Masons, and Boswells, and Wisteria...Oh My!

I truly hope you weren't expecting some big year end Christmas-y type of post, because I don't have one. Sorry. To be honest, the holiday of Christmas is rather difficult to write about when it comes to this aspect of the hobby. I think in the past I've mined out as much as I can. But, I do have a cool something-or-other to talk about, so let's get to it.

I have a friend in the Sherlock Holmes world who has almost no interest in the chronological part of all of this. He does, however, have a story that he gives a date to, and he has a very good reason for doing so. (I'll get to why I'm bringing this up soon.) Bill Mason is a Tennessee Sherlockian. He is a fun guy to hang out with, and listening to him speak is always a joy given that Southern drawl he has. (He says everyone else talks weird, not him.) He will never use PowerPoint, and has no social media presence, but he's well-known in the hobby, and it's always a pleasure to be around him.

Bill told me once (on here) that he believes that 'The Retired Colourman' (RETI) started on Sunday, July 17, 1898. He has a lot of company in that area of dates as most chronologists like that summer. But, Bill's date stands alone. His reason? It's a good one, and makes sense. His thinking turns around this sentence from Holmes:

"Let us escape from this weary workaday world by the side door of music. Carina sings to-night at the Albert Hall, and we still have time to dress, dine, and enjoy."

What follows is a small excerpt from an as-yet-to-be-published paper, and so I will offer nothing more from it. The Adelina Patti references are a very important part of said paper, and it just so happens a date that was a big one in her personal history gave Bill all the proof he needed to date RETI the way he did. The paragraph below is all you get of the paper, but understand that's it only a happy little side trip in the main theme of the piece. Bill says:

"Carina" is an Italian term of endearment and a female adjective. Adelina Patti was Italian by birth. Only a renowned performer would be singing at Royal Albert Hall. As one of the greatest singers of the time, she sang there frequently from 1886 until she gave her final public performance there in 1914. Most importantly, the timing is exactly right. Virtually every Sherlockian chronologist places "The Retired Colourman" in the summer of 1898, and Adelina Patti - one day after she celebrated becoming a citizen of England - performed in concert on the night of Sunday, July 17, 1898. This story can reliably be placed on that specific date.

I bring all of this up because something somewhat similar occurs with the chronology of one Robert R. Pattrick. I'm certain you'll recall my paragraph about him from a blog post back on November 29, 2017, where I talked briefly about his timeline (and made a few errors). Basically, in March 1963 in the Baker Street Journal (BSJ) he published his own chronology, but with a twist. He used the dates of seven major chronologists to fill in most of the dates. He trusts Watson for a few of the rest, a 1951 BSJ article for one, and his own date for the last. This is his chart:

Now, I don't have the reasoning behind Mr. Pattrick's choice of March 21, 1897, for 'The Adventure of Wisteria Lodge' (WIST), but I do know he's all by himself. Not one other person goes along with it. Heck, no one even likes the year. In fact, one chronologist, T. S. Blakeney, says the case took place in either 1896 or somewhere from 1898 to 1902. That's the closest anyone gets to agreeing with the year. As far as the date goes, I'm thinking it might be referenced in one of his other works. As I understand it, he had quite a few things published, so much like Mr. Mason's paper above, Mr. Pattrick's WIST date may well be mentioned in another piece.

I would like to point out that he lists Rolfe Boswell's date for 'The Red Circle' (REDC) as September 1902. I read the article in the 1951 BSJ and it looks as though he specifically says September 25 due to an autumnal concert that Holmes and Watson attended. He says that Watson's "gloom of a London winter evening" could be excused because it might have been cold enough to feel like one even though it was still fall. (He doesn't check the weather charts, but I did. Here is the weather account for the evening from the next day in The Morning Post. You can decide for yourself.)

It does say the temperature was low for the time of year, and at one point in Greenwich (eight miles away from Covent Garden) it got down to 31°. Looks like Rolfe gets a half-point, though I'm still not totally convinced. Still, this is what we chronologists do. Speaking of things we do...

One of things I haven't figured in to all of my databases is individual findings. There are hundreds of articles out there in which someone has a date of their own for a case, like Bill and Rolfe's above, and it would take a lifetime to gather them all. However, in the interest of thoroughness I will likely start amassing them. Bill's date will be my starting point. I have already started to catalog all of my Sherlockian publications like journals and newsletters, and have found some other dates in those. Looks like I still have so much work to do, but it's a good problem to have.

I didn't have a big ending for this post, just wanted to take you through how two things can tie together even though they seem unrelated. I've looked to do something with Mr. Pattrick's chronology for some time, but there just wasn't enough to talk about. Seriously, there isn't. That chart you see above is all there in the BSJ. There's no explanations, no text, no footnotes...nothing. It's on page 62. On page 63 a different article starts. Tying Mr. Mason in gave it enough legs, and you are the beneficiary.

I truly appreciate you making it this far down. This project of mine just keeps going, and lately it seems to have found fresh energy. I have more things planned, and all in the name of keeping this dark corner of the Holmes/Watson world well-lit and accessible. I'll see you in January (in what I can only hope is a better year), and as always...thanks for reading.

The Game Of Hide And Seek's Afoot

Sometimes on this little journey of mine I get to discover a chronology that's just waiting out there for an intrepid seeker (like me) to find. I have now collected twenty-nine of them, and will never stop searching for more. This particular blog post will be about my search for a book that may have contained one, though I had no real way of knowing until I got my hands on a copy. So, that's what I did.

It turns out I had started chasing this book a few years ago, but just kind of forgot about it until something on Facebook jogged my memory. The quest began anew, and within a couple of weeks I had it in my hands. Then, I started mining for the possible gold which lay inside. The book, A Sherlock Holmes Almanac by Svend Petersen (1956), was one I probably would've walked right by at a swap meet. But, his name was one of the ones listed in annotations by William S. Baring-Gould in his landmark publication The Annotated Sherlock Holmes, so that helped pique my interest.

I sent out some questions to a few folks, and my buddy Bob Byrne out in Ohio got back to me and answered them. What he told me convinced me this book had its own timeline, and once a copy was on my desk, I realized just how difficult it was going to be to get that puppy out of the text. Let me explain.

