are not caught by Holmes, and there's no guarantee they won't turn up again in some other town.

Character Study

Victor Hatherley: A man who is an orphan and a bachelor, he is the perfect target for Stark, who needs a man who can keep his mouth shut and doesn't have others he might feel the need to discuss his job with. He's young and only starting out in business, which again makes him a fitting subject for the colonel. His gallantry towards Elise ends when he thinks of losing his payment, and conjectures that she might be insane, but in the end it seems as though it is she who saves his life. He is quite expert in his field, so is able to see through the thin cover story of mining for fullers-earth, his perspicacity all but leading to his downfall. His engineering prowess comes in handy when his thumb is cut, as he is able to manufacture a splint to keep it from bleeding out, but he is depressed that he has gone all that way for nothing, losing a thumb into the bargain.

Colonel Lysander Stark: Though addressed by Elise as Fritz, and described as German, we don't know any more about his true identity. Is he a colonel, or is this just a cover? He is part of, perhaps leader of a gang of coiners, and has enlisted the help of an engineer before, who has no doubt been killed, either in the press or otherwise. He is a dangerous and overbearing man, and impresses Hatherley from the first with an intense feeling of dislike, which he overcomes in the name of profit. He is a slippery customer, and no doubt will be heard of again, though not in the Holmes stories.

Better than you

As they head towards Eyford, Bradstreet has drawn a circle encompassing the area he believes the house may lie within. The party argue over which direction the house may lie in, but Holmes tells them they are all wrong, and that it is in the centre of the circle. He is of course right.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

An engineer who has been contracted privately to look at a stamping press in Eyford in Berkshire loses his thumb when his patron turns out to be a forger, and tries to kill him as he escapes. He comes to Watson for medical treatment. Watson takes him to Holmes, to whom he relates his story. They all go back there but the house has burned down and the gang have escaped.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 6

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 0
Indirect: 0
Incidental: 0
Historical: 0
Total: 0
Running total: 17

Famous Firsts

The first case Watson brings to Holmes, though not the first which begins with him, as we saw in "The Man With the Twisted Lip".

The first story with no mystery to be solved.

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Not in the least. The gang get away and the engineer, the client, has lost both his thumb and his commission.

Self-referentials None

Legal outcome (if any): None

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Noble Bachelor"
Year first published: 1892
Type: Short story
Chronology: 10th short story, 10th in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, 12th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; Hanover Square; Lancaster Gate
Date: 1888 (Watson remarks that it takes place a few weeks before his marriage, but as that date is not confirmed I can only guess at it being a few weeks, perhaps a month after the affair of The Sign of the Four, which took place in September, so would hazard a date of either late October or early November, depending on when in September the novel was supposed to have been set).
The crime or the mystery: The disappearance of Lady St. Simon
The time (if given): 4:00 pm


The Players
The client: Lord Robert St. Simon
The victim(s): Miss Hatty Doran, his newly-wed wife
The accused or suspected: Flora Miller, dancer
The arrested: Same
The investigating officer(s): Inspector Lestrade
The advocate(s): None
The real culprit(s): None
Others: Mr. Aloysious Doran, Hatty's father; Alice, Hatty's maid; Frank Moulton, Hatty's first husband.

The clues: The dropping of the bouquet; the note written on a hotel bill
The red herring(s): The wedding dress found in the river; Flora Miller's involvement.
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough:
The result: Holmes confirms that Hatty has hooked up again with her first husband from California

Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case: None

Before the case

It's a cold and rainy day and Watson is taking it easy indoors reading the papers while Holmes goes out for his walk alone. There is a letter awaiting his friend, with a very elaborate crest on it, and when Holmes comes back he opens it to find that a meeting has been requested - well, arranged - by Lord Simon, who will call on him at four o'clock today. Knowing little of the affair in which he is about to become entangled, other than that Lord St. Simon has just recently been married, Holmes asks Watson to enlighten him, since he has spent the day reading the newspapers. Watson shows him an account which refers to the marriage of the Duke's son to a California millionaire's daughter, Hatty Doran, and then, to his considerable interest, the disappearance of the bride just after the wedding.

In the longest, if you will, introduction to the case we've witnessed yet, Watson goes on to explain that at the wedding breakfast there was a disturbance when a woman tried to gain admittance to the hotel, claiming to be already involved with the groom. She was ejected (Watson reads) and then the bride complained of an indisposition and retired to her room. She was not seen again in the house, having left almost as soon as she reached her room, grabbing an ulster (jacket) and her bag and legging it out into the street. Police enquiries were put in motion by her father and the groom, but at this point no sign has ever been found of her. A postscript to Watson's account notes that the lady who had tried to force her way in, a Flora Miller, has been arrested in connection with the incident.

Synopsis:

And so to the case. Lord St. Simon tells Holmes that his new wife was brought up in the mining camps of San Francisco, and is a tomboy. She had been in good spirits, he says, up to the point of the ceremony when, as she walked up the aisle she dropped her bouquet and it was caught by a man in a nearby pew, who returned it to her. She then changed. She became snappish, short, distracted, and after the ceremony had been concluded she was seen speaking to her maid Alice, another American. There was talk, Lord St. Simon says, of "jumping a claim", though he has no idea what that means, it being American slang and unfamiliar to him. Later Hatty was seen walking with Flora Miller in Hyde Park.

His  Lordship confirms that he used to have relations with Flora Miller, and that she made more of it than it was - or than he saw it as - and got very angry when his marriage was announced. He feared she would cause trouble, so had only a small private wedding, but she still got wind of it and tried to gatecrash the party. Lord St. Simon seems to think his wife became giddy, then temporarily lost her reason at the prospect of moving up so much in the world. Scratch me head, wot? As we say here in Ireland. In other words, what a big head. She comes from a wealthy family, one of the richest in California if not all America, and she's an American, to whom his outdated ideas of social class and position can mean nothing, and yet he thinks she has gone mad with ecstasy at the thought?

Holmes tells him he has already solved the mystery, to his amazement. He says he will produce Lady St. Simon very soon, and His Lordship leaves shaking his head, perhaps thinking Holmes too is mad. Maybe it is the rarefied air Lord St. Simon carries about with him, that affects everyone's reasoning, huh? Give me strength. Anyway, when he's gone Holmes tells Watson he had solved it even before St. Simon arrived. At that moment Lestrade arrives, and  Holmes is amused to hear he has been having the Serpentine river dragged in search of Lady St. Simon's body. Even when the inspector triumphantly produces a wedding dress and shoes that were found there, Holmes is not impressed. Lestrade goes further, taking a note which was in a case in the pocket of the dress (I didn't know wedding dresses had pockets) which appears to implicate Flora Miller. It says "You will see me when all is ready. Come at once. F.H.M."

Looking at the note, Holmes realises it is in fact written on part of a hotel bill, which he deems important; much more so than the note itself, to Lestrade's annoyance and disbelief. As the inspector leaves in a fury, Holmes tells him that there is no such person as Lady St. Simon: she never existed. He then goes out himself, leaving Watson at Baker Street. The doctor is most surprised when a cold supper is delivered and set out, to instructions, the delivery people say, received from Mr. Holmes. All paid for and for this address. When Holmes returns it is night time, and the table has been set for five. First to arrive is Lord St. Simon, who is in a state. He has obviously already been briefed by Holmes, and is very angry at his wife. Holmes asks him to see things from her point of view, but he is not interested. All he's concerned about is how the scandal will affect him and his family.

The next guests are a couple, introduced to Lord St. Simon as Mr and Mrs. Francis Hay Moulton, and to his dismay Mrs. Moulton is the woman he just married! The so-called Lady St. Simon. His anger knows no bounds, but she explains to him that the man on her arm now is her husband, Frank Moulton, whom she knew in the mining camps of San Francisco. He had gone away to make his fortune, her father believing him unworthy of her as his gold prospecting had not come up with anything much, and though they had the preacher marry them, he had said he would not claim her as his wife until he came back rich. Later she had heard a report that he had been killed by Indians, and so went into mourning. But as her father had forbidden her to marry a poor man and knew nothing of their secret wedding, he did not know what was wrong with her.

Eventually they came to England and she met and fell in love with St. Simon, though her heart had and always would belong to Frank Moulton. On the way up to the altar she was astonished to see Frank sitting in the pews, and on the way out she dropped her bouquet, having seen he was writing a note for her. This, then, was the note that Lestrade had found in her dress pocket, a request to come and see him. She had then spoken to her maid back at the house, arranged to get away with her help and gone to see Frank, who told her her had been captured by the Indians and held prisoner, but escaped and had come to England, having heard she had gone there.

Holmes had traced them and went to speak to them, to point out that they really owed His Lordship an explanation, as they had been about to abscond to France. They would feel better, he had said, if they made a clean breast of it, rather than everyone think she had been kidnapped or gone mad or died. So they had answered his summons and come to set the record straight. Lord St. Simon takes her explanation rather stiffly, but by the laws of England he cannot marry a woman who is already wed, so he has no choice but to fuck off and see who else is willing to hitch their wagon to his rich, expensive carriage.

After the case

Holmes explains how he solved the case (below) and laughs at how two people working entirely differently can come up with two completely different solutions. He, with his knowledge of past cases and his sharp eye for detail, got it right, while Lestrade, proceeding under a false assumption, could not have been further from the truth had he believed she had been abducted by aliens.

How the case is solved:

Holmes says the fact that Hatty was prepared to go through with the marriage and then changed her mind on returning home meant that she must have talked to or met someone who had had that effect on her. As she was with Lord St. Simon all the time, he reasons, she could not have spoken to anyone, but she could have met someone. As she is only a short time in London, anyone who could exert such an influence over her must be from her past, and therefore  must also be an American. Putting together the dropping of the bouquet, which he sees as an obvious way of passing or receiving a message, with the man in the pew, he works out that this man must be either an old lover or husband, and is inclined to the latter, which in the end proves to be the case.

The conversation Hatty had with her maid, in which she spoke of "jumping a claim", refers to the previous responsibility she had to Frank, and though Lord St. Simon knows nothing of any prior arrangement, she sees perhaps herself as jumping the claim, or Lord St. Simon as doing so, I'm not quite sure. The unalterable fact though is that there is a man who has a previous claim on her heart, a man she is still in love with, to whom she is indeed married, and she now believes herself to be his; she must be faithful to him, and dump Lord St. Simon.

Holmes goes on to tell Watson how he then tracked the pair down by means of the note, or rather, the reverse of it, whereon was the bill, which was expensive enough that he knew it must be a very high-class hotel. Having located this hotel and checked the register, he then obtained Moulton's address and so was able to talk to the couple before they left, and try to arrange some sort of reconciliation, or at least explanation, in which Lord St. Simon seems to have been supremely disinterested.

Comments:

A clever story, again betraying Doyle's fascination with Americans, whom he seemed to view almost as aliens, people who did things differently to how English people did, people who were not as well-bred and who were, in a word, wild. I'm not quite sure how his books went down then in the US of A, but as Sherlock Holmes is just as well known over there as anywhere, I guess they were able to look past the somewhat, well, what would you call it - Americaphobic? - theme in many of his stories. It's another mystery Holmes solves without leaving his armchair, in fact he only goes out in order to contact the couple and try to mend bridges, something he fails in doing but through no fault of his.

Perhaps this could be put down as not quite something Holmes solves on his own merits and more a case, as he mentions himself, of having knowledge of previous examples of the same thing, somewhat like the idea in "A Case of Identity", where he says the same story occurred in various parts of Europe. It's a missing persons case with actually no missing person, and it could be seen as slightly misogynist, with the blame, as it were, laid on the shoulders of the woman, but rather cleverly Doyle makes us have a certain amount of disdain for Lord St. Simon from the start, showing us a man who is obsessed with his own standing and thinks everyone in the world is more or less subservient to him. I like how Holmes cuts him down to size, showing him there are, if you will excuse the rather crude but I think appropriate metaphor, bigger dicks in the room.

This is the second Holmes story to feature a church (third, if you include "A Case of Identity", though they never actually went in to the church in that one as "Hosmer Angel" had vanished) and I think the first wherein Holmes goes out strolling without Watson, that is, not being actively engaged on a case. It's also a curious case (most singular!) in that it can be seen as both a success and a failure. Holmes locates the missing wife for Lord St. Simon, but the man is far from happy with the outcome, so technically that could count as a failure, but he allows Hatty and Frank to head off without the pressure of leaving without telling her father or her husband of a day, which is certainly a success for them. It's a story that for once actually shows Holmes as human; he usually tends to not quite suck up to the nobility, but side with them, while here he takes the part of the woman in love, essentially I guess for once allowing his heart to rule his head.

I like the way Doyle uses the same initials for two characters, fooling us into thinking the "F.H.M." on the card found with the wedding dress is Flora Miller, when in fact it's Frank H. Moulton. Clever, and a well-written red herring. However, I take issue with the title of the story. There's nothing noble about Lord St. Simon (unless it refers to Moulton, which it can't, as he's married, even if kind of in absentia) and, more to the point, he's not a bachelor. I mean, what his status is now I don't know. Under English law then, is his marriage annulled or invalidated since he finds his "wife" is already married? Does that then return him to the status of a bachelor? Maybe. Despite all that though, he's about as far from noble as you can get, unless the word is meant to refer to his class, which I suppose you can't argue against. But the story could have had a better title.

Character Study

Lord Robert St. Simon: If anyone in a Holmes story typifies the entitlement and arrogance of the so-called upper class, and all that is wrong/was wrong in English society, this guy is the poster child for "down with the riff-raff". All he can see is his own status, and imagines Hatty Doran is so overcome by being brought into the rarefied heights of his world that she loses her mind. Even when he instructs Holmes to find his wife, he's not really thinking of her, but of the scandal that will stick to him. It's quite clear he doesn't actually love her: any man who had lost his new wife to another man would put up some sort of a fight, or at least be glad she had found love, but he is a cold, unfeeling bastard who thinks the world revolves around him. As Jesus once said (I think it's Ephesians, but I could be wrong) fuck him.

Hatty Doran: A free spirit (look at her name - probably a diminution of Harriet) who spent her time in mining camps in California, her heart is broken when the man she really loves is reported killed, and she comes to England with her father. It seems she marries St. Simon not so much because she loves him, but to satisfy her father and in the knowledge that time is moving on. She certainly doesn't marry him for his money (other way round actually) and when she realises her original lover, and husband. Is still alive she pledges her allegiance to him. To be fair, she does apologise to St. Simon, but the man is so up himself that he can't bring himself to consider her future happiness. She was clearly out of her depth in her new role as his wife, and is probably, despite St. Simon's high-sounding beliefs of her, glad to leave it all behind and go off with her cowboy husband.

Frank Moulton: American miner, Frank was engaged to Hatty when he met her in the San Francisco mines, but her father wanted better for her, so he promised to only come back for her when he was rich and could ask for her hand. Later, Hatty heard he had been captured and killed by Indians (Native Americans to you and me) but he survived, escaped and followed her to England, where he makes his presence known to her in the church. Hatty thereafter dumps the boring Lord St. Simon and goes back to her first husband.

Better than you

Holmes smoothly takes the Lord down a whole peg when they meet; St. Simon remarks that he doubts Holmes has ever worked in circles of society like his, and the detective notes that he is correct: Holmes is going down in the world. The last time he dealt with a case of this nature it was for a king. That shuts him up!

He then laughs at Lestrade's wild theory about Lady St.Simon being drowned in the Serpentine, and Flora Miller being involved. He makes a cutting remark when he shows the card - the reverse of it to the inspector and tells him it's important but Lestrade says he doesn't see it. "No, I don't expect you do," he muses. Whether or not he advises Lestrade of the outcome of his investigations I don't know; it's not alluded to, but given that Lord St. Simon does not want to be a laughing stock (as he sees it) I wonder if he doesn't just quietly let the matter drop?

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

Having married an eligible bachelor, son of a duke, Hatty Moran disappears during the wedding breakfast. It turns out she has been reunited with her first husband, whom she had thought dead, and runs off with him.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 6

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 0
Indirect: 0
Incidental: 0
Historical: 0
Total: 0
Running total: 18

Famous Firsts

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Yes and no. In terms of the client, well, also yes and no. Holmes does what he was asked to do, which is locate his missing wife. Lord St. Simon is not so happy with the outcome of the case though. If you consider the lady, she is certainly happy; Holmes allows her to at least attempt some sort of explanation to the stiff, furious Lord St. Simon, and she can claim to be the better person (and also clearly must see the prick never loved her) so she would be a satisfied customer. If she was the client. Which she was not. So, like I said at the beginning, yes and no.

Self-referentials "A Scandal in Bohemia" and (very obliquely) "A Case of Identity"

Legal outcome (if any): None

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Beryl Coronet"
Year first published: 1892
Type: Short story
Chronology: 11th short story, 11th in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, 13th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; Streatham
Date: February (no idea of the year; the vaguest date yet)
The crime or the mystery: The theft of a priceless piece of jewellery
The time (if given): Early morning


The Players
The client: Alexander Holder, banker
The victim(s): Same
The accused or suspected: Arthur Holder, his son
The arrested: Same
The investigating officer(s): None; there is an arrest but we are not told who, if anyone, is in charge of the case and the police do not figure at all in the story
The advocate(s): Holmes
The real culprit(s): Sir George Burnwell, disreputable gambler; Mary, Holder's niece
Others: Lucy Parr, maid; Francis Prosper, greengrocer and lover of Lucy Parr

The clues: Naked footprints in the snow, the involvement of Sir George with the family, Mary's disappearance, Arthur's request for five minutes grace.
The red herring(s): Arthur's debts; his having the Beryl Coronet in his hands; his threat to make good on his debts by other means since his father will not loan him any money; the presumed involvement of the maid and her lover.
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: Loafer
The breakthrough: When Holmes is unable to break the Coronet, he realises Arthur could not do so either, and so he must have been trying to straighten it out, making him innocent of its theft
The result: The broken part of the Beryl Coronet is bought back by Holmes with Holder's money, Arthur is released as an innocent man, and Mary absconds with the villainous Sir George Burnwell.


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case: None

Before the case

Unaware he is watching their next client, Watson stands at the window one February morning and deplores the fact that madmen are let out in the street alone, as he watches the progress of what seems to be a man who has lost his mind.

