questions: A Study in Scarlet

i have a few questions. these are:

1) is it really true that there were no tests for identifying dried blood before holmes' test?

2) which year did holmes and watson meet? was it 1881?

3) holmes is ignorant about the Copernican theory and the composition of the solar system because according to holmes, "If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”
but he mentions Euclid's propositions ("His conclusions were as infallible as so many propositions of Euclid"). does it make any difference to him or his work whether Euclid's propositions were infallible or not? (by the way, he also mentions Euclid's fifth proposition in The Sign of Four)

4) holmes says that a man's height can be calculated from the length of his stride. i am really interested to know the relationship between a man's height and the length of his stride. can anyone help?

5) why did holmes give an advertisement about the ring before he knew whether it was mentioned in the evning papers or not?

6) in chapter 6 (Tobias Gregson Shows What He Can Do), watson wrote that gregson came up the stairs three steps at a time and burst into their sitting room. how did he know that it was "three steps at a time" if he only heard his footsteps? he didn't even know the total number of steps in the staircase.

7) why did Hope leave the pills in stangerson's room?

8) why did Hope went as a cabman to 221B Baker Street when he knew that his accomplice (who went to retrieve the ring) was followed by a man from that same house?

9) what does the following mean:
“Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo
Ipse domi simul ac nummos contemplar in arca.”

Sorry, I can't help you with all of these. Perhaps Pendragon would know. But I just read it a couple weeks ago and remember at least a couple things.

6) I do not have the book at hand, so I am not sure, but do we actually know that Watson is ignorant of the number of steps? If not, it would seem logical that Watson should have begun to "pick up" things as he followed Holmes about.

7) My guess is that Hope, having no real reason to hide, - being about to die and all - didn't care after he killed the two fellas whether any evidence was found or not.

9) The public hiss at me, but I cheer myself when in my own house I contemplate the coins in my strong-box.

2) The battle of Maiwand was on July 27th of 1880. After the battle Watson spent at least a couple of months at the hospital and then moved to England. I would say that Holmes and Watson in the beginning of 1881.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jamesian

6) I do not have the book at hand, so I am not sure, but do we actually know that Watson is ignorant of the number of steps?

---

watson didn't know the number of steps. here is an extract from "A Scandal in Bohemia":

"You see, but you do not observe. The distinction is clear. For example, you have frequently seen the steps which lead up from the hall to this room."

"Frequently."

"How often?"

"Well, some hundreds of times."

"Then how many are there?"

"How many? I don’t know."

"Quite so! You have not observed. And yet you have seen. That is just my point. Now, I know that there are seventeen steps, because I have both seen and observed......."

AAAhhh.......... I see. Well, I guess I really couldn't say, then. I guess he could have been exaggerating - though this might not be logical for Watson. It could also just be careless writing, but I hate assigning things to that category so let us hope it's otherwise.

thanks jamesian. can anyone help with the other questions? thanks in advance to anybody who can help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmesian

3) holmes is ignorant about the Copernican theory and the composition of the solar system because according to holmes, "If we went round the moon it would not make a pennyworth of difference to me or to my work.”
but he mentions Euclid's propositions ("His conclusions were as infallible as so many propositions of Euclid"). does it make any difference to him or his work whether Euclid's propositions were infallible or not? (by the way, he also mentions Euclid's fifth proposition in The Sign of Four)

---

Holmes always has had a pretty strange sense of humor, and we find out over the course of the books that his knowelege base is a lot wider than Watson claims at this point. I think he was kidding.

Quote:

---

8) why did Hope went as a cabman to 221B Baker Street when he knew that his accomplice (who went to retrieve the ring) was followed by a man from that same house?

---

Hope had already done what he had set out to do and all that remained was for him to tell his story. He panicked when Holmes put the cuffs on him because he thought they weren't going to give him a chance to speak. He didn't really care whether he went to prison or not because he was going to die soon anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmesian

9) what does the following mean:
“Populus me sibilat, at mihi plaudo
Ipse domi simul ac nummos contemplar in arca.”

---

According to the 'net, it can be translated as:

Quote:

---

The people hiss at me, but I applaud myself at home, when I contemplate the coins in my strong-box.

---

Ok.....well I have a question about a part in the book A Study in Scarlet. The second part of the book talks about a man and his daughter and ow they were rescued by this clan of religious people. I realized at the end of Part 2 that it was related to Part 1 because the men who died are in Part 2. But when whoever is talking about the father and his daughter and what they went through...who is that, is that Hope telling his story to Holmes and Watson or is Doyle just telling us what happened to get up to that point??