To begin with, the book that most have is a reprint. The original was a mimeographed edition that was a limited run. 100, I think. Well, those copies are hard to find, and very expensive. The reprint, though, doesn't have everything the original had in it, including a list in the back called the Comparison of Authorities. It was Petersen's dates (years only) against five other noted chronologists. The introduction mentions who had an original copy, so I contacted him - Chris Redmond up in Canada - and he was gracious enough to send me pictures of the pages I was after. From there it all began. Seems Petersen did have his own dates for some of the cases. My chronological senses were tingling.

At the top of each chapter (month) is a listing of all the cases that take place that month. I started by putting this into a spreadsheet, but I noticed that A Study in Scarlet (STUD) is listed for both January and February. I found the same with other cases, too. When I made a list of cases and their months, I found several of them were missing. Luckily with my purchase came an e-version of the book, and I was able to do a word/term search for every case. In time, I had something for each month, but not everything felt right. Sometimes he seemed to agree with Baring-Gould, other times he made it a point to say that the dates were according to Baring-Gould...as if he didn't agree. He did the same with Ernest Zeisler, too.

So, I opened an Excel spreadsheet and started typing in every bit I could find for each case. I noticed there were inconsistencies. 'The Blanched Soldier' (BLAN) is listed as 1903 - January 7, to be exact - but in one place it's listed as 1900. 'The Five Orange Pips' (FIVE) is placed in 1889, but in another place the text says 1902. I chalked this one up to that year being in the very next line down, and therefore likely a tansference error. There are about a half-dozen other examples like this, but I think I was able to justify them all.

It took me a couple of weeks of working on it (when I had the time), but I feel as though I was finally able to chip away everything that wasn't chronology and have something worthwhile. I still have a few things to do to get it firmly implanted into my database, but I have at least recorded it onto my main spreadsheet so I can work with it however and whenever I need. For now, though, let me share with you what appears to be a hidden chronology which so far doesn't match anyone else's to any large degree.

GLOR - July 1876          
MUSG - October 2, 1878
STUD - March 4, 1881 (or 1882) (His words)          
YELL - April 7, 1882
RESI - October 6, 1882         
SPEC - April 6, 1883          
SHOS - May 1, 1883
BERY - December 19, 1883      
CHAS - January 5, 1884
REIG - April 14, 1887          
VALL - January 7, 1888 (or later) (His words)
SIGN - September 7, 1888          
GREE - September 12, 1888
NOBL - October 8, 1888          
SCAN - May 1889          
BOSC - June 6, 1889
TWIS - June 19, 1889         
STOC - June 28, 1889          
NAVA - July 29, 1889
ENGR - September 7, 1889          
CROO - September 11, 1889
FIVE - September 26, 1889          
HOUN - September 27, 1889
SECO - October 12, 1889          
IDEN - October 18, 1889
COPP - April 5, 1890         
CARD - August 4, 1890          
REDH - October 9, 1890         
DYIN - November 19, 1890
BLUE - December 27, 1890          
FINA - April 24, 1891
SILV - September 4, 1891          
WIST - March 24, 1892          
EMPT - April 5, 1894          
GOLD - November 14, 1894          
3STU - April 5, 1895          
SOLI - April 13, 1895          
BLAC - July 3, 1895          
BRUC - November 21, 1895          
VEIL - October 1, 1896
ABBE - January 23, 1897         
DEVI - March 16, 1897
SUSS - November 19, 1897         
MISS - December 8, 1897         
RETI - July 1898          
DANC - July 19, 1898         
SIXN - June 7, 1900
THOR - October 4, 1900          
PRIO - May 17, 1901         
3GAR - June 1902         
ILLU - September 3, 1902          
MAZA - 1903         
BLAN - January 7, 1903         
LADY - July 1903          
CREE - September 6, 1903         
LION - July 29, 1907         
LAST - August 2, 1914

3GAB - May (no year)
NORW - August (no year)
REDC - September (no year)

Now, for the sharp-eyed chronologically-minded, you'll note that 'Silver Blaze' (SILV) is placed in September 1891. That's after Holmes and Moriarty took the Nestea plunge together off Reichenbach. Well, I was confused by this, too, but I checked and double-checked, and in seven individual places Petersen lists SILV as being in 1891. Nowhere does he offer a different year. Now, the September part works, but the year doesn't. Petersen offers no explanation. (It should be noted that Jay Finley Christ places the case just one day before Petersen's on September 3, 1891, but he believes that the Reichenbach fall was in 1893, and not 1891 like most everyone else.) So, I have no way of making this one okay. It will just have to remain an enigma.

Well, there you go - a totally new chronology that isn't new at all. It's been sitting out there hiding in the shadows. I don't know if other chronologists have this in their files already, but if they do I'd like for them to contact me so we can discuss a few small problems. Until then, I give you this newest addition as I interpret it.

I know I listed the 60 original cases above by just their four-letter designations, but if you need a way to know what some of them mean, just go to any online search engine and put in "J. F. Christ abbreviations" and you'll find a chart to help you out. Thanks for sticking with me until the end. I'll see you on here next month. Have a great holiday season, and as always...thanks for reading.

Waiter, There's A Red Hair In My Bubbling Cauldron!

Being the month of October means we have (like most month's) plenty of different cases we could discuss. My database shows at least thirteen to choose from. I think, though, that it would be interesting to take a look at 'The Red-Headed League' (REDH) and all of the problems it has. But, we're not going to be trying to make sense of it, we're going to look at the ways chronologists have tried to work out the problematic timeline. Sound like fun? Well, let's get started.

We won't be looking at all of the people on my list. We can't. See, some of the chronologies I have are just lists. No context. No logic. The kind of thing that makes math teachers crazy - they didn't show how they came up with their answers. (Makes me crazy, too.) But, in order not to make this entry too long, we'll narrow it down to just a handful. The really good ones. The juicy stuff.

The big problem is this: Watson tells us that it's autumn. Then he mentions a newspaper, The Morning Chronicle, dated April 27, 1890, from "just two months ago." Then we find out 'The Red-Headed League Is Dissolved' on October 9, 1890. If it weren't for the "two months ago" thing, it would all be fine, but the end of April to the beginning of October is not two months, no matter how you add it up. So, what do the timeliners do to settle this problem? Let's start with the Frenchman Jean-Pierre Crauser. 

