By Tim Healey

When SCAN first appeared (Strand July, 1891) Sherlock Holmes was already known to Doyle’s public through his appearances in STUD & SIGN. As in many of the subsequent short stories, in SCAN he exhibits no detective abilities anent the case being considered – indeed, none are called for, because he was told all that he needed to know about the fair miscreant by his illustrious client. Holmes’s deductions from the “king’s” note are extraneous and obvious, but the story itself leaves a number of puzzles.

Why did Holmes refer to Mrs Norton thereafter as the woman? Was it really that woman in a tone of exasperation? Why was Irene (apparently) allowed to keep the embarrassing photograph after her marriage? If she were indeed unwilling to let Godfrey know of its existence why did she keep it instead of destroying it or yielding it to the “king”? It was a danger to her life and perhaps was fatal (“- – - the late Irene Adler – - “). Godfrey must have known this thirty-year-old strumpet had been around the block and men of that time were flattered if royalty took advantage of their wives. The thinking apparently was “She was good enough for a king, so I’m lucky to accept his cast-off.” The photograph was no less dangerous to the “king’s” prospects after her marriage than before. We hear no more of Mrs Norton than that she is dead. Was she assassinated on the orders of her erstwhile lover? This is more easily accomplished abroad than in England, so why did the Nortons flee abroad? Was it just a honeymoon trip?

Worthy opponent

These are enough questions. One thing at least is certain: Irene Adler cannot be the one woman who beat Sherlock Holmes (FIVE), for the episode of the five orange pips took place in the year before that of the embarrassing photograph1. In any case, the Adler affair was a stand-off. Holmes got the result he wanted (so he seems to think): Mrs Norton retained her ability to cause trouble.

The woman referred to in FIVE is undoubtedly Rachel Howell, the second housemaid in the Musgrave household (MUSG). This wee Welshwoman thoroughly outwitted Holmes by getting away with cold-blooded murder as well as a fortune in gold coins. We can say cold-blooded because even if she had let the slab down in a fit of pique in her disappointment, there was no reason she should not leave or send a message to release poor Brunton, who had not played her false in the matter of the treasure, even if his throwing her over for Janet Tregellis, daughter of the head gamekeeper, had upset her. Besides, was not this but a blind to protect Rachel? The loot with which she fled must have been of a value to set her up for life, for why should she flee? Due to Brunton’s care, she would not have been suspected.

Cross-dressing

It could be that Irene Adler’s peculiar appeal to the American Holmesians lies in her cross-dressing. It was regarded as the height of daring for a woman to dress as a man, but it was by no means unknown even in higher circles. For instance a woman dressed as a man to attend the dissection of the corpse of a hanged felon (The Female Tatler 33 Sept 19-21 1709.) Miss Adler put on a man’s clothing and, disguised herself as a slim youth in an ulster, followed Sherlock Holmes, himself disguised as “an amiable and simple-minded Nonconformist clergyman” from Briony Lodge to his home in Baker Street. She wrote that she was accustomed to dress as a man – “Male costume is nothing new to me. I often take advantage of the freedom it gives – - – “. This was obviously true, for she had little time to strip out of her feminine attire and to adopt that of the youth before Holmes was out of the sight of her coachman. Quick thinking – and a quick change. Life was easier then when every one wore some form of headgear, for a woman’s longer hair could be concealed thereunder. The opposite disguise was even easier, for wigs were easily obtained.

Snuff-box

Although Holmes received an amethyst-adorned gold snuff-box as reward2 for his involvement in the Adler case (IDEN), there is no evidence that he actually took snuff. Perhaps he used it to offer snuff to Mycroft, who snuffed (GREE), and only offered it to Watson to shew it off. Even so, more snuff-boxes were then kept as objets de vertu than for use, so perhaps it should be displayed in reconstructions of 221B Baker Street. In any case, it sounds heavy to carry around in the pocket, so it was probably designed as a display piece for table use.

We do not know which mixture Mycroft and perhaps Holmes took. Snuff was made from a mixture of stem and leaf or just stem. Common snuffs were Rappee (black, highly scented and very moist), Scotch (= London Brown Rappee = Brown Scotch), High Dried (similar to Scotch, but drier and more pungent). At the inferior end of the scale were Spanish and Tobacco Snuff Flour, which were made from stalk, waste, shreds and dust. Mycroft, being a bachelor with no great outgoings, probably had a mixture made to his specification, possibly before his eyes, just as in the better coffee shops nowadays one can select one’s ingredients and have the mixture ground on the spot. Holmes, if he snuffed at all, probably bought something like High Dried. Note that in this tale pipes are not mentioned. Holmes offers Watson a cigar and smokes a cigarette himself.

Was Watson not the only one with a pawky sense of humour? An amethyst takes its name from the Greek for “not drunk”, for it was anciently believed to prevent drunkenness. Was the king trying to tell Holmes something?

Arson

A smoke rocket is a device used by plumbers and builders. It gave off a great quantity of thick black smoke enabling them to detect leaks from pipes and chimneys. Its use in this instance was an old device. This was yet another crime committed by Holmes and Watson and it was not to be the last time they committed arson (NORW).

