A Scandal in Bohemia.
The case begins Tuesday, March 20, 1888.
Why?
KEY WATSON DATE OF CASE:
" . . . it was on the twentieth of March, 1888 . . ."
" . . . it was on the twentieth of March, 1888 . . ."
KEY WATSONIAN EVENT:
"I had seen little of Holmes lately. My marriage had drifted us away from each other."
"I had seen little of Holmes lately. My marriage had drifted us away from each other."
SIGNIFICANT PASSAGE OF TIME:
"Then I must begin by binding you both to absolute secrecy for two years . . ." says the king. "A Scandal in Bohemia" was published in July of 1891.
"Then I must begin by binding you both to absolute secrecy for two years . . ." says the king. "A Scandal in Bohemia" was published in July of 1891.
THE MANY DATES OF IRENE ADLER:
"Born in New Jersey in the year 1858."
"Some five years ago, during a lengthy visit to Warsaw, I (the King) made the acquaintance of the well-known adventuress, Irene Adler." (As Irene had "Prima Donna of the Imperial Opera of Warsaw" in her bio, it would seem she attained that position around the age of 25, also, it would seem, the age of the King at that time. "I am but thirty now.")
According to Watson’s date of the story, Irene married Godfrey Norton on March 21, 1888. (A Wednesday.)
"Born in New Jersey in the year 1858."
"Some five years ago, during a lengthy visit to Warsaw, I (the King) made the acquaintance of the well-known adventuress, Irene Adler." (As Irene had "Prima Donna of the Imperial Opera of Warsaw" in her bio, it would seem she attained that position around the age of 25, also, it would seem, the age of the King at that time. "I am but thirty now.")
According to Watson’s date of the story, Irene married Godfrey Norton on March 21, 1888. (A Wednesday.)
WHAT THE BARING-GOULD ANNOTATED SAYS:
May 20, 1887. How Baring-Gould can, in good conscience, print that date on a page facing a date Watson which writes as March 20, 1888 is beyond me. If Watson was mistaken, shouldn’t a good editor fix that mistake? And if Watson *wasn’t* mistaken, shouldn’t a good Sherlockian agree with him?
May 20, 1887. How Baring-Gould can, in good conscience, print that date on a page facing a date Watson which writes as March 20, 1888 is beyond me. If Watson was mistaken, shouldn’t a good editor fix that mistake? And if Watson *wasn’t* mistaken, shouldn’t a good Sherlockian agree with him?
WHAT ZEISLER, THE KING OF CHRONOLOGY, SAYS:
March 22, 1889. Here’s a prime example of twisting dates to fit marriages. Zeisler thinks Watson met Mary Morstan in April of 1888. That being the case, there’s no way Watson can be married to her a month earlier. Thus SCAN becomes the square peg that must be pounded into that round hole, and if said pounding must destroy Watson’s best date reference, so be it.
March 22, 1889. Here’s a prime example of twisting dates to fit marriages. Zeisler thinks Watson met Mary Morstan in April of 1888. That being the case, there’s no way Watson can be married to her a month earlier. Thus SCAN becomes the square peg that must be pounded into that round hole, and if said pounding must destroy Watson’s best date reference, so be it.
THE BIRLSTONE RAILWAY’S TIMETABLE:
This tale seems to make chronologists crazy, but I really have to go with Watson on this one. He’s clear and precise this time with no internal contradictions. As this was his first short story, the good doctor probably paid greater attention to detail on SCAN than any other tale. Let the marriages fall where they may -- in my book SCAN is rock solid at Tuesday, March 20, 1888.
This tale seems to make chronologists crazy, but I really have to go with Watson on this one. He’s clear and precise this time with no internal contradictions. As this was his first short story, the good doctor probably paid greater attention to detail on SCAN than any other tale. Let the marriages fall where they may -- in my book SCAN is rock solid at Tuesday, March 20, 1888.
No comments:
Post a Comment