He says: "It should be noted, for the sake of clarity, that Dr. Watson's statement 'just two months ago' is not perfectly correct, since the announcement is published on April 27 and the league is dissolved on June 28. We should read; "It was just two months ago yesterday." However, the expression "just two months ago" may include a certain margin of appreciation and does not necessarily mean two months ago to the day." Crauser also thinks that Watson still had memories of Reichenbach Falls when writing this case (which was published in August 1891) and simply got his times of the year mixed up, AND that he never read his own manuscripts so he didn't catch the error. In addition, he believes Jabez Wilson to be "no longer in his head." So, he places the case on June 28, 1890.

E. B. Zeisler places this case a year earlier. In the case, Holmes tells us that the day Wilson came to visit (after seeing the Dissolved note on the door) was a Saturday. Problem is, October 9, 1890, wasn't a Saturday. It was a Thursday. So, Zeisler adjusts the year. He says the following things.

About the case being published in 1891: "...the story, which was published in August of 1891, begins by telling us that it was 'one day in autumn of last year', and from this [others] conclude that the events took place in 1890. Now this argument would be valid if we knew the story was written in 1891..." (which he doesn't, instead believing it was written a year earlier).
Thus, he discounts 1890, and says that he had already placed 'A Case of Identity' (IDEN) in 1889, and since that case is mentioned at the start of the story, we must be talking about 1889.
About the newspaper ad from April 27, 1890: he believes the date for the ad to be wrong. He believes Wilson's statement about Vincent Spaulding coming to work for him "just this day eight weeks ago" is wrong. He thinks Wilson makes a lot of mistakes in his narrative because he is "certainly greatly upset" and therefore inclined to be wrong. He believes the amount of money Wilson claims he was paid is wrong. (He thinks Wilson was overly excited about the cash, and it clouded his thinking.)
He places the case on August 19, 1889.

Brad Keefauver has a similar notion about Wilson's facts. He says: "The good doctor occasionally seems to be blamed by chronologists for quoting what came out of the client's mouths inaccurately, when those clients may have been totally in the wrong to begin with. (Think about it - most of them are in no frame of mind to cite accurate dates.)"

This creator of Sherlock Peoria believes all of the dates given are true and accurate.
He adds: "October 9 was the date on that sign. April 27 was the date on the newspaper. Both are physical pieces of evidence presented to Holmes and Watson, and yet Jabez Wilson keeps referring to the interval between as eight weeks, even though the digging of a tunnel and copying of all that encyclopedia material would both fit more comfortably into a twenty-four week span. Plainly, Wilson is lying."
He goes on to date it as October 11, 1890, saying: "October 11 has to be the beginning of the case. "Duncan Ross" just didn't know exactly what day it was when he wrote the sign, or else was a little bit late in posting it after he originally wrote it."
It should be noted that his date is the most agreed upon. Five others have come to the same conclusion (both before and after he did), though each gets there using very different methods. (Too many to cover here, unfortunately.)

There you have the logic of three different people. Settling the dates in this case is a real trial, but everyone has their own ideas about it. Personally, as I mentioned on Facebook earlier this month, I have always had the idea that if  Watson had written "eightEEN" instead of "eight" some problems could be solved. Not all, just some. I wrote about this in 2010 for my local society newsletter, and then reprinted it here on February 28 of last year. My thinking isn't perfect, but the disparity of dates between everyone shows that no one thinks anyone else's is either.

There are some things to think about, though. One - The Morning Chronicle had been out of print since 1865. (Above is the logo from one of the last editions.) How and why did this paper get brought up? Was it a fake edition created just for the ruse that was the League? Did Watson get it mixed up with another paper? Did he intentionally hide the name of the actual paper so readers wouldn't go looking for it? Any one of these is a viable option, but none are absolute.

Two - we have to be talking about October as the portly Wilson comes to Baker Street wearing a great-coat, a frockcoat, a waistcoat, and an overcoat. Guys with a little more heft to their bodies, like me, don't generally need to wrap up quite so much as we have our own built-in heater in the form of bodily fat, but Wilson was dressed like he was going to the arctic. Maybe he was cold-natured. Hard to say, but fair-skinned folk are usually a bit more cold than others. Regardless, it's cold in the story. So, for those who place it in the spring or summer...sorry. Can't be.

Lastly, and again these are just points to consider, is that Holmes says [Pablo de] Sarasate (the violin virtuoso and composer) was playing in London. Sarasate did play in London in June 1890, lending credence to the June date crowd, but it's possible Holmes just meant his music was being played, not that the man himself was playing. After all, if we say "Spielberg's new movie is being shown at the theater" we don't mean that Spielberg himself is there showing it. (Furthermore, Sarasate had retired to France by late 1890, only appearing annually at a music festival in Pamplona, Spain, after that.)

Looking at the length of this post tells me I've dragged you through the red-headed world enough. Put thoughts and comments in, and let me know what you think. I'll see you other places, and also right back here next month. Appreciate you stopping in, and as always...thanks for reading.

Yes, That's Not In The Canon...Maybe

For this month’s entry I have chosen a subject which fits nicely with the time of year historically and horrifically - what were Holmes and Watson doing at the time of the Jack the Ripper (JtR) killings? As you may know this mysterious individual killed a number of women (the exact figure is heavily debated) in the fall of 1888 in London's Whitechapel area, and many have wondered whether Holmes' casebook contained anything about those horrible deeds. I know a lot of books and papers have been written about this Holmes vs. The Ripper thing, but I have very few of those in my collection, and as such I can look at it with unsullied eyes and make some clean observations. So, let’s take a look at the database and see what we can find.

One thing I would like to do right up front is mention the names of the women. They are often side notes when it comes to this mystery, so I want them to be recognized. Here are the five officially accepted victims and the dates they were killed/discovered, 

Mary Ann 'Polly' Nichols (Friday, August 31)
Annie Chapman (Saturday, September 8)
Elizabeth Stride (Sunday, September 30)
Catherine Eddowes (also Sunday, September 30)
Mary Jane Kelly (Thursday, November 9)

As we know, The Canon is completely silent on this matter. I mean there's not even a hint of a hint about the mystery. I will not attempt to make any connections that aren't there, but will simply give you a glimpse into what Holmes and Watson (H & W) were doing at the time of the murders. (For brevity, just assume the year I'm talking about is 1888 unless otherwise stated.)

