11 The annual Jacksonian Prize was founded in 1800 by Samuel Jackson, F.R.S., M.R.C.S., and £10 was awarded by the Royal College of Surgeons to a Fellow or Member of the College (or Fellow in Dental Surgery) who made a significant contribution to advancement of surgery and authored a dissertation on a practical subject in surgery. In 1967, the prize money was increased to £250, and in 1995 to £2,500. Although there have been several joint winners in the last fifty years, there have been a number of years since 1957 when no award was given. Dr. Mortimer’s name does not appear among the prize winners from 1882 through 1888; nor are the titles of the winning dissertations readily available. Nineteenth-century winners of note include Sir Frederick Treves, discoverer of the “Elephant Man,” who received the award in 1883 for his paper on obstruction of the intestine in the abdominal cavity. Canonical echoes among other winners include one John Clay (1866), William Watson Cheyne (1880), John Bland-Sutton (1892), and William McAdam Eccles (1900).
12 Atavism refers to the recurrence of an ancestral characteristic, particularly after a long period of its absence. It was also a criminological term encouraged by Italian criminologist and physician Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909), who held that individuals engaging in criminal acts did so not by choice but because they were “atavistic” and had never evolved past the uncivilised nature of our primitive forebears.
The ninth edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica refers to such individuals as men “who live in the midst of our civilization as mere savages… . [T]he existing system of law can scarcely be brought to distinguish them from criminals. Moralists attribute to atavism a large number of offences which lawyers attribute to guilty dispositions.” But the Britannica editor appears sceptical of this view: “It is not, however, owing to atavism, but to the mere continuance of an old order of things, that so many of our ill-educated classes, shepherds, agricultural labourers, and even factory hands, are as little developed, and live a life as little intellectual as savages. Latent in our small hamlets and large cities there is more savagery than many reformers are aware of, and it needs but little experience to discover something of the old barbarity lurking still in minds and hearts under a thin veil of civilisation.”
In his L’uomo delinquente (1876; partially translated in 1911 as The Criminal Man), Lombroso pointed to certain physical and mental abnormalities of these “born criminals,” such as skull size and asymmetries of the face and other parts of the body. His views have since been discredited, but Lombroso’s role in bringing science to the study of criminal behaviour is regarded as pivotal.
In the 1880s, the term was associated with Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919), who popularised Darwinism in Germany. Haeckel’s “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”—the concept, now known to be insupportable, that an embryo in the course of its development goes back to earlier evolutionary stages and finally comes to resemble the latter, more complex organisms from which it evolved—grew out of a nascent but highly imperfect understanding of genetics. During the period between the widespread acceptance of Darwinian evolution and the understanding of the principles of genetics, atavism was invoked frequently to explain why certain people inexplicably exhibited the traits of their ancestors. Mortimer’s paper may have explored such “freaks.”
13 The duties of the Medical Officer were akin to those of medical examiners in the United States today and included: reporting on death rate and causes of mortality; identifying and dealing with public nuisances and condemning unsafe dwellings; and investigating epidemics and outbreaks of disease and instituting measures to limit contagion, such as quarantine and improved public hygiene.
Most Medical Officers were qualified and registered to practise medicine and perform surgery and usually derived income from house calls, attendance at births, and registration of births. In addition, Medical Officers treated the insane, and, as is evident from Mortimer’s treatment of Sir Charles Baskerville, also maintained private practices. If Mortimer were only “a humble M.R.C.S.,” he need not have been qualified in medicine. See note 5, above.
14 “Deduction, confirmed almost immediately after by the visible evidence of that deduction’s correctness?” ponders Michael Harrison, in Cynological Mr. Holmes. “Or no deduction at all, but a simple little joke at Watson’s expense …”
15 Harrison also wonders how Holmes could have seen the dog “on our very doorstep,” for the Baker Street houses, he asserts, all had canopies over their front entrances.