Synopsis:

Once settled and composed, the man introduces himself as Alexander Holder, of Holder & Stevenson, bankers. He explains that he has had entrusted into his care as security for a large loan the Beryl Coronet, a treasure as important and expensive as the Crown Jewels, and that he was so worried about its own security that he took it home and put it in his own safe. Last night he awoke to find his son, Arthur, holding it and bending it, three jewels missing on a piece that had snapped off. Holder declared his intention to call the police on his son, but Arthur asked him for five minutes' grace before doing so. His father refused, and Arthur is now under arrest.

Mary, Holder's niece, whom he treats as his own daughter, mentioned that she had seen Lucy, the maid, who has not been with them more than a few months, talking outside to some man, and Arthur had already unsuccessfully tapped his father up for money, being in debt, as it seems is his usual state. Holmes and Watson go with Holder to his house, Fairbank, in Streatham, where they  meet Mary, who is convinced of Arthur's innocence. She mentions the boy Lucy was seeing outside that night, a Francis Prosper, the local greengrocer. Holmes mentions that Prosper has a wooden leg, which seems to amaze Mary, though he is correct. Holmes does not elaborate on how he knows this, but we know his methods by now and no doubt he has seen the impression his wooden leg made in the ground.

Shown the Beryl Coronet, Holmes tries himself to break off a section but he cannot, though he is quite strong, as we saw in "The Speckled Band". Also, he notes, should he have been able to achieve such a thing, the sound would have been heard certainly by Holder himself, who was sleeping in the room. He says it would be like a pistol shot, and it is inconceivable that Holder should not hear it, therefore his original idea, that Arthur had not broken off the corner, but was in fact trying to straighten it out, seems more likely to be the truth. Holmes and Watson return to London; Holmes disguises himself and goes off on his own to make further enquiries, authorised by Holder to spend whatever is necessary to retrieve the missing gems.

The next morning, when Holder comes to see them as arranged, he tells them his niece has run off, adding to his troubles, but Holmes is not surprised. He had expected as much. He returns the missing jewels to Holder, having paid £4000 for them, which the banker is happy to pay, and more to the point, confirms that his son is innocent. Having all the facts at his disposal, he tells Holder, he visited Arthur in jail and, when the boy would not break his trust, related the story to him, and he agreed Holmes had got it right. Mary had fallen for Sir George, and between them they had plotted to rob the Beryl Coronet, but Arthur had come upon them, struggled with Sir George, breaking off a piece of the Coronet, with which the thief had absconded. As Holmes suspected, Arthur had then returned the Beryl Coronet to his father's safe, and had been trying to bend it back into shape when Holder woke and came upon him.

Arthur kept the secret because he was in love with Mary, though the feelings were not reciprocated, and he knew what the discovery of her treachery would mean. He had asked for the extra five minutes in the hope that he could go outside and see if he could find the missing part of the Coronet. Holmes then used his contacts to find Sir George, but he had already fenced the jewels. Holmes made a deal and got them, and then returned to await the arrival of Holder the next morning. Holder has now been saved a scandal, has lost a niece but in the process gained a son.

After the case

Little really; the explanation that ties things up, and a dire prediction by Holmes as to what is likely to happen to the feckless Mary in the hands of Sir George Burnwell.

How the case is solved:  After he realises it is impossible for one man to break the Coronet, Holmes sees that it must have been done in a struggle between two. The noise, also, would be loud enough to wake Holder. Hearing previously that Arthur loved Mary, he reasons that if anyone is being protected here by the boy it is she, and when he sees his naked footprints in the snow outside, he knows he is right, as Holder has already told him that his son was wearing no slippers on his feet when he came upon him. The involvement of Sir George Burnwell with the family is the final link.


Comments:

Like some of the stories, this is really great but there are major flaws in it, so far as I can see. First, who would entrust such a possession to the care of a bank without demanding it be held in the vault? And why? No reason is given for this loan, which the mysterious high-ranking client of the bank admits he could get from his friends, but would rather make a business matter of it. Why is that? It is something embarrassing? Is he being blackmailed? Never explained. When Holder does take the precious article home then, he puts it in a cupboard, which his son tells him is not in the least secure, that any key in the house will fit it. Unlike the more cautious Lord in "The Second Stain", he does not keep the presence of the Coronet from his family, but blabs about it, even though fully aware how dissolute his son is, and that the maid may have heard. Hardly security conscious, is it?

But the biggest flaw of all, to me, is the breaking off of part of the thing. I mean, yes, maybe he can take it to a jeweller and have it repaired, but this Beryl Coronet is supposed to be as famous as the Crown Jewels. Would you bring the Crown Jewels to be repaired, and not expect rumours to start flying? Who's going to keep his mouth shut about that? And how will he afford it? Well, he is a banker, so maybe that's not such an issue. But where is he likely to find a craftsman of that skill? He's hardly likely to know of any. And what if the "noble visitor" who left the thing in his keeping gets to hear of this? Will he not be in major trouble? And finally, no matter how well it's repaired is it not likely to be obvious? How will he explain that?

Other than that, though, the story is a good illustration of how things are not always - often not ever - as they seem at first. Arthur's guilt seems ironclad, and his father, though he does not wish to, feels he has to believe that he is guilty, while no suspicion falls on the real thief, his precious niece, who is not as innocent a girl as she seems to be. The police - though only alluded to in the vaguest manner, and not involved in the case at all - would be, and were, likely to have completely ignored and dismissed any of Holmes' concerns; once again, it seemed an easy case for them. They got their man, and who cares if it's not the actual culprit? One thing very prevalent in Doyle's stories is the idea that the police don't bother themselves too much with conflicting facts if they hurt their case; there's no compunction about them accepting things on face value, even if there is contradictory evidence, and this is pretty much as true now as it was then.

Another weak woman in Doyle's stories, as Mary, the young innocent, falls prey to the wiles and machinations of the evil Sir George in quite a bit of cliched melodramatic Gothic romance and intrigue, though Holmes, ever the pragmatist, blames her just as much for her actions as those of her svengali, and rightly, too: it's not like the man forced her. Still, it's a poor view of women, and a pretty mostly consistent one that runs through all the Holmes stories. There are occasions where Holmes praises a woman's courage or intelligence, but these are far outweighed by the times he sees them or exposes them as either dupes or users. A little troubling, but remember when these stories were written.

Character Study

Alexander Holder: The client in the case, he has been driven to distraction and ill health by the theft of the Beryl Coronet, and like anyone else would, knowing his son's history, he is quite ready to believe the boy is guilty. He has no such suspicions of Mary, at whom he should be looking much more closely. He now has two major problems on his hands: the loss of part of the Beryl Coronet and the arrest of his son for its theft, or at least, part of it. No doubt he also fears scandal coming down on his bank, as he was acting as its agent when he made the loan and took the security. He's a man who doesn't go out much, and presumably is too entangled in the problems of his son to see how his niece's head is being turned by a bad influence.

Arthur Holder: On the face of it, open and shut case. A real candidate for the theft, due to his mounting bills for gambling at his club and his father's refusal to advance him any more money. In this I find his character pretty incongruous really. Not only does he not snatch the opportunity to wipe out all his debts in one swoop and perhaps gain revenge on the father who will not help him, he actually endangers himself by running after Sir George and fighting with him for the Beryl Coronet. He has already intimated his intention to "seek other means" to settle his debt. Perhaps meant as a red herring, it's odd that he makes this veiled threat, but then when the chance comes within his grasp he does not take it. He proves, in fact, to be a faithful man, both to his father (in trying to, and succeeding, recovering the Coronet) and to his undeserving cousin, literally going to jail for her.

Better than you N/A

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

After having been entrusted with a priceless piece of jewellery, Alexander Holder is aghast when it appears his son has stolen part of it. However the sleuth uncovers a conspiracy between the client's niece and a no-good friend of Arthur, the son, a conspiracy to steal the artefact, and it is only Arthur's intervention which prevents them getting away with their plot.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 6

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 0
Indirect: 0
Incidental 0:
Historical: 0
Total: 0
Running total: 18

Famous Firsts

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Absolutely. The stolen part of the Beryl Coronet is recovered and Arthur is proven innocent.

Self-referentials

Legal outcome (if any): Arthur is released from custody, though the real thief is not arrested. Oddly, though he apparently admits to not only having stolen the fragment of the coronet but having fenced it, Sir George is not arrested. Perhaps Holmes had to give him some sort of guarantee of immunity in order to be given the name of the person Sir George sold the gems to? Maybe his own high standing is enough to protect him from prosecution, or maybe Alexander Holder just wants as little public attention drawn to his gaffe as possible.

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Copper Beeches"
Year first published: 1892
Type: Short story
Chronology: 12th short story, 12th and final story in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, 14th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; The Copper Beeches, Hampshire.
Date: "Early spring" is all we're told, so I guess anywhere from maybe February to perhaps April?
The crime or the mystery: At the time, none; a simple request for advice.
The time (if given): 10:30am

The Players
The client: Miss Violet Hunter
The victim(s): Alice Rucastle, daughter of Jephro
The accused or suspected: Jephro Rucastle
The arrested: None
The investigating officer(s): None
The advocate(s): Mr. Fowler, Alice's fiance
The real culprit(s): Jephro Rucastle; Mrs. Rucastle
Others: Miss Stoper, manageress of Westaway's employment agency; Mr. Toller, servant; Mrs. Toller, his wife

The clues: Strange conditions attached to Miss Hunter's employment; locks of hair found in a drawer which are identical to hers; a locked room she is prohibited to enter; the appearance of a man in the street and Rucastle's response to that event.
The red herring(s): None
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: Hard to say. Holmes works out that Miss Hunter is being made impersonate someone, but it's more through a general massing of clues than any specific thing that tips Holmes off.
The result: Holmes discovers that Rucastle has been keeping his daughter prisoner, and trying to substitute Miss Hunter as her in order to satisfy her lover, who has been watching the house.


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case: None; Holmes is annoyed that Miss Hunter seems to be troubling him with what he considers a trivial matter not worthy of him, and is in no mood to show off his usual observational powers.

Before the case

Holmes gently chides Watson, as he has done before, on his tendency to, as he sees it, embellish or romanticise what Holmes sees as cold, clinical cases of logic when the doctor writes his accounts of his friend's cases. It seems though that Holmes has accepted that he will never change his friend's mind about this, and that he will continue to write as is his wont. He does then allow that Watson does not only choose the most sensational cases Holmes has been involved in, rather the ones that are the most interesting. There's a measure of egotism and pride about Holmes, which Watson has marked before and does not like, especially when he comments with regret that there are no real criminals left, and with some disgust casts a letter on the table beside Watson, unaware that one of his best cases is about to unfold.

Synopsis:

Holmes has received a note from a Miss Violet Hunter, asking his advice as to whether or not she should take a position as governess. The great detective deplores the fact that he has now been reduced to the level of an agony aunt, but when the woman arrives it is a most interesting story she has to tell. She has been offered a position in Hampshire as a governess, at very good pay, but with some very strange stipulations. Her prospective employer, Jephro Rucastle, wishes her to wear a certain dress, sit where she is asked to and cut her hair. This last is a deal-breaker, on both sides: Miss Hunter has lovely long hair and does not want to cut it, but eventually the lure of the money wins out and she has decided to agree, and to take the job.

Holmes cannot dissuade her from taking the job (even though she came here asking his help and advice, she does not take it) but worries about her. He believes the inducement is too high, and that, as ever, when something seems too good to be true, it usually is. It's also a pretty well-established fact that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. But without any further information to go on he is stymied, and frustrated. He knows he is missing something. Two weeks later a letter arrives from Miss Hunter, asking him to please come down to Hampshire, as she does not know what to do. Holmes and Watson are on the next train south.

Miss Hunter tells them that her new employer is on his second wife, and that she is a pale, colourless thing, silent and morose. He has a daughter, that of his first wife, who has gone to America, and a son, who is a nasty, bullying, cruel little thing, who loves giving pain to other creatures. There are only two servants, the Tollers, and the male is almost always drunk, though Mr. Rucastle doesn't seem to pay any mind to that. He has asked her to wear a certain blue dress and sit in a chair near the window, with her back to it, while he walks up and down telling her funny stories. Twice he has requested this performance, and seems satisfied each time with the outcome.

However she tells  Holmes that the couple have been very careful to keep her back to the window and not allow her to look out into the street, but by devious means she managed to see that there was a man looking up the road at the house. When they realised, or suspected, that she had seen the man, Rucastle told her to turn around and wave him away, which seemed odd, but she did as she was bid. Since then, she has not been asked to wear the dress or sit in the window. She then tells the pair that there is a big nasty dog on the grounds, which belongs to Toller and is let loose at night, so she is warned never to go out after dark.

Then, to add more mystery to an already strange situation, Miss Hunter finds locks of what appear to be her own hair, which of course she has cut off by now, in a drawer in her room. But it turns out not to be hers, but identical in every way to hers. She can't figure this out. There is also a room in the house to which she is not admitted, but from which Rucastle came, she says, away from looking very angry. She believes it has shutters on the windows; Rucastle, when she asked him about it, told her it was his darkroom, that he engaged in photography, but something in his eyes told her not to believe him.

She of course had to investigate, but when she managed to get into the room she found it to contain a passageway which ran to three doors, two of which opened into empty, dusty, dirty rooms, the third locked. And from behind that door, the sound of footsteps, the shadow of someone moving. She ran for it, straight into Rucastle, whose manner changed, becoming threatening and angry. It was at this point she decided to call for Holmes.

Formulating a plan, Holmes asks her to lock Toller's wife in the cellar that evening - Toller is drunk and will be no use to anyone, and the Rucastles are going out - and he and Watson will come to the house. He has by now divined that Miss Hunter was brought to the house to impersonate someone, most likely the daughter who has been said to be in America, but is surely held prisoner in the locked room. The wearing of the dress (surely her favourite, or one she used to wear of choice), the cutting of her hair (as the daughter must have had hers cut, or lost it to illness) and the sitting in the chair and laughing to dissuade the attentions of the young man, who must be her fiance, looking to see if she is all right, all point to the conclusion Holmes has come to.

When they get there, they burst open the locked door, but the room is empty and the skylight open. Rucastle has taken his captive and legged it. As they stand there he returns, and on seeing them in the room growls at them and goes for the dog. Unfortunately for him, Toller is the only one who can control the brute, and it goes for Rucastle, tearing his throat out. Watson shoots it dead, and when Mrs. Toller is released she is ready to tell the whole story. She relates how Alice Rucastle was never happy after her father remarried, and that she had money of her own left her in her mother's will, but that her father kept control of it, and tried to force her to sign it over to him. She would not, and when she met a man, Mr. Fowler, Rucastle feared she would soon be beyond his grasp.

When she fell ill due to her badgering and had to take to his bed, he took his chance and imprisoned her, but Fowler kept watch on the house, looking for her, so Rucastle had to find a stand-in for his captive daughter, and that was where Violet Hunter came in.

After the case

Rucastle actually survives the attack by the dog, but he is crippled, and his silent wife has to look after him. Alice, rescued (presumably; the narrative doesn't make it clear) marries Mr. Fowler and they move to Mauritius, while Miss Hunter takes up a post teaching. Watson remarks with regret that Holmes lost interest in her once the problem was solved.


How the case is solved: With all the odd conditions in mind, and with what Miss Hunter tells him when they go down to see her, Holmes quickly figures out that she has been brought down there to impersonate Rucastle's daughter, and when the frightened governess tells them of the locked room, his suspicions are confirmed.

Comments:

A classic Gothic mystery, with the cliched prisoner in the attic/locked room, with something of a twist in the attempt to impersonate her and throw her lover off the scent. Again though there are quite a few flaws in this, I feel. The role of the child, the cruel, capricious little bastard who needs a good slap, is played down a lot. He's used as evidence that Rucastle is not as jolly or friendly as he seems, the idea of the child copying the parent, but it could have been used to better effect I feel. The kid could have warned her she might end up in the locked room too - well, I'm not going to go second-guessing Doyle, but I think he gives the child a smaller role here than he could have had. Then there's the hair. I mean, sure the drawer is locked, but why put Miss Hunter in a room where she might find Alice's hair? Why not keep it in the father's room? Why not throw it out? It doesn't seem like Jephro Rucastle has any particular love for his daughter, so why would he even want to keep it, especially as it may provide, as it does, a clue to his real intentions?

Why is Toller drunk all the time? Does he disapprove of the incarceration? It's never mentioned. And why does Rucastle condone his drunkenness? Is it because he is the only one who can control the dog? If so, why not get another dog, one he can control? It doesn't seem like Rucastle is the kind of guy who likes to rely on other people. Why is Mrs. Rucastle so silent and morose? She clearly has no problem with their plan, and is in on it, as she warns her husband about Mr. Fowler, but what's the plan? Is she morose because she agreed to it and now regrets it? If so, she shows no sign of it, but you have to assume she does at least love Jephro, as she promises to look after him after he is injured critically by the dog.

It's also not made clear how Alice is returned. When they arrive, she is gone, taken out through the skylight. But Rucastle comes back alone. Where has he taken her? Has his wife spirited her off to some place, and if so, when she comes back, is Alice with her? Not mentioned. Do the police get involved? No word. How is Mr. Fowler involved in her release? Doesn't say. In fact, the first time I read this I thought there was no mention of Alice, that she had been taken out of the house and Holmes had failed. It's only in the postscript that we hear she gets to marry Mr. Fowler, but the nature of their reunion is not touched upon at all.

If Mrs. Toller was against the imprisonment, was her husband? If the answer is yes, then why didn't they confront their employer? Toller had control of the dog, and could easily have brought in, or threatened to bring in the police. Is he an accessory, and is that why he drinks so much, that he knows he can't sell out Rucastle without landing himself in the dock? But is it likely Toller would have cooperated against his wife's wishes? Does he just drink because he feels there's nothing he can do? The issue of his drinking is, I think, not properly explored here either.

As I say, a lot of, if not plot holes then certainly areas which would stand better examination and explanation, and quite a loose storyline in the end.

Character Study

Violet Hunter: A pretty strong, independent woman, she has lost her mother and father when we meet her, and so has no parental figure to turn to for advice, asking Holmes to play, essentially, the role of her father, which he does. She has enough sense to be able to see though Rucastle's facade of a genial, happy and friendly man; she reads in his eyes what perhaps others might miss. But like all of us, she is swayed away from her fears by the prospect of high pay, even if it means she must sacrifice her crowning glory. It doesn't take too long before she realises something is wrong though, and she is quick to call in Holmes.

