Given that the whole performance was for Holmes’s benefit, what was the object of it all? Clearly, to put him off, to make him, and the King, believe that the case was closed, the problem solved.
If so, it failed, for Holmes staged his own little performance with the smoke rocket. There are two possibilities here. One is that Irene really as inept as she seems; having gone through the ‘marriage’ ceremony she may indeed have believed that she would then be safe from Holmes’s unwanted attentions; and she may have been taken in by his disguise. But the second possibility is that Irene was expecting something out of the ordinary (though she could not be expected to predict just what) and thus that her reaction was also part of the act, carefully calculated to fool Holmes. Irene’s own daring salutation to Holmes at the very door of 221b may have been her way of letting him know that she had seen through his own disguise.
That the second possibility is the more likely is surely demonstrated by Holmes’s own reaction to Irene. Watson says, ‘It was not that he [Holmes] felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler,’ which is unambiguous enough. And yet it is surely difficult to explain Holmes’s admiration for Irene purely on the basis of her behaviour during the course of the case. All Irene did, if we take Watson’s account at face value, was to reveal almost immediately the hiding place which Holmes sought, and then make a run for it when she realized that Holmes was involved. I have long thought that Watson was wrong, and that Holmes was indeed smitten - although he refused to accept the fact - by Irene’s charms. But this conflicts with Watson’s own assessment of the situation rather badly, and the explanation just given is a far better fit. If Holmes realized belatedly just how thoroughly he had been fooled, that would explain his admiration for Irene very neatly.
Although Irene may very well have fooled Holmes, there is a hint that things did not turn out well for her. Watson, writing two years after the case, speaks of ‘the late Irene Adler,’ which indicates that she had died relatively soon after that ‘marriage’ which Holmes witnessed. This may, of course, have been purely bad luck; but it may not. We must look more closely at the character of Mr Godfrey Norton: ostensibly a successful lawyer, he did not hesitate for a moment to throw up his career, his home and his friends in order to leave for the Continent, never to return. Just how believable is that? Possibly Norton was independently wealthy; possibly he even had a house in Paris or a villa in Italy, and there was no difficulty involved in his leaving England as he did.
But there is another possibility, and one connected with that curious figure of two years mentioned by the King: ‘I must begin by binding you both to absolute secrecy for two years; at the end of that time the matter will be of no importance.’ Now, why not? We might perhaps think that if the relatives of the King’s prospective bride, Clotilde Lothman von Saxe-Meningen, objected to the King’s amorous dalliance with Irene before he became engaged to Clotilde, they would equally object to it after the wedding. Of course, once Clotilde was the Queen of Bohemia it could be argued that the matter was settled; any moral scruples would be irrelevant. But that applies equally well two minutes after the last ‘I will’ as two years after.
Was it, then, political? The union of the houses of von Ormstein and von Saxe-Meningen was presumably of some significance to the political situation; more might be at stake than the marital bliss of the happy couple who were the centre of interest. But again, why the so specific time limit of two years? A treaty signed immediately after the signing of the marriage resister would be valid as soon as signed; it is unbelievable to suppose that there was a clause invalidating such a (purely hypothetical, of course) treaty in the event that it was discovered that the King had been putting it about before the wedding! In the improbable even that there were such a clause, why would the passage of two years invalidate it? Immorality is immorality, however long may elapse until it becomes public knowledge.
We can understand Watson’s publishing his story immediately after the expiring of the two year limit. Watson knew a good yarn when he heard one, and he was naturally eager to share this one with his public. It is the fact of Irene’s becoming ‘the late Irene Adler’ before the two years were up which is the sticking point. Did the King know that at the end of two years Irene would be ‘the late Irene Adler,’ and thus no danger to him?
