Concerning 'The Terror' and Mr Weller
Concerning 'The Terror' and Mr Weller: A Study in Attitudes is an article written by William A. S. Sarjeant published in the A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (Vol. 8, 1998).
This article is William A. S. Sarjeant's forceful rebuttal to Philip Weller's criticism of an earlier study on The Terror of Blue John Gap, defending both the authors' methods and their geological-literary argument. It then adds an editorial note explaining that Weller was offered a right of reply, declined to revise or republish his article in ACD, and remained at the centre of the dispute.
Concerning 'The Terror' and Mr Weller
A Study in Attitudes
William A. S. Sarjeant
B.Sc., Ph.D., D.Sc., M.Bt., F.R.S.C.
At the first gatherings of enthusiasts for the writings of Arthur Conan Doyle in New York — the gatherings that led to the formation of the Baker Street Irregulars, most venerable and greatest of such organizations the spirit was one of mutual fellowship and enjoyment. The participants knew that Conan Doyle, though an excellent writer, had been a careless one. They set themselves the amiable tasks of trying to find logical solutions for the discrepancies and of developing hypotheses and speculations from minor incidents and hints in the stories. This was not a matter of grim-faced literary scholarship; it was always a game, undertaken in a spirit of good humour and played for fun.
It was in the same spirit that, some years ago, Alan Bradley and I began an extended, tongue-in-cheek analysis of the Sherlockian canon, to try to demonstrate that Sherlock Holmes was a woman. This hypothesis was initially published in a short paper (1979) and then presented at length in our book Ms Holmes of Baker Street: The Truth about Sherlock (1989). To our pleasure, many leading Sherlockians and writers on mystery fiction responded extremely positively, stating how much they had enjoyed the book and liked the idea: Peter Blau, of Washington's Red Circle, and Allen Hubin, former editor of The Armchair Detective, were among these, while the late John Bennett Shaw, greatest of Sherlockian collectors, not only loved our book but even participated in a three-way media presentation with Alan and me on The Dini Petty Show (CBC: 2 April 1991).
However, the initial faith that Alan and I had in the good nature and amiability of Conan Doyle enthusiasts was soon to be shaken by the bad-tempered backlash our work generated from some humourless souls. To certain persons, the very suggestion that Holmes was a woman seemed to be considered sacrilege. The idea was dismissed contemptuously and summarily though always without any least attempt to refute our arguments. A certain Mr Alan Udle personifies their attitude (1996) when he refers to:
- ... that deplorable monograph, Ms Holmes of Baker Street, which set out, in a highly self-contradictory and ridiculous manner, to prove that Holmes was a woman. The best that might be said about that piece of ineffable twaddle is that it may, just, have been meant as a joke.
Typically, this gives no examples to those 'self-contradictions'. Moreover, it shows a bewildering unawareness that virtually the whole of Sherlockian scholarship is a joke, done for fun and to be enjoyed. I find very sad the fact that such persons as Mr Udle have so utterly lost their sense of humour, that their investigations into Conan Doyle's writings have become as serious, and as reverential, as the investigations of Fundamentalist Christians into Holy Scripture.
This attitude receives its most extreme manifestation in the response by Mr Philip Weller to the article by Dana Batory and me, '"The Terror of Blue John Gap" — A Geological and Literary Study', published in 1994 (ACD5). His critique (1996a,b) is quite three times as long as our original article, a fact only comprehensible because Mr Weller is not just its author, but also the editor of the journal in which it appeared, The New Baker Street Pillar Box. This is not a journal with a wide circulation in North America. Neither did Mr Weller have the courtesy to send copies of his tirade to either Dana or me, despite the fact that our addresses would have been readily ascertained from the Editor of ACD. Instead, I learned of its publication only through the courtesy of my friend Dr Brian Brodie of Regina, Saskatchewan who furnished me with xerox copies of those articles (Weller 1996a,b) and of Mr Brian Turvey's sycophantic comment thereon (1996). The contents of these three writings so impugn our own scholarship and integrity as to require a response at length.