Though not a timid woman, she is terrified by the idea of someone being held prisoner in the house, and is very wary of, and eventually frightened by, her employer. She has a strong sense of duty, prepared to put herself in peril in the effort to help someone less fortunate than she.. Unlike some others of Doyle's female characters, she doesn't just sit on the sidelines and wait for the men to sort things out, but takes an active role herself.

Jephro Rucastle: Outwardly, a benign, friendly person with the figure to go with such a jolly disposition, but beneath the mask lurks an evil sadist, whose primary motivation is greed and financial gain, who is prepared to imprison his own daughter in order not to lose control of her money. He is not a stupid man; the whole idea of getting someone to pretend to be Alice is his, and it's well executed too. You have to wonder, given that he offers such high pay to Miss Hunter, if that money is coming from Alice's funds, and if so, then a supreme irony is that the daughter is in effect paying for her own imprisonment to be covered up and continue.

Where he found Toller is not explained, but you might be inclined to think his employment hinged on his owning the huge dog, which Rucastle knows is sufficient inducement not only to Miss Hunter to stay indoors and night, but to prevent Alice's lover engaging in any late-night exploration of his own. It's somewhat interesting that when he comes upon the trio and sees they have discovered his crime, given he's a big burly man and has a heavy stick in hand, his first instinct is not to attack them but to run to get the dog, which proves to be his undoing. A bit stupid really, as he had already noted that Toller was the only one who had control over the animal.

Like most men, Rucastle married a younger woman, but whether the business with Alice is responsible for her maudlin condition, or whether she was always taciturn, he does not appear to have chosen well. She's neither beautiful nor pleasant, and you can't help wishing that Doyle had properly explained why she is how she is. After all, Alice is not her daughter, only her step-daughter, and it's not as if she's unaware of the plan to keep her prisoner; she is in fact going along with it. So why is she so morose? Maybe she's changed her mind, but Jephro Rucastle is not a man to be told what he can and can't do, so perhaps she's in his power.

Better than you N/A

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

Miss Violet Hunter takes a job as a governess, despite Holmes' advice to the contrary, and soon finds that all is not well. She has to wear a certain dress, sit in a certain place, cut her hair, wave to someone who is watching down the street. Holmes quickly comes to the conclusion that her employer is making her impersonate his daughter, who is held prisoner in the house so that Rucastle can have control of her money. Holmes exposes the incarceration and frees the girl, leaving Rucastle a shattered wreck after having been attacked by his own dog.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 1 (Jephro Rucastle)
Running total: 7

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 0
Indirect: 0
Incidental 0:
Historical: 0
Total: 0
Running total: 18

Famous Firsts None spring to mind.

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Yes; Miss Hunter is saved from having to participate in a scheme to keep her employer's daughter locked up, and the daughter is freed.

Self-referentials "A Scandal in Bohemia", "A Case of Identity", "The Man with the Twisted Lip", "The Noble Bachelor"

Legal outcome (if any): None

[Trollheart]

As we reach the end of the first collection of Holmes short stories, this seems an opportune time to have a look and see when, over the course of two novels and twelve stories, Holmes' involvement has prevented an innocent man, or woman, going to jail or even to the gallows. In other words, how many times so far has he prevented and avoided a


A Study in Scarlet: this is the first time we meet Holmes, but there is no confusion here, and no innocent party arrested for something they did not do. The right man is caught, even if we can laud his motives. Though Arthur Charpentier is arrested, it's not Holmes who is the agency of his release, but the murder of Stangerson while Charpentier is in police custody, so that's a no-brainer and the great detective has nothing to do with it.

The Sign of the Four: The first time Holmes saves an innocent man possibly going to the gallows for murder, as he proves Thaddeus Sholto is not responsible for his brother's death. So that's one.

Nothing then for "A Scandal in Bohemia" (no arrest, no real crime or police involvement), "The Red-Headed League" (right men arrested) or "A Case of Identity" (no arrest, no prosecutable crime). One so far then.

We hit paydirt with "The Boscombe Valley Mystery", where Holmes successfully prevents James McCarthy being hanged for the murder of his father, so that's two, but he fails entirely to save John Openshaw in "The Five Orange Pips", and also is cheated of his attempt to bring the guilty parties to justice. Can you include "The Man with the Twisted Lip"? It's certain that, one way or another, even if Holmes had not discovered his deception, Neville St. Clair would have eventually revealed his true identity rather than hang for his own murder, so no, I think this would have come to light with or without him. Probably just have taken longer. We remain at two.

"The Blue Carbuncle". Here he does take an active hand in showing the police they have the wrong man when they arrest John Horner, and while he allows the guilty man to go free, it would still have been a miscarriage of justice had Horner been imprisoned for something he did not do, so that's three we're up to. Nothing in "The Speckled Band" though, as there was, up to the time he and Watson arrived, no crime and nobody arrested.

In "The Engineer's Thumb", we know who is guilty but they get away and nobody else is arrested, but in "The Noble Bachelor" Flora Miller is arrested for the supposed murder of Hattie Moran, so without Holmes she probably would have been tried for that crime, making it four miscarriages of justice he has so far prevented. Then, in "The Beryl Coronet" Holmes again intervenes to ensure Arthur is not mistakenly charged with the theft of the gemstones, so that's five. Finally we have "The Copper Beeches", but there's nobody arrested for that.

So out of, altogether at this point, fourteen stories (including novels) Sherlock Holmes has prevented the long arm of the law from grasping - and holding - the wrong collar, and the often unbalanced scales of British justice from tilting in the wrong direction, and sending five innocent people either to jail or the rope. That's just short of a third of the investigations he's been involved in thus far. A good start, and this number will only increase as we delve deeper into his adventures.

Whatever else may be said of him, Sherlock Holmes can certainly be called the friend, indeed often the last hope or the last court of appeal for the innocent man or woman wrongly arrested.

[Trollheart]

Title: "Silver Blaze"
Year first published: December 1892
Type: Short story
Chronology: 13th story story, 1st in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 15th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; King's Pyland, Dartmoor; Mapleton, Dartmoor; Winchester
Date: Unknown, but early morning on a Thursday
The crime or the mystery: The disappearance of the horse Silver Blaze and the murder of its trainer
The time (if given): Early morning

The Players
The client: Colonel Ross, owner of Silver Blaze
The victim(s): John Straker, the Colonel's groom and Silver Blaze's trainer (also Silver Blaze, though the horse has only vanished)
The accused or suspected: Fitzroy Simpson, a tout
The arrested: Fitzroy Simpson
The investigating officer(s): Inspector Gregory
The advocate(s): Holmes and Watson
The real culprit(s): John Straker/Silver Blaze (and to some extent Silas Brown)
Others: Edit Baxter, maid at King's Pyland; Silas Brown, rival trainer at Mapleton; Hunter, stable boy at King's Pyland; Mrs. Straker

The clues: A blunt knife in Mason's possession, a red scarf also in his possession, the drugging of the stable boy, lame sheep
The red herring(s): Simpson's cravat
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: Two really: when Holmes discovers the tracks leading to Mapleton he knows where the horse is, and when he finds the bill in Straker's pocket he has a good idea of what's going on. In ways though, there isn't one single breakthrough; this is one of those cases where the details only dawn slowly on Holmes.
The result: Silver Blaze is returned to his owner, and the murder is seen to have been accidental and indeed deserved.

Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

As they speed towards Exeter on the train, Holmes calculates the train's speed by utilising his knowledge of the distance between telegraph poles. The calculation, he tells his friend, is a simple one.

Before the case

Not much; Holmes has been reading about it in the papers for a while and Watson is not at all surprised that he soon afterwards decides they must go to Dartmoor to investigate. He admits, in a rare example of either bad judgement or overconfidence in the solving of the case, that he delayed going down to Dartmoor till today, Thursday, though he was invited by Inspector Gregory on the Tuesday, because he was sure the horse would turn up. When he hears that  things have taken a turn for the worse and someone has been arrested for the murder of John Straker, Holmes decides it is time to step in and accept the invitation.

Synopsis:

After the disappearance of Silver Blaze, the favourite for the Wessex Cup, owned by Colonel Ross, and the murder of the horse's trainer, John Mason, Holmes sets out for Dartmoor to begin his investigation. Although not asked to accompany him, as he normally is, Watson offers his services and Holmes is delighted to accept. He outlines the case to Watson, telling him that the horse is so prized by the colonel that a lad slept in the stable with him at all times, and he was allowed no drink. The staff is small, consisting of about five people and four horses, and as she brought down the stable-lad's meal to him, a dish of curried mutton, the maid, Edith Baxter, was approached by a man who claimed he had become lost. His true intent became apparent though as he tried to bribe her to give him tips on Silver Blaze. She alerted the stable boy, Hunter, who chased him out, but the tout, one Fitzroy Simpson, seemed to have emptied a small packet he had been carrying into the boy's meal.

The next morning Hunter was found fast asleep and the horse gone, but this did not raise the alarm quite yet, as Straker had told his wife he was going down to check on the horses in the early hours of the morning, and may have taken Silver Blaze out. What did raise the alarm was the discovery, first of Straker's overcoat, caught on a bush, and then his body in a depression on the moor. Of the horse there was no sign. Straker's head had been bashed in by some heavy object, and there was a gash in his thigh, looking to have been made by a knife or some sharp instrument. In his dead hand was a knife covered in blood, and in the other hand a silk cravat which was soon identified as belonging to Simpson, who was summarily arrested.

Things look black for the tout, Holmes observes dryly. He has amassed bets of five thousand pounds against Silver Blaze, has admitted to drugging the stable boy but is unable to account for the reason his cravat has been found in the dead man's hand. His stick is a good heavy one which could easily have inflicted the wounds, and his clothes show signs of having been out in the bad weather of the previous night. One small point in his favour, Holmes notes, is that there is no mark upon him where John Straker's knife would have been expected to have made a wound, considering it was covered in blood when found in his hand.

On arriving at the station Holmes and Watson are met by Colonel Ross and Inspector Gregory. They are taken to see the personal effects of John Straker, found on him when he was killed. They include some interesting items, like a special knife Watson identifies as a cataract knife, which Holmes muses is an odd thing for anyone other than a doctor to be carrying, some tallow and a note from a milliner for a rather expensive outfit., made out to a William Derbyshire. The Inspector tells Holmes that he has been told the Derbyshires are friends of the Strakers, and that their correspondence sometimes gets mixed up.

On meeting the widow Straker, Holmes makes a show of having met her at a garden party, but she denies ever having seen him. He presses, describing a silk dress she apparently wore, but she contends she does not own such a dress, and so Holmes apologises and they go to see the scene of the crime. Holmes notes that the overcoat was not blown against the bush, as there was no wind the previous night, but placed there, and then discovers a spent vesta (match?) on the ground. He then follows a trail of the horse's hoofprints, which the inspector had not seen, until it leads him to the gates of Mapleton, the rival stable. Here he speaks to the owner, Silas Brown, whose initial brusque and unfriendly, even threatening manner changes after Holmes has had a quiet word with him. Holmes and Watson return to King's Pyland, Holmes very pleased with himself.

He is, however, somewhat displeased with the way the colonel has spoken to him, sneering and condescending, seeing the great detective apparently no closer to finding his valuable horse than is Scotland Yard, so he decides, though he has solved the mystery in its entirety, to have some fun with the owner. He tells Ross he and Watson will be returning to London, and the colonel again sneers, thinking he has given up. Taking a photograph of Straker, Holmes goes to see the maid before they leave, then as they do, he tells Ross to keep his horse's name in the race, that he believes it will run. He then advises Gregory to take note of the curious incident of the dog in the night time. The inspector points out that the dog did nothing in the night time, and Holmes chuckles that that is what is so curious about it.

Four days later they are back at the race, and Colonel Ross is, if anything, grumpier and colder than ever, his horse not having turned up yet, despite Holmes' assurances to him, and despite being named in the race. When a bay horse passes by in his colours, Ross snarls that that is not his horse: it's nothing like Silver Blaze. But Holmes, with a knowing look, suggests he see how he does. The horse runs well and wins, and the colonel, though happy to win, wonders what horse has won the race for him. Holmes shows him that by sponging the bay horse down, he will discover Silver Blaze beneath, and the colonel is astonished, apologising for ever having doubted the detective.

He remarks, however, that it is a shame they will never know who murdered John Straker, but here too Holmes comes up trumps, telling the colonel he has the murderer in front of him. Dismayed, agog, the colonel watches as he points to Silver Blaze. He then tells how he has discovered that Straker had been living a double life, keeping two families, this William Derbyshire, whose account for dresses was found in his pocket, none other than he, and that in order to satisfy and pay for his other wife's expensive tastes, he had taken it into his head to hobble Silver Blaze, so that he would lose the race, but the horse had kicked out at him and stove his head in. The blood on the knife in his hand was his own, where he had gashed his own thigh as the horse struck out and he fell back, and the cravat, belonging to Fitzroy Simpson, had simply been lost by the man in his flight, and had been found and used by Straker to try to tie down the horse's leg.

The curious incident of the dog in the night-time shows Holmes that Straker had gone into the stables, drugged Hunter - he and his wife being the only ones who knew curried mutton, the only dish capable of disguising the sharp taste of powdered opium, was being served, and able to drug only the stable-boy's portion - and taken the horse without the dog barking, as it knew Straker well. The trainer had taken Silver Blaze out onto the moor because he needed solitude to be able to nick the horse's leg; it would have made too much noise in the stable and woken everyone up. This, too, was why he needed the candle and the matches. He had thrown his coat on the bush as it was in his way as he tried to make the cut.

Holmes had already established that the expensive dress on the receipt found in Straker's pocket was not for his wife, and so  had taken his photograph to the milliner whose address was on the receipt, and confirmed that he and Derbyshire were one and the same.

After the case N/A

How the case is solved:

Holmes already has reservations about Fitzroy Simpson's guilt, seeing several points which do not add up. He discounts him as a suspect and concentrates on Straker, putting all the pieces together, from the items found in Straker's pockets showing he was supporting two wives, or one wife and a mistress, to the tracks leading up to Mapleton, and his subsequent chat with Brown. Although he has everything sorted before he leaves, he wishes to teach the colonel a lesson in humility, and so does a sort of "showman" expose later. Colonel Ross will not doubt him again, and his fame will continue to spread across England and Europe.

Comments:

It's a very clever story, and manages to misdirect you pretty well. The first time I read it, I assumed (being led in that direction by Doyle) that Silas Brown was the one responsible, but in a pretty masterful piece of storytelling, Brown is one culprit, yes, but not the murderer. It's quite a coup for Doyle to be able to show us the murder was not a murder, nor could it be called manslaughter either; it was simply the reaction of a skittish animal which believed it was in danger. One wonders how much Straker's wife knew about the plan, if at all? It's not made clear, and no charges are shown to have been brought against her, but is it possible she knew what her husband was doing? If so, why would she have thought he would do such a thing? She certainly did not know about the "other woman".

We also assume Fitzroy Simpson is released from custody, though this isn't dealt with either, and Scotland Yard's rush to judgement without having all the facts and a watertight case shows again the eagerness of the police to solve the case, any way they can, even if questions are left unanswered. Gregory is completely clueless as to the whereabouts of Silver Blaze, but is happy that he has been able to lay his hands on the murderer of the horse's trainer. He disappoints Holmes in this, taking the easy way out even if there are gaps in his case, though he does impress him in other ways.

I have to be honest, I know little about horses but I feel it's unlikely you could just paint one a different shade (go on, say it: horse of a different colour. Feel better now? Good: let's go on) just ike that. I imagine paint or whatever they used on Silver Blaze would not only run and flake, not least due to the horse's sweating, but would irritate the horse too, and even cause some damage. I doubt the colonel will have been too happy to have had his prize thoroughbred subjected to such treatment.

I think it's also fair to note that, had this story been written today, doubts would have arisen immediately about Straker's supposed "murder", as forensic blood tests and DNA would have shown that the blood was his own. Luckily, I guess, for Doyle, he didn't have to contend with that at the end of the nineteenth century: they were barely getting to grips with using fingerprints.

This story has also become famous as the lodestone for the idea of a dog that does not bark, which will, I believe, be used by him again in a later story, but the phrase "The curious incident of the dog in the night" (which might have even made a better title) tends to be used a lot now when such things alert various cops and detectives that the culprit is a known quantity.

Character Study

John Straker: A man who, though he has been over ten years in the service of Colonel Ross, and is a trusted trainer and ex-jockey, has got himself in over his head by having to keep another woman, whose tastes are bleeding him dry. He takes advantage of his position of trust and hopes to capitalise on betting against the horse, but his plan goes badly awry and costs him his life. For a short while, he's seen as a kind of hero, a man who tried to prevent the kidnapping of Silver Blaze, but soon enough he is exposed for the traitor he is.

Colonel Ross: A man devoted to horse-racing, the sport of kings, and highly upset that his favourite has vanished. I think it would be fair to say he's more worried about getting the horse back than he is about finding out who killed his trainer. Initially warm and welcoming to Holmes, his opinion of him soon changes as hope fades and Holmes does not provide a miracle solution, and he becomes bitter and recriminatory, having to take it all back when Holmes shows that he has in fact everything under control.

Better than you

Although Holmes praises much of Inspector Gregory's work, and predicts a great career for him in the Yard ("if only he had imagination!") he nevertheless tsks at how easily the inspector gives up tracing the tracks of the horse, which he himself picks up after Watson and him have worked out the direction the animal would have gone, and pick up the trail. He does, however, excuse the fact that Gregory missed the match (again, I'm assuming a Vesta is a make of match?) as he says he only found it because he was looking for it. Nonetheless, he points out - to Watson only - various flaws in Gregory's theory, including how Simpson could have known curried mutton was to have been served for dinner, how he got the horse out of the stables without a  key and why he would have left his cravat at the scene. And most important of all, how he would have handled a horse, having no experience in doing so, and where he might have taken it, not being familiar with the area.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

The favourite for the Wessex Cup, Silver Blaze, goes missing four days before the big race, and his trainer is found murdered. Holmes investigates and finds out that John Straker, the dead trainer, had another woman and that he had been attempting to nobble the horse in order to win big. The horse had kicked out at him and bashed in his head, then run off and been caught by the owner of a rival stable, who had taken him and disguised him. Holmes is able to return Silver Blaze to his owner, after he has won the race.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 18

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 0
Indirect: 0
Incidental: 0
Historical: 1 (John Straker)
Total: 1
Running total: 7

Famous Firsts

I think this may be the first time Watson invites himself along on a case, rather than being requested or even summoned by Holmes, or it being assumed he will accompany him.

