Synaptic

In this essay, the writer performs a sophisticated Marxist reading of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes story, “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” I was especially impressed with the interpretation of how the criminal Selden, killed for passing as the upper classes, underscores what the writer criticizes as this story’s ultimately conservative message.

-Dr. Kate Nesbit

---

The phrase “eat the rich” has become a contemporary colloquialism with etymology typically tracing to famous French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau’s quote: “When the people shall have nothing more to eat, they will eat the rich.” And, although Rousseau likely used “the rich” to refer to any form of power, many nowadays echo this phrase to denounce capitalistic antagonism between the powerful aristocracy and the poor proletariat. This pervasive enmity between the classes is epitomized in Arthur Conan Doyle’s novel The Hound of the Baskervilles. The plot follows John Watson, Sherlock Holmes’ assistant detective, as he endeavors to solve the mystery of an enigmatic hound that is murdering the Baskervilles, a line of wealthy aristocrats. Throughout the story, the two detective’s and the Baskerville’s prominent upper class statuses often differentiate them from the working-class civilians of Dartmoor. But, by killing the wealthy, the hound disrupts this clear class dichotomy because it attempts to eradicate the Baskerville’s power and authority. For this reason, I posit that the hound is a symbol of the proletariat revolting against—or “eating”—the rich and moving towards socialism, a classless system. However, Doyle’s application of the hound suggests this notion to abolish the class system is impossible because the poor will always fall within a hierarchy and eventually “eat” themselves.

The upper-class characters exhibit a clear disdain for many of the proletariat characters which reflects the typical class tensions in a capitalist society. For example, when Watson first encounters Jack Stapleton, they begin talking about the superstitious hound and Stapleton remarks, “It is extraordinary how credulous the peasants are about here! Any number of them are ready to swear that they have seen such a creature upon the moor!” (Doyle 50). Not only does Stapleton blatantly degrade the proletariat by calling them “peasants,” but he also suggests a uniformity among them. By suggesting that they all believe in this superstition, Stapleton groups them together and degrades their autonomy as individuals. Instead, they are just a group of inferior people. Watson further characterizes these negative beliefs later in the novel when he reaffirms himself of his rationality in a letter to Holmes. He  writes, “if I have one quality upon earth it is common sense, and nothing will persuade me to believe in [the hound superstition]. To do so would be to descend to the level of these poor peasants” (67). Watson’s degradation of the proletariat in this thought transcends the idea that they are only inferior. Rather, the implication that they have no “common sense” predicates their means of living on the aristocracy, who have the rationality and intellect to solve complex situations. This clear class dichotomy in which the proletariat is subordinate and reliant on the aristocracy clearly reflects Marx’s descriptions of class structures during a capitalist mode of production.

However, Jack Stapleton complicates this clear class dichotomy because he is genetically part of the Baskerville aristocracy but has also been cast out into the proletariat class. So, in response, Stapleton imbues superstition to keep people from questioning and intervening with the revolting hound so that he can take down the aristocracy he was cast out from. For example, when the two detectives and Stapleton encounter each other in the moor after Seldon’s death, Stapleton tries to sow doubt in the detectives by questioning, “I was wondering if there were any evidence of such a sound [of a hound] tonight?’ (Doyle 83). Even though the detectives are upper class and unlikely to give into this ‘proletariat-like’ superstitious belief, Stapleton still tries to lead them into superstition through this leading question. The superstition of the hound keeps people complaisant. Once someone starts to believe that the hound is supernatural, they give up on questioning it or trying to put a stop to it because it is out of their human control. However, the upper class are the only people who can actually challenge the superstitious belief because they reject superstition and Stapleton is not able to coerce them financially like he does with Laura Lyons (88-89) nor dominate them like he does with his wife (93-94) because of their wealthy, prominent aristocratic status. Stapleton endeavors to permeate the idea of the hound being supernatural to prevent the skeptical upper class from fighting against the hound overthrowing the aristocracy through trying to invoke doubt within the detectives.

However, Doyle uses Seldon’s death to suggest that the proletariat’s revolution against the aristocracy is futile because even if they destroy the current aristocracy, there will always be a class struggle. In Stapleton’s endeavors to eliminate classes so he can then implement himself as the aristocracy, he accidentally kills Seldon, a fugitive. But, when Seldon dies he is wearing a “peculiar ruddy tweed suit” (81) that belongs to Henry Baskerville. In his endeavors to eliminate the aristocracy, Stapleton, a proletariat revolter, has inadvertently killed a proletariat character who was guised as an aristocrat. But, not only does poor Seldon die for wearing an aristocratic outfit, but his body is found “hunched together as if in the act of throwing a somersault” (81). The motion of a somersault represents a circle or cycle that has become broken with Seldon’s death. Even though Stapleton presents his revolution as a positive change, he is really just perpetuating this cycle of wealth. Sure, the Baskerville aristocracy could be eliminated, however, that doesn’t change the class disparities between the surviving working class and the extremely poor people like Seldon. With one aristocracy dying, the upper sector of the proletariat takes its place and the extremely poor are still subordinated by these class dynamics. Doyle uses Seldon’s death to represent that trying to implement socialism just leads to the proletariat “eating” itself.

Although this hound may originally seem like the proletariat eating the aristocracy, it actually is a symbol of never being able to break social class dichotomies. Doyle suggests that no matter how hard the lower class tries to implement no classes, there will always be a disparity of wealth and the more wealthy will just take the aristocracy’s place. However, Doyle also suggests a sense of identity within class. In this story, the aristocracy always believed in the rational, and the proletariat always the superstitious. Perhaps the first step to addressing this class issue is addressing these beliefs that have become innate ideas. Regardless, even if we don’t change anything, I guess we’ll never go hungry because we’ll always have each other to eat.

Works Cited

Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Hounds of the Baskervilles. London, George Newnes Limited, 1902.