lo-fi & lovely
Mr. Barker in a Cameo? Sherlock Holmes: The Adventure of the Empty House [EMPT]
"Well, I have a trade of my own. I suppose I am the only one in the world. I’m a consulting detective, if you can understand what that is." That from A Study in Scarlet, which is well-before the time that any Barker is mentioned/introduced. Funny how he 'supposes,' however. A lazily stated thing, that. In any event, this hurts neither our cause nor case in any conceivable way. Excelsior! Also, whew.
I note the blase though because in his next (and minorly problematic) claim to the same, he is far more definite: “The only unofficial consulting detective" Holmes' clearly flatly states in The Sign of the Four. The detective doth protest too much? Well, they are each different conversational confines, but also maybe he wants to overtly un-acknowledge an upstart competitor? Remember, there are nine months of overlap (see timeline somewhat below). (VALL/SIGN)
There is a moderate-sized chance that he knows of Barker already by the time he's introduced in VALL during said overlap, even if they perhaps haven't yet met or laid an eye on one-another. "I had no difficulty in guessing that it was the Cecil Barker of whom I had heard." Muses Watson. Holmes, of course, always knows more and often opts not to share that more. Could it be though, that Watson was speaking of items slightly-prior to the current case, as well?
Another thought is that I'd say he had perhaps already had designs to bring Barker on-board, making him in Holmes' eyes somewhat of an employee-in-waiting and by his possible definition not a private individual, per se. And furthermore not an unofficial consulting detective by Holmes' standards. More of a Pinkerton Agent, really. So not what Holmes himself did. Is it that much of a stretch to think Holmes saw in himself a highly evolved Allan Pinkerton?
Yes, it kinda actually is. Although he did have his Irregulars, his street urchin intelligence agent network. Perhaps it's Barker not wishing to inherit that named career mantle. Maybe our guy had his own way of stating his occupation. Perhaps this is all linguistic nit-pickery between the two men and in their own heads.
Of course, another scenario (and the most-likely one) is that Barker simply wasn't on his radar until he was in VALL. It can read that way quite well. It makes some sense and slights Holmes' sights none, seeing as Barker's locale is noted to be a different one than the Baker Street area. At this point, I must remind you to please peruse the FURTHER READING segment below.
Because I am trying here much harder to avoid being repetitive than I am to have a stand-alone article. Perhaps at some point, I'll publish them all-together as one and weave in more tightly any loose ends.
Regardless of that italicized look into sausage making, and in the conclusion of any timeline quirks, Holmes has stated that he is the lone representative of his chosen career. Then RETI happens wherein Barker is listed as a private detective. What to make of this? Things change. Time marches on. I'm shrugging my shoulders right now, relieved. In any event, and as promised, the William Stuart Baring-Gould timeline. Note that the year of publishing is listed parenthetically:
STUD: 4 March 1881 (1887)
SIGN: 18 September 1888 (1890)
EMPT: 5 April 1894 (1903)
RETI: 28 July 1898 (1926)
:::
And now, we arrive at the potential Act II of the three-part Barker play within a play. It's a quick, as noted, cameo-style role of a canonical appearance.
"A tall, thin man with coloured glasses, whom I strongly suspected of being a plain-clothes detective, was pointing out some theory of his own, while the others crowded round to listen to what he said. I got as near him as I could, but his observations seemed to me to be absurd, so I withdrew again in some disgust. As I did so I struck against an elderly, deformed man, who had been behind me, and I knocked down several books which he was carrying." Watson, [EMPT]
But what have we to go on with this possible meeting? For one, the coloured glasses that don't appear in VALL but do in RETI, are seen here. Granted that's really only evidence if you buy this whole supposition. Or at least the VALL/RETI connection. Perhaps this EMPT Barker and the RETI Barker are one and the same but Cecil is just Cecil in VALL. It's all quite possible. We also might be looking at three distinctly different humans. We aren't.
Regardless, the look of plain-clothes detective fits with his given trade. That's it and that is all we get here. So why take this for anything greater than what it's presented as? Because it was presented at all, would be my reply. This cameo appearance runs as ::: very ::: out of place if it is indeed a bit of nothing more than atmospheric setting. At the end of the day, or of this series, I feel quite convinced all three Barkers are one "Cecil James Barker, of Hales Lodge, Hampstead." [VALL]
A final note here to address Watson's vague description of who, to be clear, I believe is Barker. Think of his frame of mind. He's not met much success in emulating Holmes and misses the man as well. Confusion atop grief. That would dull one's take considerably.
In case it isn't obvious, I have elected to employ the perhaps somewhat odd method of allowing you Gentlepersons along for the ride as I thought and researched. Apologies if this served to complicate reading. In the end, which is where we are, I hope we had some fun. But are we at the end? I hope you're not. (Unless you've been reading along as these installments were published.)
::: FURTHER READING :::
[To peruse, employ the Search Kaplowitz Media. field to your right.]
An Introduction to Mr. Barker (from The Sherlock Holmes Adventure of the Retired Colourman)
Mr. Barker, We Meet Again (Before?) Sherlock Holmes: The Valley of Fear
::: very :::