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Oh yes. The colonel has to eat humble pie, but is delighted not only to have his horse back (and that it wins the race) but to have the treachery of John Straker uncovered too.

Self-referentials N/A

Legal outcome (if any):

Other than the presumed release of the wrongly-arrested Fitzroy Simpson, and the cancellation of a murder enquiry when the method of Straker's death is, again presumably, as there is no mention of Gregory having been advised of the result of the case, communicated to Scotland Yard, none seems necessary. The thief is dead, the man who held and disguised Silver Blaze has been kept out of the affair thanks to Holmes, and everyone is happy.

[Trollheart]

Note: Though originally the next published story was "The Adventure of the Cardboard Box", this was not included in the British versions of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, and quickly removed from the American publication, due to its controversial and somewhat brutal nature, as well as its depiction of adultery, not something that fit in to Doyle's Victorian society. Generally, it is included in His Last Bow, so I had originally decided that would be where we should encounter it, however I (f)ear (sorry) I may forget about it by the time I reach that collection and so I'm now writing about it here, essentially as it was originally published.

Title: "The Cardboard Box"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 14th Holmes short story; 2nd in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes; 16th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; Cross Street, Croydon; New Street, Wallington;
Date: A Friday in August
The crime or the mystery: A pair of severed ears are received by a lady in a box (that is, the ears are in a box, not the lady)
The time (if given): Around noon


The Players
The client: Miss Susan Cushing, a spinster (as such; she doesn't hire Holmes, and indeed has nothing to do with the case, but it is through her that he first becomes aware of it)
The victim(s): Mary Browner nee Cushing, Susan's sister; Alec Fairbairn, a sailor, her lover
The accused or suspected: None; the thing is taken by the police as being a practical joke by medical students with an axe to grind
The arrested: Jim Browner, a sailor and husband to Mary
The investigating officer(s): Inspector Lestrade
The advocate(s): Holmes
The real culprit(s): Jim Browner
Others: Sarah Cushing, middle sister and instigator of the plot in a way

The clues: The box was tied with tarred twine and a very specific knot; a smell of coffee from the box; the town of Croydon originally misspelt, showing the writer was unfamiliar with the place; the ears bear no marks of preservative fluid (presumably formaldehyde, though it's not named), which negates the theory of them having been cut from a corpse by medical students, nor have they been cut with the sharp surgical instrument a student of medicine would be expected to use, but a blunt object. All of this points to this being far from a joke.
The red herring(s): Miss Cushing's prior association with medical students, leading the police to proceed along the wrong trail
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: Kind of when Holmes gets the reply to his telegram advising the whereabouts of Jim Browner
The result: Arrest of Browner


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

His rather unbelievable following of Watson's thoughts, based purely on the movements of his eyes and his friend's expressions

Before the case

Holmes and Watson are sweltering in the August heat, Watson thinking about the American Civil War, Holmes amazing him by divining almost his exact thoughts. Holmes then points out to him an article in the newspaper detailing a "most gruesome packet" sent to a woman in Croydon. The packet apparently contained a pair of severed ears, and has been treated as a practical joke, though Holmes is dubious and thinks it portends something much darker.

Synopsis:

Having read the above account, Holmes asks Watson to accompany him to the lady's house in Croydon. Susan Cushing is an older, retired lady who has no idea why anyone would send her such a horrible package, but Holmes quickly ascertains that the ears are from two different people - a man and a woman - and that this is no joke or trick. Identifying from photographs that the lady has two sisters, and that one of them appears to be involved with a steward - and that, further, one of them is called Sarah - he begins to formulate a theory. When he hears that Susan Cushing seems to have been involved with the steward - one Jim Browner - but that they quarrelled and he married the other sister, Mary, he becomes even more excited. Browner is said to have a drinking problem and like most alcoholics, gets violent when he drinks. Susan Cushing says she has lost touch with her sister Mary, and does worry about her.

Susan goes on to tell Holmes that her other sister, Sarah, had gone to Liverpool to be with Mary and her husband, but that they had not got on and she had had to leave. They go to where Sarah is said to live now, but a man - presumably a doctor - greets them at the door and tells them they can't possibly see her, that she is very ill. At the police station, Holmes receives an answer to a telegram he had sent earlier and says he now knows everything. He writes a name on the back of a card and tells Lestrade he may arrest the man, but not until tomorrow; he asks for his name to be kept out of the case, as, he says, it presented little difficulty to him and is not worthy to bear his stamp.

The ears turn out to belong to Susan's younger sister, Mary and her beau, a sailor called Alec Fairbairn. It transpires that the middle sister, Sarah, having come to live with Jim Browner and his wife, Mary (nee Cushing) caused untold misery by falling for Jim, but he was having none of it. In revenge Sarah turned Mary's mind against her husband - especially as he had again taken to drink - and when a dashing sailor, a friend of Sarah's by the  name of Alec Fairbairn came into the picture, Jim Browner knew he had lost his wife. He furiously ordered Sarah out of their house, and Fairbairn too, and warned that if he did not leave then he, Jim, would send Sarah one of his ears as a keepsake. Frightened, she left, but in defiance set up house a few doors down from the Browners and let lodgings to sailors.

To her house again Fairbairn came, and soon Mary was visiting him there. When Jim found out about it he threatened both with death, frightening his wife and proving to himself there was no longer any love between the couple. His excessive drinking did not help matters. Sarah, her work done apparently, went home to Croydon, to live with her elder sister. Browner, meanwhile, came home from a voyage to find his wife again in the company of Fairbairn. He followed them till he saw them take a boat and go out on the lake, then struck when they were on the water, killing both and then taking an ear off each and sending it to, as he thought, Sarah, though she was no longer living with her sister, so it was Susan who received the grisly package.


After the case

Nothing really. Holmes reads both the note from Lestrade (in which, in addition to confirming he has picked up Browner, the inspector makes out that he knew all along what Holmes knew, and that it was a joint effort, which makes Holmes snort, but then, he has asked not to be associated with the case) and also Browner's confession, which explains it all in detail.

How the case is solved:

Once Holmes has established that it is after all not a joke (as he had assumed it was not anyway, despite the police thinking so) he realises that the ear of Susan Cushing is almost identical to that in the box (the female one anyway) so that it must be from her sister. Looking into Jim Browner's details he's able to ascertain the man is a violent drunk, and hearing of Sarah's passion for meddling and causing trouble he conjectures that the middle sister has been involved, and this is why the package has been sent to S. Cushing, but intended for Sarah, not Susan. Although she was living with her elder sister, Sarah was kicked out by Susan as they found they could not live together.

It might, in fairness, be seen to be something of a logical leap too far for the master detective to have deduced all he did from scraps of information, but his theory turns out to be correct when Browner is arrested and confesses.

Comments:

This is an almost perfect example of how Holmes constructs not only a case, but a murder, out of almost thin air. While everyone else is shaking their heads at the "terrible practical joke" having been played on Susan Cushing, he is able to see past that, to understand this is no joke at all, and that a murder has been committed. Something in the same vein as "The Blue Carbuncle", this is a case that comes out of nowhere. Many of Holmes' cases are ongoing at the start of the story, or brought to him by a client, but this one happens almost accidentally. It's hard to believe that anyone else would have seen the clues Holmes does, and figured out what was going on. As much as any other story, this one really shows Holmes at his very best, a well-oiled machine performing its task with no care as to what others think, or how unlikely they believe his theories to be.

It's an incredibly well-constructed story, with all the parts fitting together smoothly, whereas initially they're like a jumbled pile of jigsaw pieces without a picture. Layer on layer, the story is built up, until the awful truth is laid before us. It's a masterclass in what Holmes calls "trifles" being slotted into the proper place, not ignored as others (i.e., Lestrade) have done, and creating a picture out of almost smoke. It must be annoying for Holmes the tone that Lestrade takes in his note, making out that he had everything in hand and that Holmes just helped him, but then he's used to that by now.

I would say that this is the first, perhaps only story in the Holmes canon that has so many prominent female characters in it. In fact, other than the murderer himself and one of the victims, all other elements are female. The main victim, her sister (almost an accessory before the fact, surely?) and the final sister, to whom the box is sent. The twin themes of adultery and violence against women, allied to that of strife within a family of sisters leading to jealousy and eventually murder, gives a good idea why this was pulled so quickly when originally published. In yet another stroke of misogyny, Doyle makes Browner almost exempt from his crime, blaming it on both the drink and the behaviour of his wife (she drove him to it) as well as serving up a healthy dose of culpability for Sarah. He does admit that he's to blame, but even so it's a weak admission, almost as if he had no choice, read, she had it coming to her, read, it was her fault. Poor, man, poor.

But let's look at that first part of the excuse. All too often, certainly in Victorian literature, violence by males is blamed on drink. At least Dickens accepts that sometimes violent men are just violent men. Fagin doesn't drink - well, not to excess. David Copperfield's foster father never touches the stuff, but can beat a child, and the master and mistress is Nicholas Nickelby are evil and sadistic enough without needing drink as an excuse. And anyway, coming back to this story, when Browner accosts his wife and her lover he appears to be sober: he has just come off ship, so has had no time to spend in the pub (at least, we're not told he did) and so he commits the murder not due to drink, or being drunk, but completely clear-headed, in total control of his faculties, and in perhaps not cold blood, but it's not a moment of sudden passion. He's known, in his heart of hearts, that this is going to happen and he's been mentally preparing for it. After all, if not, why did he make the threat to Sarah about the ears, and if he's not in his own mind at the time of the killing how is he so lucid as to remember that threat, and act upon it?

No. Drink is not to blame. So is Mary? Does she bring her own death, and that of her lover, upon herself by being faithless? Doyle is careful to show us that Browner, despite his trouble with drink, does not succumb to Sarah's advances, as he could have done. This then gives him the moral high ground when he decides to deal with his unfaithful wife, and in the eyes of Victorian society - if not the law - almost makes him blameless: the man was driven to it by a wife who would not behave. The lesson? Women should know their place and remain there, and if they dare to step outside of the bounds of marriage, the grave shall be their reward. Nice.

Character Study

Susan Cushing: An elderly, retired and retiring lady who lives alone, though her sister, Sarah, used to live with her. She is most aghast to receive the box, has no idea who might have sent it or why, but she does prove to be a fount of knowledge at which Holmes can drink his fill and which helps him put the basic points of the case together.

Sarah Cushing: Middle sister, who takes a shine to Jim Browner but is rebuffed by him, and in a dark fury plots her revenge against him by turning her younger sister, his wife, against him and setting her up with a new lover. She comes across as a very selfish, indulgent woman who expects to have everything her own way, however in the end when she hears of the delivery of the package (to the wrong house) and knows it was for her, she succumbs to "brain fever". Whether or not she recovers we're not told, but if she does she must surely hold herself partially responsible for her baby sister's death.

Mary Browner: Youngest of the Cushing sisters, she is married to Jim Browner and comes under the influence of her older sister, Sarah, eventually turning against her husband in suspicion that he may be playing away (possibly with Sarah, a notion no doubt put in her head by her big sister) and disgusted by his return to drink. It doesn't say whether Jim gets violent with her, though I don't think so (until he kills her, of course) but she does end up taking up with a dashing young sailor whom she falls for, and with whom she is eventually murdered by her jealous husband.

Jim Browner: A man who believes he has put his drinking days behind him and is in love with Mary Cushing, whom he marries. Happy until Sarah comes to visit, then stay, and makes a pass at him. After this, when his wife begins to cool towards him, he blames Sarah and kicks her out. In the end though, his attempts to repair his marriage come to nothing when he comes home and finds Mary with Alec Fairbairn, and kills both. He says he is haunted by their faces, so that once arrested and once he confesses, it seems likely he will not last long.

Better than you

Here Holmes shows how vastly superior his intellect is to that of the police, and in particular to his old sparring partner, Lestrade. The inspector has, to be frank, no clue, and the entire mystery is uncovered and solved by Holmes. Without his help, Browner would have got away with it and the bodies of Mary Browner and Alec Fairbairn would never have been recovered. Susan Cushing would have been left wondering what had happened to her baby sister, while Sarah would have sickened further, knowing what had happened but unable to prove it. In true character though, Lestrade claims to have been "working with" Holmes all along, and takes the credit, even though the entire case - cause, solution and culprit - have been handed to him by Holmes.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

After a lady receives a most unpleasant package - two ears in a box - Holmes works out that they are the ears of two people who have been killed, murdered. In fact, he deduces correctly that one of the ears belongs to the lady's younger sister, and that it is her husband who is responsible for her murder and that of her lover. Lestrade is alerted and arrests the man, who confesses.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 10

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 0
Indirect: 0
Incidental: 0
Historical: 2
Total: 2
Running total: 120

Famous Firsts None, other than this being the most female characters Doyle has assembled outside of a novel (or even in one).

Satisfied Customer(s)? In essence, yes, as Susan Cushing is - presumably - advised why she received the box and what has happened to her sister. Again, there is no actual client.

Self-referentials "The Sign of Four", "A Study in Scarlet"

Legal outcome (if any): Jim Browner arrested and charged with two murders, to which he confesses. The intimation is that he dies the next day, ostensibly of remorse and/or terror, as he says he is being haunted by the faces of the two people he has killed.

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Yellow Face"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 15th short story, 3rd in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 17th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Park; Baker Street; Pinner, Middlesex; Norbury; Crystal Palace
Date: Spring (year unspecified)
The crime or the mystery: Whose is the face at the window, and what is the secret Grant's wife keeps from her husband?
The time (if given): After 5pm

The Players
The client: Grant Munro
The victim(s): None, really
The accused or suspected: His wife, Effie, to an extent
The arrested: None
The investigating officer(s): None
The advocate(s): Grant Munro (ish)
The real culprit(s): None
Others: John Hebron (deceased), first husband of Effie and father to Lucy; Lucy, his daughter by her; Scottish female nurse, unnamed.

The clues: A pale face at the window of the cottage, a photograph of Munro's wife, her strange and evasive behaviour
The red herring(s): Everything
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: None
The result: An innocent child reunited with her mother and her husband


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

Holmes deduces that the pipe left behind by their client is of great value to the man, as it has been mended twice, at a cost surely more than a new one would have run to. He also notes that the owner is left-handed, muscular, with a good set of teeth, careless in his habits and quite well off. That he is relatively rich is evident from the brand of tobacco in the pipe, that he is left-handed is proven by the bowl of the pipe being charred on the right; Holmes observes that the man lights his pipe under lamps, and holds the side he is not lighting towards the flame, meaning he leans in to the left, making him left-handed. Finally, the fact that the amber in the pipe has been bitten through shows both that he is strong and has a good set of teeth. Careless in his habits is, I guess, obvious from the fact that he left his prized pipe behind.

Before the case

Holmes and Watson are out walking in the park. When they return the page tells them a man came to visit them, but was impatient and did not wait, saying he would return later. While they wait, Holmes examines the pipe the main left behind (see above)

Synopsis:

Grant Munro, a merchant in hops, asks Holmes to help him. His wife, Effie, has some dark secret she is keeping from him, and it is coming between them, even though he knows she still loves him. He tells Holmes her interesting history. She was married in the USA, in Atlanta, but her husband and child died of yellow fever, and she came back to England. She had been left a good legacy and was well off when he met her. Since then they have been in love; in fact, Effie had put all her money in her husband's name, on the understanding that if she ever needed it she had but to ask. Six weeks ago, he tells them, she came to him to ask for a hundred pounds. Somewhat aghast at her need for such a large sum, the more so that she declined to tell him what it was for, he handed over the money, as he had said he would, without further questions.

On taking his usual stroll down past the unoccupied cottage that was in their area, Munro was surprised to see evidence of someone having  moved in, and decided to have a nosey, as you do. He was then shocked by the face which appeared at the window and looked out. He says it looked unnatural, a kind of chalky white and rigid, but that when its owner saw him it disappeared, and on approaching the door he was turned away by a very rude Scottish woman. That night he awoke to catch his wife going out, at three in the morning, and looking very furtive and afraid. When she returned she gave him some story about needing air, but he could tell she was lying, covering something up.

Things were tense the next day, and he went for a walk down by the cottage. Imagine his surprise, he tells Holmes and Watson, when his wife walked out! He accosted her, and she again made some excuse, btu he knew she was not telling the truth, and determined to investigate the matter, at which she became frantic, holding him back. She was so in earnest that he agreed, as long as she promised not to visit the cottage again, which she swore she would not do. Nevertheless, a few days later he came home early and she was gone, and he knew where. He went after her, and so did the maid, legging it across the fields to warn her, so he knew something was up.

Arriving at the cottage he burst in, but the place was empty. He did, however, see a photograph of his wife, taken only three months ago, in the room wherein he had seen the strange face appear. Now it seemed clear: his wife had a lover, or some sort of dark secret, and he must have it from her or go mad, even if it ruined their marriage. She has refused to speak of it, saying she cannot, and a dark shadow has grown between them.

Without any actual evidence so far, Holmes does something he almost never does: comes to a conclusion and states it to Watson. This is done, of course, in the context of the story to show how for once he has got it totally and absolutely wrong. His theory is that the face at the window is that of Effie's first husband, who is not dead (she produced a death certificate, but for all Munro knows, that could refer to anyone) who is blackmailing her, perhaps with an accomplice, the woman who answered the door, probably. Effie has taken a hundred pounds from her husband to try to buy them off, but this has not worked. What exactly they're blackmailing her over is left in doubt, a rare hole in Holmes' logic, even if he were correct, which he is not. She has already told Grant that she was previously married, so that will not be a surprise to him, though if the first husband is still alive I suppose that could be viewed as bigamy?

Anyway, they get a telegram from Munro to say the cottage is still occupied - the tenants obviously ushered outside by Effie in an attempt to evade discovery by her husband - and they meet him there. As they approach the cottage, his wife is again there and begs him not to enter, but he will not be stopped. Running upstairs, he finds a child in the room, her face covered with a mask. Taking off the mask he sees she is black. Now things begin to fall into place. This is Effie's child with her first husband - who was obviously black and who is also obviously dead - who had been sick but who had recovered three years ago. She sent the money to the old woman, the Scottish one, who had been acting as her nurse in Atlanta, to enable her to come to her, though she knew how hard it would be. Now that her secret is out, she fears Munro will leave her, but he does not; embracing the child and his wife, they all go back home.

