多萝西·L·塞耶斯
（资源转载自豆瓣-谜斗篷计划）
1.华生医生的教名：
（说明：之所以转载这篇是因为在吧中的同人创作圈子内对文中着眼的问题有着普遍的偏于臆想的猜测。）

2.《红发会的日期》
3.《福尔摩斯的大学生活》

10 购物
食物都是从专门的店铺里买来的，比如肉铺、面包房、蔬菜水果店、糖果店、鱼铺、奶酪店、牛奶房等。就算小村子里也会有面包房，肉铺和蔬菜水果店一般是一个星期开一到两天。村上的一般性店铺（也许是某家人的前室或者酒馆的旁边）也提供一些日常所需。
当时，杂货店售卖干的食品，比如茶叶、咖啡、香料、糖、麦片、饼干、葡萄干等。他们也提供诸如肥皂、蜡烛等日用品。猪肉铺和牛奶店也会卖黄油、鸡蛋和奶酪。一般来说面包房卖面包，不过面包烘房也会卖肉派和其他东西。所有店铺里，食品都是散装的，店主根据需要称量食品，用劣等纸包装，之后用绳子打包。
街上的小摊贩那里也能买到很多东西。乡村市镇也会有固定的集会日，既有自产自销的，也有二道贩子。老的市场会有雨棚，在那里可以临时售卖，也可以固定下来成为商店。在工人阶级地区，大部分买卖交易是在星期六夜间和星期天清晨街道的集市上完成的，这时候人们领到一周的薪水，而且也有空闲的时间。他们可以为星期六的正餐买点食品，也可以买一些新的或者二手商品，比如衣服，家居用品，玩具等等。
伦敦的叫卖小贩是街道上独特的风景。他们从批发商那里买来东西，比如从考文特园买来水果和蔬菜，从比林斯格特鱼市买来鱼，用手推车或者驴车贩卖。《蓝宝石案》中出现的考文特园是当时伦敦最大的水果和蔬菜集散中心，但是奇怪的是，这里并不贩卖家禽。叫卖小贩以俗艳的衣着和特殊的俚语而闻名。他们将新鲜的食品带到附近工人阶级居住的地方，并且扩展贩卖的路线，为新的市郊居民区服务。
中产阶级买东西大部分情况下需要送到他们的家里，这是因为当时的运输条件下把食品包裹带回家是一件很困难的事情那个。家庭主妇或者厨子会在早晨去商店，留下一张食品单子，要求晚些时候送到家里。面包工人和送牛奶的工人会每天上门看看是否有西药。一般通过账单结帐，一般每月或者每季度结清。
在十九世纪初，大部分零售的物件来自工匠铺，由工匠或者学徒手工制作，店铺前屋会有一个柜台，由一名家庭成员在那里站柜台。小型的商店对于那些害羞的购买者来说是一个非常难受的地方。物品上面并没有贴上价格标签。如果想看某样东西需要向店员提出，但是如果价格太高的话，不买就走实在令人尴尬。讨价还价的情况有时候在市场里会出现，但是在店里不可以还价。
至于时髦的衣服，女性会去那些专门售卖丝绸制品、手套或者网帽的店铺。她会坐在店里的椅子上，告诉店员她想要什么东西。店员会将样品拿出来给她看，有时候会找来年轻的店员做模特。如果选择好了东西，要么随即带走，要么送去住处。女装、外套、鞋子和其他物品是需要量体裁衣的。要么将现成的衣服改好后再来取，要么会有人去住处为其专门量身。富人家庭的女性不需要进商店买东西。她的马车会停在商店门口，侍女或者脚夫会进商店告知店员需要什么，店员会挑选一些物品拿到马车上给她看。
1850年代之后，铁路的发展使得乡村市镇上可以买到很多种类的商品。商店里有玻璃橱窗展示商品。在市中心出现了销售各色商品的大型商店。这些商店一开始被称为百货店，之后则称为百货公司。彼得·鲁宾逊、斯旺和埃德加、狄更斯和琼斯等公司兴建了不少大型商店，较低的层面是陈列室，其上是工场间，最上面几层是供商店店员住宿。摄政街、牛津街都是潮流商店的聚集地，街道上往往挤满了等待的马车。大部分这类著名商店都是以布料店起家，销售布料和纺织品，即便到了今天有些还存在于伦敦。而著名的查尔斯·哈罗德商店则是食品店起家。
除了商品种类繁多以外，百货商店还明码标价。虽然还是需要让柜台后的店员将物品拿到柜台外面仔细观看，但是购物者可以只看而不买。大部分百货公司付给店员工资，而不是佣金，并且教导店员不要为难客户。如果以现金交易还可以打些折扣，但是他们不提供送货和电话预订服务。而且店里还有茶座、饭馆、休息室，客户可以呆得时间比较长。到1880年代，中产阶级和上层阶级的女性在没有陪伴的情况下也会从外地乘火车来到伦敦，度过一天购物时光，这样的情况每个季度至少会有一次。