First of all, let me set forth the qualifications of Dana and me for writing such an article. Dana Batory is a U.S. literary scholar, interested especially in imaginative fiction: he has long been preparing an annotated edition of The Lost World that is still, alas! unpublished. For my part, I am a professor of geological sciences and have published some 350 books and articles in my discipline, including a ten-volume bibliography of the history of geology. In particular, I have worked for many years on fossil vertebrate footprints and their interpretation.
Mr Weller states condescendingly that:
- Little can be found to object to in the geological elements. of this study, since they were derived largely from the work of one of the leading geologists connected with studies of The Peak District. (1996a, p. 31)
Not so; I have a protracted first-hand knowledge of that region's geology, having been a founder and first President of the Peak District Mines Historical Society and the author, co-author, with that geologist (Dr Trevor D. Ford, formerly of Leicester University), of a number of papers on Peak District geology and mineralogy-most recently 'Minerals of the Peak District' (Ford, Sarjeant and Smith, 1993), in a publication whose cover is adorned with a photograph of blue john fluorspar! Furthermore, I served for a time (along with my father, Harold Sarjeant, and our friend Leslie O. Ford) as an Honorary Warden of Treak Cliff, with permission to seek minerals on that hill and authority to expel from it any persons who were misbehaving.
Moreover, though Mr Weller seems not to have noticed the fact, Dana and I stated explicitly (1994, p. 124) that Trevor Ford had read our manuscript. He had perceived none of the flaws — geological or geographic — upon which Mr Weller's doubtless greater knowledge permits him to pontificate at such length.
It is indeed strange that, when Mr Weller so repeatedly accuses us of reading Conan Doyle's text so carelessly, he himself has read our article so carelessly, as when he writes:
- In the laymen's terms which B & S use, it is misleading to suggest that Derbyshire Blue John is unique, as they do. (1996a, p. 31)
We wrote no such thing! Instead, we correctly stated that 'blue john is unique, in Britain at least... because [the purple] may be closely banded with white.' We did not imply that it is unique in the whole world; instead, we proceeded to discuss a possible second source and to demonstrate the falsity of the claim that the Romans. had worked blue john.
I agree that we were unaware of China as a source of banded fluorspar, since this has only come to be marketed in Castleton since I left England. Trevor Ford (in litt., 1996) tells me that this material, when cut to jewellery size, is hard to distinguish from Derbyshire 'blue john', but that it is quite readily distinguishable in hand specimen, without the need for the 'special equipment' that Mr Weller considered necessary (1996a, p. 31).
Mr Weller presents some cogent criticisms of the map we published, for indeed it was not well reproduced. However, it did at least show contours, whereas the older map chosen for reproduction by Mr Weller-one that predated Dr Hardcastle's adventure by quite thirty years and was already outdated by that time-indicates. topography only by hachuring.
We are puzzled by his statement that
- It is of vital importance to note that, at the time of the story, the main route to Castleton from the west was not Winnats Pass, as it is now, but the road which runs through the gap between Mam Tor and the Treak Cliff hill (1996a, p. 33).
Why is this vitally important? Conan Doyle's protagonist, Dr Hardcastle, was living at a farm which, from its altitude-1420 feet [433m]-could not have been situated to the north or east of Castleton, but to the southwest of that little town. Unless wishing to admire the frowning face of Mam Tor, he would have no cause to follow the road beneath its crag when, as a pedestrian, it would merely involve him in a considerable extra walk. (The road forms a sharp northward V.) Mr Weller states that both of the major Blue John mines are 'alongside that road'. In fact, the entrances to both lie considerably above it; to reach either, Dr Hardcastle would surely ascend Treak Cliff hill from the west or south-west, not follow any road.
