Sherlock's Bookcase by Elaine Lintzenich

With all the pictures of Sherlockian bookcases posted in The Stranger’s Room on Facebook and the many bookcases we see behind  Sherlockians on Zooms, is it any wonder a person, such as myself, would become curious about what Sherlock Holmes considered important enough to shelve on his bookcase?

Watson first introduces his readers to the complexity of his roommate’s character in A Study in Scarlet.  Literary references abound throughout the Canon although, at first, Watson in this story notes Sherlock’s knowledge of literature is “nil.” (After he compiles his infamous list of Sherlock’s strengths and weaknesses, he throws this list into the fire, a good place for it.)

On March 4th of 1879, Watson picked up a magazine and read an article titled “The Book of Life.” In the summation of the article, its author states that a person trained in observation, deduction, and analysis would find conclusions “as infallible as so many propositions of Euclid.”  Watson scoffs and Sherlock reveals himself not only as the author but as the world’s first consulting detective. Thus begins  a journey through which Sherlock proves time and time again that the views outlined in the article are true. Said magazine is no doubt slipped onto the bookcase, perhaps beside a copy of Elements by Euclid.

Trying to wrap his head around this consulting detective business, Watson brings up Edgar Allen Poe’s detective Dupin and Gaboriau's Lecoq, apparently two of his favorites. Sherlock dismisses both of these characters, much to Watson’s chagrin. Both Sherlock and Watson seem quite familiar with these detectives. Poe wrote his Dupin stories between 1841 and 1843, so not surprising.  Although Gaboriau wrote Monsieur Lecoq in 1869, it wasn’t translated into English until 1879.  We might surmise that Holmes could read French due to later revelations about his French ancestry. Did  Watson read French?  Watson doesn’t expand on this possibility. However, when Holmes receives a letter of admiration from the French detective Francois le Villard, in The Sign of Four, he tosses it to Watson. Watson looks it over and says that Villard speaks “as a pupil to his master.” I am all for giving Watson credit for being able to read French. Where he picked up this ability, it’s difficult to know.

Sherlock’s attitude to both detectives lead one to believe their books would not be on his bookshelf unless Watson slips them on later, perhaps next to his book of Clark Russell’s sea stories. Sherlock’s familiarity with Poe is also evident in a non-Canonical movie, Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon, when Sherlock places the bomb sight in two volumes of Charles Dickens works. He notes that the best place to hide something is in plain sight, Dupin’s thought in “The Purloined Letter.” Sherlock expresses some dismay at having hollowed out the books but remarks that he “always thought a knowledge of the classics would come in handy.”

Of course, being a best-seller doesn’t mean a book is a classic. Perhaps Charles Dickens  wasn’t an instant classic and didn’t find a place in Sherlock's bookcase until some years later. Trilby by George du Maurrier was an astounding best seller in 1894 due to its controversial subject matter, but Sherlock would probably not have been a fan. Watson may have read it because its basic theme does echo in “The Illustrious Client.”  Included in Sherlock’s classics, I believe, would have been some of William Shakespeare's works, probably the history plays, and the Authorized Version (King James Bible).

Reference books would have occupied a significant amount of space: The Times Atlas (1895), Bacon’s Commercial and Library Atlas, John Bartholomew maps,  and The Royal Atlas of England and Wales (1895) are definite possibilities..  In “A Scandal in Bohemia” Holmes takes down  “a heavy brown volume,” the Continental Gazetteer, to check some facts. Most probably some dictionaries of poisons and  books devoted to chemistry found space there.

I would not be surprised to also find the Life of Samuel Johnson by James Boswell since he refers to Watson as his own Boswell.

We may surmise that Sherlock could read French, but we can be sure he was conversant with Latin when he concludes Watson's A Study in Scarlet with an appropriate quote from The Satires of Horace: “The public hisses at me but I applaud myself when I am in my own house I contemplate the coins in my chest.” Taking this as a clue, I think other Roman authors appeared on his bookshelves and probably Plato and other Greek classics as well.

Close at hand on the bookshelves, Sherlock probably kept his journals, his crime indexes, and time tables for trains at the various stations. Space would have been found for all his monographs as well.

When Holmes retired to Sussex, he evidently brought boxes of books with him. Perhaps he left the heavy reference books behind but he apparently included a variety of others. This turned out to be a good thing when he found his copy of Out of Doors by J. G. Wood and was able to make sense of “the lion’s mane.”  He tells Inspector Bardle and Mr. Murdoch, “I am an omnivorous reader with a strangely retentive memory for trifles.” Holmes gives the book to Inspector Bardle, assured that this knowledge will stay with him.  

At the end of H.G. Wells’  The Time Machine (the 1960 movie not the book) there are three books missing from George Wells’ bookcase. Speculations about which three books he would have taken abound. Similar discussions about Sherlock’s bookcase might delve into what an “omnivorous” reader, as Holmes describes himself,  would shelve there. Watson never seems to depict Holmes puffing away on his pipe as he reads. So, my Sherlockian friends, what do you think filled the bookcase of Sherlock Holmes?