如果你们有资源希望也能分享到这个帖子。

我来顶你了，小E，来不及看，回家再慢慢翻！

噢！大长篇！！我的最爱！！看这种东西特别能涨见识啊！！不过现在挺晚了没时间看，马克之～～我建议楼主标题可以换换～标题吸引力不大人就没有那么多了哦～这种好东西错过了就太可惜了是吧？

我有空了就会回来看的！等我啊！！

Monsignor Ronald A. Knox
Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes
（This paper is The Cornerstone of Sherlockian Literature.）
Studies was first presented to the Gryphon Club in 1911 and then published in The Blue Book Magazine in 1912. Monsignor Knox published the paper once more in Essays in Satire in 1928 and the paper has been re-published in other volumes, including A Sherlock Holmes Compendium by Peter Haining in 1980. Sir Arthur commented upon the paper to Monsignor Knox. His comments can be found on the Monsignor Knox page.

Sherlock Holmes was descended from a long line of country squires: his grandmother was the sister of a French artist: his elder brother Mycroft was, as we all know, more gifted than himself, but found an occupation, if the Reminscences are to be trusted, in a confidential audit of Government accounts. Of Sherlock’s school career we know nothing; Watson was at school, and one of his schoolmates was the nephew of a peer, but this seems to have been exceptional there, since it was considered good fun to ‘chevy him about the playground and hit him over the shins with a wicket.’ This seems to dispose of the idea that Watson was an Etonian. On the other hand, we have no evidence as to his University career, except the testimony (always doubtful) of one of the Return stories that he was unacquainted with the scenery of Cambridgeshire. Of Holmes’s student days our knowledge is much fuller; he was reserved by nature, and his recreations – boxing and fencing – did not make him many acquaintances. One of his friends was Percy Trevor, son of an ex-convict, who had made his money in the Australian goldfields; another Reginald Musgrave, whose ancestors went back to the Conquest – quite the last word in aristocracy. He lived in a College, but what College? And at which University? The argument that his scientific bent would have naturally taken him to Cambridge defeats itself, for why should he have been only up two years if he wanted a proper scientific training? More and more as I consider the wealth of his two friends, the exclusive aristocracy of the one, and the doggy tendencies of the other, together with the isolation which put even so brilliant a light as Holmes’s under a bushel – more and more I incline to the opinion that he was up at the House. But we have no sure evidence.
If he was an Oxford man, he was not a Greats’ man. Yet when Watson describes his first impressions of the man at the beginning of the Study in Scarlet – the locus classicus for Holmes’s characteristics – he wrongs him in saying that his knowledge of philosophy is nil, and his knowledge of literature is nil. The fact is, clearly, that Holmes did not let his talents appear till he had been living with Watson for some time, and had come to recognize his sterling qualities. In fact, he compares Hafiz with Horace, quotes Tacitus, Jean Paul, Flaubert, Goeth, and Thoreau, and reads Petrach in a G.W.R. carriage. He has no definite interest in philosophy as such, yet he holds certain definite views on scientific method. A philosopher could not have said, ‘when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.’ He could not have confused observation with inference, as Holmes does when he says, ‘Observations shows me you have been to the Post Office’ judging by the mud on Watson’s boots. There must be inference here, though it may be called implicit inference, however rabid the transition of thought. Yet Holmes was no Sensationalist. What sublime confession of faith could a realist make that the remark in the Study in Scarlet: ‘I ought to know by this time that when a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions, it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation.’
And here I must say a word on the so-called ‘method of deduction’. M. Papier Mache has boldly asserted that it was stolen from Gaboriau. M. Piff-Pouff in his well-known article, ‘Qu’est-ce que c’est la deduction?’ declares roundly that Holmes’s methods were inductive. The two fallacies rest on a common ground. Lecoq has observations: he notices footsteps on the snow. He has powers of inference for he can infer from such footsteps the behaviour of those who have left them. He has not the method of deduction – he never sits down and reasons out what is probable the man would have done next. Lecoq has his lens and his forceps: he has not the dressing-gown and the pipe. That is why he has to depend on mere chance, again and again, for picking up lost threads. Holmes no more depended on a chance than he prayed for a miracle. That is why Lecoq, baffled after a long investigation, has to have recourse to a sort of arm-chair detective, who, without leaving the arm-chair, tells him exactly what must have happened. It is wrong to call this latter character, as M. Papier Mache does, the original of Mycroft: he is the original, if you will, of Sherlock. Lecoq is but the Stanley Hopkins, almost the Lestrade, of his period. Holmes himself has explained for us the difference between observation (or inference) and deduction. It is by observation a posteriori that he recognizes Watson’s visit to the Post Office from the mud on his trousers; it is by deduction a priori that he knows he has been sending a telegram, since he has seen plenty of stamps and postcards in Watson’s desk.

