The Second Stain
Want to read this along with me? This essay is part of The Return of Sherlock Holmes, published in 1905. I used the epub version found on Feedbooks.com.
Thus we come to the last story in The Return of Sherlock Holmes, and the last story before another gap in Doyle’s tales of the Great Detective. This time Doyle doesn’t try to kill Holmes off, but he’s still pretty blunt – Watson details how “Abbey Grange” was supposed to be the last story, because Holmes doesn’t want them published anymore since his retirement, but “The Second Stain” is really the last story (until “Wisteria Lodge” four years later, although the next book we’ll get into was ten years afterwards: the final novel, The Valley of Fear). We do get a small glimpse into Holmes’ retirement, however: study and bee-keeping in the Sussex Downs. It seems he has also come to hate his fame, which is a change of pace from the younger Holmes who craved attention.
Back in “The Naval Treaty,” there was a mention about a case involving a second stain. However, the reference is inconsistent with details in this story. Here’s the quote from “Treaty” – you can see how the details differ strongly from this story:
The July which immediately succeeded my marriage was made memorable by three cases of interest, in which I had the privilege of being associated with Sherlock Holmes and of studying his methods. I find them recorded in my notes under the headings of “The Adventure of the Second Stain,” “The Adventure of the Naval Treaty,” and “The Adventure of the Tired Captain.” The first of these, however, deals with interest of such importance and implicates so many of the first families in the kingdom that for many years it will be impossible to make it public. No case, however, in which Holmes was engaged has ever illustrated the value of his analytical methods so clearly or has impressed those who were associated with him so deeply. I still retain an almost verbatim report of the interview in which he demonstrated the true facts of the case to Monsieur Dubugue of the Paris police, and Fritz von Waldbaum, the well-known specialist of Dantzig, both of whom had wasted their energies upon what proved to be side-issues. The new century will have come, however, before the story can be safely told.
Since this is a case involving highly-placed public officials (similar to the “The Bruce-Partington Plans”), the timing of the case is explicitly vague. Even the decade is kept secret. However, Holmes and Watson live together, so we have the usual timeframes for guesses (pre-wedding or post-Hiatus). Because of a passing mention to the Prime Minister having a second term, dates on the case could range from 1886 to 1902. Despite the reference above to “the July which immediately succeeded my marriage,” the case is clearly one in which Watson is an unmarried man, since he spent three days without comment at 221B Baker Street. Therefore, either the reference in “Treaty” is wrong, or the details in this story are too obfuscated to slot into continuity. I’m more inclined towards assuming “Treaty” is wrong and that this case is set in the late 1890s, because Watson is just as quick as Holmes to contribute to the case when Holmes talks about the three men who might be involved:
“There are only those three capable of playing so bold a game; there are Oberstein, La Rothiere, and Eduardo Lucas. I will see each of them.”
I glanced at my morning paper.
“Is that Eduardo Lucas of Godolphin Street?”
“Yes.”
“You will not see him.”
“Why not?”
“He was murdered in his house last night.”
My friend has so often astonished me in the course of our adventures that it was with a sense of exultation that I realised how completely I had astonished him.
Later, Watson claims the murder as a wild coincidence, and Holmes chides him. However, Watson turns out to be completely correct. (Holmes, of course, gives Watson no credit for this.)
On a side note, two of the three men mentioned are Oberstein and La Rothiere. These two were also referenced in “The Bruce-Partington Plans,” and their residences in the West End were established in both stories as well. The way both stories are phrased, it’s hard to tell which case comes first, but given that two highly-influential men in the British government are speaking openly to Holmes and without Mycroft present, I’m inclined to believe this case comes after “Bruce-Partington,” as Holmes proved his discretion and talent in that case.
Watson’s experience with women comes up again. He is clearly smitten by a beautiful woman, and Holmes chides Watson for the fair sex being his department before admitting that he finds women inscrutable.
Lestrade is back, and he is confiding in Holmes. This is another indication to me that this is a later story, as Lestrade trusts Holmes enough to admonish his own patrolman just on Holmes’ word. Also, Watson refers to multiple friends of Holmes at one point, and it’s possible that Lestrade might be considered a friend by this point in their relationship.
The international situation referred to in the story closely resembles the political situation of the early 20th century, and unfortunately the great war alluded to in the story actually did come about (as World War I). Further, when Holmes writes the name of the one who wrote the provocative letter, the Premier says only “Exactly. It was he.” It’s commonly believed by Sherlockians that the allusion is to Kaiser Wilhelm II, the emperor of Germany and the king of Prussia, because of Wilhelm’s legendary lack of political tact.
Finally, another little snippet of Victorian lexicon. Lestrade says in the story “I’ve lucky for you, my man, that nothing is missing, or you would find yourself in Queer Street.” According to the Dictionary of Phrase and Fable, to live in Queer Street means to be of doubtful solvency or to be marked as someone worthy of questioning. While the use of “queer” to mean homosexual ranged back as early as 1894, it wasn’t a universal meaning, and queer was still used at that point to refer to an irregularity or something counterfeit.
Although there’s not a lot of development of Holmes or Watson in this story, it’s actually quite a good classic tale and an interesting twist on an espionage story. Holmes is in classic form, Watson has a couple of good moments, and the relationship between Holmes and Lestrade is mature. This is one of my favorites.