In alphabetical order...

'The Cardboard Box' (CARD) - Look for the data about this one closer to the end of the post. (It's so much juicier than the rest.)

‘The Crooked Man’ (CROO) - The online chronologist John Trumbull says Holmes and Watson were involved in this case sometime during the month of September. 

‘The Dying Detective’ (DYIN) - This one gets a half-point. Vincent Delay says it happened on "a Sunday in November" but not which. There were four, but the 4th and 11th would be the only ones to concern us. Still, neither help us here. The 4th is during the murders, and the 11th is right after the last one, but DYIN was a one-day case. Thus the half-point.

‘The Five Orange Pips’ (FIVE) - Gavin Brend and T. S. Blakeney believe H & W were involved with this case in September.

'The Greek Interpreter’ (GREE) - William S. Baring-Gould, the duo of Bradley & Sarjeant, and Craig Janacek say H & W began looking into GREE on September 12. Aimee Shu says just September.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (HOUN) - Baring-Gould placed this case (along with Janacek) on September 25, while Shu likes September for this case, as well. Mike Ashley, on the other hand, likes some time in October for HOUN.

‘A Case of Identity’ (IDEN) -  H. W. Bell likes mid-September for this one. John Hall sort of agrees by saying it fell some time during the week of September 17th to the 24th. Trumbull needs to figure out when H & W were dealing with CROO (see above) because he says they were working on this one on the 18th. Chris Miller says they worked on this one in September, but not when.

‘The Noble Bachelor’ (NOBL) - NOBL is all over October for chronologists. Baring-Gould originally placed it on October 12, but recalculated and shifted it to 1886. He would've been in the company of June Thomson, Bradley & Sarjeant, Henry Folsom, Martin Dakin, and Toshio Suzuki. The mysterious online blogger Noble Bachelor says the case was at the beginning of October, while Blakeney and Edgar W. Smith say just October. J. F. Christ and Robert Pattrick both say the case started on October 9, while the incomplete timeline of Carey Cummings says it was the 26th of that month. Ashley pops in again and says just September.

The Sign of [the] Four (SIGN) - The Canon places this case from, July 7 - 9, 1887, though that is generally not accepted. An actual date for this one is very debated. [deep breath and...] Brad Keefauver says this case started just five days after the murder of Polly Nichols on August 31st. Baring-Gould once placed SIGN on September 7, though he changed his mind years later, but Suzuki thought he had it right the first time. Baring-Gould eventually landed on September 18, and Bradley & Sarjeant, along with Janacek, think he's right. Christ places it exactly one week later, while Cummings and Dakin say it was two days after Christ's. Ashley, Smith, and Shu say it was during the month of September, but go no further. Thomson and Craig Marinaro say it may have been sometime in September, but thinks July 7th is also a possibility.

‘Silver Blaze’ (SILV) - Keefauver places this case on October 25th, while Dakin says it was just October. Hall can't do better than sometime around the end of September into October, 1888, while Folsom prefers September 18th or the 25th.

I would like to point out that no one has a case starting on any of the dates for the deaths of those poor women. The closest findings are that Christ had GREE happening on August 29. I say 'happening' and not 'starting' because everyone agrees it was a one day case. So, it's not likely H & W were still dealing with GREE when the murder occurred.

But, Suzuki (and originally Baring-Gould) has SIGN starting on September 7. This case was at least a two-day or three-day affair, depending on whose chronology you're reading. If Suzuki is right, H & W would've been working the next day when 'Polly' Nichols was killed.
It's at this point there might be evidence of JtR in The Canon. Not the person, but the case. As I mentioned before, Watson tells us this case took place in July 1887. (There's a confusing September reference in it, too, and chronologists have done a lot of typing trying to figure it out.) But, regardless if it's July or September 1887, the majority of timeliners think the case HAS to be in 1888. Now, Hall goes along with Watson and says the whole thing started on July 7, 1887. Brend and Butters agree with the month. Bell, Delay, Trumbull, and Jean-Pierre Crauser say it was September 7, 1887, and Miller likes that month, too. The remaining twenty chronologists say that it was 1888.
The question, if one raises it on just this case alone, is why Watson changed the date. Were he and Holmes actually involved with the JtR situation at the same time as SIGN? SIGN wasn't published until February 1890, so he had plenty of time to make all of the necessary adjustments. But why? Try as I might I can't come up with a reason to change the date of the case in relation to the Ripper problem. And it will bug me.
But, maybe he didn't actually change the date and most of the chronologists have it wrong. Maybe I'm making too much out of this. Maybe there truly is no evidence of JtR in The Canon. (I'm still going to ponder it, though.)

So, let's talk about 'The Cardboard Box' (CARD). This is one of the few times we hear of mutilation in The Canon. A woman receives a package containing two (mis-matched) human ears. H & W investigate and figure it all out. But...
The dates for this case vary. The largest agreement is for August, however. Dakin, Pattrick, and E. B. Zeisler say it started on the 10th. Blakeney, Thomson, Hall, Bradley & Sarjeant, Folsom, Ashley, and Roger Butters all agree it was sometime in August, but don't specify when.
This case has a mutilation which mirrors that of Catherine Eddowes. In the infamous 'Dear Boss' letter that Scotland Yard received on September 29, the writer (allegedly JtR) mentions clipping off a woman's ears and sending them to the police. The next night he did what he promised, though he never actually mailed them. (This is also the letter where we first see his now famous moniker.)

CARD isn't exclusively an 1888 case, though. 1882, 1884, 1885, 1887, 1889, 1890, and 1891 are all chosen as possibilities by a gang of different chronologists. August 1888 is just the most agreed upon (by ten people).

H & W and JtR are always going to be indelibly linked. Two major forces in Victorian crime, albeit on different sides, have to cross somewhere. More pastiches have been written about it than anything else, and the amount of ink used to find or make connections will continue to flow. Probably forever. It's not a big question for me, though. Yes, I'll spend some time thinking about it, but it will just be one of the many thoughts floating around in the the ol' brain pan about The Amazing Two and their world. Maybe one day I'll come up with something concrete, but for now you have before you all the information I can offer.

