a certain type of Victorian and Edwardian book.

Would the author be "Anonymous"? Would the most famous title be the nacreous byproduct of a bivalve's irritation?

Oh, there's a LOT of stuff I don't admit to reading. Or writing.

Would the author be "Anonymous"? Would the most famous title be the nacreous byproduct of a bivalve's irritation?

I always thought that was properly capitalized as a Certain Type of Victorian and Edwardian book.

You know, Theoretically Speaking.

Yeah, but still wrong about the original Scandal.

Social context was not as simple as outlined in your post. Lillie Langtry and Lola Montez were both popular with some segments of the population. And the problematic nature of Victorian double standards was part of Victorian popular consciousness, enough so that The Importance of Being Ernest included a shot in passing at this theme having become a cliche in popular melodrama. Also, King Ludwig of Bavaria, upon whom the "King of Bohemia" was probably based was far from a well regarded figure.

Further, when Scandal opens with Irene Adler always being "The Woman", there is at least a hint that the ultimate evaluation of her is not going to be negative. Of course the phrase "The Woman" can be taken many ways, not all of them complimentary, so it is only a hint.

But I think the interpretation most supported by the text, is that the opening scene where Irene Adler is described as an "Adventuress" and will to destroy the future marriage of royalty is supposed to read as you read it - as a courtesan undermining the future of Europe. But even at this stage there are (far from overwhelming) hints to the contrary. But it is pretty core to Sherlock that by the end of most (probably all) stories things prove not to be what they seemed at the beginning.

And by the end of this story it seems overwhelming that really Irene was a good woman threatened by an evil king, giving a nice reverse twist to the ending. A nice an unexpected twist According to her note, she did not know the clergyman was really Sherlock until after she had shown considerable kindness. And she was threatened by the King rather than the other way around. The note would be kept in the future only in self-defense, and there was no reason to think it had been kept for any other purpose in the past, though the note does not explicitly say that. Should be believe her? According to every source we are given we should.

"On the contrary, my dear sir," cried the King; "nothing could be more successful. I know that her word is inviolate..."

Now word being inviolate is not the same as never lying when word is not given. But we've seen the King lie extensively. So at this point the Kings own words are reason to take her word over his. Further (also from the king) "What a woman -- oh, what a woman!...Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made an admirable queen?" So the King thinks, even aside from her word being good that she awesome with awesome sauce. And Sherlock has the same opinion:

King: "Is it not a pity that she was not on my level?"

"From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty," said Holmes coldly

Further, Holmes takes a photograph of Irene Adler as something more valuable than an expensive ring. And from then on:

He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of The Woman.

Watson pretty clearly agrees with Holmes, if you want a third witness. And a clever Solicitor (a profession difficult to fool by Victorian conventional wisdom) is who finally falls in love with her, if you want a fourth witness.

So yes, at the beginning, the story sets low expectations for Irene Adler based upon her being an "adventuress", euphemism for "courtesan", "mistress" or worse. But the Victorianism of the day already included substantial questioning of the conventional wisdom that "courtesan" equaled "wicked", and quite clearly the story played to that questioning by reversing the situation so that at the end the King was a douchebag threatening a good woman who (probably) was a courtesan. Irene's notes says this. The two most reliable witness Holmes and Watson believe her. The King 90% admits this. Short of the story being written in Author Omnipotent, I don't see how we could get better evidence.

The text supports other interpretations, but much (continued...)

( continues...) more weakly.

when Scandal opens with Irene Adler always being "The Woman", there is at least a hint that the ultimate evaluation of her is not going to be negative

I don't understand your conclusion here. Are you drawing a causal link between how she's referred to and how she should be regarded? I'm not sure what being "The Woman" has to do with anything.

Just that it hints that she is worthy of respect on some level. In Victorian times, describing someone as an "adventuress" by conventional wisdom was not a compliment. Referring to her as "The Woman" at the beginning was a hint that this might be 100% right. Not proof. Just a bit of foreshadowing.

The note would be kept in the future only in self-defense, and there was no reason to think it had been kept for any other purpose in the past, though the note does not explicitly say that.

"As to the photograph, your client may rest in peace. I love and am loved by a better man than he. The King may do what he will without hindrance from one whom he has cruelly wronged."

I find it hard to read that without thinking that she had plans for the photo that she scrapped after getting a better offer. If he'd wanted her dead and gone and out of the way, which is really the only threat I can see that she'd have been worried about, given the givens, he'd have sent assassins after her instead of retrieval experts.

As for the clergyman, before knowing he was Holmes, he *CAME TO HER DEFENSE* when a fight had broken out around her. And then, when asked if he could be brought in, she brought him in. Basic courtesy and all.

Plus, hell, you can be kind and still scheme. These are not mutually exclusive, Watson's lens aside.

Again, not just Watson, but Holmes seems to disagree with you. And yes we have very imperfect evidence. But I'd take it as evidence of kindness over not. as to what she intended with the photograph. She had it a long time without using it. Absent any evidence but the King's opinion, why belief she had plans for it? And he could not send assasins while the photo might turn up after death. Who knows what orders the burglars he hired before Holmes had once they found the photo? Anyway you don't have to believe he would do that. You just have to believe that she, knowing him, feared the possibility. Or maybe he would have her framed for some crime, or declared insane and put away. All sorts of possibilities, none of them much good until he had the photograph.