16 Brad Keefauver builds a thesis, based on the physical description of Dr. Mortimer and on his behavioural characteristics, that Mortimer is Holmes’s brother. Joy and Vic Holly, in “The Times of Dr. Mortimer,” note the similarities of description to Charles Augustus Milverton and suggest that they were brothers, while Gordon R. Speck, in “The Hound and the Stalking-horse,” reaches the same conclusion about Mortimer and Moriarty. Jerry Neal Williamson carries this hypothesis one step further in “Dr. Mortimer-Moriarty,” alleging that “Dr. James Mortimer” was, in reality, Colonel James Moriarty, brother of Professor James Moriarty. He points out the great similarities in the physical descriptions of Dr. Mortimer and Professor Moriarty (in “The Final Problem”).
17 There is much speculation regarding the character of Mortimer’s wife, who never appears in Watson’s chronicles: Frederick J. Jaeger and Rose M. Vogel, in The Hound from Hell, part-pastiche and part-essay, postulate that she did not exist, and that Mortimer conjured her up to provide a convenient foil for certain actions in connection with his plan to murder the Baskervilles. David Stuart Davies, in “The Strange Case of the Solitary Husband,” argues that the marriage was an unhappy one and that Mortimer’s wife “was obviously an ogre who dominated the country practitioner.” Bruce E. Southworth, in “Mortimer’s Motivation,” contends that Mortimer suffered a decline in his mental faculties and that his loving wife removed him to the country to ease his life. Auberon Redfearn, in “Mortimer, His Medicine, His Mind, and His Marriage,” calls the mystery woman “very remarkable” for putting up with Dr. Mortimer’s frequent absences and tireless pursuit of his hobbies.
18 Dr. Mortimer’s insistence on “Mister” is strange, for he raises no subsequent objection to being referred to as “Doctor.”
19 Mortimer, whose idea of “pure amusement” consists of a visit to the Museum of the College of Surgeons, paraphrases Sir Isaac Newton: “… to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the sea-shore and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me” (quoted in Sir David Brewster’s Memoirs of the Life, Writings, and Discoveries of Sir Isaac Newton [Edinburgh: Edmonston & Douglas, 2nd edition, 1860], Vol. II, p. 331).
20 Having a relatively long head with cephalic index of less than 75. The cephalic index is arrived at by measuring the cranium at its widest point and dividing that number by the measurement of the cranium at its longest point; that number is then multiplied by 100.
21 Above the socket of the eyes.
22 Presumably Mortimer here refers to the juncture of the skull bones on top of the head, known as the sagittal suture. As a rule, the sagittal suture disappears in adults by the time they are thirty to forty years of age; perhaps the presence of the “fissure,” obvious to Dr. Mortimer, made Holmes’s skull worthy of study?
23 Mortimer appears here to be a student of phrenology—character assessment through study of the shape of the skull. See A Study in Scarlet, note 206. Note that this avocation is one shared by Professor James Moriarty (“The Final Problem”).
24 Ian McQueen finds this deduction a bit of a stretch, arguing that a nicotine-stained forefinger would be apparent on any heavy smoker of cigarettes, whether store-bought or hand-rolled. “Was it just a guess, or had Holmes perhaps observed a tobacco pouch rather than a cigarette case sticking out of Mortimer’s pocket when he noticed the Baskerville parchment? He might then have referred to [Mortimer’s] forefinger in order to make his so-called d
eduction appear the more impressive.”
25 Alphonse Bertillon (1853–1914) was chief of criminal identification for the Paris police from 1880. Before fingerprinting, there was Bertillonage, or the Bertillon system, which aimed to classify criminals through bodily measurements. Inspired by his anthropologist father, Bertillon reasoned that while a criminal might alter his appearance by wearing a wig, or conceal his identity by using an alias, his physical dimensions were nearly impossible to change.
Under the Bertillon system, officers took two pictures of each suspect, one face-forward and one side view (Bertillon is often credited with popularising both the mug shot and the crime-scene photo), and then carefully noted on an index card the precise dimensions of the suspect’s head, various limbs, and appendages; any defining body characteristics; and in particular, the shape of the ear. Eleven different measurements were taken in all.