An example of Watson Gordon's work--a portrait of Sir John Gladstone, father of William Gladstone, prime minister of England(4), and the inventor of the "Gladstone" bag(5)--painted>c. 1830 follows: （fig 1）（fig 2）

John H. Watson, who had "neither kith nor kin in England(6)," clearly had relatives elsewhere, for we learn of his father and brother in SIGN. Dr. Watson attended school in England(7) but there is no indication of his family's roots.(8) Watson Gordon's fame was at its zenith in 1850, shortly before the generally-accepted year for the birth of young John (1852)(9), and therefore it is not unreasonable to suppose that Watson Gordon was his namesake. Watson Gordon was himself unmarried and childless, and this homage from his cousin may well have been a deliberate attempt at flattery, to win young John a patron.
If John H. Watson had kin in Scotland, it seems unlikely that he would visit there without exposure to the public buildings and museums of Edinburgh housing his illustrious relative's work. Indeed, he may have spent time in Watson-Gordon's studio, soaking up the artistic culture of Edinburgh. He also would have visited London with his family and viewed Watson Gordon's work there in the galleries.(10)
That Watson and Watson Gordon shared an ancestor seems certain. How else explain the bent of a scientific man--for John H. Watson's training was in medicine--for the arts? Who but a natural artist could write of an "old home, surrounded by a high sun-baked wall mottled with lichens and topped with moss"(11) or who could paint such word portraits(12) as those of Cyril Overton ("sixteen stone of solid bone and muscle"(13)), Mr. Sandeford ("an elderly red-faced man with grizzled side-whiskers"(14)) or Captain Croker?(15) Is not the visual element striking in Dr. Watson's words:
The torrent, swollen by the melting snow, plunges into a tremendous abyss, from which the spray rolls up like the smoke from a burning house. The shaft into which the river hurls itself is an immense chasm, lined by glistening coal-black rock, and narrowing into a creaming, boiling pit of incalculable depth, which brims over and shoots the stream onward over its jagged lip. The long sweep of green water roaring forever down, and the thick flickering curtain of spray hissing forever upward, turn a man giddy with their constant whirl and clamour.
Holmes himself recognized Dr. Watson's "painterly" tendencies. "Why shouldn't we use a little art jargon?" he suggests to Watson(16), before Watson has published a word, and gives Dr. Watson an appropriate painting-title for his first book: "A Study in Scarlet." In COPP, for example, he contrasts his and Watson's viewpoints: "You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there." In CROO, Holmes refers to Dr. Watson's tales as "these little sketches of yours."
This discovery of Watson's family offers for the first time an understanding of why his "tree" may have developed a sudden "eccentricity" in the direction of writing.(17) Further, it may explain Watson's fascination with General Charles "Chinese" Gordon,(18) his cousin's pseudonymous namesake. What could be more natural than to admire not one but two Gordons?

