People who spend any amount of time around me know that I have an interest in the Shakespeare Authorship Question. (Yes, all capitalized because that's how much of a thing it is.) I have no dog in the hunt, and don't really care about the outcome, but the detective work used for it is just delicious. I have added several books to that bookshelf lately - some pro-Shakespeare, others not - and in time I will go back and forth between my beliefs on it. But we will not talk about it here. Shakespeare, yes, but not the controversy.
If you're anything like me, you have a section of your files for articles or columns or presentations you haven't put out in the world yet. Mine serves me well, and I try and keep it stocked with a myriad of subjects that would appeal to just about any Sherlockian situation should I be asked to contribute. Naturally, there are some chronologically based ones in there. However, when I looked into sending one to the wonderful TIMELINE - The Official Newsletter of the Sherlockian Chronologist Guild, it occurred to me that I didn't have one to offer. So, I set out to make one.
I did what I always do - leaned back and waited for inspiration. Nothing. Stared at my Sherlockian tomes for a spark. Nada. Had something to eat. (Okay, not for inspiration, but for pleasure.) While eating said food my mind somehow wondered into the realm of Shakespeare. I know people have tackled Holmes and Billy Shakes before, but had anybody done it from a chronological standpoint? "I don't know," I said to myself, rudely interrupting my lunch. "If so, it hasn't been too often." I decided that was what I was going to do. But, how?
I pondered it, came up with an idea, then set about putting into action. I would look at all the cases where there is a Shakespearean reference and see if the dates of those cases would correspond to anything Shakespearean happening in or around lower England that may have stuck in the mind of whoever mentioned it in the text, or that might have influenced Watson to add it to the story for flair.
I grabbed The New Good Old Index and made a list. Two dozen or so scribbles later and I had a basis for my project. I arranged them in a workable form, filtered them into a usable spreadsheet, and opened several new tabs on my computer. Jumping onto British Newspaper Archives, I brought it alongside my database with that cool screen splitting thing you can do and started making more notes. What I was looking for were any Shakespearean plays or fairs or celebrations or anything that would correspond to dates for the cases. And not just the consensus dates - all of them.
Some success was had, and the spreadsheet was filling up. I was starting to get nervous about the size and scope of the thing. After just a few hours I knew I had reached the point where this was no longer a simple article but a major work. Chronologists spend a lot of time trying to date cases based on the standards, but others punch through the side of the box and venture out. They seek other means of inspiration. One tiny fragment of data can make a difference. An atom of information. An iota. A factlet! It was there I had gone. And it was there I was trapped against a mountain of detail that needed a larger home to store it in.
Matching the dates was easy. I was encouraged quickly by what I was finding. I added a column to my spreadsheet to allow for publication dates. Along with that, though, came two other thoughts - how long did it take Watson (or Holmes) to write it, and did the author throw in anything that didn't happen when the case happened, but was added for spice? In other words - did the writer, while writing, see an opportunity to add one of Shakespeare's lines, one that wasn't actually said during the original investigation?
My heart knew I had to stop. The project was growing. The monster was chewing through its chains. I had to step away and accept that the idea was too vast. Also, there was the potential that it wasn't going to accomplish anything new or change anyone's mind. The spreadsheet was saved, and the notes tucked away. For now. I resolved to ladle a different article from the soup that is my Sherlockian brain. I wrote it and sent it, and happily the powers that be liked it.
The other article being completed didn't mean time to sit back and breathe. This post needed to be written. I had a couple of ideas for it, but then I thought that perhaps a trip through what happened might be interesting. It would show just how far someone is willing to go to date the Sherlock Holmes cases. That one is thorough enough to do that detective's wall red string thing. That one is crazy enough to slog through late Victorian newspapers for one single piece of information. And knowing that it may just be that one out of the many wanted. And also knowing full well that it may not affect the dating at all. But it's done anyway.
In all of this, however, I did find one item I'm not sure I knew - Shakespeare is only mentioned by name in one case. In 'The Three Gables' (3GAB) Holmes asks Mary Maberley, "You don't happen to have a Raphael or a first folio Shakespeare without knowing it?" (No, first folio isn't capitalized.) I guess I never thought about. But live and learn.
I still think the idea is a solid one. I'll set it to the side and work on it from time to time. The goal, of course, is to find more evidence to support a date, or change one. As with most big projects, though, maybe someday.
Thank you once again for making it all the way down. I truly hope you didn't just come straight here to see me tell you how much I love it when you do. If so, go back! There's good stuff above! Again, my appreciation. I'll see you next month, and as always...thanks for reading.
