"In the character of a groom out of work"

[jason_c]

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.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...mImquTwRtY5AgF

Some interesting posts in this thread. I especially enjoyed Ben's sugestion of Hutchinson reading the newspaper account of the 10th.

Im not quite sure what your emboldened statement means. A genuine but limited imagination? The person who "imagined" Mr Ashtrakhan's dress does not appear to have a limited imagination. A limited imagination would more likely have fallen back on a stereotypical toff description, rather than the idiosyncratic description we have.

[Wickerman]

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.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...mImquTwRtY5AgF

Dave.

You didn't mention the Count - in his Astrachan trimmed coat!

In walked a resplendent figure, almost as tall as Fleming..

A man entered who could hardly have been less than six feet six inches in height, with the chest and limbs of a Hercules. His dress was rich with a richness which would, in England, be looked upon as akin to bad taste. Heavy bands of astrakhan were slashed across the sleeves and fronts of his double-breasted coat, while the deep blue cloak which was thrown over his shoulders was lined with flame-colored silk and secured at the neck with a brooch which consisted of a single flaming beryl.

On a more serious note, some time past we were commenting on details within the various Sherlock Holmes stories which appear to have been inspired by the Whitechapel murders.

There's another incident, I forget the story but, an ear is received in a box through the mail - no need to say what the source of inspiration was for that.

On reflection, we may have been discussing this on JTRForums.

[Wickerman]

... Spats were worn in the mornings, never later.

Spats are worn to guard against rain, whether morning, noon or night makes no difference.
It was raining that night in Whitechapel, you agree?


Spats were primarily worn by men, and less commonly by women, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. They fell out of frequent usage during the 1920s. Made of white cloth or brown felt material, spats buttoned around the ankle. Their intended practical purpose was to protect shoes and socks from mud or rain but this footwear also served as a feature of stylish dress in accordance with the fashions of the period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spats_%28footwear%29

[Cogidubnus]

OK...let's have a little sobriety...many of the Conan-Doyle stories syndicated were not Sherlock Holmes and Cloombers clearly falls into this category...It's a a tale of a Scottish lad and the strange (ex Indian) family that move in next to them and (as I recall) a shipwreck and some Buddhist Mysticism...so can we agree it has no relevance here?

All the best

Dave

[The Good Michael]

Spats are worn to guard against rain, whether morning, noon or night makes no difference.
It was raining that night in Whitechapel, you agree?

Jon.

This is true, but for the man of style, it was morning wear. If A-man was truly a fashionable gentleman, he wouldn't have worn them. If he had been a poseur, perhaps. If he had been the creation of a mind that didn't understand such things, most definitely. The 2nd and 3rd options seem the most likely.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Jon.

This is true, but for the man of style, it was morning wear. If A-man was truly a fashionable gentleman, he wouldn't have worn them. If he had been a poseur, perhaps. If he had been the creation of a mind that didn't understand such things, most definitely. The 2nd and 3rd options seem the most likely.

Mike

It was raining Michael, no theorizing necessary.

[The Good Michael]

It was raining Michael, no theorizing necessary.

Jon,

again, spats were only worn in the morning by gentlemen. Gaiters might have been worn in the rain at any time by anyone I suppose. For Hutchinson, they may have been the same thing.

Mike

[Wickerman]

Jon,

again, spats were only worn in the morning by gentlemen.

Mike, lets rephrase that. A Gentleman only wears spats as a fashion statement in the morning.
What does he wear in the evening when it rains?

Gaiters might have been worn in the rain at any time by anyone I suppose.
For Hutchinson, they may have been the same thing.

Mike, you suggested a poser (#2), or an invention by a man who knew no better (#3).

Isaac's for sure was a poser, but as spats are worn for inclement weather, and the weather that night was inclement, what is the point of speculating further?

Spats are worn in poor weather, the weather was poor - there is no mystery.

[Phil H]

The point is NOT about when A N Other might have worn spats for practical reasons. The point in discussion is whether the description is believable and acceptable:

a) it certainly would not have been of a man of fashion or who belonged to society - the whole outfit is wrong for someone like that given the time of day:

b) SPATS were worn by gentlemen in the morning - never later. There were other forms of footwear, outershoes, galoshes etc, for wet wear at other times;

c) gaiters existed but were the sort of thing a gentleman wore for shooting, on his estate, probably with a "deerstalker" hat. A farmer up in town for market with his animals might wear gaiters, but not with the rest of the outfit described by GH;

d) the Victorian period was one of deep conventions in dress (viz mourning clothes); other than for farmers, black gaiters were part of the dress of clergymen, especially Archdeacons (along with shovel hats) and had nothing to do with wet weather.

e) the correct dress for a man of substance in the evening in London would have been either white tie and tails (he could not have dined properly if dressed otherwise) or at a push a black frock coat (square-bottomed) (if say a politician attending the house). Note that in My Fair Lady, Prof Higgins defies convention by wearing tweeds and a trilby hat to Ascot.