Moreover, it is even questionable when, or whether, the Mam Tor road would have been open to vehicular traffic at the time of his visit. As Edwards notes (1962, p. 167), the slippages of Edale Shale, that were ultimately to force its closure, were already occurring, meaning that it was not used at all frequently'. Instead, the railway provided the easiest access to Edale and to Chapel-en-le-Frith.
Mr Weller chides us for our statement that there are only two principal valleys' extending into the Hope Valley from the south. Why, he asks, did we not mention Cave Dale? In the next sentence, he provides the answer: because Cave Dale is 'nowhere as deeply cut or as spectacular'. Moreover, blue john fluorspar has never been found in Cave Dale, which evidences very little mineralization; neither are there any farms in Cave Dale, though we concur that it has many sheep!
To determine which farm served as residence for Dr Hardcastle is difficult. His chronicler presents two disparate facts: first, its altitude (quoted above) and second, that it is situated at the bottom of a valley. These are irreconcilable. On the basis of altitude, we favoured Rowtor Farm; on the basis of situation, Mr Weller favours Winnats Head Farm. Whichever choice one makes, the chronicler's text ist contradicted; Mr Weller and his adherents cannot consider him free from that fault.
Mr Weller chides us for failing to make any positive identification of the cave that Dr Hardcastle names 'Blue John Gap'. He seems unaware of the earlier opinion of John Royse (1943, p. 50) that the Blue John Mines were the likeliest candidate but, like us, discards this alternative. (Those mines afford no evidence of the Roman working so explicitly mentioned by Dr Hardcastle; they are still being intermittently worked and are regularly open to tourists).
Instead, Mr Weller sets forth in his second article the idea that the Windy Knoll Cave is the best candidate as being 'Blue John Gap'. This is an ingenious suggestion and, indeed, Blue John was worked around 200 metres south of that cave, the particular pattern of banding even causing it to be named 'The Windy Knoll Vein'. However, the Blue John was worked by surface excavation, never underground; there is no Blue John in Windy Knoll Cave and, as Mr Weller admits, there are no signs of Roman or other working in that cave, which is in fact a swallet. The most serious objection to this theory is that, as Mr Weller states in his history, the excavation of bones on Windy Knoll commenced as early as 1870. Dr Hardcastle could scarcely have gone to 'Blue John Gap' without noticing such excavations and would surely have learned about the bone discoveries there from the local people, even if he had not read of them himself. Moreover, when adventuring underground, he would have noticed the numerous bones that are such a feature of Windy Knoll Cave; but he makes no mention of seeing anything of the kind.
'Blue John Gap' was quite clearly a cave open to the surface. until, in response to Dr Hardcastle's adventure, the Peakrills-the local inhabitants-closed it forever:
- The country people had taken the matter into their own hands, and from an early hour of the morning they had worked hard in stopping up the entrance of the tunnel. There is a sharp slope where the shaft begins, and great bowlders, rolled along by many willing hands, were thrust down it until the Gap was absolutely sealed (Conan Doyle, 1911, p. 319).
'Blue John Gap' then, was a cave that indicated evidences of working, that was not adjacent to quarries either for mineral or for bones, and was filled in after the adventure recounted by Dr Hardcastle. Windy Knoll Cave does not qualify for, as Mr Weller admits, it was undiscovered till long after Dr Hardcastle's time and could not have become a matter of local legend. We adhere to our earlier view that it cannot be identified with any existing cave on, or close to, Treak Cliff.
It is in this second onslaught on our writings that Mr Weller really excels himself in vituperation, reporting 'two inexcusable pieces of misleading information . . . as will be seen' (1996b, p. 28). He is, in fact, seriously misquoting us in his own intent to mislead. We wrote that the cave-bear (Ursus spelaeus) was one of the most familiar of English Quaternary carnivores' (1994, p. 19). Our reference to the contemporary reports of major discoveries 'in certain caverns of central Europe and Asia' was not a contradiction of this; it was merely an explanation of why cave-bears would have been especially in Dr Hardcastle's thoughts, prefacing a discussion of what formidable creatures the cave-bears were.
