More Sherlock Holmes Theories
More Sherlock Holmes Theories is an article published in The Bookman (US version) in may 1902.
More Sherlock Holmes Theories
It was only a few months ago that we were discussing in these columns the subject of the serial, contrasting the average illogically chopped-up narrative of to-day with some of the real serials of forty or sixty years ago. A book which is in many ways a notable exception to what we said is the widely exploited The Hound of the Baskervilles, which, while not so very extraordinary as a complete story, was in a minor way a really great serial. In fact, in that form it has proved the most successful book since Trilby came out in parts in Harper's Magazine. After reading the tale as a whole in book form, one can look back and realise how cleverly devised each instalment was, and how, with one or two exceptions, the closing paragraphs of each month's part were worked up so as to stimulate to the highest degree the reader's excitement and curiosity. The opening instalment appeared in September, and the closing lines were a positive triumph in that they instantly won and held the attention of every reader, and left him unsatisfied to the very end. The head of the Baskerville family had been found dead under peculiar circumstances. The story of an old legend of a gigantic hound which, more than two centuries before, was said to have worried to death the wicked Baskerville of that day, and afterward to have followed the family as a curse, was told. And after the plain facts and the supernatural legend had been placed side by side, they were linked into one thrill of wonder and horror by the information that, although nothing had been said of it at the coroner's inquest, there had been found near the body of the dead Sir Charles footprints, not of a man nor of a woman, but "the footprints of a gigantic hound."
By this time the whole story is known to those who have read it either in book or in serial form. Perhaps there are some who are more or less disappointed in the manner in which the tale was worked out, and indeed there are some explanations which strain the credulity. Some months ago, when only two or three parts had appeared, a theory as to the solution was printed in THE BOOKMAN. This theory proved very far wrong; but the number of letters which came to this office, contradicting or affirming it, served to show how widespread was the interest in the serial. We should like to print them all, because even now they are entertaining, but it is very obvious that we could not. However, we are going to give two. which show to a certain extent the tone of all the rest.
To the Editors of THE BOOKMAN.
Your speculations on the outcome of the new Sherlock Holmes story have interested me very much, especially the ingenious theory given in THE BOOKMAN for this month. Merely as a matter of passing interest might I call your attention to another phase of that same theory? Taking it for granted that there is in the neighbourhood of Baskerville Hall some person with feet like a hound, does it not seem more probable that this person is a descendant of the girl whom Hugo Baskerville wronged? She was lying prostrate when Hugo's companion saw the hound tear out his throat, but her death is nowhere insisted on — Dr. Doyle does not "produce the corpse." That any woman of the Baskerville family should have followed in that wild gallop across miles of moor seems improbable. But let it be given that this girl had only fainted, and that she lived to give birth to a child (whether or not an illegitimate Baskerville), and one or two more points in the story seem to be solved. For instance, there is good reason for a bitter family feud between the hound-footed descendants of this child and the Baskervilles — no one can blame a man for feeling a little peevish toward a family one of whose members has cursed him with such inconvenient extremities. Or allow that a sort of insanity accompanies the malformed feet. That is not an impossibility in the realm of fiction. And many of the Baskervilles have died sudden deaths. Why may not this account for the peculiar actions of the butterfly-chasing Stapleton? He is the dog-toed one, I am convinced (for the moment), and the escaped convict Selden is innocent of everything save an entirely extraneous murder. The hideous sound heard on the moor is some natural phenomenon connected with the Grimpen Mire. The original hound was one of Baskerville's pack which turned on him for some reason, and whose size was magnified by the frightened shepherd and the tipsy companions. The animal seen by Sir Charles was really a black calf. And, last of all, the type-writing lady interviewed by Dr. Watson has nothing to do with the case— nothing important, at least, but is merely another one of those false scents and ridiculous blunders that the ingenuous Watson is always falling into for the greater glorification of Sherlock Holmes.
To the Editors of THE BOOKMAN.
I have very much enjoyed reading in the current BOOKMAN your comments upon the outcome of The Hound of the Baskervilles. I have read this Sherlock Holmes story with great interest, and had also the club-footed theory. However, I carried the theory a little farther, trying to account for the other characters. Assuming that the escaped criminal, Selden, is in reality Roger Baskerville, and that this Roger had met Sir Charles at the trysting-place at the yew hedge on the night of the latter's death, it is probable that Sir Charles, expecting to meet Laura Lyons, had died of fright at beholding Roger, against whom he had probably committed some great wrong. This was Roger's revenge. Roger, of course, in order to approach noiselessly, had removed his shoes, which accounts for the footprints near the dead body. Roger had used Laura as an unsuspecting tool. Laura, shocked at the terrible outcome of her friendship with Roger, instead of revealing her connection with the death of Sir Charles at the time of her appointment with him, had never revealed anything about it, through fear of in criminating herself. This, then, was her secret. Now for the other suspicious characters, Stapleton and Barrymore. Both are in the plot with the convict ; Stapleton more than Barrymore. Mrs. Barrymore is innocent, as was shown by her plausible confession to Sir Henry and Dr. Watson. She had been told this story and led to believe it was really true. Barrymore may be as innocent as his wife, though more likely he is more closely connected with the crime. Stapleton is hand in glove with the convict, as is shown by his lack of fear of living on the moor while the convict is still at large, although we know that Stapleton is of a nervous and irritable disposition. His sister has in some way learned something of the plots of her brother and the convict, and is filled with sympathy for Sir Henry, with whom she afterward falls in love. Her brother, however, has some powerful influence over her. Stapleton was the agent of the villain in London, and Miss Stapleton (who was there with him, for he did not dare to leave her out of his sight) was the person sent the warning, made up from the newspaper, to Sir Henry, not daring to use her own hand writing, through fear of being discovered by her brother. Then, when on the moor with Sir Henry, she again warns him, and Stapleton's anger at discovering them together was caused through fear that she might know something of his plots and be revealing them to Sir Henry. Miss Stapleton does not know what the plot is, but only suspects its existence. The supposed barkings of the hound can be attributed to merely physical causes, such as the escaping of gases on the moor.
Probably this is but little more than you have already expressed in your columns, but hoping that it may be of some interest to you,
I am,
