All chapters

Tracks in the Snow · Chapter

XIII explained

The narrator presents extracts from Peters' letters to his mother from Saigon (1878-1880), detailing his acquaintance with Willie Cartwright and his observations of Cartwright's partnership with Longhurst.

What happens

The narrator presents extracts from Peters' letters to his mother from Saigon (1878-1880), detailing his acquaintance with Willie Cartwright and his observations of Cartwright's partnership with Longhurst. Peters later discovers Longhurst's body in the Philippines, identifies it via a missing finger and two revolver bullets in the skull, and traces the suspected murderer—whose description matches Vane-Cartwright. The chapter includes Bryanston's reply, Peters' journal notes, maps, and a note about a convict named Arkell, suggesting a possible case of mistaken identity. The narrator reflects on the accumulating evidence against Vane-Cartwright.

Themes in this chapter

  • The Past and Secrets

    Peters' letters and journal uncover hidden details about Longhurst's death and Vane-Cartwright's possible guilt, revealing secrets buried for years.

  • Guilt and Innocence

    The evidence points strongly to Vane-Cartwright's guilt, but the narrator notes that for a lawyer there is still no legal proof, leaving innocence ambiguous.

  • Memory and Perception

    Peters questions his own recollection of events (e.g., which ship Longhurst sailed on) and the reliability of witnesses, highlighting the fallibility of memory.

Characters to notice

  • Eustace Peters

    Author of letters to his mother from Saigon; later investigates Longhurst's death and exhumes his body in the Philippines.

  • Willie Cartwright

    Young acquaintance of Peters in Saigon; enters into a partnership with Longhurst.

  • Walter Longhurst

    Rough mining engineer who partners with Cartwright; later found dead with two bullets in the head, identified by a missing finger.

  • William Vane-Cartwright

    Implied to be the 'X.' in Peters' notes; description given by Filipinos matches his appearance, and he is suspected of Longhurst's murder.

  • Charles Bryanston

    Correspondent who provides a copy of Peters' letter and confirms Cartwright's identity.

  • Dr. Kuyper

    Naturalist who accompanied Peters on a cruise in the Philippines and helped exhume Longhurst's body.

  • MacAndrew

    Lawyer who told Peters about the agreements between X. and L. (Longhurst).

  • Arkell

    Convict executed at Singapore in 1882; his description matches that of Longhurst's presumed murderer, suggesting possible confusion with Vane-Cartwright.

Key passages

  • I have a new acquaintance, one Willie Cartwright, a young fellow who was at Oxford just after me.

    Peters writes that he has met Willie Cartwright, a younger Oxford graduate.

    Introduces Cartwright as a refined but unathletic companion.

  • I am rather sorry about Willie Cartwright. He seems to have got into the hands of a fellow named Longhurst, who has lately turned up here, no one knows why.

    Peters expresses concern that Cartwright has fallen under the influence of the mysterious Longhurst.

    Foreshadows the partnership and later conflict.

  • I have a distinct recollection that when I met you, some months after that, you told me that you had seen Longhurst with Cartwright at Nagasaki, that you saw them off, and that they both sailed together in the same ship.

    Peters asks Bryanston to confirm his memory that Longhurst and Cartwright sailed together from Nagasaki.

    Key point in establishing the timeline of Longhurst's disappearance.

  • They had found two bullets from a revolver in the back of the head, and he made a note as to the size and pattern of revolver which these bullets would fit.

    Peters and Kuyper discovered two revolver bullets in the back of Longhurst's skull and recorded the bullet specifications.

    Forensic evidence pointing to murder.

  • There was more than enough evidence for any sensible historian, for a lawyer there was still none at all.

    The narrator reflects that while the evidence is compelling to a historian, it lacks the legal proof required for a conviction.

    Highlights the gap between moral certainty and legal proof.