ACD was not in the least averse to borrowing from himself. After all, REDH, 3GAR, RETI, FINA and perhaps STOC have the plot device of a false premise to get someone out of the way for a while. One could stretch a point and say that the same device was used in SCAN, but there is more to SCAN than that. Doyle was widely read and it would be helpful to know if his bookshelf bore a copy of Pausanias’s Guide to Greece wherein were given the facts on Praxiteles and Phryne.

What most educated people know about Phryne is that she was accused of blasphemy against the Eleusinian Mysteries and when her case in court seemed doomed to fail her counsel, Hyperides, (or some say she herself) exposed her bosom to the judges and as one they pronounced her “Not Guilty”. Such an appeal ad hominem might have attracted ACD to her personality and he would probably have seen one of the many paintings depicting the scene. The artists usually were not content to shew a mere baring of the breasts, but presented Phryne in all her naked glory. It was not rude if it was “classical.”

She was indeed glorious of figure and was the most famous and most successful courtesan in Athens. So successful was she that she offered to pay for the rebuilding of the walls of Thebes, providing that an inscription was placed to read “Alexander destroyed but the harlot Phryne restored”. She was the lover of the sculptor Praxiteles whose most famous statue – the Cnidian Aphrodite – shewed a naked Phryne.

Her independent wealth did not assuage her thirst for more. Once, when Phryne asked Praxiteles what was his most beautiful work, he promised like a true lover to give it her but refused to say which he thought it was. So a servant of Phryne came rushing in and told him his house was on fire and most of his work was lost. Praxiteles rushed out of doors exclaiming that if the fire had got at the Satyr and the Eros then he had worked for nothing. Phryne told him he could put his mind at rest, nothing untoward had happened except that he had been trapped into admitting which was his masterpiece. So she chose the Eros.

A false call of “Fire!” to get someone to reveal a hidden secret? Is anyone reminded of SCAN and NORW? In both cases ACD’s version greatly improved upon the original.

Carriage

Irene Adler owned, or at least had the use of, a four-wheeler, namely a “a neat little landau” complete with driver (“coachman”). The landau was a four-wheeled carriage, invented in Germany, seating four people on two facing seats with an elevated front seat for the coachman. It was distinguished by two folding hoods, one at each end, which met at the top to form a boxlike enclosure with side windows. This seems excessively large for a single lady. It was a heavy vehicle, often drawn by a team of four horses, and was widely used from the 18th century in England. Usually, landaus were severely cut away beneath at each end, so that the bottom of the door was the lowest point of the carriage body. This was to enable ladies to mount and alight without indecent exposure of their ankles. A landau is by no stretch of the imagination little, so Miss Adler’s was probably in fact a two-wheeled landaulet. The landaulet, or landaulette, was a landau coupé, appearing as if the front were cut away, with a forward-facing seat for two people. It had an elevated seat for the coachman, and a folding, or falling, top.

This was most suitable as a smart, two-wheeled, lady’s carriage, less grand than the broughams favoured by such as the King of Bohemia and Dr Leslie Armstrong (MISS), but eminently suitable to shew off “the daintiest thing under a bonnet”, for, of course, her vehicle was the open style. The modern equivalent might be a powder-blue Mercedes coupé.

More puzzles

· Mrs Turner is probably the cook, bringing the sandwiches because Mrs Hudson was out. The title “Mrs” is more appropriate for a cook than for a maid, regardless of the marital status of either.

· How did Irene know it was Sherlock Holmes she followed to Baker Street? He was in disguise, and why should not Watson walk along with a non-conformist minister? She surely did not recognise the address. Clairvoyance maybe? See below.

Marriage ³

The Marriage Service states:- “For be ye well assured, that so many as are coupled together otherwise than God’s Word doth allow are not joined together by God; neither is their matrimony lawful.”

The Reformation had not affected the Church’s claim to sole jurisdiction over matrimony, and it had been first challenged by Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act of 1753 (26 Geo. II cap.35)4, although that was only concerned with clandestine marriages. Civil marriages were not recognised until the Marriage Act of 1836 (6 & 7 Will. IV cap. 85)5. The gist of the Act is in Section xx: “And be it enacted, That, after the expiration of the said period of Twenty-one Days, or of Seven Days, if the Marriage is by Licence, marriages may be solemnized in the registered Building stated as aforesaid in the notice of such Marriage, between and by the Parties described in the Notice and Certificate, according to such form and ceremony as they may see fit to adopt: Provided nevertheless, that every such Marriage shall be solemnized with open doors, between the Hours of Eight and Twelve in the Forenoon, in the Presence of some Registrar of the District in which such registered Building is situated, and of Two, or more, credible Witnesses; provided also, that in some Part of the Ceremony, and in the Presence of such Registrar and Witnesses, each of the Parties shall declare: “‘ I do solemnly declare, That I know not of any lawful Impediment why I, A.B., may not be joined in Matrimony to C.D.’ “And each of the parties shall say to the other: “‘I call upon these Persons here present to witness that I, A.B., do take thee, C.D., to be my lawful wedded Wife [or Husband].’ “Provided also, that there be no lawful Impediment to the marriage of such Parties.”