Mr Weller's innuendoes are thus quite without foundation, and his extended exposition of cave-bear discoveries in Derbyshire quite unnecessary. His implication that, because the bones of cave-bears have been found nearby, the creature underground had to be a cave-bear, is illogical. No doubt cow bones have been found nearby, yet the creature could not have been a cow!
Neither do I understand the relevance of his next passage, where he appears to claim that discoveries at Doveholes, 6 miles [9.6km] away, are irrelevant since
- ... located in an area which is completely different in nature to that of the Blue John area, being located further into The White Peak, an area of pure limestone, hence the name. The Blue John area is at the very point where The White Peak becomes The Dark Peak, with a totally different rock sub-structure. In the Quaternary period, when many of these creature remains were first laid down, there were major differences in the land coverage, and hence in the animal coverage of the two areas (1996b, p. 28).
Whatever is the 'animal coverage' of an area-its fauna? Does Mr Weller really suppose that cave-bears-or other Quaternary animals, for that matter-were so closely controlled by bedrock geology as to be confined to either The White Peak or The Dark Peak? Does he consider that such highly mobile, predatory creatures as cave-bears — or our nomination, scimitar cats — would be so geographically and environmentally restricted as to be necessarily unrepresented in a fauna, a mere six miles away?
Mr Weller's treatment of the footprint evidence is both cursory and incoherent. This is unsurprising when he seems to believe that bears are capable of retracting their claws (1996b, p. 28) and remains unaware of the profound difference in shape and size between the fore and hind feet of bears. Dr Hardcastle saw not only that single first enormous footprint but also, later, 'three similar imprints' (1911, p. 308). If a cave-bear had been walking on hind-feet only, all four prints would have been elongate and not merely 'irregular in outline' (ibid.); if it was progressing on all four feet, then they could not have been similar in shape and size.
Yes, footprints imprinted into soft sediments certainly do spread, but not in a fashion that would convert an elongate imprint into 'an ill-defined splotch'. (Try walking barefoot in mud and you will confirm this.) Moreover, the hind-foot prints of both bears and humans exhibit a pronounced inward curve, corresponding to the inner side of the foot's arch. Such prints could not become mere irregular splotches, especially not when so deeply impressed as were those of Dr Hardcastle's beast.
In a comment appended to Mr Weller's second peroration, the vituperative Mr Alan Udle condemns us as follows:
- Perhaps the most appalling practice in the whole B&S article is the way in which the authors attempt to change what ACD actually wrote, suggesting that he did not know what he was talking about in a most insulting manner (Udle, 1996, p. 33).
Quite the contrary; our article was studded with exact quotations from Dr Hardcastle's text, as presented by chronicler Conan Doyle. Moreover, let us be entirely accurate; the creature is never named as a bear, only as having
- ... reared like a bear, and there was something bear-like in his whole pose and attitude.
Yet, as Dr Hardcastle admitted, it differed from 'the bear, or from any other creature that walks the earth' in having eyes that were 'huge projecting bulbs'. The illustration accompanying the chronicle (reproduced on the cover of ACD, Vol. 5) shows a most un-bear like head. It also shows claws that are being spread in feloid, not ursoid. fashion. Moreover, the creature has a smooth pelt, not one that is shaggy, and has inconspicuous ears.
Now, bears have small eyes, almost buried in their shaggy fur-a fur which, in the cold of underground, would surely have thickened rather than becoming thinner and smoother. Their ears are always. prominent. Their claws do not flex, as may be seen by examining any photograph of a grizzly in an upright, aggressive posture (e.g. Macdonald 1984, illus. on p. 80). The eyes of feloids are more conspicuous and tend more to stand out from the head, a feature that would unquestionably be emphasized by life in the dim underground. In contrast, their ears are somewhat less conspicuous and flatten against the head in times of wrath. We cannot, of course, be sure of the size of either the eyes or the ears of scimitar cats, since these soft-body features are not evidenced by skeletons, but it is reasonable to suppose that they accorded in proportions with those of living feloids.