Put together the curious character of Godfrey Norton and the death of Irene within the space of those two years so casually mentioned by the King, Irene’s death may, of course, have been purely accidental, and Norton may have been heart-broken as a consequence. But similarly he may not: the King may have employed not just Holmes as an agent, but Norton as well, in an attempt to ensure that Irene was eliminated. That is not so fanciful as it might at first appear, for we know for certain that Holmes was not by any means the first, or the only agent whom the King had employed: ‘Five attempts [to recover the photograph from Irene] have been made,’ the King told Holmes and Watson. ‘Twice burglars. . . ransacked her house. Once we diverted her luggage. . . Twice she had been waylaid.’ So there is nothing to say that the King had not employed both Holmes and Norton to use more subtle techniques.
The fake wedding may have been intended to fool both Holmes and Irene; or it may have been purely for Holmes’s benefit. If for Irene’s benefit as well as Holmes’s, Norton’s intention may have been to play the jealous or injured husband, to persuade Irene to give up or destroy the incriminating photograph - it would not, after all, be too odd if a newly married husband asked his wife to destroy a picture of herself with a former lover. When that failed, Irene not being quite that stupid, did Norton take more extreme action?
If the fake wedding were to fool only Holmes, then Norton must have been playing a very deep game. Possibly he pretended to Irene that they would then be safe, that Holmes would withdraw. That would give Norton more time and opportunity to make his own plans. Or perhaps Norton intended from the outset that they would leave the country - it might have seemed to Norton that the police of another country might not be so quick to investigate a suspicious death as the English force.
It is difficult to be sure about all this. We may be maligning Norton, who may indeed have been doing only what he thought best for Irene; and we may also be maligning the King. But if that is so then there is much which needs explaining somehow.
JH: Why did Holmes refuse payment from the King; and what happened to the unspent balance of the 1,000 pounds expense money?
HY: It is by no means clear that Holmes did refuse payment. It is true that he seems to reject the King’s generosity at the end of the case, and in a very brusque and unmannerly fashion; but that does not mean that Holmes did not send in a bill. We sometimes forget that Holmes was running a business; like any other Victorian professional man he would send in an account, and the client would pay when it was convenient. (Holmes says in ‘The Speckled Band’ that Miss Stoner is ‘at liberty to defray whatever expenses [he] may be put to, at the time which suits [her] best.’)
We may compute the cost of hiring the various actors and actresses who were seen in the road at perhaps ten or fifteen pounds; this leaves a considerable balance of expense money, but Holmes would naturally render a full account to the King, and return any unspent balance after deducting his (Holmes’s) fee.
When Holmes refused the emerald snake ring which the King offered him, Holmes thought that he had made a hash of the case, and that the ring was too great a reward for what he had done. The photograph of Irene was another matter, although I think that it was not mere sentiment, or affection, but Holmes’s desire to have a photograph to add to his criminal collection; Irene was the only woman to have bested him and it would be natural for Holmes to want to remember her for that alone. He perhaps added the photograph to that collection of portraits of criminal which decorated his bedroom wall.
The snuffbox seems to have been an extra payment, a token of appreciation, from the King, who was well satisfied with th
e outcome of the case.
HY: Why did the King bind Holmes and Watson to silence for a period of two years, after which the matter would be of no importance?
JH: One explanation has been suggested in a previous answer, but there is another possibility. The King may have wanted the two years in order to ensure that he had an heir (or, better, two, the traditional one heir and one spare) to the throne. Presumably Clotilde came of good breeding stock, and the King’s experience with Irene (and perhaps others) would have shown him that he personally had nothing to worry about in that department. Once there was a Prince (or two) it didn’t matter what Clotilde and her family might think. Those were not days of instant divorce, so perhaps the King expected Clotilde to accept matters; and she probably did.
2.” CASE OF IDENTITY”
HY: Is it believable that Miss Sutherland could not recognize her stepfather?
JH: Holmes himself asked Miss Sutherland: ‘Do you not find that with your short sight it is a little trying to do so much typewriting?’ To which Miss Sutherland replied: ‘I did at first, but now I know where the letters are without looking.’ Miss Sutherland’s shortness of sight is thus established.