I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.

Welcome Aboard The S(O)S Fermented Cucumber

I'm in a bit of a quandary lately, and I've been putting a lot of thought into exactly what the quandary's about, but I think I will do something I haven't done before - ask you for help. Perhaps you can steer me in the right direction and tell me what you think would be the best route of action. Let me explain.

You've heard me talk on here about the friend I have lunch with, and at one of those lunches I was telling him about this problem. When I gave an example of what I meant, he proved my point immediately by having knowledge about the subject I was referring to without me even finishing. I mentioned something about an item found in a Holmes case called 'bathing-cots' or 'bathing-machines'. He looked at me qith a quizzed look. I continued that in Victorian times swimmers sometimes had these covered wagons...and he stopped me with "Oh, the carts they rolled out in the water." He knew exactly what I was talking about (and he hadn't even seen the blog post). I fear some folks might feel the same way with my posts on here and Facebook.

What I'm getting at is that all of the different sites and pages seem to just recycle the same hundred or so cool Victorian topics. I am guilty of that, as well, though I do believe I put a new slant on things from time to time. I do read some very cool things on these posts, but often they take away whatever new twist I was going to use. Well, I don't want to recycle anymore. I want to be totally fresh and unique. 

But, how to do that? There's only so much that is mentioned in The Canon, and only so many years Holmes and/or Watson were active in the detective trade, and only so many things I can tie into what it is I do here. I have always been a fan of archaeology and the little corners of history just waiting to be found, and would love to be able to employ that love for digging up the past, but I just don't know if I know where to look. Or what to look for! I get lucky sometimes when I simply stumble upon something, but that's just on occasion.

So, here's my question for all of you: what would you like to see covered or investigated on here? Do you have any ideas for material? Source locations? Resources to examine? I know that what I've been doing up until now has been somewhat successful, but I feel like I'm just chasing other people's tails sometimes with the same kind of stuff you can find anywhere. (Then again, maybe I'm just being paranoid and ridiculous.) 

This is the world's only blog dedicated entirely to Sherlockian chronology, and it already has an angle no other site has. But I fear the inevitable loss of interest if I can't come up with fascinating tidbits that tie Holmes, Watson, and the Victorian era together in the way I like. So...thoughts? I will still report on strict chronology as long as I can. That isn't going away, and there's still so much to impart. I just need a few nudges for more finds. Hopefully you can help me.

Now, if you're one of those folks who'd rather observe than participate, I have no problem with that. I am amongst you on most things. But, if you DO have an idea, you could just contact me by email or Messenger so that no one will know. (I won't say a word. Promise.) 

See the pickle I'm in? I already know what the next couple of blog posts are going to be about, and in fact I put one of them aside to talk about this. I love bringing you what I do, but there are times when it's a bit of a struggle. Good problem to have, I know. Don't get me wrong - I still have plenty of ideas for here and Facebook, and luckily over two dozen chronologists gave me lots of material to mine from, but I do fear running dry on these posts in time. The Victorian time period is a vast resource, and I want to tap into it as much as I can, I would just like to know what you think about where to go and what to seek.

I really love doing this for all of you, and the discoveries I make are just as much fun for me, so it's my desire to keep it going as long as I can. I've said before that I'd do this even my own mother was the only person reading it, but luckily that isn't the case. My little empire grows constantly, and the appreciation shown is beyond anything I could've imagined when I started all of this almost a decade ago. Anyway, I'm really anxious to hear what you have to say. Thank you for getting to the last sentence here, and as always...thanks for reading.

Mysterious. Intriguing. And Other Adjectives!

Recently I was having lunch with a friend, which is something we've done every month for the last year or so (with the exception of April and May 2020), and we were talking about what we always talk about - books, writing, literature. I call them Literary Lunches, and it just so happens my friend's last name is the same as that of a very famous American writer from long ago. It makes it cooler, but I try not to make a big deal of it. Anyway, I admitted to him that I wasn't sure I was going to be writing much fiction from that point on as I was more interested in the true-life characters that history has seen. They were enough to entertain me. So, I started reading more. A lot more.

In the last few weeks I've read books about Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, John Wilkes Booth, Pinkerton detectives, the Charles Bravo poisoning case, the Sistine Chapel, London's Victorian poor, one by my hero James Burke, and another about something called the Druce-Portland case. This was on the back of something I posted about on Facebook on June 24th of this year. It was an ad from a newspaper published on June 24, 1881, for Druce and Co. They were a decorating business on Baker Street. When I did a bit of research to them to add some flavor to the post, well, boy did I find it! The Druce-Portland case was one of mystery, intrigue, empty coffins, disguises, chickens...you name it! This story had it all. So, I ordered a book about it.

Okay, now how could ANYONE resist a title like that? I read it in mere days. It would've been quicker, but factor in sleep, work, grandkids, showers, eating, etc. and you get the picture. The book was very well written for someone like me. It seemed every paragraph left you hanging just a little bit knowing that eventually you'd get all the questions in your mind answered. I savored each word. It wasn't a masterpiece, but it wasn't meant to be. For me, though, it was awesome. (See one of my presentations about Holmes sometime and you'll understand.)

The whole thing goes like this...
An ex-daughter-in-law of Thomas Druce (of Druce and Co.) claimed he had led a double life and was also William John Cavendish-Scott-Bentinck, 5th Duke of Portland. She wanted his body dug up at Highgate Cemetery to prove her case. She claimed it would be empty, and lined with lead to simulate the weight of a body. Believed insane, she was placed in an asylum, but her son took up the case to have the grave opened. After a long process, including a trial with lots of evidence, it happened on December 30, 1907. (I'm not going to tell you the outcome. You'll have to find out for yourself. Just know that the evidence was so good that the two were the same man that the courts allowed it to occur.)

Here are pictures of both men. The one on the left features Thomas Druce in a fake beard. The right shows The Duke.