Was it Jewel Theft or Insurance Fraud? by Michael Waxenberg

It is my contention that "The Blue Carbuncle," first published in 1892, is not a case of a jewel theft. It is a case of insurance fraud.

Similarly, "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons" (published1904), is also not a case of jewel theft. It is another case of insurance fraud.

In both cases, Sherlock Holmes gets involved in situations that appear to be the theft of important jewels from high-ranking members of the noble class; the Countess of Morcar in "The Blue Carbuncle," and the Prince of Colonna in "Six Napoleons." This monograph might convince you that in each of those cases, the jewel was taken away and hidden so that the owner could recover payment from insurance. In other words, the owners were engaging in insurance fraud. Read further to consider why Dr. Watson does not explain the insurance fraud, leaving it to us to deduce the real crimes.

A countess and a prince are obviously nobility. These are very high noble ranks. A countess in the British peerage system is the third highest rank below the royal family, below a duke/duchess and below a marquess/marchioness, but higher than viscount/viscountess and baron/baroness. The British system does not use the title of “count,” although other European nobility use the rank of count. The British equivalent is an earl. Thus, a British countess is the wife of an earl. There is no feminine form of earl, thus countess is used. Regarding the Countess of Morcar, it is possible that she was a foreign noblewoman, because Dr. Watson does not give us enough data to conclude if the Countess was foreign or British. Either way, she is of high rank.

The Prince of Colonna is clearly of very high rank. A prince is generally descended from a monarch, and likely to be in the line of succession to a throne. The Colonna family is prominent in Italian history, forming part of papal nobility over 1,000 years ago, holding many noble and prominent positions throughout Italian history, and having descendants living today. In the sources I consulted, I cannot find a “Prince of Colonna” outside of the Canon, and thus I conclude that this is an example of Dr. Watson changing a name to conceal the true identity of someone. That is singularly apt in this instance, since this Prince was likely engaging in insurance fraud.

In 1892 and 1904, the ancient noble families, in Italy and in Britain, were not always wealthy. They may have inherited lands, along with houses, artworks, jewelry, and other assets, but many of them did not have a reliable, steady source of cash income. At least not enough income to support their high, luxurious lifestyle. Merely owning their ancient family lands no longer provided an adequate cash flow, as it did in early feudal times. A common way to address the lack of cash was to marry for it. An example of that is found in the Canon in "The Adventure of the Noble Bachelor" (published 1892), in which Lord Robert St. Simon, who is described as in great need of funds, was planning to marry an American heiress, the only child of a very rich American man. Another example of a nobleman marrying for money is Jeanette Jerome, who became Lady Randolph Spencer-Churchill and the mother of Winston Churchill. A fictitious example is in Downton Abbey. The practice was so common that the rich American women who married into titled European families were disparaged with the term “Dollar princesses.” 

Another way for a cash-strapped member of the nobility to get hold of funds was to sell off family assets, such as land, artworks, or jewelry. That depletes the family inheritance and makes those sold items unavailable for future heirs. A temporary way to raise funds was to pawn family assets to get a loan. An example in the Canon of using a family heirloom to raise short-term cash is in "The Adventure of the Beryl Coronet." Commentators have debated about where or not the royal person who gave the eponymous beryl coronet as security for a personal loan had the legal right to do so. But we can agree that pledging an asset for a loan can be a legal way to borrow money.

A clearly unlawful way for a needy noble to raise cash is to use the family’s valuable assets to commit insurance fraud. Hypothetically (I used hypotheticals because I do not want the Countess of Morcar or the Prince of Colonna to sue me for defamation), the aristocrat who needs cash takes a valuable item, such as a hypothetical blue carbuncle, or a hypothetical black pearl of the Borgias, and hides it. Then, in concert with some trusted confederates, they stage the scene to look like a burglary, and a confederate takes the jewel to temporarily conceal it where the police will not find it. They then make a false report of a burglary, make a claim on their property insurance, and collect the insurance proceeds, all the while never relinquishing the valuable and insured asset.

The scheme to defraud the insurance company while keeping the supposedly stolen asset can unravel if a co-conspirator runs off with the jewel, or if the jewel gets lost. The blue carbuncle ended up in a lost goose, and the black pearl ended up in a lost plaster bust of Napoleon. To paraphrase the Bard, the course of true crime never did run smooth. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were able to find the lost jewels. But Watson’s reports of those cases both end abruptly, and we do not read whether or not the jewels were returned to the original owners. I contend they did not, because the owners had collected insurance payouts as part of a fraudulent scheme. Why does Watson not give us the final resolution? And why does he fail to even mention insurance at all? 

The subject of insurance is mentioned in the Canon, barely, in two passing moments. In "The Five Orange Pips" (published 1891) Holmes reports that he spent an entire day in the Registry of Lloyd’s to look up shipping schedules. Lloyd’s of London was the first large and famous commercial insurance company in Britain, if not in the world. It started centuries earlier insuring ships, and as part of that, kept meticulous records of the voyages and cargos of commercial ships. In the 1800’s, Lloyds expanded into insuring other assets, such as buildings and personal property including valuable items that could be easily stolen, such as jewels.

