Sherlock Holmes was a brilliant detective, a champion of
justice, and a master of disguise.
But a fashionista? I think
one might make a good ‘case’ that Mr. Holmes was far more clothing conscious
than one might initially imagine.
If you’ve never read ‘The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle,’
you should. (Actually, you should
read all four of the original novels and all fifty-six of the short stories. Everyone needs Sherlock Holmes in his life!) But here’s a
teaser for it: it is two days after Christmas and Dr. Watson (who no longer
resides at 221 B Baker Street) stops by for a holiday visit. Sherlock Holmes is busily examining a
battered felt hat, and explains to Watson that the hat belongs to a man who ran away after he was
involved in a late-night altercation on Christmas Eve. An official who witnessed the fray brought
the hat to Holmes and took the other trophy of the melee (a Christmas goose)
home for himself. Watson opines
that there is very little Holmes can earn about the unknown man just from his
hat. Holmes proceeds to
demonstrate, in a tour de force of deduction, that he has indeed learned a
great deal of things about the mystery man from his hat. His sequence of observations and
deductions are among the most famous in the canon, fiercely debated and
discussed by Sherlockian scholars.
In one line, Holmes seems to reveal that he is thinking more like
a fashionista than a detective.
He tells Watson that the man was once prosperous, but over the last
three years the man has fallen upon hard times. Watson is unconvinced.
Holmes explains:
"This hat is three years old. These flat brims curled at the edge
came in then. It is a hat of the very best quality. Look at the band of ribbed
silk and the excellent lining. If this man could afford to buy so expensive a
hat three years ago, and has had no hat since, then he has assuredly gone down
in the world."
Oh course, Holmes proves to be correct in all of his deductions, and
soon a merry game is afoot. But
that line about the hat has always made me wonder if Holmes was a bit of a
clothes horse. For further
evidence in my case, here’s how Watson describes Holmes, after finding him
‘camping out’ in The Hound of the Baskervilles:
“In his tweed suit and cloth cap he looked like any other tourist upon
the moor, and he had contrived, with that catlike love of personal cleanliness
which was one of his characteristics, that his chin should be as smooth and his
linen as perfect as if he were in Baker Street.”
Being a connoisseur of clothing had an extra advantage
for Holmes, in that it provided him a vast wardrobe to draw upon when he needed
to assume a disguise. Among his
many impersonations were an Italian priest, a plumber, a bookseller, a sailor,
and even (gasp!) an American. But
the one I’ve always been the most curious about is the one that’s mentioned in
a quick aside in ‘The Mazarin Stone.’
Holmes’ servant boy tells Watson that Holmes has been busy on a case:
Holmes later crows to Watson about his success in following the
villain:
“I’ve been at his very elbow all the morning. You’ve seen me as an old
lady, Watson. I was never more convincing. He actually picked up my parasol for
me once.”
Could Holmes have been such a great actor without a thorough knowledge of costume? Did he
‘get in touch’ with his a feminine side when it came to appreciating style? And did Holmes grasp
something that so many people (especially those who callously dismiss an
interest in clothing as foolish) completely fail to understand: that what we
wear, just as what we think and say and do, is part of the great adventure of
being human?
No comments:
Post a Comment