What makes it worthy of being covered on here is how much Baker Street was featured in the situation. See, Thomas owned the Baker Street Bazaar. One of the strangest pieces of evidence to come to light was the existence of a tunnel which ran from the Bazaar to Harcourt House, the residence of The Duke, just over a mile away. It was one of the bizarre connections that made the possibility of the two men being one and the same a true possibility. For ten years, 1897 to 1907, this case remained a topic of conversation. It's true that Holmes was in Sussex from early 1903 on, but he had to have followed this with great interest. Imagine him reading about a tunnel right below his feet, and one that figured into THE case of the day. His Spidey senses must've gone crazy.

Again, I'm not going to tell you how it all comes out. You'll want to discover it for yourself as it just gets more and more delicious as it goes on. The fascinating part for me is reading about how such cases were handled at the time. You get a real look into the ways of a criminal court. You see how women were treated by those upper-crust stuffed-shirts who were in charge of everything. There's a clear line of distinction drawn between beat cops and detectives. The case had it all - bribery, lying, deceit, insanity, mysterious figures, cemeteries, and the fact that both men only ate chicken. You also get to see that nothing has really changed. While the processes we have nowadays may be more rigid and streamlined, things are just as plagued with corruption as they were then.

In my research about a the case, I found that another Sherlockian had already tackled it. Back in 2013, in the Summer edition of The Sherlock Holmes Journal, there's a piece by one Jackie Speel. I ran to my archives to grab my copy, but found it curiously missing. It was the only one not in the stack. After much seeking it was found and I was able to see how someone else approached all of this. I discovered that Speel thought much the way I do - that Holmes and/or Watson would have definitely been involved somehow. (Though our "somehow"'s were a bit different.) Above is a picture of A copy of the journal, not THE copy the article appears in. Actually, it's the edition from the summer I was born. Cool, eh?

From a chronological point, the story doesn't really do much for us. But, from a research point, it does. Books about crimes and happenings from that time really give us detailed descriptions of how life was for the classes. How unscrupulous certain members of the legal profession were. What the police did to get information. What laws were like for burials and disinterments. The ease by which someone could be imprisoned in an asylum just on a suggestion from an official of some kind. The terms used, the ideals that were followed, the way belief systems were factored into legal matters. This kind of stuff is invaluable to a researcher, and can only help in our understanding of the time in which Holmes walked the streets of London. And if we (I) get lucky, maybe one tiny little iota of just part of one of those points may help determine the true dating for a case from The Canon.

A big shout out to my buddy Chris Zordan for his help with certain parts of this post.

There are many books and articles about the Druce-Portland Case (sometimes called 'Affair'), and just typing the phrase into any search engine will pull up enough material to keep you busy for a very long time. I invite you to do so. It's such a wonderful glimpse into the Victorian (and later Edwardian) world. I hope you enjoyed this month's offering. I'll see you next time, and as always...thanks for reading.

Antique Mall. Antique Find. Antique History.

Recently my wife asked me if I wanted anything from Amazon. She had a credit, and wanted to know if I could use it. So, I got on and looked around. Nothing. While in that frame of mind I headed over to eBay. Nothing there, either. Craigslist. Nothing. Etsy. Found something there, but it was too much so I decided against it. Turns out I really don't have much of a need to add to my life. I didn't realize my minimalism had gotten so "bad." I could've ordered anything I wanted...and none of it appealed to me. But, a recent trip to an antique mall did turn up a little treasure.

One can always find something cool at an antique mall. I was specifically looking for anything I might put in my office. We were in nearly the last section, and running out of rooms, when I saw something. It was on a rack with various magazines. It's aged appearance made me step over a soapbox derby car. It was only $3, and it was from November 1895. Then, I saw what caused me to pass it off to one of the workers and have them save it at the front counter. (I don't know if that's done everywhere, but it is at this place. Rather handy.)

The article that made me buy it was the one titled 'Identifying Criminals' - an illustrated piece by one A.F.B. Crofton. (In a timely find, the article below it is 'Taking the New York Police Out of Politics' by Theodore Roosevelt.) Now, I didn't find a whole lot on Crofton, but I know he wrote another couple of articles along the same lines. This one, however, was actually mentioned the next month in a now long-gone newspaper in Indianapolis (where I live). We'll get to the specifics of that in a moment.

My intention was to talk about the content of the article, but it really is just a rehash of things we already know. It discusses the differences in ears, and the measurements of skulls and other body areas for inclusion in the Alphonse Bertillon system of identification. It's only a few pages, and really doesn't offer anything new, but when I was searching for a photo of the author, I came across an interesting side story.

(I did learn one thing, though. There's a line that says, "The Chicago police department has adopted the French system in toto, and now has the most elaborate bureau of identification on the planet." Until I read the article I don't recall ever having come across the phrase 'in toto'. Maybe it's more popular than I imagine, and it came right up on Google, but I wasn't aware of it. I do enjoy little tidbits like that.)

Bertillon, as you may know, was mentioned in The Hound of the Baskervilles (HOUN) and 'The Naval Treaty' (NAVA). I did a lot of research on him about fifteen years ago for one of the first pieces I ever had published. Above is a really bad picture of the opening page. He started the whole bertillonage system in 1883, thus his inclusion in those two stories has no true effect from a chronological stance. So, we'll have to get to that side story to make this an interesting post.

There are numerous photos in the piece of the same man showing him in all different types of disguises. He isn't identified, and isn't technically called a criminal anywhere, but his inclusion was enough to cause the actual guy to file a libel suit against the publisher of Cosmopolitan magazine. This is where it gets bizarre.

Above is a small item from The Sunday Journal of Indianapolis on December 8, 1895. It talks about a lawsuit brought by one De Lancey Nicoll (New York District Attorney) against John Brisben Walker, editor of the Cosmopolitan, on behalf of a Mr. George W. Porteous of Chicago. Mr. Porteous identified himself as the man in the pictures, and believed it was enough to file a libel suit as he was in fear of not being able to go anywhere without being identified, and possibly detained, as a bad dude.