After the case

Nothing, other than Holmes wryly asks Watson to remind him of this case, in which he was so far off the beam he wasn't even in the  picture, if he ever gets too complacent or arrogant again. Let it serve as a warning that even the most finely-tuned mind does not get it right every single time.

How the case is solved:

It isn't; Holmes gets everything wrong, is completely on the wrong track, and would probably never have figured it out anyway. One of his very few failures.

Comments:

I just love this story. Like I imagine everyone who read it at first, I thought Holmes was on the right track, and I was as surprised and delighted as anyone when it had a happy ending. Hell, I tear up every time I read it, and this is no exception. One of the few Holmes stories that has a happy ending, where nobody dies (who wasn't already dead), nobody goes to prison and nobody loses anything, in fact Effie gains both a daughter she could never lay claim to and a better understanding of the kind of man her husband is. You have to imagine though that they will have a hard time, bringing up a black child in rural England, both of them white. Effie is going to be subject to gossip and nasty conjecture, and maybe in the end the rumours and accusations may tear the couple apart, but then, it's just a story and it ends here, and you'd like to think that if it was real, if they can get over such a huge hurdle, then they can stay together.

It's interesting to read a story where Holmes is completely wrong. He wasn't even close, and it's good for the character that he's shown to be human at times, that he's not like Superman, that he sometimes gets it wrong, and, more, that he can embrace that weakness in him, that reminder that he is not all-powerful. It can only help him in the future, acknowledging with humility his mistakes, and wondering, too, no doubt, what would have happened had he put his suspicions into practice and made a total mess of things?

One point I'm not clear on: why does Effie keep calling her husband Jack, when his name is Grant? Is this some sort of catch-all name used by women for men, even if this is not their name? Or is his name maybe Grant John Munro? I'm asking, as it is never explained or even touched on, but it would seem to me to be either a glaring - and very much repeated - error, or something that needs explanation or clarification.

Character Study

Grant Munro: A good and decent man, who worries when his wife starts acting strangely, and is driven to the conclusion that she has another man, the clues certainly seeming to support that. It's clear he loves his wife, as he acquiesces initially to her plea not to ask about her secret, but when she breaks the promise she makes him in return, not to revisit the cottage (and how could she not?) he loses it and barges in to find the place empty. However in the end he remains a decent man, taking on another man's child, and a black one at that.
Score: 10

Effie Munro: Returned from America, where her husband had died (she says of yellow fever but I wonder? We're talking Atlanta here, the deep south, just after the Civil War, if this is meant to be a contemporary account. And is not yellow fever contagious and fatal?) she has already proven herself to be a strong and faithful woman, marrying outside of her race in one of the most deeply racist states in America, and when she returns does all she can to keep the existence of her child secret from her husband, both to protect her and to avoid the risk of losing him. A fine woman, upstanding, proud and true, and a wonderful and loving mother.

Better than you

Not this time. Holmes has no inspector to cross swords with, but even so he's completely wrong.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

After his wife starts acting oddly, Grant Munro sees a strange yellow face at the window of the just recently-occupied cottage. His wife seems to know something about it but will not tell him, and he tries to get in but the place is empty. Later he finds out that the yellow face is a child, a black child, his wife's daughter with her first husband, who has died. Relieved, and happy, he takes them both home. Holmes' theories turn out to be completely wrong, for once.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 18

The Holmes Body Count

Direct:
Indirect:
Incidental:
Historical: 1 (John Hebron, Effie's first husband and father to Lucy)
Total:
Running total: 7

Famous Firsts

The first time Holmes is totally wrong, the first time there is no actual crime involved, nor anyone jailed.

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Not really. Well, kind of. Munro is the customer and he is happy to find out that the secret his wife has been keeping from him is that she has a black daughter, but then again, Holmes has no part in clearing this up. If anything, he muddies the waters and supports Munro's concerns. So on the whole, no I don't think so.

Self-referentials None

Legal outcome, if any: None

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Stock-broker's Clerk"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 16th short story, 4th in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (see note preceding "The Cardboard Box"), 18th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Paddington; Baker Street; Corporation Street
Date: June (year unspecified, but just after Watson's marriage, so must be around 1889, as he was married after September, therefore this must be the following year, at the earliest)
The crime or the mystery: Who this Pinner is and why he has offered Hall Pycroft a job when his company seems barely able to furnish one small room.
The time (if given): Morning, just after breakfast (maybe 8 or 9 am?)

The Players
The client: Hall Pycroft, stockbroker's clerk
The victim(s): Hall Pycroft
The accused or suspected: Arthur Pinner, "Financial agent"
The arrested: The brothers Beddington
The investigating officer(s): None
The advocate(s): None
The real culprit(s): The brothers Beddington
Others:

The clues: A sample of Pycroft's writing being procured, an empty office, a gold filling in each man's tooth
The red herring(s): None
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: Clerk looking for work
The breakthrough: None really
The result: The crime is only revealed after "Pinner", actually Beddington, tries to kill himself.


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

That Watson has been suffering from a summer cold, the evidence being that his slippers are slightly scorched from his having had his feet in front of the fire. Also that of the two medical practices, Watson got the better, as the steps to his are worn down more than those of his neighbour.

Before the case

Watson relates that he has bought the practice of another doctor, who has fallen ill, and has got it at a very good price too. It is said to be in Paddington. He has, the previous night, been going over his collection of Holmes' cases, and therefore is delighted to see his old friend visit with a case on his mind. They're soon both off to Birmingham, Holmes' client already in the carriage.

Synopsis:

The client is a Mr. Hall Pycroft (now isn't that just one letter short of being Sherlock's brother?) and he explains how, having lost his job at a stockbroker's, he was desperate and down to his last shilling when he managed to secure another one at a company called Mawson & Williams, and at better pay. Delighted, he was preparing for his first morning at the office when a man called Arthur Pinner (and wasn't this the name of the aunt to whom Effie went after returning from America in the last story?) was shown up. Pinner seemed to have heard of him, and declared he was too good for the job he had been given; Pinner would provide him a much better one. He says he is in charge of a huge hardware concern, and will make Pycroft regional manager. His brother, Harry, is also on the board.

Pycroft has never heard of the company, but it seems too good an opportunity to pass up, so when Pinner tells him not to bother letting Mawson's know that he will not be turning up for work, telling him that he had words with the manager there about him, and they were not at all complimentary. He also asks Mycroft sorry Pycroft to sign something which says he will be happy to work for him. He is to meet Pinner's brother tomorrow in Birmingham, where the formalities will be concluded and he may take over his new position.

When he meets Harry Pinner, he is told the company is only getting its offices organised, and indeed he is shown into what could really be called a bare room: two chairs, one table, a ledger and a bin. But Harry tells him not to despair; there's plenty of money behind the company, Things being not yet ready, he says, for Pycroft to take up his position, he is to take the Paris telephone directory home and mark out the hardware sellers in the area. When he returns on Monday he is not finished, not even close, and Harry Pinner tells him to keep at it till Wednesday. As he laughs, Pycroft notices that his tooth has a gold filling, something he has also noticed his brother having. He now realises that the two men look so alike - one with a beard, the other without, but otherwise identical, that they are the same man. Holmes appears to have come to the same conclusion, and congratulates the broker on his deduction.

But now the question is: why did one man ask for a note for his so-called brother, from Pycroft, when it was essentially a note to himself? And why did he send Pycroft from London to Birmingham? Holmes and Watson decide to pose as clerks looking for work, so as to get a better look at Pinner - whichever Christian name he's using - and Pycroft introduces them, or tries to. As they approach the temporary offices, they see the man calling himself Harry Pinner rush over the street, take a newspaper and hurry back into the building. They follow him in and find him sitting at his table with the newspaper spread out before him and looking as if his life is at an end.

And it is. After speaking to them in a hurried manner, like someone who wishes they would just go and leave him to his business, he vanishes into the inner room. Pycroft confirms to Holmes and Watson that there is no exit, so when he does not emerge and they hear a knocking sound they rush in to find the man hanged on the back of the door. They manage to save him, and call the police. As they wait, Holmes tells the two what he has deduced. The idea of getting Pycroft to write the note was so that Pinner could get a sample of his handwriting, in order to be able to send his confederate to Mawsons, where they were planning a robbery. Masquerading as Hall Pycroft - who had never been seen in Mawsons and so nobody would realise it was not him - this criminal would rob the place, known to have over a million pounds in securities. Unable or unwilling to involve anyone else, Pinner had fulfilled the role of both "brothers" while his accomplice took over Pycroft's job.

His partner is a safecracker, and had intended to gain knowledge of the office by posing as Pycroft, make moulds of locks and keys and steal big money from the company. He is almost successful but a vigilant security guard catches him and he's arrested. The paper that Pinner then bought and which is spread out in front of him shows the headline telling of the failure of the enterprise and the capture of the criminal, Pinner's associate. Having read this, Pinner had despaired and hanged himself, knowing the jig was up.

After the case

Nothing really. Holmes and Watson stand guard over the defeated Pinner while Pycroft goes for the police. I guess he gets to keep the hundred pounds, although maybe they might want that as evidence. Unlikely, I suppose, to be able to take up his position at Mawsons, who, though it was not his fault or any of his doing, will probably not want him now.

How the case is solved:

Again, it kind of isn't. They've sussed that the two "brothers" are the same man, but when Holmes and Watson walk into the office with Pycroft and confront Pinner, they're really no closer to working out what the idea is behind his subterfuge. Holmes has deduced that Pycroft is being impersonated, but has no real idea why, and it is in fact Pinner who draws their attention to the paper, which Holmes had completely ignored and forgotten, an odd slip for him, but perhaps understandable considering the man had just tried to hang himself.

Comments:

I find this has some similarities to "The Red-headed League", in that Pycroft is fobbed off with excuses and lies, given pointless work to do in a company or establishment that does not exist, for the purpose of keeping him away from the scene of the intended crime, both involving a robbery. The story to me is a little weak. Sure, someone could learn to imitate someone's handwriting, but are we to assume that a forger and safecracker can pass as a skilled clerk in one of the largest broker firms in London? Is it not more likely that his appearance, his complete lack of experience with or understanding of the job would give him away? It's also the second time Holmes kind of fumbles the ball. As I say above, even with the shock of the attempted suicide, we would expect Holmes at this point to have wondered what had precipitated Pinner's rushing back into the office holding the newspaper, and his subsequent despair when they see him, to say nothing of his nervous manner. The paper is spread before him and his head is in his hands; how can Holmes not see this as important?

This story is however also important in that it gives us a small glimpse into the life of Dr. Watson sans Holmes. We learn that he has expanded his practice, buying out his neighbour, and that, despite his good and honest nature, he's not above getting the other practice at a knock-down price, possibly playing on the other doctor's poor health and need to sell. He also tells us that, though busy with now two surgeries, he yet yearns for the excitement and adventures he has shared with Holmes. One might say that to some degree he has become addicted to them. This shows later

Spoiler

, after Holmes' apparent death at the Reichenbach Falls, when for three years he has filled the role his old friend used to play, assisting the police whenever he can in cases in which Holmes would likely have been involved

[close]

. He may have been just a humble doctor when he met him, but his association with Sherlock Holmes has changed him forever, making him much more than the man who limped home from war to try to put together his shattered life.

Character Study

Hall Pycroft: I do wonder at the odd names Doyle gives his characters. I mean, Sherlock? Mycroft? Hall? John? Sorry. But he does use some very odd names. Mind you, so did his contemporary, Dickens. More, perhaps, on this when I have time. For now, Hall Pycroft is a pretty nondescript clerk, the kind of which there are ten a penny in London, and must feel it odd that a huge firm such as Mawsons wishes to hire him. It's never said how Pinner and his accomplice find out about his appointment, but from then on he's a dupe. He's not a fool though; he has enough sense to wonder how such a supposedly big and important company, which services, according to "Arthur" Pinner, over 130 depots, can have such a small office and how he can never have heard of them? The work given to him also raises his suspicions, and he's observant enough to notice that both men have the same gold filling, therefore they must be the same man.

Arthur/Harry Pinner: A man who is surely the brains behind the operation, posing as two different men, whom he claims are brothers, but apparently unaware that he has a gold filling which is a real giveaway. Again, I am unsure how he finds out about Pycroft's new position, nor how long this plan has been in effect, but he certainly puts a lot of work into it. Holmes remarks at the end that it is the fact that his real brother has been captured that makes him attempt suicide, but I disagree: after all, it's not as if the brother has been killed, only taken. I think he tries to hang himself because he knows the police will be coming for him, and he'd rather die than go back to jail.

Better than you

For the second story in a row, not this time. Holmes is all at sea. He has a vague idea that someone wants to impersonate Pycroft, but other than that he has not a clue. It's a rare lapse in his usually razor-sharp logical thinking that he misses the clues that are under his nose. Apart from that though, there is no involvement in the case by Scotland Yard, so there's nobody to be better than.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)
Holmes and Watson are approached by a man who has secured a position at a stockbroking firm, but was then approached by another man, offering him a better job. Suspicious of the rundown office and the odd behaviour of the man, Hall Pycroft calls Holmes in to try to see if he can figure it out. In the end, it turns out that his place at the new firm has been taken by the brother of the man who offered him the better job, in order that they can rob the place. The scheme is thwarted though and the robbery fails.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 7

The Holmes Body Count

Direct:
Indirect:
Incidental:
Historical:
Total: 0
Running total: 18

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Again I'd have to say no. It's possible Pycroft might have solved this case himself, just by following the clues. Holmes is not really much use here at all.

Self-referentials None, but as I say, the plot follows rather closely that of "The Red-headed League."

Legal outcome (if any): Both brothers are arrested and the planned robbery foiled. Interestingly, this all happens without any help or information from Holmes. It literally takes place (or rather, doesn't, as in, the crime is foiled) while he, Watson and Pycroft are on the way to Pinner's office.

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Gloria Scott"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 17th short story, 5th in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 19th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; Donnithorphe, Norfolk; Falmouth; Open sea
Date: Unknown; one night in winter
The crime or the mystery: A letter delivered to Mr. Trevor which caused his death
The time (if given): Night


The Players
The client: Victor Trevor, Holmes' only other friend
The victim(s): Mr. Trevor snr., his father (real name James Armitage)
The accused or suspected: Hudson, a sailor
The arrested: None
The investigating officer(s): None
The advocate(s): Holmes
The real culprit(s): Hudson
Others: Jack Prendergast, leader of the mutineers; Wilson, his second, disguised as a chaplain; Evans, Armitage's cellmate

The clues: Mr. Trevor's tattoo, the letter from Hudson
The red herring(s): None
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: None really; Holmes reads it all in the letter Armitage leaves
The result: Nothing; it ends, as Holmes would say, most unsatisfactorily.


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

That Mr. Trevor, Victor's father, has been in fear of his life for some time. This he deduces by the fact that he has had his walking-stick fashioned into a weapon. That he has been a boxer, due to his flattened ears, that he has spent time in Japan and was once closely associated with someone whose initials are J.A., but which he now wishes to forget, this being communicated to Holmes by the tattoo on his arm, which he has tried to have erased.

Before the case

Holmes brings the case to the notice of Watson, by taking out the notes one winter's evening and telling him about it. He notes it was the first case he was ever involved in.


Synopsis:

Recovering from a dog-bite at his friend Victor Trevor's estate, Holmes inadvertently frightens his friend's father when he seems to know a little more about the man's past than he would have him know. In fact, the old Justice of the Peace faints when Holmes mentions the tattoo on his arm with the initials J.A., and from that moment on he views his son's friend with suspicion and a little fear, even though Holmes has only been exercising his powers of deduction and actually knows nothing about Mr. Trevor's life. In the end, Holmes tells Watson, he decided to leave rather than continue to make the old man uncomfortable. Just as he does though, an old acquaintance of Trevor's turns up, a sailor by the name of Hudson, an old ex-shipmate of his father's who seems to have some sort of power over the old man. Soon enough he's firmly got his feet under the table, taking his ease and doing what he likes, and going on as if he owns the place. Victor is beside himself, but due to the man's older age and also out of deference to his father he holds his tongue.

Then, some weeks after Holmes has returned to London, he gets a message asking him to come back down to Norfolk. Victor meets him and tells him his father is dying. He recounts the events that took place after Holmes left, explaining how arrogant and crude Hudson became, how everyone hated him but the old man seemed to be prepared not only to tolerate him, but to defer to him. Eventually Victor had, he tells Holmes, had enough and he had harsh words with the man. His father tried to get him to apologise, but he refused, and when Hudson finally decided he had tired of Norfolk and went to move on, to harass some other poor ex-shipmate, he demanded the apology again, which he did not get. He left in a fury, much to the consternation of the old man, who seemed very much in fear of him, even now they were free of him.

Only yesterday evening, Victor tells Holmes, a letter arrived for his father, which shocked and upset him so much that he had a stroke, and is not now expected to last the night. Indeed, when they arrive they are greeted by a sad-faced doctor, who confirms old Mr. Trevor has passed away. Victor shows Holmes the letter, and mentions that it came from Fordingham, in Hampshire. Holmes recalls that his friend had told him that Hudson had mentioned going to look up another "ex-shipment" called Beddoes, in Fordingham, so he reasons the letter could have come either from Hudson himself or from Beddoes, either way warning that whatever dark secret was in the care of Hudson had been, or was about to be revealed. The letter however when Holmes reads it conveys nothing of this.

"The supply of game for London is going steadily up," it reads. "Head-keeper Hudson has, we believe, been now told to receive all orders for fly-paper and for preservation of your hen-pheasant's life."

Not the sort of message likely to send anyone into such a paroxysm of fear that it would stop his heart, unless, reasons Holmes, it is in some sort of code, and means more than it looks to mean? Holmes tries several combinations but none yield any results, until he hits upon the cipher: every third word, taken without the others, reads thus: "The game is up. Hudson has told all. Fly for your life."