注释：
1. STUD.
2. ABBE.
3. P. X-782.
4. And probable client of Holmes in NAVA.
5. Holmes owned one. See TWIS.
6. STUD.
7. NAVA.
8. Dorothy L. Sayers, in "Dr. Watson's Christian Name," writes: "Sturdily and essentially English as he was, he may well, like most English people, have had a Socttish ancestor in his family tree. A hundred Scottish ancestors, nay, even a Scottish mother, would in no way affect the indomitable Englishry of Dr. Watson. In fact, there is some slight evidence for a Scots strain in Watson. It may not be mere coincidence that led Holmes (a shrewd student of national character) to select the adjective 'pawky' for the vein of humour which Watson displayed during the adventure of The Valley of Fear and which took his distinguished friend a little aback. Watson's mother may have been a Scot--not, I think, a Highland woman, but a native of Eastern Scotland.... The true Highland is a Celt--quick-tempered, poetical, and humourless--everything that Watson was not. Dourness and pawkiness belong to the Aberdeen side of the country." Unpopular Opinions (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. (1946)), at 150. Sayers goes on to argue that Watson's mother gave him the Christian name of "Hamish."
9. See William S. Baring-Gould, Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street (New York: Clarkson N. Potter (1962)), at 293; June Thomson, Holmes and Watson (London: Constable & Company Ltd. (1995), at 21; S. C. Roberts, Dr. Watson (London: Faber & Faber (1931)), at 8.
10. It seems characteristically reticent of Dr. Watson that while Holmes spoke (in GREE) of "my grandmother, who was the sister of Vernet, the French artist," Watson remained silent about his own artistic connections.
11. RETI. To which description, it should be recalled, Holmes retorted, "Cut out thepoetry."
12. As noted by Colin Prestige in "John H. Watson, M.D.," Baker Street Miscellanea, No. 49 (Spring 1987), 11.
13. MISS.
14. SIXN.
15. ABBE.
16. In STUD.
17. Cf. EMPT: "There are some trees, Watson, which grow to a certain height, and then suddenly develop some unsightly eccentricity. You will see it often in humans. I have a theory that the individual represents in his development the whole procession of his ancestors, and that such a sudden turn to good or evil stands for some strong influence which came into the line of his pedigree. The person becomes, as it were, the epitome of the history of his own family."
18. CARD.

A post-colonial canonical and cultural revision of Conan Doyle's Holmes narratives
21 June 1999
Note: All quotations from Doyle's Sherlock Holmes texts are taken from The Penguin Complete Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.London: Penguin, 1984.