How did this all come about? (I know you're asking that.) George claimed he had the photos taken in 1889, and that when he was done with them he gave them to his friend, Major R. W. McClaughry, who was warden of the Pontiac penitentiary in Illinois. The pictures, it seems, were given to the author, Crofton, when he was asking for examples to include in the Cosmo article. Porteous claimed they were obtained illegally, something Walker, the editor, disclaimed. The twist, one of two, is that Porteous was the guy that introduced the Bertillon system to the U.S., and was having the pictures done as a sort of sales technique to peddle his product. The other twist is that Crofton, the guy who wrote the Cosmo piece, was a prisoner at Pontiac.

So, it turns out the guy in the photos is not as anonymous as he seems. That's poor Porteous. I wasn't able to find another picture of him to compare to the ones above, but he said it was him, and the whole thing sound legit to me. Now, Walker did offer to make a full retraction, but Porteous was not satisfied with that. I have no idea if he and McClaughry remained friends after everything, nor what ultimately happened with the case.

It's always a gratifying thing to come across these little oddities in history. Not only does it show that there's always something waiting to be found, but also that Sherlock Holmes can be included in some small way if you look hard enough. This find had somewhat of an impact way back then, but is now just a footnote. I found other mentions of the Cosmo piece in other books and publications, so it was in the news, and I was able to understand why Porteous was so upset. Suddenly his face was semi-famous, and he started fearing the consequences of it. I can only hope those fears went unrealized.

For those who have asked...
I feel a lot better. I am back to work full-time, and have my energy and breathing at pre-illness levels. Looks like I've kicked this thing. At least for now.

If you're interested in picking up a copy of the book my 'Covet Your Skull' item is in, it's available through my home society, The Illustrious Clients of Indianapolis, in our society store. It's called Sherlock Holmes In The Heartland; The Illustrious Clients Fifth Casebook. I think it's still under 20 bucks, and can be obtained by doing the following:

I appreciate you riding along today, and as always...thanks for reading.

What Rhymes With Nine?

When it comes to this hobby (and any other for that matter), there are always things that set themselves apart from the standard and become very important and recognizable. It was after seeing an interview with a friend of mine that the idea for this month's entry was born. I promise to fill you in on all the names and web addresses somewhere in the text here.

The sonnet 221B by Vincent Starrett is a wonderful constant in our hobby. Introduced in 1942 (and then to a larger public in 1943), it is recognized as a masterwork that not only brings to life the romance of the Victorian world of Sherlock Holmes, but always fits into whatever chaos our world happens to find itself in. It's timeless and beautiful. I invite you to look it up and read it, then print it out and hang it on a wall like most of us have.

I watched an interview with my friend Ray Betzner a few days ago, and am constantly in awe of his collection, recall, and dedication when it comes to Mr. Starrett. And since you can't discuss Vincent without talking about 221B, it gave me an idea of what to do here for this month. Now, I have no desire to take anything away from the poem, but I do want to sort of focus on the last line:
"Here, though the world explode, these two survive, and it is always 1895."

This constantly catches my attention. I know from a poetic standpoint the number five is easy to find a rhyme for, but the chronologist in me balks just a touch because I know from a chronology standpoint that 1895 was not Holmes's busiest year. (I realize, of course, that it isn't meant to be viewed that way in 221B, and no one is grimacing at the year and thinking the way I do, but if it is meant to indicate a representative time in the Holmes calendar, then there is another which takes the prize for the busiest - according to the chronologists.)

I have an extensive database system for what I do here. I have documents and files and photos and jpegs and gifs and pdfs and spreadsheets. In fact, I have seven major spreadsheets. I had six until a few weeks ago, but finally created one of the ones I've been thinking about for too long. It's this one which places everything I need for this entry in one place. So, what year are we talking about? I could make you guess, but I have no idea how that would work on here, so I'll just tell you: 1889.

The years of 1888 to 1890 were very busy for The Master, but 1888/9 have the distinctions of being the only years that have each month listed by chronologists as having activity. 1895 covers only nine months, missing September, October, and December. But having each month represented is not the only way to measure this: 1889 also have a lot of activity. Let's take a look at the details. Ready?

Nineteen cases are on file for 1889. I'll list them here, but only by their four-letter abbreviation. (Writing them all out would take up too much space. Sorry.)
In the order they appear:
VALL, CHAS, SCAN, COPP, IDEN, CROO, ENGR, STOC, TWIS, SECO, DYIN, GREE, CARD, HOUN, FIVE, SILV, REDH, BERY, and BLUE.

The precise dates are:
January 7
February 4
March 20/21/22
April 5
June 1/3/6/7/8/14/15/16/17/18/19/21/20/22/25/26/29/30
July 11/13/15/17/29/30
August 3/6/9/14/28/30/31
September 7/8/11/24/25
October 1/7/9/18/19
November 16
December 19/27.
(Now, I know what you're thinking...where's May? Well, I'll get to that in this next section.)

The less-than-precise dates are:
Six people just say March for SCAN
One likes April for COPP
Two say April for IDEN, while one says April or May, and another says May to June
One prefers summer for CROO, while another says "a Tuesday in late summer"
Two others choose summer for ENGR
Three people say just June for STOC
Another three select June for BOSC, while three others say "early June"
Four say just June for TWIS, while three others say "late June"
Five folks pick July for IDEN, while another likes "late July"
Two like July for ENGR
One puts "a Tuesday in July" for SECO, and another can't do better than "July 2, 9, 16, or 23"
Three folks list July or August for ENGR
Another likes the same for CROO
Four people say just August for CROO
Two like it for CARD
One likes it for ENGR, and another says "early August" for that case
One person lists autumn for HOUN
One suggests September for CROO
Two list it for ENGR
One prefers it for IDEN, while someone else says "a Thursday in September"
Two place FIVE in September, and one other likes "late September"
Three fancy just October for HOUN, one says "1st three weeks of October (until the 19th)," another says "c. October 1 - 24," while one other just says "early October"
Six folks say November for DYIN
Four finger December for BLUE, while another says "Christmas-time"

There are actually several more listings, but they are not terribly specific. An example would be one chronologist placing BERY on "a Friday in February between 1882 and 1897." Yeah...I ain't gonna bother with those.

I know these technical posts can be a bear to get through, but you did it, and for that I thank you. I was thinking about this little journey of mine a few days ago, like I do, and I started considering that just giving you this info in date form doesn't really help you out much when it comes to understanding all of this, so I will start working in more about the reasoning and logic behind these decisions. In order to educate you about this faction of the hobby, I need to tell you as much as I can. I vow to do so.

