Hi all
Being currently reading the complete Sherlock Holmes stories in English, with illustrations from the Strand magazine, I was struck yesterday evening by a passage of the second chapter of A Scandal in Bohemia (first published in 1891).
On the 21st of March 1888, Dr Watson is waiting (in Baker Street) for Holmes to return from his enquiry. Then :
"It was close upon four before the door opened, and a drunken-looking groom, ill-kempt and side-whiskered, with an inflamed face and disreputable clothes, walked into the room."
This groom, of course, is Holmes, as he explained :
"I left the house a little after eight o'clock this morning in the character of a groom out of work."
What strikes me is the fact that a groom out of work seems to have been quite a familiar and common figure back then.
I understand it doesn't mean a lot, but I can't help thinking that it somehow echoes the Astrakhan-Man figure.
On the one hand, a convenient scapegoat, a popular Super-Villain as a suspect ; on the other, a common but distinct character as a witness, a poor fellow among many others (Conan Doyle makes it clear that there was many a groom out-of-work in London), rather easy to embody.
As if the man who called himself Hutchinson had a genuine but limited imagination.
Being currently reading the complete Sherlock Holmes stories in English, with illustrations from the Strand magazine, I was struck yesterday evening by a passage of the second chapter of A Scandal in Bohemia (first published in 1891).
On the 21st of March 1888, Dr Watson is waiting (in Baker Street) for Holmes to return from his enquiry. Then :
"It was close upon four before the door opened, and a drunken-looking groom, ill-kempt and side-whiskered, with an inflamed face and disreputable clothes, walked into the room."
This groom, of course, is Holmes, as he explained :
"I left the house a little after eight o'clock this morning in the character of a groom out of work."
What strikes me is the fact that a groom out of work seems to have been quite a familiar and common figure back then.
I understand it doesn't mean a lot, but I can't help thinking that it somehow echoes the Astrakhan-Man figure.
On the one hand, a convenient scapegoat, a popular Super-Villain as a suspect ; on the other, a common but distinct character as a witness, a poor fellow among many others (Conan Doyle makes it clear that there was many a groom out-of-work in London), rather easy to embody.
As if the man who called himself Hutchinson had a genuine but limited imagination.
Comment