Evidently there is indeed a secret, and it has now been released into the public domain, which is why old Mr. Trevor panicked so that he had a stroke and died. His son takes Holmes to the cabinet where his father's statement, made when he understood an attack from Hudson was imminent, reside. They tell that his father's name is actually James Armitage, and that he was transported to Australia in 1855 for theft, taken then on the bark Gloria Scott. One of the criminals there set off a mutiny which resulted in the ship blowing up, but Armitage and his friend had escaped. They had the bad luck to pick up Hudson, floating among the wreckage, and take him with them when they were rescued by another ship.

Hudson's threats turn out to be just that, empty threats. Nothing is done, and the old man has died for nothing. His son, shaken by the whole business, goes abroad to begin a new career and a new life. And Holmes begins to think there may be something in this detective lark after all.


After the case

Victor Trevor leaves England, to take up tea-planting in Terai, wherever that may be. Hudson vanishes.

How the case is solved:

It's not; they just read about it in the letter old Trevor leaves behind for his son.

Comments:

Another very disappointing story. There's no real mystery for Holmes to solve - well, there's a mystery of sorts, but Holmes does not solve it - and the ending is a serious let-down. When you examine the idea of this Hudson threatening Trevor, it's nonsense isn't it? In order to be able to furnish the details he has, he would have to implicate himself, and again, like the veiled threat in "The Boscombe Valley Mystery", where's his proof? Are the police going to listen to a broken-down old sailor's tales and arrest a wealthy landowner, a fucking JUSTICE OF THE PEACE? A man well-regarded and liked, who has helped charitable causes and whose sentences, we're told, are lenient? Against a poor, down-on-his-luck and miserably arrogant able seaman nobody knows?

Trevor should have been able to laugh at such threats and said do your worst, I'd like to see you prove it. Instead he has a stroke. As if. The problem here again is that Doyle has neglected to add in a simple insurance policy that would have allowed the story to stand, and would have made the threat real. Had Hudson, say, a letter from Prendergast, a confession maybe to the so-called chaplain, or something from the captain, more likely, the last page of the ship's log; even a written agreement from the men to take over the ship, then maybe his threat might have carried weight, but even so, this is decades ago, and who is really going to be interested? I think the technical term writers prefer to use for this is bollocks.

I do find myself wondering what is the deal with Trevor/Armitage's tattoo? Who is so vain that he tattoos his own initials on his arm? Can it be that, sentenced to transportation, criminals were marked like this, something slightly similar - though less dark and ominous and evil - to how Jews and other inmates of concentration camps were catalogued like property in Nazi Germany? If not, then his having a tattoo makes no sense, and his attempts to get rid of it would make my theory perhaps more likely to hold water, but again Doyle throws us this supposedly important titbit of information and then lets us flounder around to try to find a reason for it.



Character Study

Victor Trevor: Less is told us about this man than we would wish to know, considering he was Holmes' only friend (before Watson) and in fact the man who set him on the path to the career he now follows. Well, it was his father really, but it happened only because of Holmes' association with the man. Other than that though, we don't know too much about him, but he seems a decent enough fellow, infuriated by the treatment his father gets from Hudson, standing up to him himself but still retaining enough loyalty to and respect for his father to hold his tongue as long as he can.

Mr. Trevor Snr: A man who has changed his name, as the previous one he bore was associated with criminal acts, though he seeks to minimise the illegality of his crime, telling his son it wasn't theft but merely circumstances which conspired to deny him the opportunity he had expected to be able to repay the money he had borrowed. He is dubious about Holmes' powers at first, having heard from his son how he can deduce so much from so little, and reluctant to believe, then scared of him when he hits so close to home. He's not very bright though, as outlined above, dying of shock when he receives what is in effect an empty threat.

Better than you

Not at all. Given that it's his very first case, as such (not even really a case, not professionally anyway) we can forgive Holmes for not solving it, but he certainly does not. The only thing he works out is the cipher the letter is coded in.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)
After spending some time with his friend Victor Trevor, Holmes goes home, having experienced the unpleasant arrival of a very unpleasant man, who sets himself up as if the house was his. Holmest is recalled to his friend's home when his father dies. After perusing the dead man's papers, they read the story of a mutiny, find out that Victor's father was not who he said he was, and that Hudson was ready to blow the whistle.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 7

The Holmes Body Count

Direct:
Indirect: 1 (Mr. Trevor)
Incidental:
Historical: 90 (on the ship)
Total: 91
Running total: 109

Famous Firsts

The first ever case for Holmes, and the first we have read about in which Watson plays no part, indeed is not even known to Holmes at this point.

Satisfied Customer(s)?

No. There really is no customer, and if there is, you couldn't say Holmes would have justified his fee (had there been one) by reading a letter.

Self-referentials None, but like the previous story, I find this very close to another. As I say above, it's very similar to  how the circumstances played out in "The  Boscombe Valley Mystery".

Legal outcome (if any): None

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Musgrave Ritual"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 18th short story, 6th in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 20th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; Montague Street; Hurlstone Manor, West Sussex
Date: Unknown; some time in winter
The crime or the mystery: The disappearance of both the butler and the maid
The time (if given): Morning (in narration), night (in Holmes' retelling) i.e., Holmes tells Watson one night about the case, but the case itself began with a visit in the morning

The Players
The client: Reginald Musgrave
The victim(s): None initially; Brunton the butler in the end
The accused or suspected: None
The arrested: None
The investigating officer(s): None (local police, not named or taking part, just referred to in passing)
The advocate(s): Holmes
The real culprit(s): Brunton and Rachel Howells, the housemaid
Others: Janet Tregellis, the game-keeper's daughter

The clues: The directions left in the ritual, the fact Brunton was studying them
The red herring(s): None
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: When Holmes, or rather, Musgrave, realises that the chamber is beneath where they're standing; also when Holmes recognises the coins as being from the reign of Charles I.
The result: The recovery from the lake of the ancient crown of King Charles I


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case: None

Before the case

Holmes and Watson are sitting together one winter evening when (rather like the previous-but-one story) Holmes drags out a box of files and begins to tidy up at Watson's request, but coming across this particular case he regales his friend with the tale.

Synopsis:

Holmes is asked by his friend, Reginald Musgrave, who has inherited his father's manor in Sussex, to come down and see if he can solve the mystery that is bedevilling them. It seems his butler, one Brunton, was dismissed for going through private family documents, one of which was a thing called the "Musgrave Ritual", a sort of questionnaire that each member of the family has to learn and recite when they come of age. The questions, and the answers, are meaningless, swears Reginald Musgrave, but even so, the temerity of the butler in reading these papers would not stand, and he had to dismiss him. A few days later the butler, who had prevailed upon him to allow him a week to leave, so as to preserve some part of his honour, vanishes, and the maid, Rachel Howells, is acting very strange. She is just recovering, he tells Holmes, from a bout of brain fever, and now seems to have gone completely mad, hysterical when Brunton's name is mentioned, screaming "He is gone, he is gone!"

And so he is. His wallet, watch and boots are still in his room, but his slippers and his black suit are gone. And so is he. Nobody seems to know where to though. Then the maid vanishes. A nurse had been sitting up to watch over her but fell asleep and when she awoke she was gone. They follow the footprints to the edge of the lake, fearing the worst, but after dragging it all they find is a bag containing some old discoloured metal and glass. It is at this point that Musgrave asks Holmes for help.

Holmes asks to see the paper Brunton was studying. As Musgrave has already explained - and as he explains again, with a touch of irritation at the irrelevance of the question - it is a list of questions and answers, known as the "Musgrave Ritual", something each member of the family must recite when they come of age. It seems to make no sense. It runs thus:
"Whose was it?
His who is gone.
'Who shall have it?' "
'He who will come.'
" 'Where was the sun?' "
'Over the oak.' " '
Where was the shadow?' "
'Under the elm.' " '
How was it stepped?' " '
North by ten and by ten, east by five and by five, south by two and by two, west by one and by one, and so under.' "
'What shall we give for it?' "
'All that is ours.' "
'Why should we give it?' "
'For the sake of the trust.'

Holmes realises these are directions, points on a map, and is able to measure out the distance to which the verse alludes. It's a longish and somewhat complicated calculation, as one of the trees, the elm, no longer stands and Holmes has to work out how long its shadow would have been, and frankly I'm not going through it all. Read the story if you want to know. Suffice to say that eventually the calculations bring them to the wall of the house, around to the older part, which is mostly disused, and down into the cellar, where they find a flagstone which has been moved. Enlisting the help of the local constabulary, Holmes has the stone moved and they uncover a small chamber, within which they find an open chest, empty but for a few old coins, and the body of the butler.

Holmes now deduces that Rachel Howells had been helping Brunton to find whatever he believed had been in that chest, but that only he could fit into the cellar, and she had, for whatever reason, perhaps his throwing her over for the game-keeper's daughter, shut him in there, or the lid may have slammed shut by accident. Even if so, she had deliberately not raised the alarm, and left the butler to die. This, then, would account for her brain-fever, her restlessness, her hysteria and her sudden departure towards the lake. It might also account for what was retrieved from the lake. But what was that? What had impressed Brunton so that he had risked his life to get it, and then induced Rachel to throw it in the lake?

When Holmes identifies the coin as being from the reign of Charles I, he has it. The mangled and twisted metal and glass is in fact the crown of the Stuarts, left behind by them when the king was executed by Cromwell, not returned to Charles II when he returned possibly due to the death of whoever knew the location and their inability or failure to pass the secret on, except in a cryptic code which has been passed down through the Musgrave family for generations, they having been close to the Stuarts in their time. Some of the "Musgrave Ritual" makes sense now: whose was it? His who is gone - this being Charles I, then "Who shall have it? He who will come" being his son, Charles II.

After the case

Again, not much. Holmes remarks to Watson that the crown was cleaned up and restored as best it could be, and that he is welcome to go down to Hurlstone and see it for himself.

How the case is solved:

Holmes deciphers the code in the ritual, then, on seeing the dead butler and putting this together with the strange temperament of the maid, works out what happened, but is still in the dark as to what they were after. When he sees the coins in the chest, and is told that the family were once retainers to Charles II, the final piece falls into place and he knows what they recovered from the lake.

Comments:

Meh, I don't really like this story. In fact, if I'm honest, it's one of my least favourite, not only because it focuses on the nobility - how noble can you get? The king himself - and can be of little interest to anyone not English, but because at its heart it's damn boring, like learning some algebraic equation or something. It's interesting as it's a) an early case for Holmes and b) it's him narrating it instead of Watson, but there's something, I don't know, maybe over-clever about it? It seems too complicated and intricate, and the payoff at the end, for me anyway, is a kind of shrug. Who cares about some old crown a king used to wear? Suppose it's different if you're English. I'm not. Also, the fate of Rachel Howells is just brushed aside: nobody knows where she went, what she did. Did she throw the crown in the lake because she knew what it was (unlikely) or to spite her ex-lover (maybe) or even just to cover up the evidence of their joint crime (more than likely)? Maybe it was even frustration, that having aided in a theft and been either accidentally or on purpose responsible for a man's death, all she had to show for it was - as she understood it - some old tarnished metal and glass, of no use to her, certainly nothing she could sell to procure her passage to freedom.

Not only that, but where was she going to go? In the nineteenth century, a maid leaving employment without a reference would never work again, so she could end up on the streets, or in an asylum, if her "brain-fever" persisted. Leaving this as a loose end comes across to me as a a little callous and more than a little chauvinistic of Doyle. I also wish he would stop with this "torrid, tempestuous, fiery, tropical" shit - the girl was only Welsh, not fucking Brazilian. Is he going to apply this to every non-English girl in his stories? It's quite annoying, especially when he basically dismisses her at the end. As a character, she's been dumped by one man, now Doyle does it again, considering her fate of no importance.

Character Study

Richard Brunton: A man who likes the ladies, and in his position as butler has access to more than enough willing young women, but does not stick with just one. He's also highly intelligent, having worked out the code in the ritual, but alas not quite intelligent enough to realise that asking a spurned lover to help him, and placing himself at her mercy, is perhaps not the best move. His request for time to arrange his affairs seems at first to point to a man who wishes to retain his honour and reputation, but in fact turns out, so far as I can see, to be nothing more than playing for time. If he was dismissed on the spot, he would have had no authority to be on the grounds, and therefore could not get to the cellar wherein he believes the treasure is stored.

Rachel Howells: Not much is known of her, other than that she is one of Brunton's conquests, discarded now, with likely little real interest in the crown, if Brunton has even told her what he's searching for, and quite possibly just awaiting a chance to take her revenge. It could be there was an argument between the two, when Brunton saw with disappointment all that was in the chest, or she may have come there with the express intention of sealing him in the cellar. It may have been an accident, a propped plank slipping perhaps, but if so, she certainly did not go running for help, so either way she's guilty of murder or at the least manslaughter.

Better than you

Holmes shows here how, even at the very beginning of his career, he is able to see past what most people consider, and what he later refers to as, trifles, and uncover the meaning beneath them which leads to either a large clue or the actual solution. When he realises that this "unimportant and obscure ritual" is in fact directions, he's able to work out just what Brunton was up to, find his body and, in the process, find the crown. There's certainly no way any policeman would have worked that out, and to be fair here, he's proving he's more intelligent and sharper than literally generations of the Musgraves.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

When his friend's butler goes missing, Holmes is asked to investigate. He uncovers a map his friend did not realise he had, which points the way towards a great treasure buried in his manor, the lost crown of the Stuarts. He also finds that the butler, in collaboration with one of the maids, had been attempting to steal it, and that the butler had died in the attempt.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 7

The Holmes Body Count

Direct:
Indirect: 1 (Brunton)
Incidental:
Historical: Eh, let's not count His Majesty Charles I, shall we? It was a long time ago. Let ye bygones be, and all that. No need to lose the head. Sorry.
Total: 1
Running total: 110

Famous Firsts


Satisfied Customer(s)?

Very much so. Musgrave not only finds out what has happened to his butler and why the maid has gone doolally, but also is able to claim the honour of being the first of his long line to be able to crack the code and return the crown of King Charles.

Self-referentials "The Gloria Scott", "A Study in Scarlet"

Legal outcome (if any): None

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Reigate Puzzle" (also known as "The Reigate Squire")
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 19th short story, 7th in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 21st Holmes story overall
Location(s): Hotel Dulong, Lyons; Baker Street
Date: April 14 1887
The crime or the mystery: Murder
The time (if given): Unknown


The Players
The client: None really; private investigation
The victim(s): William Kirwan, a coachman working for the Cunninghams
The accused or suspected: None
The arrested: The Cunninghams (eventually)
The investigating officer(s): Inspector Forrester
The advocate(s): None
The real culprit(s): The Cunninghams
Others: Colonel Hayter, friend of Watson; Mr. Acton, a neighbour

The clues: A note found in Kirwan's dead hand; an alleged killer proven not to exist
The red herring(s): As such, the alleged killer
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None.
The breakthrough: When Holmes finds the note
The result: Holmes is almost killed but is rescued and solves the case.


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

Before the case

Watson states that Holmes has worn himself out. For the past two months he has been working an international case that has foiled the police of three countries, and has at times been working five days straight. His health has deteriorated, and Watson receives a call to tell him that his friend is in hospital in Lyons. He visits him, brings him home and finding him still in a black depression, takes up the offer of his friend Colonel Hayter to visit him in the country, bringing Holmes with him. While there, the colonel mentions a spate of burglaries that have taken place in the area, though with very strange results, the thieves getting away with nothing of value. Holmes is immediately intrigued, though Watson admonishes him not to get involved. He's here for a rest, after all.

Synopsis:

The next day, burglary turns to murder, as the coachman at the Cunningham's, Hayter's nearest neighbour, is shot, apparently having come upon the robbers, and killed. Holmes has found out that the previous victim of the thieves, Acton, is deep in a bitter legal battle with the Cunninghams over half the estate, and that most of their fortune has been expended on the lawsuit. It's reported by Inspector Forrester that both the Cunninghams saw the thief make his getaway but neither could do anything to hinder him in his escape, as one, the father, was in bed while the other, his son, tried to help William before he died. The inspector also shows them a scrap of paper, which seems to be part of a larger note, torn off, which was in the dead man's grasp. The only words on it are "at quarter to twelve learn what may" and the writing is a little haphazard, with the spacing different between each word.

Holmes is so struck with the writing that he seems to recover from his lethargy on the spot, and accompanies the inspector to the scene of the crime. Forrester comes back alone an hour and a half later, telling Hayter and Watson that Holmes wishes them to come up, and pointing out that he believes Mr. Holmes has not in fact quite recovered yet. But Watson of course knows the methods his friend uses, and just smiles. Holmes then tells them that the note from which the fragment came must have been delivered by a third party to William, or else posted, as otherwise the message could have been given by mouth, and the inspector tells him that he has confirmed it did come by the afternoon post. Holmes then brings them up to the Cunninghams' house as the two approach.

Suddenly, he seems to be stricken with a fit, and they carry him into the house, Inspector Forrester no doubt thinking his diagnosis, as it were, was correct, and that Holmes is too weak to be out and about. From inside, Holmes scopes out the view - the positioning of the rooms, the windows, the door and so on, and asks the Cunninghams if it is not possible that, rather than having surprised the burglar in the act, William came upon him after the robbery had been effected? Both Cunninghams wave away the idea, and Holmes lets the matter drop. He then asks the elder to offer a reward for information, and shows him a sample he has written out, but the elder Cunningham points out he has written "quarter to one" when it was a quarter to twelve, and corrects it for him. Watson notes that he feels pained, as this is not the sort of mistake his friend would normally make, and it only underlines how he has still not yet recovered from his illness.

Watson also notes that the younger Cunningham, Alec, laughs a little maliciously, which he remarks as perhaps being a little odd; in fact, neither seem too bothered about the murder of their coachman. Holmes then asks to examine the bedrooms, as both Cunninghams get increasingly irritated and impatient with him. Alec sneers again, but as Holmes knocks over a dish of fruit onto the floor and vanishes, the cry of "Help! Murder!" brings Forrester and Watson running into the other room, where Holmes is being attacked by the two Cunninghams. Pulling them off him, Inspector Forrester disarms Alec as he draws a gun, and the two are taken away.

Holmes describes how he realised the note had been written by two men from the same family, though to be honest I think Doyle is reaching here, but more on that in the comments. He then also reveals that when he examined the bullet wound on William Kirwan he could see that the man had not been shot point-blank, so that the story the two Cunninghams gave about having seen him struggle with another man for the gun was false, and further, they both said they saw the alleged thief/gunman run through the hedge at the bottom of the garden, but Holmes was unable to ascertain any footprints or signs of passage there, despite it being moist due to there being a ditch there. This convinced him that not only were the two men lying about where the assailant had run to, but that there was in fact no assailant. This put them squarely in his sights as culprits.

