Friday, October 12, 2018

From The Archives...

Hello all. Got another of those articles from my chronological column archive. In all of the years that I wrote these I was able to come up with some pretty good arguments (I think) and this is one of those times. And I'm happy to say that in the 8 years since I wrote this no one has ever come up with the same answer.


It was January of 2010 when I wrote this. Inside this edition of my home society's newsletter is a picture of me with a moderately full head of hair, and just a mustache. Eek! (No, I'm not going to show it to you. Sorry.) What's bizarre is that I actually remember the meeting that we'd had about the story 'The Man with the Twisted Lip' (TWIS), and that I had already formulated my idea about the date prior to that. Having a date is great, but you have to be able to prove or defend it. So, after the meeting I got to work on it, and I think I did a fairly decent job of showing how I came up with one. Granted, it's no Pulitzer Prize winner, but it works for me.


The Chronological Canon
The Case with the Twisted Date
by Vince Wright

Many moons ago I dated 'The Musgrave Ritual' differently than anyone else ever had. I was afraid I would be ostracized by the Chronology Community, or worse beaten up by other chronologists at our big Chronology Conventions for being different. When I took up the challenge of 'The Man with the Twisted Lip' I once again found myself staring at an answer like before. It was simple and seemed obvious, yet everyone else had missed it. However, as I stated a few articles ago, much of what we do relies heavily on interpretation, so let's interpret.
The biggest pickle with the story is the way Watson says it was Friday, June 19, 1889. The problem is that that date was a Wednesday. Baring-Gould blames the typesetter for this and a number of other "errors." (He also blames handwriting, drugs, and not knowing exactly what time of the night it was.) He comes up with 1887, but Holmes mentions this year in conversation, a fact Baring-Gould just barely acknowledges by saying if St. Clair's children were conceived after the marriage in 1887, as per the proper Victorian custom, then 1889 is possible.
There are some things mentioned that do help my case. We read that it was "an exceedingly hot day," so we are likely talking about the middle of the year. And when Holmes and Watson head back to the police station after four in the morning, the sun was shining. Early morning sunshine in the UK? Still talking about the middle of the year.
There are also neutral items. First, the telephone at the station. By the late 1880's there were thousands of them all over England. And the appearance of Inspector Bradstreet is of little consequence, just like the other two stories he appears in. And due to the lack of info about the whens and wives of Watson's life we have to ignore it for now.
The only section of the tale that could cause concern was the route the Good Two take to Lee. "We have touched on three counties in our short little drive, starting in Middlesex, passing over an angle of Surrey, and ending in Kent."
Scholar Michael Kaser found that the Administrative County of London was passed into law on March 31, 1889, and when this happened, it replaced the Middlesex and Surrey parts of London. This isn't a problem, as people refer to things they are accustomed to and can take a while to change that. I grew up near a creek that everyone calls by the name it had 30 years ago even though it has a different name now.
I would also like to add that I don't think it matters what colors Holmes' dressing-gown was nor how it relates to his other ones. I have two robes myself, of two different colors. And Watson being called James isn't a concern, either. I believe that his middle name was Hamish, and that she called him the translated version. Everyone who knew may dad called him Gene, but his name was Edward Eugene. (Are you enjoying these extra special glimpses into my life?)
Anyway, on to that date. Now I am not going to play the blame game like Baring-Gould. My date does change one thing that Watson says but I won't try to explain it. I just know that the date he gives us of June 19, 1889 could be right, but since that wasn't a Friday, it isn't. However, if you look at the evidence you'll find that another date fits in every way...July 19, 1889.


I also remember that at that meeting our group was treated to a special song called 'Hugh Boone.' It was set to the tune of 'Blue Moon' and was very cleverly done. (I can't seem to recall any of the words, but I know it got a lot of laughs.) And it was at a now-defunct restaurant. The building is still there, and it's now another eating establishment as is usually the case. My group has a history of shutting down eateries.


Well, there you go. I don't know what I'm going to do for another column this month, but I'll come up with something. Until then, have a great October...and thanks for reading.

No comments:

Post a Comment