Canon 62 of 1604 had fixed the hours when marriages might be solemnized as between 8 am and noon, but the latter time was extended in 1886 to 3 pm (and in 1934 to 6 pm) and Convocation amended the Canon accordingly. The Norton marriage therefore must have taken place before 1886, because it had to take place before noon.

Holmes’s account of the “marriage” in SCAN is odd. The only possible “response” he could have been called upon to make would have been “I do” by the one who gives her away (presumably Holmes). He has no other response called for and Holmes would have needed no coaching in these two little syllables. In any case, there should have been two witnesses. Admittedly the cabman could have so acted, but there is no mention of this. Was the marriage a charade? There are other anomalies in the account of the Norton wedding in SCAN.

It may be Watson’s sloppy note-taking or recollection, but by his account not only was Miss Adler’s union with Geoffrey Norton an irregular marriage, but the officiating priest had laid himself open to prosecution. The defects in the service as stated are that the necessary two witnesses besides the priest were not present and that the sole witness was not, or seemed not to be, a credible witness as required under the Act. Furthermore, if Holmes signed under his own name, he would surely have been twitted about it by the nuptial pair, but if he signed a false name, he compounded the defect in the service.

The question is, therefore, is the Norton marriage clandestine? Clandestinity in marriage is “The celebration of marriages without the cognizance of proper authority.” The term seems to have been invented by Martin Luther in his Von Ehesachen (1530), when “he applied it to marriages contracted without parental knowledge or approval. He declared them null and void. – - – The RC canonists, though less concerned with parental consent, in which they saw a frequent danger to the liberty of the children, were at least as eager for publicity, but to insist on it as a sine qua non seemed to imply that the Church possessed the power of altering the matter of a sacrament. After long discussions it was laid down in Session XXIV of the Council of Trent that though clandestine marriages were true and proper marriages (vera et rata matrimonia), provided that they had not been rendered void by the Church, in future all such marriages in places where the ruling of the decree obtained would be held to be null. Henceforward, all marriages were to be in facie ecclesiae, ie before the parish priest. This ruling has now been embodied in the decree Tametsi and its recent modification in Ne Temere”6. In the C of E, publicity is secured by the publication of banns or the issue of a licence, and by the requirement of proper witnesses to the ceremony, for, in 1754, civil legislation had been introduced to prevent clandestine marriages by Lord Hardwicke’s Act, while since the Marriage Act of 1823 (4 Geo. IV cap. 76, s. 28) the law has required as a minimum of publicity two or more credible witnesses, besides the minister. Note that the canons provide for the punishment of ministers celebrating such marriages.

We cannot believe that the irregularities in Watson’s version are compatible with the marriage of a lawyer who would know better – unless he were an unscrupulous rogue taking advantage of a woman in pursuit of her fortune.

I conclude therefore that Holmes’s reported account was a dramatic touch invented by Watson to round out his story. Holmes had not been a witness under the Act and the necessary two witnesses were people present but not mentioned. Either the opening episode is misplaced, or the time of the wedding was shortly before 3-0 pm, not noon.

Notes.

1. Hall, J 1993, I Remember the Date Very Well, Ian Henry, Romford

2. Over and above the £1000 he had already received. His expenses were small.

3. This section is abstracted from Of Marriage, Money and Madness (Healey, T 2000, The Ritual 26, 34-51)

4. This Act for the Better Prevention of Clandestine Marriages, for the first time made clandestine marriages, which had previously been regulated by canon law, subject to statute. All marriages in England and Wales (except those of members of the Royal family, Jews and Quakers) were required to be celebrated in the parish church of one of the parties and after banns, save that the Archbishop could grant a special licence for the marriage to be celebrated in some other church and without the delay entailed by banns and that the bishop had the right to dispense from banns. All other unions were declared invalid. The Act also invalidated the marriage of infants without consent of parents or guardians. The Act initiated modern English statute law on matrimony.

5. The Act of 1836 (6 & 7 Will. IV cap. 85) relieved non-conformists of the necessity of marriage in an Anglican church, and allowed it to be solemnized in any registered place of religious worship. It provided that marriage could also take place in a registrar’s office, or according to the usages of the Jews and Quakers. By a further Act of 1898, the presence of the registrar at the chapel, required by the Act of 1836, was no longer demanded.

6. Cross, FL (Ed) 1958 The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, OUP, Oxford.

‘A Scandal in Bohemia – An Exegesis’ by Tim Healey appeared in The Log, the Crew’s annual journal, Issue No.2, November 2008.

Sherlock Holmes quotations appearing in articles on this site are, unless otherwise noted, taken from The Penguin Complete Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (same as the Doubleday edition). Any page references, unless otherwise noted, also refer to this edition.  Story codes, where used, are the Christ codes (pronounced like ‘wrist’), created by Sherlockian Jay Finley Christ.

The contents of this site (unless otherwise stated, or clearly transported from another source) remain the intellectual property of the individual author.  Permission to either reproduce, or quote extensively from, must be sought from the site’s editor.