The Bertillon system was officially adopted in France in 1888, and its use quickly spread to police departments throughout the world. But its imperfections were demonstrated when it was discovered in 1903 that two suspects, a Will West and a William West—though allegedly no relation—possessed almost identical measurements, and thus had been classified as the same person. The two Wests did have different fingerprints. (While there is some dispute over the matter, it seems likely that the Wests were in fact identical twins.) Bertillon reluctantly began including fingerprinting as a supplement to his system, and eventually the practice replaced Bertillonage altogether.
For a discussion of Holmes’s own scientific technique, see “Sherlock Holmes and Fingerprinting” in The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes, Volume II, page 860.
CHAPTER
II
THE CURSE OF THE BASKERVILLES
I HAVE IN MY pocket a manuscript,” said Dr. James Mortimer.
“I observed it as you entered the room,” said Holmes.
“It is an old manuscript.”
“Early eighteenth century, unless it is a forgery.”
“How can you say that, sir?”
“You have presented an inch or two of it to my examination all the time that you have been talking. It would be a poor expert who could not give the date of a document within a decade or so. You may possibly have read my little monograph upon the subject.26 I put that at 1730.”
“The exact date is 1742.” Dr. Mortimer drew it from his breast-pocket. “This family paper was committed to my care by Sir Charles Baskerville, whose sudden and tragic death some three months ago created so much excitement in Devonshire. I may say that I was his personal friend as well as his medical attendant. He was a strong-minded man, sir, shrewd, practical, and as unimaginative as I am myself. Yet he took this document very seriously, and his mind was prepared for just such an end as did eventually overtake him.”
Dustjacket, The Hound of the Baskervilles.
Sixpenny Copyright Novels (London: George Newnes, Ltd., 1912)
Holmes stretched out his hand for the manuscript, and flattened it upon his knee.
“You will observe, Watson, the alternative use of the long s and the short.27 It is one of several indications which enabled me to fix the date.”
I looked over his shoulder at the yellow paper and the faded script. At the head was written: “Baskerville Hall,” and below, in scrawling figures: “1742.”28
“It appears to be a statement of some sort.”
“Yes, it is a statement of a certain legend which runs in the Baskerville family.”
“Dr. Mortimer turned the manuscript to the light and read.”
Richard Gutschmidt, Der Hund von Baskerville (Stuttgart: Robert Lutz Verlag, 1903)
“But I understand that it is something more modern and practical upon which you wish to consult me?”
“Most modern. A most practical, pressing matter, which must be decided within twenty-four hours. But the manuscript is short and is intimately connected with the affair. With your permission I will read it to you.”
Holmes leaned back in his chair, placed his finger-tips together, and closed his eyes, with an air of resignation. Dr. Mortimer turned the manuscript to the light, and read in a high, crackling voice the following curious, old-world narrative:
Of the origin of the Hound of the Baskervilles there have been many statements, yet as I come in a direct line from Hugo Baskerville, and as I had the story from my father, who also had it from his, I have set it down with all belief that it occurred even as is here set forth. And I would have you believe, my sons, that the same Justice which punishes sin may also most graciously forgive it, and that no band is so heavy but that by prayer and repentance it may be removed. Learn then from this story not to fear the fruits of the past, but rather to be circumspect in the future, that those foul passions whereby our family has suffered so grievously may not again be loosed to our undoing.
Know then that in the time of the Great Rebellion (the history of which by the learned Lord Clarendon29 I most earnestly commend to your attention) this Manor of Baskerville was held by Hugo of that name, nor can it be gainsaid that he was a most wild, profane, and godless man. This, in truth, his neighbours might have pardoned, seeing that saints have never flourished in those parts, but there was in him a certain wanton and cruel humour which made his name a by-word through the West. It chanced that this Hugo came to love (if, indeed, so dark a passion may be known under so bright a name) the daughter of a yeoman who held lands near the Baskerville estate. But the young maiden, being discreet and of good repute, would ever avoid him, for she feared his evil name. So it came to pass that one Michaelmas30 this Hugo, with five or six of his idle and wicked companions, stole down upon the farm and carried off the maiden, her father and brothers being from home, as he well knew. When they had brought her to the Hall the maiden was placed in an upper chamber, while Hugo and his friends sat down to a long carouse as was their nightly custom. Now, the poor lass upstairs was like to have her wits turned at the singing and shouting and terrible oaths which came up to her from below, for they say that the words used by Hugo Baskerville, when he was in wine, were such as might blast the man who said them. At last in the stress of her fear she did that which might have daunted the bravest or most active man, for by the aid of the growth of ivy which covered (and still covers) the south wall, she came down from under the eaves, and so homeward across the moor, there being three leagues betwixt the Hall and her father’s farm.