He has also divined the reason for the burglary at Acton's. Knowing of the dispute between the two families, he reasons that the break-in was an attempt to get an important document that would have had a serious bearing on the case, but this, Acton tells him, is safely with his solicitor (which they really should have considered would be the case) so when they could not find it, the two Cunninghams then tried to make their forced entry look like a common burglary, by taking whatever they could find at the time.

Next was the note. Holmes says it was very important to find it and see what the full message was. He says he believes that if Alec Cunningham snatched it from the dead hand of Kirwan, he would have had no other place to stash it, being dressed for bed, than in the pocket of his dressing-gown. As the Cunninghams joined them at the house though, and the inspector was about to speak and tell them of the importance of the note, Holmes had faked a fit, diverting attention and changing the conversation. He then managed through seeming to make a mistake to get old Cunningham to write the word "twelve", so that he could compare it to the writing on the note, another seeming error that Watson now sees was deliberate, and part of his plan.

Once "recovered", he had gone on the search for the note, and seeing the dressing-gown hanging on the door had needed a diversion in order to go back and search the pockets. Thus he had overturned the table, giving  him enough time to slip away. As he retrieved it he was attacked by father and son, who realised the game was up unless they shut him up for good. The note was there, indeed, and it reads "If you will only come round at quarter to twelve
to the east gate you will learn what
will very much surprise you and maybe [sic]
be of the greatest service to you and also
to Annie Morrison. But say nothing to anyone
upon the matter."


It turns out that William Kirwan had followed them when they broke into Acton's and was trying to blackmail them when Alec killed him after luring him to the house with the note.

After the case

Holmes gives the explanation above and remarks that his stay in the country has indeed been just what the doctor ordered.

How the case is solved:

Read above; I'm not writing it out again.

Comments:

It's a good story, but I think a little overcomplicated. Despite Holmes' assertion that the note had to be written by two people so that both could share in the blame, I don't see it. Why? Who but a professional handwriting expert is going to be able to tell which of them wrote the note, and as they only have a scrap of it are the police going to be bothered? Once they have their men it won't matter who wrote what. I think this is a case of Doyle doing what he sometimes does, adding in an extra conundrum just so that his hero can show how smart he is. The list of things stolen, too, seem singular (as they said back then) enough to mean something, but they don't, so it's a pity he doesn't just say they took sundry items. Describing each makes it seem like they're going to have some significance.

I also think that arresting the two on the basis of their expressions is a bit weak, though in fairness Alec does go for a gun, so there is that. Still, it would have been better handled another way I feel. Considering both men are presented as fairly intelligent, if villainous, it also seems, as I say above, unlikely that they would expect to find a valuable legal document hanging around in the house. As this is a lawsuit, is it not to be expected that such a document would be in the keeping of Acton's lawyer? And yet, their attempts to get it lead not only to a charge of murder but to surely the end of their claim and the loss of their case, as they are both now going to prison. A bad and ill-thought-out gamble which undoes them.

Doyle is clever, showing us Holmes making what we believe are mistakes, and setting this up by having Watson worry about his health and indeed, having Holmes in hospital at the opening of the story, but he's used this kind of ruse before, and I think we know that Holmes is up to something. I certainly did, the first time I read this. It's perhaps surprising, even unbelievable that Watson falls for it, though again I suppose he is worried about his friend. I guess it's good, too, to see that all the reasoning and problem-solving in the world can't save the great detective when it comes to brutal, brute violence perpetrated against his person, and he has to call for help. Like they say, you can be a judo master or expert boxer, but an iron bar over the head will still knock you down. Had he been there alone, Holmes was dead.

This story, of course, mirrors

Spoiler

"The Devil's Foot",

[close]

with Watson again inveigling Holmes into taking a break in the country, trying to keep him from getting involved in any cases, and failing. Seems mystery, crime and death follow Sherlock Holmes around like a trio of dark puppies.

I would say, however, that Doyle's dismissal of the role played in the story by this Annie Morrison speaks to me of lazy writing. If he couldn't see a way to integrate her into the tale, why mention her? He could have written "our mutual friend" or "the woman in question", or something entirely different. Instead, he leaves us scratching our heads, asking, somewhat like the poor maligned Smokie re-release, who the fuck is Annie? It's like he says to us, look, you work it out. I'm a busy man. But I'm something of a writer too, and rather like certain crime bosses, I don't like loose ends.

And to that effect I'm beginning a new section, which you'll not be surprised to hear will be called

Loose Ends: A Tale Not Fully Told

What I'll do here is list any elements of the story that, to me, don't really seem to have been finished off in the narration. Like the previous story, the fate of the maid left unfinished, or in "The Gloria Scott", where there was no evidence to back up Hudson's threat. I find Doyle did this a lot, and in fairness, the great writer he was should have had a bit more professional pride, I feel, so I'm going to be taking him to task here.

1. Annie Morrison: already detailed above, but it's a glaring loose end, vaguely brushed off by Holmes at the end as he says - and he's right - they have no idea who she is. But isn't it even possible she might have been involved in the crime on some level? Should they not try to at least find out who she is? It's not a bustling city or anything, should be a snap to someone of Holmes' talents to track her down.

Character Study

Alec Cunningham: A young man, arrogant, sneering but able to put on a pleasant air when he needs to show that face. A violent and desperate man, it's he who goes for the gun and thus confirms his guilt, and he, we are told, who continues to rave and threaten while in custody. He is the one who kills William Kirwan; I suppose we can assume his father is merely an accessory, covering for him, though he can also be accused of burglary. Can he be accused of attempted murder? Hard to say: he was only trying to twist the note out of Holmes' hand, while his son was endeavouring to throttle him. I feel that Alec will do little to help exonerate his father, though.

Better than you

Even recovering from a bad illness, Holmes proves himself here more than a match for two scheming, murderous minds, and almost loses his life in the process. He is the only one who recognises that the writing has been done by two men, and can pretty accurately describe both. He is the one who disbelieves the story about the alleged attacker said to have killed Kirwan. He's even able to divert attention at the crucial moment by playing on his recent illness and pretending to faint. Both Inspector Forrester and Colonel Hayter are suitably impressed by his powers.

Also, to be fair, Forester seems to be the first of the official police with whom Holmes has been involved who actually impresses the great detective. Rather than have to explain everything to the inspector, or roll his eyes painfully at how far the man is off the target, he seems to approve of Forester's work, and congratulates him. They work, for once, together, and each seem to be of the one mind, mostly. A rare occasion indeed.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

A break-in results in murder, and Holmes, recovering in Sussex from a bad illness, investigates. He finds out that the murder has been committed by two of the neighbours, who were locked in a lawsuit with another one, and were trying to cover their tracks and prevent being blackmailed. Holmes is almost killed during the case but Watson and the inspector come to his rescue.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 2
Running total: 9

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 1
Indirect:
Incidental:
Historical:
Total: 1
Running total: 111

Famous Firsts

The first, but by no means last or only time Holmes' life comes under direct threat.

Satisfied Customer(s)?

As such, yes, though there was really no client. But the case is solved and the perpetrators brought to justice, so generally, yes.

Self-referentials None

Legal outcome (if any): Two Cunninghams arrested, killer of William Kirwan brought to justice.

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Crooked Man"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 20th short story; 8th in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 22nd  Holmes story overall
Location(s): Watson's house; Hudson Street, Aldershot; Lachine, Aldershot
Date: Unknown "Last Monday" says Holmes, but there is no frame of reference for the date so it's less than useless)
The crime or the mystery: The murder of Colonel Barclay
The time (if given): 8:00 pm - 9:00 pm


The Players
The client: Major Murphy
The victim(s): Colonel James Barclay
The accused or suspected: Nancy Barclay, his wife
The arrested:  Nancy Barclay
The investigating officer(s): None
The advocate(s): Technically, Henry Wood I guess, or maybe Miss Morrison
The real culprit(s): Nobody; technically Henry Wood but it was actually an accident
Others: Miss Morrison, a friend of Mrs. Barclay; Henry Wood, an ex-officer in the regiment

The clues: A chance meeting between Mrs. Barclay and the beggar Henry Wood; her sudden change of demeanour towards her husband immediately after; the missing key
The red herring(s): The mongoose, kind of; the club believed to have been the murder weapon
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: When Holmes talks to Miss Morrison and hears the story of Henry Wood
The result: None; ruled as natural causes


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

That Watson has been smoking Arcadia tobacco, as he recognised the ash on his jacket (and as we know, Holmes has devoted quite a bit of time to the study of the various types of cigar and cigarette ash); that he has had the workmen in, due to two nail marks made on the floor by the workers' boots; that he has no gentleman visitor at present, as the hatstand is empty except for his own. That he is busy enough at the moment that he has to take a hansom, as his unscuffed boots denote.

Before the case

Technically speaking, the case is already in train when Holmes arrives at Watson's house, but before the two join forces he knocks on his door late one evening and asks to stay over, whereafter he requests Watson come with him to Aldershot, to investigate the murder of Colonel James Barclay of the Royal Munsters, a battalion which distinguished itself in India. He explains that the Colonel was found dead in a locked room, with only his wife present, and no cause of death ascertained. Raised voices had been heard, Holmes tells Watson, from within the room, with the colonel being accused of being a coward by his wife.

Then there was a crash and the door being unable to be forced, entry was effected through the French windows, whereupon it was discovered that the colonel was dead, lying in a pool of his own blood with a gash in his head, believed to have been made by a strange club lying close by. None of the servants professed to recognise it, but Holmes remarks that the colonel had a large collection of weapons brought back from the countries where he had served. Most curious of all, the key was nowhere to be found. Mrs. Barclay had fainted, and was even now in a state of brain fever, so no sense could be got out of her. Holmes also remarks that he found footprints outside in the garden, one set human, the other belonging to an unidentified animal. All he knows about the beast is its general size, that it can run up curtains (as it did) and is carnivorous, as it was trying to get at a canary in a cage.

He also notes that it was observed at the time that the colonel's face had set in an expression of absolute horror and dread, and that he personally believes it is possible that Barclay fell in fright and hit his head off the fireplace. There was also a name noted during the altercation - David - which puzzles Holmes. He then says he went to question Miss Morrison, a neighbour with whom the colonel's wife had gone to attend a charity she supports, and though she was reluctant to reveal the secret that had been entrusted to her, when she realised her friend might have a date with the gallows if she did not speak up, she explained to Holmes what had occurred, as he now passes on to Watson.

On the way back from the charity mission, Mrs. Barclay had been approached by a wretched old cripple, with a bent and twisted form, and a box on his back. He had called her by name, and she had asked Miss Morrison to allow them speak alone. After a few moments of speech, she had come back, white with fury, and he had stood shaking his fist after her. She had told Miss Morrison that he was an old friend down on his luck, and begged her not to say anything about the meeting to her husband, or anyone, and her friend had agreed. Holmes had then sought out the man, whose name was Henry Wood, found where he was staying, and, talking to his landlady, learned he was a performer of tricks and that he carried on his back some creature the landlady did not recognise but was afraid of. He also seems to have spent time in India, and she said she had heard him crying in his room the last two days,

Whoever this Henry Wood is, and whatever beast or pet he brought with him, the detective feels certain both have a very strong bearing on the case, which is why he intends to return - with Watson this time - to Aldershot in the morning, to question him with Watson as a witness.

Synopsis:

When they go to meet Wood, they are told a story of love and betrayal and murder. Wood tells them that he loved Nancy, now Mrs. Barclay (well, now the widow Barclay I guess) and so did the colonel, then a sergeant, when they were serving in India. But Nancy had chosen Wood, and when the Indian Mutiny broke out, Wood volunteered to go for reinforcements. Barclay was supposed to help him avoid the rebels but instead betrayed him into their hands, anxious to claim Nancy as his own. For years Wood was kept a prisoner, he tells Holmes and Watson, till eventually he escaped and made his way back to England where he accidentally encountered Nancy. When she realised who he was, that he was alive and more, when she heard how her husband had betrayed him, she was furious and went home to have it out with him.

Wood followed, and when Barclay saw him through the door he knew the game was up and suffered a heart attack, hitting his head on the fender as he fell. He was dead before he reached the ground. Wood's animal - a mongoose - then got loose and he had to retrieve him. But he does say that, had Barclay not taken the coronary he did, Wood is more than likely to have killed him himself. Still, intent to murder is not a crime, and when it becomes clear that Barclay died from natural causes his wife is released. The only remaining question to be answered is why Nancy Barclay used the name David, and apparently it's a Biblical reference for a traitor or a betrayer.

After the case

Nothing much. Watson asks about the usage of David and Holmes directs him to the Bible.

How the case is solved:

Holmes marks the tracks of a man and a beast, realises there had to be a third person in the room since the key is missing, and, on questioning Miss Morrison, finds out about Wood and realises he has had something to do with it. Although technically he does not solve the case, but unusually has it laid out before him, this is how he confirms his theory.

Comments:

It's a pretty decent "sealed-room"-type case, with more references to India, and a woman at the centre of it. Oddly, though Mrs. Barclay is mentioned as having been arrested, there is no input whatsoever from Scotland Yard or even a local police officer; Holmes has no conversations or even involvement with the police and in fact the case quickly falls apart as the coroner brings in the verdict of death by heart attack. As he has not been consulting with the police, Holmes has not mentioned the footprints to anyone, so there is no official record of Wood's being involved, or even his existence. It's also an unusual story because, as you can see above, the majority of it takes place before Holmes and Watson go to the scene of the crime - well, Wood's lodgings - with everything explained the night before by Holmes to his friend.

I have, however, a problem with the usage of "David". It's a poor device by which to register treachery. I don't know the story, but looking it up I see that it has to do with a soldier called Uriah whose wife King David had raped and made pregnant, and whom he had killed by ordering his men to abandon Uriah in the middle of a battle. Yeah, well maybe, but if anyone wants to talk about betrayal the usual name used is (anyone?) Judas. I know saying Judas would have given it away, but I think the David comparison is a poor one and works very badly, the more so that it's not adequately explained, and would not be known, surely, by anyone who doesn't read or isn't familiar with the Holy Book. That's not the only thing I have a problem with though.

I see no need for the mongoose, or rather, I could have seen a better use for it. If the creature - which is confirmed as being a carnivore - had gone for the colonel and killed him, or even scared him so that he fell backwards and hit his head, then maybe there'd be justification for its presence, and you could even have compared this to Poe's "Murders in the Rue Morgue". As it is, it's a pointless extra that really adds nothing to the story and serves in ways to distract from it. Why not just have Wood a cripple, begging for his bread? What was the point of having the mongoose if it was not to figure in the crime?

And again, Arthur the misogynist comes through again, as, while he does not say so directly, it's clear he's laying the blame, both for Wood's destitution and capture and the colonel's death at the feet of Nancy. After all, they both wanted her, and he made sure he got her. Reading between the lines we can see that the message is, had she not been there, then both men would still be alive and Wood would not be in the state he is. So, as with many of Doyle's stories, though she's not blamed in as many words, the root of all evil - and certainly murder - lies in woman. Sigh.

Character Study

Colonel James Barclay: We can only get his character really from his past as related by Henry Wood, but it seems he was a jealous and vindictive man, who desired a woman he could not have, and decided to remove his rival by the most fatal means at his disposal. There is some redemption possible for him though, as Doyle does say that on occasions Barclay would lapse into terrible depression. He also notes that he is afraid of being left alone in the dark; I don't know what this is supposed to refer to, unless he feared somehow that the ghost (as he would have imagined him to be long dead) of Wood was going to come for him. He seemed to know that his wife did not really love him, but they had reached a compromise until the truth became clear.

Henry Wood: The man who had won Nancy Barclay's heart, he was betrayed by the colonel and captured by the rebels. Sounds painful! Anyway, due to all the torture he underwent at their hands he is now a twisted and warped cripple of a man, scraping a living by doing tricks with the aid of his mongoose. He is of course a bitter man, and when he sees Nancy and then follows her home and sees his rival, his betrayer, he is mad with rage, but satisfied to see the man die of a heart attack. Should the verdict read other than natural causes though, he tells Holmes, he will be ready to come forward to save Nancy from the rope.

Better than you N/A; the only reason Nancy is released is when the coroner brings in a verdict of death by natural causes. Holmes' long, rambling, incisive deductions have absolutely no bearing on the case, nor does he consult with the police, nor they with him.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

Colonel Barclay appears to have been murdered, but it turns out that he suffered a heart attack when he saw the man he had betrayed in India, in order to get the woman who was this man's but is now his wife, looking in the door. The wife is arrested as she was the only other one known to be in the room at the time, and was arguing with her husband, but when the coroner report confirms a heart attack, all charges are dropped.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 9

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 0
Indirect: 1
Incidental: 0
Historical: 0
Total: 1
Running total: 112

Famous Firsts None

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Can you say Major Murphy is? Maybe not: the case basically falls apart when it becomes clear that Barclay died of a heart attack, so Holmes' services are no longer required. Therefore in Murphy's eyes, probably not satisfied, nor indeed unsatisfied. Merely no longer a customer I guess.

Self-referentials None

Legal outcome (if any): None; Nancy is released when the murder verdict is revised.

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Resident Patient"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 21st short story, 9th story in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, 23rd Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; Fleet Street; The Strand; Brook Street; Oxford Street; Harley Street
Date: October
The crime or the mystery: The invasion of Mr. Blessington's room, culminating in his murder
The time (if given): Evening


The Players
The client: Dr. Percy Trevylan
The victim(s): Mr. Blessington (actually called Sutton, one of the gang below)
The accused or suspected: See under "The real culprits"
The arrested: The page
The investigating officer(s): Inspector Lanner
The advocate(s): None
The real culprit(s): Biddle, Hayward and Moffat, the Worthingdon Bank Gang
Others: An unnamed page, recently employed

The clues: A screwdriver and screws in the dead man's room, two different types of cigars, scratches on the door lock, footprints on the stairs and a barred door, evidently closed after the procedure had been enacted.
The red herring(s): The burglary spoken of by "Blessington"; his cash box
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: None really. It's not explained how Holmes links the two men - three, as per the footprints on the stairs - to the bank robber gang.
The result: All three escape but are presumed lost at sea when their ship founders.


Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:
He is able to infer from the mere movements of Watson's eyes that he is thinking about the absurdity of the American Civil War (it's too involved to write about here; check out the story for yourself). That their visitor when they return from their walk is a doctor, and a busy one. That he has not been waiting long.

Before the case

After vegetating in the flat on a close, rainy day, during which time Holmes makes his deductions about Watson's thoughts, as alluded to above, the two go for a walk. When they return there is a client awaiting them.

Synopsis:

The client is a doctor, Percy Trevelyan, who tells them that though he is something in the field of the study of catalepsy, he had not the capital to set up his own business, but was approached by a rich gentleman one day who agreed to back him, providing him premises in return for seventy-five percent of his earnings. The man's name was Blessington, he says, and he had a weak heart and so required constant medical supervision. He did not go out much, but after hearing of a break-in nearby he flew into a panic and ordered new locks for the doors and windows, refusing to go out. Eventually, Trevelyan tells them, this Blessington character seemed to calm down and returned to his customary habit of taking a walk before dinner, until a few das ago, when the doctor received a patient who said he was a Russian nobleman, and who was brought to him by his son, suffering from the very catalepsy in which Dr. Trevelyan is so versed.

The son waited in the waiting room, unwilling, he said, to see his father in one of his fits, and true to his prediction the old man fell into one. When Trevelyan left the room for a few minutes to fetch some medicine, he was amazed on his return to find the old man gone. Gone, too, was the son, neither without a word. This very evening, Trevelyan tells Holmes and Watson, the two reappeared with an excuse that the old man had come out of his trance, been clouded of mind and had left, the son going after him. That, he says, seemed reasonable enough. However when the patient and his son had gone, and Blessington had returned from his walk, his benefactor had gone mad, saying that someone had been in his room, and showing Trevelyan footprints there that were certainly not his. The doctor had then come out directly to see Holmes.

When the two arrive at Brook Street, Blessington meets them armed, believing them the people who were in his room, or worse. Trevelyan finds it hard to reconcile such a small incident with the fury the man pours out; after all, nothing was taken. But Blessington calms down and allows Holmes to see his room. He points out a strongbox where he has put his three-quarters of Dr. Trevelyan's earnings, but Holmes knows he is hiding something and when he will not be straight with him he abandons him and heads home.

In the morning there is a note from Trevelyan, and on arriving at Brook Street again the two discover that Blessington is dead, hanged by his own hand. Holmes, however, is dubious that this is a suicide. He has already noted to Watson on the way home the previous night that he feels sure Blessington knew the two men, the supposed catalepsy patient and his son, and that he was in mortal dread of them. It seems that what he feared was not groundless, and has found him out. Examining the cigar butts in the fireplace and the one in Blessington's cigar case, Holmes deduces that there are two distinct types, so therefore he believes there were two other men in the room earlier this morning, and that Blessington did not hang himself but was murdered.

It turns out Blessington, whose real name was Sutton, was part of a gang that pulled a bank robbery years ago, and who turned informer. One of their number was hanged, as a man had been killed in the robbery, the others got jail but are now out and furious with the turncoat. They effected entry into Dr. Trevelyan's office through the help of the page, who was either in on it from the start or bought off and got to Blessington/Sutton's room, held a trial and then hanged him. The three men evade justice, as such, boarding a steamer bound for Portugal, but rather like the criminals in "The Five Orange Pips", their ship goes down and they are presumed lost at sea. The page is set free as the trial breaks down for want of evidence.



After the case

Nothing really. The theory is advanced that the three robbers died at sea, but there is no confirmation of this, and the page goes free as the trial collapses. Who now pays Dr. Trevelyan's rent is anyone's guess, though I suppose it's possible he takes back the earnings "Blessington" had claimed as his share.

How the case is solved:

Although it looks like a suicide, Holmes has very much his doubts. For one thing, why hang yourself in such an awkward way? A man that large is going to suffer if he doesn't do it right and break his neck immediately, which is, pretty much, impossible with the distances involved. I mean, we're not talking about a hangman's drop here exactly, are we? The presence of the screws and screwdriver suggest to him that they had been brought to fix up the block and tackle which was to have been used for the hanging, but then the executioners realised there was a ready-made gallows there for them to use. The different types of cigars speaks of separate people, as do the footprints on the stairs. The fact that the door was bolted already is a hurdle he gets over by realising - as perhaps he had already suspected, though it's not said - that the recently-employed page was in on it.

Comments:

I have a lot of problems with this story. It is, to me, full of holes and unlikely coincidences. Several questions arise. How did the other members of the gang find out what name Sutton was living under? How did they trace him? Did they really go into such deep research as to find out what Dr. Trevelyan's special field was, and tailor their plan to get into his house using that? Seems very elaborate. Also, if they had already been in "Blessington"'s room (or one of them had) would they not have noted the hook to be used, and not bothered lugging their block and tackle with them, when they knew it was not going to be needed? How did they get into the house (well, the page let them in but still) and hang a man while the doctor was present? How did he not hear anything? Did he not hear them coming in, up the stairs, down the stairs and out again? Surely he would have heard the agonised sound of a man dying by hanging? We hear in "The Stock-broker's Clerk" that what alerts Holmes and Pycroft to the hanging of "Arthur Pinner" is the sound of his heels drumming against the door in his death throes. And he was not a large man, whereas Sutton was. How could the doctor not have heard? Maybe he had gone out, but that's not made at all clear.

It's far too elaborate a scheme for simple bank robbers. Why not just wait for Sutton to return from his walk (which we're told was a regular habit of his) and take him as he arrived, or shoot him, or stab him and leg it? Why this judicial thing? Do robbers really care about such things? All they wanted was him dead, and possibly to know who was responsible for his death. It's not like they're some kind of secret society or anything.

And why did Trevelyan go to seek Sherlock Holmes in the first place? There was, to his mind, no crime committed. All that happened was that "Blessington" was losing it. I could understand, maybe, his coming to see Watson, although he's not a psychiatrist. But Holmes? Why? What did he expect the detective to do? And in the end, he does nothing and the man dies. Deservedly so, yes, but he still does nothing until after Sutton's death, whereupon he swings into action. It would have almost made more sense for Lanner to have called him in after the apparent suicide, although the inspector had no reason to suspect foul play. I just don't see what the justification for going to Holmes was.

Each time I read this story I keep thinking the thieves were after Sutton to find out where he hid the ill-gotten gains, but they're never mentioned. We can assume, as he is rich enough to set Trevelyan up in practice, that Sutton has at least his share, but surely not all of the seven grand? And if that is the case, why aren't the remaining three looking for their cut? Maybe the "trial" was them attempting to weasel the location of the money out of him, but this is not said. Although betrayed men will look primarily to avenge themselves on the one who shopped them, betrayed thieves are usually more interested, or at least as interested in getting their hands on the money for which they ended up doing time, but nobody speaks of it.

Character Study

Blessington/Sutton: A man of means, he has obviously either held on to his share of the loot from the robbery or, possibly but unlikely, been paid for his betrayal of his companions to the police. He's nervous, as he must expect at some point to have to pay for his betrayal of his comrades, but gets positively paranoid when he reads of their release. He seems to think that setting the doctor up in his practice will help hide him but I don't know why. He's at heart a coward, selling out his friends for presumably a shorter sentence, and then having to live in fear of paying for that act.

Better than you

Holmes certainly shows Inspector Lanner up when, not only does he dismiss the idea of a suicide and point out all the clues that show this to be a murder, and a well-planned one, but also links the case to a bank robbery from 15 years ago.

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

Holmes is approached by a young doctor who wishes him to talk to his benefactor, who is very agitated. The man will not level with Holmes so he leaves him to it, and the next day it seems this man has committed suicide by hanging himself, but Holmes quickly works out that he has been murdered, and by fellow thieves with whom he pulled a bank robbery, and whom he betrayed to the police.

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 9

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 1
Indirect: 3
Incidental:
Historical: 1
Total: 5
Running total: 117

Famous Firsts

I believe this is the first and only time Holmes works with Inspector Lanner.

Satisfied Customer(s)?

Again, you'd have to say no. If Trevelyan is taken to be the client, then Holmes really does nothing except work out who has killed his benefactor, and why.

Self-referentials A Study in Scarlet, "The Gloria Scott"

Legal outcome (if any): None; case collapses

[Trollheart]

Title: "The Greek Interpreter"
Year first published: 1893
Type: Short story
Chronology: 22nd Holmes short story; 10th story in The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes; 24th Holmes story overall
Location(s): Baker Street; Regent's Circus; The Diogenes Club, Pall Mall; Charing Cross; Shaftesbury Avenue; Oxford Street; Wandsworth Common; Clapham Junction
Date: Unknown, but it is mentioned to be a summer evening; later it is identified as Wednesday, and the crime, such as it is, occurred the previous Monday.
The crime or the mystery: A man appears to be hostage to a gang, who are trying to get him to sign some paper, which he refuses to do.
The time (if given): 6:00 pm (when Holmes hears of it)


The Players
The client: Mr. Melas, a Greek interpreter and neighbour of Mycroft Holmes
The victim(s): Paul Kratides, a Greek
The accused or suspected: Harold Latimer, one of the hostage takers; Wilson Kemp, the other one
The arrested: None
The investigating officer(s): Inspector Gregson
The advocate(s): Mycroft Holmes (well, he introduces Melas to his brother)
The real culprit(s): Latimer and Kemp (and technically Sophy Kratides too)
Others: Sophy Kraitdes, Paul's sister and fiancee to Latimer

The clues: n/a
The red herring(s): n/a
Disguise(s) affected by Holmes: None
The breakthrough: A kind of breakthrough I guess when the man who answers the newspaper advertisement gives them the address of Sophy Kratides
The result: Although it's not really a mystery, more a crime, Holmes and Watson arrive too late to stop it being carried out

Deductions made by Holmes which have nothing to do with the case:

He and Mycroft both spar with each other as, from the window of the Diogenes Club's Stranger's Room, they make observations about a man outside, each trying to outdo the other ("he has a child" - Sherlock - "Children, my dear boy!" - Mycroft)

Before the case

During the course of a conversation about many subject, Holmes casually reveals to Watson that he has a brother. This is certainly news to the doctor, who seems to have been under the impression Sherlock Holmes was constructed in some laboratory or factory somewhere. They go to visit Mycroft Holmes, in the obscure but exclusive Diogenes Club, where the two trade intellects, and where Holmes learns of the details of the case from one of the other members.

Synopsis:

On a visit to see his brother Mycroft, Holmes and Watson are told of a most curious case, related to them by Mycroft's neighbour, a Greek translator. He says that two days ago he was taken to a house whose location he does not know, and which he was prevented from knowing, and instructed to interpret questions and answers put to a thin, skeletal Greek by two men - the man who brought him there, who gave his name as Latimer, and another, older man with a nervous giggle - as he was repeatedly warned to sign some paper. The man, whom the interpreter, Mr. Melas, managed to discover was named Paul Kratides, refused to sign. The paper seemed to be something to do with his sister, and it looked to Melas as if he was doing all he could to protect her. When he saw his sister though, Melas tells them, he leaped forward and so did she, but the two were separated and Melas was ejected from the house.

Holmes of course takes up the case, but when they receive an answer to an advertisement Mycroft put in the papers for information on the lady, and learn she was living in Beckenham, they consider picking up Mr. Melas, as they will need an interpreter. Unfortunately they are too late, and the giggling hostage-taker has already captured Melas, angry that he has let out their secret and obviously determined to get rid of this inconvenient witness who can't keep his mouth shut. The two Holmeses, Watson and Inspector Gregson arrive too late to save Paul, who has been starved to death and finally succumbs to the poisoned air of the room in which he and Melas have been imprisoned; Melas survives, though just barely. The criminals are gone.

However in a postscript it is revealed that, as Holmes had imagined (and so had Watson really) the criminals were trying to get Paul to sign away his property and that of his sister, and with her brother's death the master detective is sceptical of a later newspaper report which tells of the death of both men and puts it down to the two quarrelling. He feels Sophy took revenge for Paul's death, though what happened to her afterwards is a real mystery.

After the case

Holmes reads the above newspaper report, and nods sagely.

How the case is solved:

It kind of isn't. It's not really a mystery - anyone could suss it out. But it's a crime  Holmes fails to stop really, as Paul dies and Sophy is taken away by Latimer and Wilson.

Comments:

One of the darker stories, and one of the few in which Holmes is not only unable to prevent the crime, but has no real mystery to solve. It's pretty clear from the start what's going on, and it's more a case of Holmes and Watson (and Mycroft) racing to try to save Paul Kratides - something they fail to do, though the chances are he was dying anyway - than trying to solve a mystery. The epilogue seems a little tacked-on, just there to show us readers that even when circumstances are outside of his control, the guilty are always punished in any endeavour in which Holmes is involved. Reminds me a little of the end of "The Five Orange Pips": it's a reassurance that justice triumphs, the bad guys get what's coming to them, even if Holmes has nothing to do with it. Slightly less realistic this way, but I guess that's what the readers wanted.

It's interesting in that the only two female characters in the story - Sophy of course and Mr. Melas's landlady - have one line each (well, the latter has two, but they're part of the same scene and really follow on from each other, so essentially they're the same line), and that Sophy's role in the story is a little unclear. Is she in league with the two men, even if only peripherally? Or is she as much as prisoner as her brother? And if the latter, why then does she not threaten not to marry Latimer and so prevent him getting his hands on her, um, property, if he doesn't let her brother go? Or are they already married? Has she no choice? She's a somewhat enigmatic figure, and as I say above, Doyle's attempt to retrospectively paint her in as an avenging angel is perhaps a little clumsy, an effort at redeeming her maybe.

I do however have serious issues with Melas being let go and told not to rat out the criminals. After all, the guy had seen both Latimer and Wilson's faces; the fact that Paul Kratides had his face disguised with plasters is irrelevant. That was to prevent his sister from recognising him, and anyway Melas would not have known who he was. But he could give a very accurate description of the two kidnappers to the police. Had they taken him seriously and looked up their records or checked, as Holmes said he was going to, with the Athens police, they might have realised they were dealing with at least one desperate man - Doyle describes him as "a man of the foulest antecedents" - and been in time to save Paul. But at any rate, letting Melas take a description of them back, expecting him to be cowed into silence by their threat, does not sound like the sort of thing desperate criminals do. It's always the same: he or she has seen my face, now they have to die.

Had they killed Melas of course, there would have been no story, but I think Doyle could have worked it better - had Melas imprisoned and somehow manage to escape or something. I just feel that letting him go left the kidnappers with a huge problem, one they should have realised they had, and one they could very easily have dealt with.

The idea of the Diogenes Club, where no member is allowed talk to, nor even acknowledge the presence of another, and can in fact be expelled for doing so, is I think a sharp dig at those gentlemen's clubs (no, not them! Different kind of club) where women are not allowed, and men literally seem to go to read newspapers, smoke pipes and ignore each other. Pointless, pathetic and a remnant of a previous century, even in Doyle's time.

Yet another story where someone imprisons or otherwise uses someone in order to take control of their finances. We've had the daughter in "The Copper Beeches", imprisoned in an attic in fine Gothic style by her stepfather, the villainous (again) stepfather in "A Case of Identity" pretending to be Hosmer Angel and then disappearing in order to control his stepdaughter's inheritance, the brutish doctor in "The Speckled Band" going one further and actually murdering one of his stepdaughters and ready to do in the other one in order to get his hands on their cash, and now these two lads, changing the method slightly by putting pressure on the brother of the girl they want to cheat. Even so, it's a familiar thread running through Doyle's stories here, and you'd have to wonder if this sort of thing went on a lot in Victorian England?

Character Study

Mr. Melas: A mild-mannered, inoffensive man who is easily threatened, he does however display considerable courage when, having been warned by Wilson and Latimer not to breathe a word of what he has seen, goes straight to the police, then to Mycroft, who passes the case to his brother. As a result of this, he is kidnapped and very nearly loses his life. Would he have been so solicitous had Paul not been Greek? I feel he would; he is a good man at heart. He had little, indeed nothing to gain by relating the story, but he wanted to help the man, even though he knew it would be dangerous for him to do so.

Paul Kratides: A loyal and caring brother who actually gives his own life to save his sister's fortune. He has no English, and so easily comes under the power of Latimer and Wilson, but he still refuses to sign over the property to these two scoundrels.

Mycroft Holmes: This is the first time we meet him (though it won't be the last) and was probably Doyle's way of "humanising" what could be seen as a very machinelike character. Holmes, our Holmes, doesn't have a single romantic liaison, he doesn't have any friends other than Watson, has no children or wife, and so it's easy to think of him as outside of the human experience, an alien among us. The introduction of his brother shows us, I think, that at least he is human, that he had a mother and a father, and while there's hardly brotherly love between the two - more a sense of sibling rivalry, if good-natured - he does now feel more like one of us.

Mycroft is shown to be even of a sharper intellect than his younger brother - something we would not have believed prior - but lazy and indolent. He is not the sort of man who chases down leads, investigates and certainly would not be expected to climb in windows or scale ladders as our friend does. Still, he gets a little more involved in this case than apparently he normally would, perhaps surprising even himself. He does of course leave all the legwork to his younger brother.

Better than you N/A

The story in 100 words or less.
(The Tealdeer version)

After listening to a story from a Greek interpreter about a man being held hostage, Holmes and his brother, Watson and Inspector Gregson rush to the house only to find the interpreter, having been kidnapped by the gang, almost dead of asphyxiation, while the man who had been held hostage has passed away. The man was a Greek, trying to save his sister from surrendering all her property to her new fiance, but when Holmes and Co arrive at the house the criminals have legged it. Later  they are both killed, and Holmes suspects the sister took revenge..

Holmes' Hit List

Total: 0
Running total: 9

The Holmes Body Count

Direct: 1
Indirect: 0
Incidental 0:
Historical: 0
Total: 1
Running total: 118

Famous Firsts First mention of Mycroft Holmes, older brother to the master detective

Satisfied Customer(s)? Not at all; Paul dies and the bad guys get away, though they do get their comeuppance later. This has nothing to do with Holmes however.

Self-referentials None

Legal outcome (if any): None; murder is committed and the criminals get away. Again, if you're a fan of the Big Guy, apparently vengeance is His.