This is an early Holmes pastiche, being first published in 1920. It’s also a favourite of many fans, and Vincent Starrett was himself a Holmes superfan, as well as a great lover of books. He was even born above his grandfather’s bookshop in Toronto, which seems fitting.

It’s not much of a mystery – the only clue is cut-and-paste from “Silver Blaze” – but it’s an engaging bit of fan service. Starrett doesn’t send anything up, but you get the sense that he’s having fun telling the story of the theft of a Hamlet quarto inscribed by Shakespeare himself. Mr. Harrington Edwards, book collector (a type of person “mad enough to begin with”), collapses at Holmes’s doorstep and explains the situation, which leads to Holmes and Watson catching a train to Walton-on-Walton and Poke Stogis Manor to investigate. Just the names make the story worth a read.

When upbraiding the thief Holmes does say something that stood out for me though. “Surely you must know that in criminal cases handled by me, it is never the obvious solution that is the correct one. The mere fact that the finger of suspicion is made to point at a certain individual is sufficient to absolve that individual from guilt.” While this is a general principle in most mystery fiction, it’s not one that’s well represented in the Holmes canon, and in any event it’s a bias that most mystery authors know how to exploit. My sense is that this wasn’t meant to be a reflection on Holmes’s method (Doyle’s own statements of those tend to be more honoured in the breach than the observance), but was just intended as another gentle poke.

Holmes index