sherlock60 | Canon Discussion: The Musgrave Ritual (Reply)

This week we’re having a look at The Musgrave Ritual. I’ve typed up a few thoughts to get the discussion going—please leave your own ideas in the comments!

“Here's the record of the Tarleton murders, and the case of Vamberry, the wine merchant, and the adventure of the old Russian woman, and the singular affair of the aluminium crutch, as well as a full account of Ricoletti of the club-foot, and his abominable wife.” Any thoughts on any of these cases?

"When I first came up to London I had rooms in Montague Street…” Any thoughts on why Holmes eventually left Montague Street? The implication is he was there some time. In GLOR he talks about having London rooms while at university, and at the beginning of the case he hasn’t seen Musgrave—a former fellow student—for four years. Though looking at Watson’s greatly amusing opening to this story, perhaps the more pertinent question is how Holmes manages to find such tolerant landladies.

“...during my last years at the University…” In GLOR, Holmes talks about having been at university for only two years. “My last years” doesn’t really fit with that previous statement. Any thoughts?

“My indignation at this calm examination of our family documents…” Why hasn’t Brunton simply made his own copy of the Ritual?

“It is a sort of ceremony peculiar to our family…” I wonder how exactly the Ritual did become a ritual in the family.

“...we ransacked every room and cellar without discovering the least sign of the missing man.” As the New Annotated points out, why wasn’t the cellar where Brunton’s muffler (and eventually, body) was found, searched? Musgrave is aware that the cellar exists.

"'Whose was it?' "'His who is gone...’” You do have to wonder what the Ritual was for. “It is likely that the Musgrave who held the secret died in the interval, and by some oversight left this guide to his descendant without explaining the meaning of it.” Surely if the Musgrave who originally hid the treasure was planning on explaining the ritual, then the ritual immediately becomes pointless. He could have just said, “It’s in the cellar.” The treasure is inside the house, not buried in the grounds, so a map or aide-memoire isn’t necessary. And alternatively, this isn’t something written hurriedly by someone dying, in order to leave a cryptic clue for an heir who isn’t nearby. It’s been carefully measured and worked out—presumably by someone hale and hearty.

”At one side of this was a squat, brass-bound wooden box, the lid of which was hinged upwards, with this curious old-fashioned key projecting from the lock.” The key is a bit of a puzzle. Brunton sees the chest for the first time on the night he dies—he couldn’t have known for certain he’d need a key, let alone which was the correct one. If there was a key known to be connected with the Musgrave Ritual, wouldn’t Musgrave have realised it was missing and mentioned it to Holmes? I suppose the key could have been in the lock already but it does seem to take away the point of locking the chest.

“A man always finds it hard to realise that he may have finally lost a woman's love, however badly he may have treated her.” That’s an interesting insight from Holmes. I wonder if this came from observing people he actually knew.

“Of the woman nothing was ever heard, and the probability is that she got away out of England and carried herself and the memory of her crime to some land beyond the seas." Any thoughts on what did happen to Rachel Howells?

Next Sunday, 14th June, we’ll be having a look at The Reigate Squires (AKA The Reigate Puzzle). Hope you can join us then.