The only other explicit mention of insurance in the Canon is in The Sign of Four (published 1890), where Holmes mentions “…that the most winning woman I every knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money…” Murder to get payments from life insurance is criminal. Murder is a violent crime, but the motive for murder in that case was financial, and the underlying crime was financial, i.e. insurance fraud. The death by murder of the insured was not accidental or natural, it was an inside job by someone who wanted to cash in the policy.

And speaking of inside jobs, the 1868 novel The Moonstone, by Wilkie Collins, involves the apparent theft of a priceless jewel from a wealthy family. Not to spoil the novel for anyone who has not yet had the pleasure, but it turns out to be an inside job. This early example of detective fiction may have been one source of inspiration for Dr. Watson in his style of writing the true crime exploits of Sherlock Holmes.

The Sign of Four was published before either "The Blue Carbuncle" or "Six Napoleons." Thus, we have evidence that Dr. Watson was aware that insurance fraud was a type of financial crime, and the motive of getting money unlawfully could lead to acts of violence. Yet Watson does not mention insurance in those two cases, or in any other cases in the Canon. Why not?

Perhaps Dr. Watson’s first draft of "Blue Carbuncle" and "Six Napoleons" gave the full account of insurance fraud, and maybe even some detail of how much Holmes got paid by the insurance companies as reward for recovering the jewels for which the owners were paid large sums of money. But somewhere between writing the first draft and publication, the reports were edited to remove mention of insurance fraud. Perhaps Dr. Watson himself did not want to give the public a blueprint of how to commit insurance fraud, complete with the mistakes in these cases which led to the perpetrators getting caught, and so educating the public about what mistakes to avoid, to commit more perfect crimes. If not Watson, some other person or persons may have requested the removal of any description of the insurance scam, maybe the publisher or editors at The Strand, the Literary Agent Arthur Conan Doyle, a Scotland Yard official, or even the great man Sherlock Holmes himself. None of them would want Watson to teach the world how to commit more perfect crimes.

QED

Looking Ahead to 2026

While many Sherlockians like to say that it's always 1895, The Parallel Case of St. Louis is excited for 2026!  

Of course, everyone is excited about the Holmes in the Heartland Weekend July 24-26.  Our July post highlighted the hotel and venue, The Cheshire Inn, a British-themed hotel in the heart of St. Louis, complete with wood paneled bar and themed rooms.  As one Parallel Case member said when he toured the property, "I thought I was too old to fall in love again."  But if the location isn't enough to win you over, take a look at this lineup of speakers!

On top of that, you can enjoy a Friday evening welcome reception, vendors, lunch, and dinner on Saturday (complete with banquet entertainment), and a tour of the Missouri History Museum on Sunday.  And there's even more in store that we haven't announced yet.  You're not going to want to miss Holmes in the Heartland 2026!

Our in-person meetings continue to be the backbone of our group, and the January meeting on "The Copper Beeches" found our meeting room nearly at capacity and the discussion going so well that we ran way over our reserved time!  If that's how our FIRST meeting goes, who knows what the rest of the year holds!  If you are interested in joining us at The Ethical Society of St. Louis for a meeting, please do.  We welcome all fans of Sherlock Holmes no matter how long you've been interested in the stories.  Here's our in-person meeting schedule: 

January 17 The Copper Beeches

March 14 The Cardboard Box

May 9 The Yellow Face

July 11 The Stockbroker’s Clerk

September 12 The Gloria Scott

November 14 The Reigate Squires

But for our out-of-town friends, we still have 3 Zoom meetings throughout the year.  In fact, you can register for the February Zoom right here!  What better way to spend 2/21 that with your fellow Sherlockians?

But we aren't just participating in Sherlockian activities in St. Louis.  Members have already traveled to New York this year, and we have plans to attend activities in Dayton, Atlanta, Chicago, and Switzerland as well.  Who knows where else our members will end up in 2026?

You can continue to count on our monthly posts to continue in 2026.  In case you missed any of the 2025 posts, check them out:

January: 2025 and The Parallel Case of St. Louis by Rob Nunn

February: Sherlockian Musings in Shibuya by Kristen Mertz

March: Sherlock Holmes Film Night 2025 by Joe Eckrich

April: I Spy Sherlock Everywhere by Kristen Mertz

May: Too Old to Play Holmes? by Adam Presswood

June: A Night of Magic by Heather Hinson

July: Announcing Holmes in the Heartland 2026 by Rob Nunn

September: India in the World of Sherlock Holmes: Tracing Colonial Echoes in Conan Doyle’s Fiction by Srinivasan Raghavan

October: Good Sherlock Hunting Scottish Edition by Kristen Mertz

November: Mercy, Compassion, and Justice by Nellie Brown

December: The Case of the Non-Canonical Addition to Canon Regarding Sherlock Holmes by Karl Bockemeier

What else does 2026 have in store for us?  Rob and Peter released their latest book, On The Shoulders of Giants: Great Sherlockians Remembered.  A group of us will attend The Hound of the Baskervilles play at McKendree University in February.  Maybe a field trip to the St. Louis Sherlock Holmes Research Collection is on the horizon?  All we can tell you is that 2026 is going to be a lot of fun for Sherlock Holmes fans in St. Louis!