Can someone please try and answer my question because I dont get it. I hope that I asked a clear enough question.

i think it was Hope telling the story. and one more thing, as far as i remember, the little girl was not the man's daughther. the girl's parents had already died by then. later when they were rescued, he raised the girl as his daughter.

When Gregson went up 3 stairs at a time he was in a hurry. This fact would not only cause the loudness of each step to be magnified, but in doing so, there would be less footfalls heard to achieve the top step. Try it sometime with a witness to determine what you are doing without seeing you. By the way, the steps are wooden and would give an additional sound and vibration to the house. I lived in a 4-story Victorian home and could tell when someone took the stairs 2 or 3 at a time. Gregson is tall to be able to take 3 steps at once.

A tall man will usually have a longer stride since his legs are longer, unless there is some abnormality in his physical makeup, such as inheriting an extremely long torso and short legs. There are a few of these types out there. This usually happeñs when the mother is 4' 10'' AND the father is 6' 5'' in my grandparents case.

I read a book in 1966 which I believe was titled, "The Real Sherlock Holmes" and was based on the medical professor A. Conan Doyle based his Sherlock Holmes character. In it, were described many of the things, such as fingerprints and blood reagent test that were not used as evidence at the time by the police force, but that were eventually use due to the Sherlock Holmes stories. If you read the early history of J. Edgar Hoover (FBI) fingerprints were not widely used in America in the early 1920's until he came upon two black men who were not related but were identical in everyway but their age and fingerprints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scotland Yard

Ok.....well I have a question about a part in the book A Study in Scarlet. The second part of the book talks about a man and his daughter and ow they were rescued by this clan of religious people. I realized at the end of Part 2 that it was related to Part 1 because the men who died are in Part 2. But when whoever is talking about the father and his daughter and what they went through...who is that, is that Hope telling his story to Holmes and Watson or is Doyle just telling us what happened to get up to that point??

Can someone please try and answer my question because I dont get it. I hope that I asked a clear enough question.

---

Part one is clearly labeled as being from Dr. Watson as well as part two from chapter 13 on. Chapters 8-12 (the part covering the events in America) appear to be by Doyle, as chapter 12 ends: "As to what occurred there, we cannot do better than quote the old hunter's own account, as duly recorded in Dr Watson's journal, to which we are already under such obligations."
and chapter 13 is titled: "A Continuation of the Reminiscences of John Watson MD"

It is not common for me to read mystery, triller or horror novels but I found Sherlock Holmes a very good read.:thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holmesian

i have a few questions. these are:

4) holmes says that a man's height can be calculated from the length of his stride. i am really interested to know the relationship between a man's height and the length of his stride. can anyone help?

---

A man's height can not be calculated from length of stride alone. On average a taller man will take a longer stride but that is not always true. A man who is in a hurry would take longer steps than a man who is leisurely reading or looking at buildings. Nevertheless Sherlock could also look at the size of the shoes the depth of the indent into the ground and the shape the shoe print makes in the ground.
Size of shoe would indicate the size of the person because the human body is relatively proportional.
Depth of indent would give the weight of the person.
The shape of the shoe print would indicate if the person is running has a limp, or any body misshapen that would throw off the other calculations like having long legs and short torso or visa verse. Try going outside in a sand box or damp soil. Run across then walk then limp. Also have different people of different height and weight make foot prints. Although I do not have enough time to study it in depth but I have done this much. You will be able to see the differences in the foot prints and strides. If you continued to study for a long time it would easily became second nature to see footprints and to know the height and weight of the person within a margin of error.

Hi,

Re your queries 7) and 8) I suppose, like most here have already mentioned, that Hope just didn't care anymore.

Alternatively:
7) Hope may not have foreseen that Stangerson would lunge at him with a knife. Possibly surprised at this turn of events, and in making a hasty retreat out of the room, he could've forgotten about the box of pills.

8) It is possible the accomplice, happy to have shaken Holmes off his back, and not expecting to see or hear from him again, never told Hope about being followed.

As for advertising about the ring, it is something that confounds me too. I can only imagine that it was intentional. After all, A Study in Scarlet is set at the beginning of Holmes' career, and he might not have been so flawless at the start.