The Erosion of Patriarchal Values in Conan Doyle’s Detective Fiction

The article examines narrative patterns and causations of “crime” in matrimonial/family-centered adventures of Sherlock Holmes, which remain, compared with the “investigative” storyline, surprisingly understudied. From the established plot patterns, certain conclusions can be drawn about axiological changes that occurred towards the end of the Victorian era. In terms of the plot, two typical collisions can be traced in matrimonial/family-centered tales that seem to be interdependent and almost symmetrical: (1) either the despotic patriarch forcibly confines his younger female relative (along with her property) within the paternal “clan” in order to prevent her convergence with “strangers” (hence the plenitude of incestual allusions), (2) or the overscrupulous husband refuses to accept the cultural, social, ethnic background of his wife (i.e. her ancestry, her “tribe”) that scares and alienates him by its excessive vitality and masculinity. For Conan Doyle, in both cases crimes occur when “guardians” (fathers and husbands) endeavour to maintain an endogamous and patrilineal family by force. In both cases offenders neglect the ambivalent status of the modern late-Victorian woman, who is able to stay in touch with and to mediate between the two patriarchal clans. Hostilities and crimes in matrimonial/family-centered tales arise, as the plot analysis has shown, not so much from a substantial conflict of interests, but rather from delusions, from irrelevant obsolete ideas of family wealth shared by the “patriarchs”. First of all, Conan Doyle condemns isolationist and purist tendencies - outworn ideas of a self-sufficiеnt narrow “circle” (family, clan, tribe,“brotherhood”), mostly accompanied by xenophobia. In the writer’s perception, isolated enclaves aggravate the fragmentation of society, while they themselves degrade over time. And vice versa: being fully aware of their vagaries, Doyle welcomes heterogeneous alliances (including mixed, e.g. interracial, marriages). Equally dangerous and, ideologically, anachronistic is the proclivity to concentrate the family wealth and to condense energy in one single center, which is common for an autarkical patriarchal mindset. Quite often evil-doers in Doyle’s tales are primogenital descendants or elders who forcefully display or substitute their younger counterparts. In late Victorian Britain, as depicted by Conan Doyle, family and its single members may benefit from a moderate decentralization, from a reasonable distribution of resources (e.g. from shared ownership of family property). Finally, family-centered tales show convincingly that the patriarchal propensity to violence and the reliance upon brutality are becoming obsolete. Unlike a progressive gentleman, the “hardliner” neglects dialogical conversation; he despises any subtle trade-off. Viewed in a historical perspective, he is doomed to failure, since violence incites external conflicts, gets out of control and recoils upon the offender himself.

Keywords

Authors

References