As a further point, her step-father took care to project the image of ‘a very shy man... He would rather walk with [Miss Sutherland] in the evening than in the daylight, for he said that he hated to be conspicuous... Even his voice was gentle. He’d had the quinsy and swollen glands when he was young... and it had left him with a weak throat and a hesitating, whispering fashion of speech... his eyes were weak... and he wore tinted glasses against the glare.’ Miss Sutherland did not mention - but her printed advertisement did - the ‘bushy, black side-whiskers and moustache’ which Windibank had also assumed as part of his disguise.
Further, Windibank had acted ‘with the connivance and assistance of his wife,’ according to Holmes - and Windibank verified this. So if Miss Sutherland had entertained any suspicions that she had seen ‘Hosmer Angel’ before, Mrs Windibank could easily have dismissed them, perhaps saying that Angel had once worked with the late Mr Sutherland, let us say. (For Angel - had he been genuine - must have been associated in some way, however loosely, with the trade, or he would hardly have appeared at the gasfitters’ ball, surely an event with a limited appeal, in the first place?)
Windibank himself claimed that ‘It was only a joke at first,’ and there is no real reason to disbelieve him here. If the joke had fallen flat, if Miss Sutherland had recognized her step-father, then the scheme to defraud her would never have come to fruition. As it was, she did not recognize him.
HY: Indeed, Holmes says as the end of the case that there is no point telling Miss Sutherland the truth: ‘If I tell her she will not believe me.’ An odd statement, this, on the face of it; why should she not believe the truth? Miss Sutherland, Holmes seems to be saying, is so very convinced, not by ‘Hosmer Angel’ but by the abstract notion of loyalty to him, by ‘love’ as an ideal, that she cannot accept anything which detracts from that ideal. Perhaps a century later she would have joined some religious cult, have found another focus for her idealism? Her conviction certainly has a sacred quality to it that is worthy of a better object.
JH: Miss Sutherland said she offered to type her letters, but ‘Hosmer Angel’ refused because ‘he felt that the machine had come between us.’ Why didn’t Miss Sutherland feel the same about his typed letters?
HY: As noted above, Miss Sutherland was totally convinced by ‘Angel.’ She perhaps also saw him as being her last, only, chance for marriage (although Holmes tends to disagree here: ‘it was evident that with her fair personal advantages, and her little income, she would not be allowed to remain single long.’ She may have been worried that, if she complained about something, even the typewritten love letters, she would lose ‘Angel.’ She wanted to see only his positive aspects.
HY: Why was Holmes involved in the Dundas case?
JH: Holmes does not seem to have been much interested in ‘domestic’ (divorce, etc) cases, or in mundane cases of any sort. He tells Watson at the start of ‘ A Case of Identity’ that he has ‘ten or twelve’ cases in hand, ‘but none which present any feature of interest.’ And Watson mentions elsewhere that Holmes preferred bizarre problems. It is thus not too difficult to picture Holmes being reluctant at first to handle the Dundas case; but when the details were explained to him, he would seize eagerly at the opportunity to investigate something so out of the ordinary as a husband who ‘had drifted into the habit of winding up every meal by taking out his false teeth and hurling them at his wife.’
It seems clear that it was Mrs Dundas (or perhaps a solicitor or a friend of the family acting for her) who consulted Holmes. It is not clear whether Holmes actually managed to account for the odd behaviour of Mr Dundas; Holmes himself claims to have been ‘engaged in clearing up some small points in connection with’ the case, but he fails to mention what the points were, or what the reason for the strange conduct might have been. Perhaps Holmes simply failed to clear up the small points? His remark is ambiguous, so perhaps it was too odd even for Holmes to work out? Mr Dundas’s behaviour does not seem that of a wholly sane man, but if it were madness and nothing more, why did Holmes not mention that to Watson, who was a doctor? The true explanation must remain obscure, but there are intriguing possibilities. For example, if Mrs Dundas wished to get rid of her husband, to control his money, let us say, she might have given him some hallucinogenic drug to make it seem he was mad?