"The Speckled Band": Doyle's fear and rejection of inter-cultural experience
Complimenting the Orientalism present in the two Holmes novels discussed above are the themes contained within "The Speckled Band". This text, one of fifty-six Holmes short stories, was originally published in the popular magazine The Strand(Dickson-Carr 84 - 91). Its narrative reinforces Holmes' use of Orientalism by an Englishman from an English perspective, by contrasting the detective's approach with that of Dr Grimsby Roylott, who ceases to study the Orient from the outside and becomes subsumed within it. The result of Roylott's immersion in this "alien" culture is madness, disorder, and inverted colonialism within the grounds of the ancestral home of the Stoner family, Stoke Moran. Helen Stoner, Roylott's step-daughter, seeks Holmes' help when her sister dies in bed, deliriously babbling of '"the speckled band"'(260). Stoner provides a simple biographical sketch of her family and of Roylott, who belongs to '"one of the oldest Saxon families in England...."' (259). Roylott, she recounts, attempted to counter the family's ailing finances by '"obtain[ing] an advance from a relative, which enabled him to take a medical degree and [go]....out to Calcutta, where, by his professional skill and his force of character, he established a large practice"'(259-60). The colonies, in this instance India, are once more portrayed as resources to boost and sustain the economy of the imperial centre and those individuals emanating from it. Simultaneously, Doyle excuses Roylott's looming madness and return to England in two ways. His return to England is caused by his harsh beating to death of his '"native butler"', after '"some robberies which had been perpetrated in the house...."' (260). Marrying Stoner's widowed mother in India, Roylott came back to Stoke Moran. However, Roylott who in Holmes estimation is '"a clever and ruthless man who has had an Eastern training"', lets '"Indian animals"' roam the confines of his estate, and travels with '"wandering gypsies...for weeks on end...."'(260). The impossibility of a harmonious mixing of East and West is fused with the stern fear of the consequences of studying the culture of the colonies from a position which is not anchored to the ideology of the imperial centre.
Doyle's second excuse for Roylott is now initiated. Roylott, as Helen Stoner recounts, is not a rational man. '"Violence of temper approaching to mania,"' she states, '" has been hereditary in the men of the family, and in my stepfather's case it had, I believe, been intensified by his long residence in the tropics...."'(260). No sane individual, Doyle infers, would leave the rationally ordered imperial centre for the chaos of the Orient. Roylott's insanity infers that the Orient, too, is unbalanced and by moving back to England, Roylott turns the grounds of his estate into a chaotic inverted colony where the irrational world of the Orient (as perceived by Doyle) commands.
Holmes, again via the use of Orientalist scientific research for imperial ends, deduces that Roylott is sending an Indian '"swamp adder"' into the bedroom of his step-daughters, with the intent of killing them both. Hiding in Stoner's bedroom, Holmes and Watson lash out at the snake. The creature turns on Roylott, fatally poisoning him (272). There can be no greater crime against the imperial centre, in its agents' estimations, than turning its knowledge against it: by attempting to kill his step-daughters, Doyle presents Roylott as insanely pursuing the goal of eradicating the English presence within England, whilst accentuating the authority of Oriental cultures in its place. '"When a doctor goes wrong,"' Holmes muses, '"he is the worst of criminals"' (270). The rational Holmes and his partner Watson ensure that the "correct" eradication occurs: that of the other, for there can be no intermingling of the cultures of East and West without insanity ensuing. Doyle again silences the voice of the colonised native culture, or portrays it as a stereotype in the sense outlined above by Loomba.
"Distortion" is perhaps a better word than "stereotype", particularly when applied to the figure of the snake in the text. Baring-Gould notes that 'no known species of snake fully satisfies all the requirements of "the speckled band"....[it would have to be] a....compendium of the Mexican Gila monster....and the....Indian cobra....' (266). The snake in the text is a non-existant creature constructed from a mingled collection of scientific sources, used to symbolize and present not only the perceived polarity between coloniser and colonised, but also the incompatibility of one to the other and, in the triumph of the former over the latter, its self-bestowed superiority. Doyle's Holmes texts provide not only his own views but what those individuals who collectively made up the contemporary British reading public would find acceptable and compatible with the imperial ideology instilled within them. This reinforces Said's argument that narratives written in imperial cultures were accepted or rejected on the grounds of whether they conformed to the authority of that culture. That authority 'places emphasis not so much on how to read, but [on] what is read and where is written about and represented....' (Culture70).
"The Speckled Band", and Doyle's other Holmes fictions, illustrate the ties between imperial ideology, and its contemporary culture and literary canon. In them it has been possible to perceive, in their absence, 'unspoken subjects', that is, the silenced voice of native cultures in the colonies (Ashcroft et al., 193).Doyle's texts, and those of other authors privileging the centre, can be critically re-evaluated as texts which are not, in the words of Loomba, '"above" historical and political processes"(75). These texts, she continues, 'in what [they] say, and in the process of their writing, are central to colonial history, and in that can help us to a nuanced analysis of that history....'(75). The literary canon can be extended to include contemporary native colonial writers, accentuating a view embracing, in Said's words, 'overlapping territories....and intertwined histories....' (Culture72).