for starters, victoria was not just a passive observer but an active participant in the events of that year, barnabas knew her.so why didn't he recognize her when he arrived in 1967?when phyllis wick first appears at the 67 seance she was on her way to collinwood for the first time(in 95).but when time returns to the present barnabas knows her.how could he if she never arrived at collinwood in 1795?
Essentially, he suggests that when Vicki returned to the present, she was in another band of time than the one she had left; therefore, Barnabas would not have recognized Vicki when he emerged from his coffin because all of that took place in the Phyllis Wick timeline (erm, maybe it would be easier if you just saw the diagrams, lol.)
Actually, what I suggested is that the only thing that makes sense is that Vicki created an alternate timeline by her travel to 1795 (in which she takes Phyllis Wick's place), but then returned
to her own timeline, which is why Barnabas does not remember her as being Sarah's governess in 1795, being hanged as a witch, trying to free her, etc. He still remembers the original timeline in which those things happened to Phyllis Wick. The diagrams, which Prof. Stokes has so kindly referenced, do help to illustrate the concept.
I just finished watching ep 345, where Barnabas tells Julia the story of Josette at the top of Widow's Hill. It's markedly different than what plays out in the 1795 Flashback. Barnabas tells Julia that his first meeting with Josette was when she came to live at Collinwood as the young new wife of his middle aged Uncle Jeremiah, and how with the passage of years grew discontented with being married to a much older man. Obviously, this played out very differently in the Flashback. How many differing versions of Josette's story are there?
Part of the problem w/1795 is the divergence the writers took from established history by necessity. Originally, the timeline for the deaths of Josette, Naomi and Barnabas were to have taken place in the 1820's. We can only speculate why these events were pushed back to 1795 (the availability of period costumes, for instance). Nor was Jeremiah, the central ancestral figure, supposed to have died during these events - he and Josette were supposed to be Elizabeth's and Roger's great grandparents. Collinwood wasn't supposed to have been built until 1830. Jeremiah was supposed to be in the same age group as his brother Joshua, not the same age as Barnabas.
The decision to kill off Jeremiah was probably dictated by Anthony George's desire to leave the show and had perhaps the biggest impact on changing the established history. I would have preferred to see the part recast, thus salvaging an important historical plot point.
While 1795 is my favorite story line I'm not blind to its faults. The pacing is decidely off, again perhaps necessitated by Anthony George's unexpected departure. I feel it should have culminated in Josette's death (and may have been originally intended so); instead she's killed off about half way through and the whole Nathan/Millicent storyline seems like a lot of tack-on at the end rather than being interwoven with the rest of the period.
I think what makes it my favorite, aside from the time travel element, is that it represents a time when the actors were given challenging roles to play and acted the heck out of it, and it was during a time when the writing was still sharp and the dialogue still interesting and creative.