JH: Why did Holmes think Miss Sutherland would not believe the truth?
HY: It is a commonplace that members of extreme cults do not abandon their beliefs easily. For example the members of Aum Supreme Truth continued their activities long after their founder had been indicted for mass murder. Similarly Miss Sutherland had convinced herself that ‘Angel’ was genuine, and simply would not accept anything to the contrary. Only later would the truth dawn on her, and make her life miserable.
HY: To whom did Miss Sutherland write a letter before her departure for 221b to consult Holmes?
JH: There seem to be two possible intended recipients of the letter. Miss Sutherland was puzzled; and she was angry. She planned to consult Holmes, whose name had been mentioned to her by ‘Mrs Etherege, whose husband [Holmes] found so easy when the police and everyone had given him up for dead.’ Miss Sutherland wrote the letter ‘in a hurry and dipped her pen too deep,’ so it seems likely that the letter was somehow connected with Miss Sutherland’s determination to see Holmes.
The two likeliest possibilities are thus that Miss Sutherland had written a note to her mother, to say that she was going out (to see Holmes); or that Miss Sutherland had initially meant to write to Holmes to ask for an appointment, but then changed her mind and decided to go in person. Since Miss Sutherland does not say that she had changed her mind, the more likely of the two is that the note was written to her mother, who must thus have been out of the house when Miss Sutherland left it; most likely Mrs Windibank was out with her husband, for if Mr Windibank had been in the house, and Miss Sutherland had said that she was going to consult Sherlock Holmes, then Mr Windibank would surely have tried to talk her out of it?
JH: How did the Sutherland family fare after this case?
HY: Badly! James Windibank himself may not have risen ‘from crime to crime until he does something very bad, and ends on a gallows,’ as Holmes predicted, but it is clear that Windibank was a sneaky scoundrel of the worst sort, and he seems likely to have been destined for a life of petty crime, if nothing worse. Then Miss Sutherland would drift into old age still moping about her wretched ‘Hosmer Angel’ (and how the devil could any self-respecting woman associate with anyone of that name in the first place?) So Mrs Windibank faced a fairly bleak future; but since she had connived at and assisted Windibank in the shabby deception in the first place, that was only what she deserved.
3.”THE RED-HEADED LEAGUE
“
JH: Would there really be so many red-headed men applying for the vacancy as Jabez Wilson’s account suggests?
HY: The salary offered in the advertisement was a generous one, four pounds a week, or slightly over two hundred a year. This compares favourably with the ‘£4 a month in my last place with Colonel Spence Munro,’ which Miss Violet Hunter earned in ‘The Copper Beeches,’ and is pretty well exactly what Hall Pycroft was to have been earning with Mawson’s, the stockbroker for whom he almost acted as clerk - and this was an increase on the £3 a week he had actually earned at Coxon’s, his old employer. Two hundred a year was therefore good money; it would attract the attention of men from both working and middle classes. Furthermore the advertisement stressed that the duties were ‘purely nominal,’ though it did not specify just what these duties were to be, so for all the readers knew, the duties might have been such as to be carried out in the evenings or at weekends, and so would not conflict with what we now call ‘the day job.’ It was worth taking a half day off work to look into it.
It is worth remembering that when the Stoll Film Company filmed ‘The Red-Headed League’ in 1920, they advertised in the Times for ‘twenty CURLY, RED-HEADED MEN... Those who have served in HM forces and have some knowledge of acting preferred.’ Forty men turned up who satisfied almost all the conditions (though there were more conditions than in the original advertisement!) and the studio hired them all for the day. (See Leslie S Klinger, The Sherlock Holmes Reference Library The Adventures, Gasogene, 1998, p. 35.) This shows just how effective the agony column was, so it is easy to believe that there were indeed many red-headed men attracted by the original, intriguing advertisement.
East Wind Coming Page 20