In all these features, there is correspondence with our concept of a scimitar cat as the surviving denizen of that underground place. This accords with Dr Hardcastle's (1911, p. 317) view that the beast differed from any other creature that walked the earth' of today, for scimitar cats are extinct. Moreover, scimitar cats were scarcely known in Dr Hardcastle's time and would not have entered his thoughts. He never stated that the creature was a cave-bear, only that it might have been the old cavebear, enormously enlarged and modified by its environment' (1911, p. 320). For us to suggest an alternative hypothesis is hardly, as Mr Udle imputes, to 'suggest that ACD... did not know what he was talking about, in a most insulting manner'!
I must close, as I began, by regretting that certain commentators on Conan Doyle's writings have become so excessively serious, causing them to attack ideas that do not appeal to them with such a remarkable degree of personal vindictiveness as to place them within reach of the laws of libel. In contrast, I am quite sure that Sir Arthur himself would have been unresentful of, and even amused by, such speculations as ours. I trust that most readers of this Journal-though not, presumably, the serious-minded subscribers to The New Baker Street Pillar Box can share the enjoyment found by Dana Batory, Alan Bradley, and me in Conan Doyle's writings and in playing with the ideas that they generate. If you cannot, you have deprived yourselves of much pleasure.
References:
Batory, Dana M. and Sarjeant, William A. S.: '"The Terror of Blue John Gap" — A Geological and Literary Study.' A.C.D. - The Journal of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society, 1994, Vol. 5, pp. 108-125+ cover illus. Bradley, C. Alan and Sarjeant, William A. S.: The Woman'. From the Mantelpiece, No. 4, 4 pp.
Bradley, C. Alan and Sarjeant, William A. S. Ms Holmes of Baker Street: The Truth about Sherlock. Gasogene Press, Dubuque, Iowa, 1989.
Conan Doyle, A. 'The Terror of Blue John Gap' in The Strand Magazine, Vol. 40, pp. 131-141; and in The Last Galley, Smith, Elder & Co., London, 1911.
Edwards, K. C. The Peak District. The New Naturalist Series, Collins, London, 1962.
Ford, Trevor D. 'Blue john fluorspar' in Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 1955, Vol. 30, pp. 35-50.
Ford, Trevor D., Sarjeant, William A.S., and Smith M.E. 'The Minerals of the Peak District' U.K. Journal of Mines and Minerals 13/Bulletin of the Peak District Mines Historical Society, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1993, pp. 16-54 + cover illus.
Macdonald, David (ed.) Carnivores. All the World's Animals Series. Equinox, Oxford, and Torstar Books, New York, 1984.
Royse, John. Ancient Castleton Caves. Privately published, Castleton, Derbyshire, 1943.
Turvey, Brian. 'A Conan Doyle Study Group'. New Baker Street Pillar Box, 1996, No. 28, pp. 22-3.
Udle, Alan. 'Sub-Editor's Comments'. In Philip Weller, The Bear Necessities Part Two'. New Baker Street Pillar Box, 1996, No. 28, p. 33.
Weller, Philip. 'The Bear Necessities' (Parts One and Two). New Baker Street Pillar Box, 1996a, No. 27, pp. 31-4; 1996b, No. 28, pp. 28-33.
Closing Editorial Comment
Whilst firmly believing that Dr Sarjeant was fully entitled to request that we print his rebuttal of Mr Weller's article, I did not believe it fair to do so without offering a right of reply to Mr Weller. I therefore wrote to him on 31 May 1997 as follows:
- ... you will probably recall that I discussed with you the possible re-writing of your 'Blue John Gap' article for ACD. You declined, saying that you didn't have time or inclination to rework something that you had already completed; and I can understand that viewpoint.