Posters may believe or argue what they wish, but I have stated how things were in the 1880s (it is understanding the period which is crucial not suggesting what might have been done or what we today would think sensible. The social conventions of 1888 were fixed, rigid and unmoveable. On that basis, I also suggested three ways of interpreting GH's description (the latter is unlikely to have known or understood the conventions, hence his mixing up the "spats" which he thought "posh".

Over and out

Phil

[DVV]

Im not quite sure what your emboldened statement means. A genuine but limited imagination? The person who "imagined" Mr Ashtrakhan's dress does not appear to have a limited imagination. A limited imagination would more likely have fallen back on a stereotypical toff description, rather than the idiosyncratic description we have.

I'm not sure, Jason.
Mr Astrakhan is more flashy than classy.
If Hutch wanted to depict a "stereotypical toff", why make him a foreigner ?

[DVV]

Dave.

You didn't mention the Count - in his Astrachan trimmed coat!

In walked a resplendent figure, almost as tall as Fleming..

Hi Jon

You have certainly noted that at "only" 6ft6in, the man is already considered a giant :

"Holmes slowly reopened his eyes and looked impatiently at his gigantic client."

Cheers

[Sally]

Maybe that's the point of his inappropriate dress: he's a foreigner - he doesn't know how to dress properly - nor, apparently, that wandering the rookeries of Whitechapel wearing his finery on a dark night with limited visibility is liable to result in his being mugged - or worse.

Ah - but that just makes it all that little bit more plausible: only a foreigner - and a crazy one at that - would've fitted into Mr Astrakhan's shoes.

And oddly enough, such a person might well be Jack the Ripper, according to contemporary belief.

[DVV]

That was the point I tried to make, Sally : Astrakhan Man and the Groom-out-of-work are two convenient figures, although not so subtle.

[Sally]

In the papers...

To pick up on Ben's point concerning stories in the press before Hutchinson came forward:

Shortly before Hutchinson gave his police statement on 12th November, the papers were awash with accounts of mysterious ‘foreigners’ and well-dressed men; some in direct connection with Mary Kelly.

Quite apart from the accounts of ‘Mrs Kennedy' and 'Mrs Paumier', the account of ‘a neighbour’ who had allegedly spoken to Kelly and subsequently seen her walk off with a well-dressed man on Thursday night:

Kelly informed her that she had no money…Soon after they parted, and a man, who is described as respectably dressed, then - so it is said - came up and spoke to the murdered woman Kelly and offered her some money. The man accompanied the woman to her lodgings

The Echo, November 10th 1888

This story appeared in several papers on or about this date.

Compare with Hutchinson’s initial statement to the police, 12th November 1888

She said 'Good morning I must go and find some money'. She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her…They both then went up the court together

And also in The Echo, in a report entitled IN A DORSET STREET DOSS HOUSE -

‘I knowed her. I guv her the money for her doss three weeks ago cos she hadn't none. Yes, matey, and that at two in the morning’ (reported account of a Dorest Street Lodger)

The Echo, 10th November 1888

Whereas Hutchinson stated:

About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly

And then there's the story of the parcel-carrying, blood-spattered, well-dressed man seen dashing through Mitre Square on the morning of 9th November...

Yesterday afternoon a gentleman engaged in business in the vicinity of the murder gave what is the only approach to a possible clue that has yet been brought to light. He states that he was walking through Mitre-square at about ten minutes passt ten on Friday morning, when a tall, well-dressed man carrying a parcel under his arm and rushing along in a very excited manner, ran plump into him. The man's face was covered with blood splashes, and his collar and shirt were also bloodstained. The gentleman did not at the time know anything of the murder

The Observer, 11th November 1888 (in several press reports at the time)

And Hutchinson said Mr Astrachan was of:

'Respectable appearance' and -

'He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand, with a kind of strap round it'

Oh No! It's the respectable parcel-carrying foreign murderer!

Did Astrakhan Man exist?

Or

Was he an invention, not of the press (like Jack himself) but from the press?


I think I doubt the reality of Astroman because the whole thing's just a bit too derivative. It's not just the abundance of smartly dressed, knife-shaped-parcel-carrying 'foreign' looking chaps who immediately prefigured him in the press - but also the details in Hutchinson's account that make me wonder if he wasn't 'inspired' by things he read or heard.

The other side of that is that Hutchinson's account tallied so well with the reports of this figure that it's no wonder he was believed by the police - to begin with, at least.

[Phil H]

apparently, that wandering the rookeries of Whitechapel wearing his finery on a dark night with limited visibility is liable to result in his being mugged - or worse.

Do we know what John McCathy would have worn? He was a man of some power and substance and might not have been worried about being attacked. So might whomever A-man was (if he was anyone). Evidently GH did not consider it inappropriate to place a man so dressed in Dorset St.

Take a look at the thread I am about to start which is, I think, potentially relevant to this point.

Phil