“Dr. Mortimer turned the manuscript to the light and read.”
Sidney Paget, Strand Magazine, 1901
It chanced that some little time later Hugo left his guests to carry food and drink—with other worse things, perchance—to his captive, and so found the cage empty and the bird escaped. Then, as it would seem, he became as one that hath a devil, for rushing down the stairs into the dining-hall, he sprang upon the great table, flagons and trenchers31 flying before him, and he cried aloud before all the company that he would that very night render his body and soul to the Powers of Evil if he might but overtake the wench. And while the revellers stood aghast at the fury of the man, one more wicked or, it may be, more drunken than the rest, cried out that they should put the hounds upon her. Whereat Hugo ran from the house, crying to his grooms that they should saddle his mare and unkennel the pack, and giving the hounds a kerchief of the maid’s, he swung them to the line,32 and so off full cry in the moonlight over the moor.
Now, for some space the revellers stood agape, unable to understand all that had been done in such haste. But anon their bemused wits awoke to the nature of the deed which was like to be done upon the moorlands. Everything was now in an uproar, some calling for their pistols, some for their horses, and some for another flask of wine. But at length some sense came back to their crazed minds, and the whole of them, thirteen in number, took horse and started in pursuit. The moon shone clear above them, and they rode swiftly abreast, taking that course which the maid must needs have taken if she were to reach her own home.
They had gone a mile or
two when they passed one of the night shepherds upon the moorlands, and they cried to him to know if he had seen the hunt. And the man, as the story goes, was so crazed with fear that he could scarce speak, but at last he said that he had indeed seen the unhappy maiden, with the hounds upon her track. “But I have seen more than that,” said he, “for Hugo Baskerville passed me upon his black mare, and there ran mute behind him such a hound of hell as God forbid should ever be at my heels.”
So the drunken squires cursed the shepherd and rode onwards. But soon their skins turned cold, for there came a sound of galloping across the moor, and the black mare, dabbled with white froth, went past with trailing bridle and empty saddle. Then the revellers rode close together, for a great fear was on them, but they still followed over the moor, though each, had he been alone, would have been right glad to have turned his horse’s head. Riding slowly in this fashion, they came at last upon the hounds. These, though known for their valour and their breed, were whimpering in a cluster at the head of a deep dip or goyal,33 as we call it, upon the moor, some slinking away and some, with starting hackles and staring eyes, gazing down the narrow valley before them.
The company had come to a halt, more sober men, as you may guess, than when they started. The most of them would by no means advance, but three of them, the boldest, or, it may be the most drunken, rode forward down the goyal. Now it opened into a broad space in which stood two of those great stones, still to be seen there, which were set by certain forgotten peoples in the days of old. The moon was shining bright upon the clearing, and there in the centre lay the unhappy maid where she had fallen, dead of fear and of fatigue. But it was not the sight of her body, nor yet was it that of the body of Hugo Baskerville lying near her, which raised the hair upon the heads of these three dare-devil roysterers, but it was that, standing over Hugo, and plucking at his throat, there stood a foul thing, a great, black beast, shaped like a hound, yet larger than any hound that ever mortal eye has rested upon. And even as they looked the thing tore the throat out of Hugo Baskerville, on which, as it turned its blazing eyes and dripping jaws upon them, the three shrieked with fear and rode for dear life, still screaming, across the moor. One, it is said, died that very night of what he had seen, and the other twain were but broken men for the rest of their days.
The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes Page 49