- However, I have received from Bill Sarjeant for publication a rebuttal of some of the points made in your article, and it seems to me that he has every right to be heard. I propose, therefore, to include his article in the issue of ACD currently in preparation, prefacing it with an outline, or précis, of the articles which were published in The New Baker Street Pillar Box. I don't feel that it is necessarily fair to do that without giving you a right of reply, and I feel that any response from you should also be included in [that] issue.
- I am therefore enclosing a copy of Sarjeant's article to give you the opportunity to consider whether or not you wish to respond. I personally feel that it might now be preferable to publish your original article complete, and I would ask you to consider allowing us to do that.
Mr Weller's response, dated 10 June 1997 was as follows [it was accompanied by a letter which concluded: 'I must insist that my response is either published as it stands or not at all, as I continue to suffer the effects of editors publishing material from me which they have changed without authorisation. ']:
- Sir, Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to respond to Mr Sarjeant's attempted rebuttal of some of the criticisms which I raised in connection with the article which he produced with Mr Batory in the 1994 issue of ACD. It should be pointed out that my criticisms were initially offered for publication in ACD, with the full expectation that copies of my article would be sent on to Mr Batory and Mr Sarjeant before publication. As no response was received to my offer before the deadline for the 1995 issue of your journal, I assumed that my article had been deemed unsuitable for publication. As I felt that the criticisms of ACD contained in the 1994 issue required discussion before the publication of the 1996 issue of your journal, I published my article in the Doylean section of a journal which appears to have a circulation which is at least as large as that of ACD within the North America area specifically mentioned by Mr Sarjeant. I have already apologised to you for assuming that you would not wish to publish my article, when you later informed me that my offer had not been received, but the justification of early publication obviously remains. I do not feel that there is any good reason for you now to reproduce my original criticisms in ACD, as you suggest, or for me to produce a formal response to Mr Sarjeant's latest article, since it adds little to the discussion. My criticisms are publicly available, they require no further explication, and they remain valid in any consideration of the literary, historical and geographical background of Sir Arthur's creation of 'The Terror of Blue John Gap'. I am content that those who may wish to make up their own minds over Mr Sarjeant's reference to Sir Arthur's 'careless' writing can, in this case, do so on the basis of an impartial reading of the material already available, and I make no apologies for the passion with which I have defended Sir Arthur's contemporaneously well-informed knowledge of the subjects upon which he seems to have based this story.
- Yours sincerely,
- Philip Weller
- Squadron Leader
(*) Mr Weller's insistence that the article was offered to ACD for publication is not borne out by facts. No written offer was received by the Editors, and no telephone offer was made.
Whilst we agree with Mr Weller that anyone who wishes to do so may read the material available, we would point out that it will probably be difficult, at this remove, for any numbers of people to obtain a copy of the particular journals which contained Mr Weller's articles. Mr Weller's refusal to allow his article to appear in this Journal, thereby allowing a reasoned consideration by Doylean scholars, is hardly likely to result in Doylean scholars paying too much attention to his criticisms.
On a further point, my letter to Mr Weller, dated 31 May 1997, also questioned the identity of Mr Alan Udle, who ostensibly provided the Sub-Editor's Comment appended to Mr Weller's article. Mr Udle, to whose name is appended the designation MHS, appears to be something of a mystery man: he seems not to be a member of Sherlockian groups other than The Franco-Midland Hardware Company, and his name apparently does not appear on the mailing lists of major Sherlockian book dealers-yet he appears to speak with as much authority, and with the same vehemence, as Mr Weller himself. Believing that Mr Udle, in view of his apparent knowledge, has something to offer the world at large, we requested his address from Mr Weller so that we might make contact. That request was ignored. I further suggested to Mr Weller that it was my feeling that Alan Udle was in fact a pseudonym adopted by Mr Weller himself. I received no refutation of that suggestion.
- Article courtesy Christopher Roden, founder of The Arthur Conan Doyle Society (1989-2003).