On a personal note (again)...
I missed a lot of work to this COVID-19 thing. Now, I don't know who's telling the truth about it, who's fudging numbers and stats, who's lying to the public about data...none of that crap. What I do know is that I was really, really sick for most of last month, but slowly recovering this month. I did have a bad scare about my heart, though. Happily, it turned out to be a red herring. I'm still having symptoms, but they are much milder, and drastically reduced. In short, I feel better, and am back to work and getting through entire shifts again. (Unfortunately, this illness is a roller coaster, and it can reappear at any time. I guess we'll see.) Thank you for the concern you've shown here and on the other means of communication with me. I truly appreciate it, and can say with a bit more confidence that I'll be here to bring you more about this wonderful part of Sherlockiana.

Ray Betzner has a blog called 'Studies in Starrett' over at http://www.vincentstarrett.com/.

The interview I mentioned is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5M8sWGzllUc&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3p8Q17slboT60RtQn81qRfclg0hBwQzU_sC9nS0l3_QF4t02LoCPFVVpw

The abbreviations for the 60 Canonical cases can be found here: https://www.arthur-conan-doyle.com/index.php?title=Abbreviations_for_the_Sherlock_Holmes_stories

I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.

Life Between The Covers...

Our world is in a bit of a pickle right now. It's hard to know what's next, or how everything dealing with this pandemic will pan out. It's creeping into everyone's lives in one way or another, and it has mine. I've had a roller coaster of a month, and it looks like I may come out of it with a new health problem which may take some doing to tackle and control. But, I can still write about my hobby - just not about chronology this time. See, I have a book on my shelf I'd like to examine. Wanna take a ride?

I go out to Baltimore twice a year - both times for Sherlockian gatherings. On one of those trips I heard about this free book shop where free books were free. Did I mention the free books?! I've gone several times to The Book Thing, and I always come away with something. On one of those trips I found the item below. I already had one at home, but it was what was inside that made me keep it in my basket.

This thing had been loved. There are a lot of Sherlockians in the Baltimore area, but to this day no one has ever stepped up to claim it was theirs, or that they know who it belonged to. Whomever it was, I like them because they were serious about their study of the content, and of the world of Holmes. Inside the front cover was this...

That little purple Post-It Note on the left is a legend. The words are all highlighted in a different color denoting their use on the pages.
Title - blue
Key characters - green
Summary - orange
Observations - pink

This is close to my heart because I did the same exact thing when I started dissecting William S. Baring-Gould's The Annotated Sherlock Holmes over a decade ago. I likely smiled at the familiarity, and then I remember closing the cover and not looking any farther as my intention was to take it to lunch with me - and that's exactly what I did.

The green highlighting started on Page 1 with the very first line. About a dozen pages later the other colors started being used. On Page 32 things got more serious. Not only was there the usual, now there was liner notes. Things were circled. Stars were next to certain words. On the corresponding page something was heavily underlined. My interest was at full tilt.

You see on the side where it says 'pg 85'? Right next to it is a yellow star. It's kind of hard to see, but it's next to the same line as the one that has 'Irene Adler' circled. So, I jumped to Page 85. There I saw two yellow stars and another highlighted line. This person meant business. Cross-referencing?! I thought I was in love.

Less than ten pages later was another handwritten note. It was referring to 'The Boscombe Valley Mystery' (BOSC) and reads 'McCarthy and his son violent'. Several pages after that there was something new...bracketing! No longer satisfied with highlighting one line, now they were putting big pen marks along entire paragraphs.

This all continued without much change until Page 214 when we find a different color of pen being used for the liners. This person had put the book down at some point and picked it up again later when a different pen was laying about. (Oh, and we'll get back to Page 214 soon.) On Page 286 I found something written in pencil. On Page 287 it went back to the original ink color. Then...on Page 381...something happened. A new thing. A new situation. The type of highlighter being used changed.

Things were now blocked differently. The color was a bit different. What was going on? On Page 386 I got my answer. On the edge of the page was another note - but it was in a different hand. Not only that, the type of bracketing used was also different. Suddenly, there was a new player.

As I contemplated this my eyes were drawn back to the outside of the book and all of the various stickers that were present. Then it occurred to me: this was probably a college/university book. (I know...I'm a moron.) I knew why no one claimed this tome. I knew why it had different medias being used. I knew why certain stories were completely skipped ('The Musgrave Ritual' [MUSG] and 'Silver Blaze' [SILV] among them). But, it wasn't until today that I was able to have an aha! moment that would allow me to justify this post. Let's go back to Page 214.

When I was thinking about this month's blog post I had finally decided upon talking about the dating of 'The Final Problem' (FINA) on April 24, 1891, and how it relates to The Valley of Fear (VALL) and all the (Moriarty) problems those two stories cause when held up next to each other. But, I couldn't shake the little guy on my shoulder telling me I'd already done a post about that, so I skimmed through some of my past ones but didn't see it. I started writing, and about halfway through I needed to Google something. When I punched it in a blog post of mine from 2018 popped up. I had done it before. Somehow I'd just missed it. So, I deleted everything and pondered a different idea.

Now, I haven't been well lately, and the thought of coming up with something new was a little daunting. I scanned my shelves, and this book jumped out. I didn't have a payoff for this post until I got to Page 214. There was my ending. There was the thing that would tie it all together.

Page 214 is where the chapter on FINA begins, and two paragraphs down is where Watson starts talking about his marriage. Next to that, written in pink ink is the note 'So how reliable is Watson'. Trusting what Dr. John tells us was EXACTLY what I was going to write about in my first (now-deleted) post. It all just fell into place. With that I closed the book, wrapped up this post, and they all lived happily ever after.

On a personal note...
Should I get to a point with my health where I can no longer do this, or can only do it on a limited basis, I will let everyone know so that there's no trying to figure out what has happened. Right now everything is still being looked at, but I have a feeling I know how it's going to end up. However, I will be very transparent so that you all understand the situation.

I hope you enjoyed this fun little romp though another of my books, and I also hope I was able to bring a little sunshine to a dreary world. I'll see you next time, and as always...thanks for reading.