Part - I
Sherlock Holmes – a criminal ?
Preposterous – absurd – a conjecture of a crooked mind. Madness – plain and
simple. That is what the normal reaction should be and is expected from our
readers..
Sherlock
Holmes, the detective, the immortal creation in the history of detection of
crimes, is possibly the most popular over the world. The readers are
mesmerized, rather bewitched by his super-intelligence, power of observation,
deduction and logic and ultimately in his superb skill in solving mysteries.
His magnanimity under certain circumstances, makes him a man to our hearts. Any
elucidation to prove his great qualities and his popularity is unnecessary.
These are established facts.
And yet, do we truly know Sherlock Holmes ? Dr. Watson,
one of his admirers, by dint of his narrative style takes us away from our own critical
self and also makes us equally naïve to admire Holmes’activities. We close the
analytical part of our minds and fail to make a fair judgment of the person
named Sherlock Holmes. While reading, rather devouring THE ADVENTURES OF
SHERLOCK HOLMES, do we not admirably watch his methods in solving the
mysteries and do we not totally forget to read between the lines to find out
the real character of the person?
Applying the same method of observation, deduction, logic
and intelligence, as were the qualities of the subject matter of this article,
we come to the shocking revelation that the man, Sherlock Holmes, had different
and contradictory traits of character, a man with two different faces. One, of
course, was the detective as we all know him. But the other ?
Before going into the detailed examination of a few
cases and before drawing any conclusions, we may take note of certain basic
facts to make a fair assessment of the person. While carrying on our probe or
investigation, we should take recourse to the facts from the text alone and
should rely on the same materials as was presented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
and should not take into account any material other than what is found in THE
ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. We promise that we shall not invent anything
out of our own imagination and shall not resort to any outside material not
found in the book mentioned above.
( to be continued…)
Part – II
Admittedly, Holmes was a drug addict. He used to
consume cocaine regularly and even morphine injections and used to keep a good
stock for his own use. Dr. Watson did not write any prescriptions for him. He
had developed the habit even before he met Dr. Watson. The Doctor, while living
with him at his Baker street residence, had become irritable and his conscience
swelled at the thought that he lacked the courage to protest. But, ultimately,
he gathered courage to warn him of the injurious effects of the Drugs. The way Dr.
Watson pleaded with him leaves any doubt about his sincerity and anxiety for
the welfare of his friend. (A STUDY IN SCARLET and SIGN OF FOUR). There
is no explanation anywhere about the source of supply of the drugs.
Holmes had
connections with the under-world. It was not just a connection, but a very
intimate one. Wiggins and the boys, the Baker Street irregulars, Holmes often
employed for his investigation, no doubt, were pick-pockets and street
hoodlums. The money offered by Holmes in exchange, for the services, was meager
and much less possibly than their day’s income. And yet, whenever Holmes
required of their services, they were at his beck and call. (SIGN OF FOUR).
Dr. Watson told us
without any reservation that Holmes used to keep connections with the
under-world and also had atleast five small refuges in different parts od
London in which he was able to change his personality. (BLACK PETER).
He was an expert in opening locks
and safes. Dr. Watson told us that he had a case complete with instruments and
tools for opening locks and safes and “with the calm, scientific accuracy of a
surgeon who performs a delicate operation” would open a lock or safe. “Opening
of safes was a particular hobby with him and the joy which it gave him” was
described in detail by Dr. Watson. (Charles Augustus Milverton). In the
adventure of the GREEK INTERPRETER, he, just for once, opened a locked
door in the presence of a police officer. “It is a mercy that you are on the
side of the force and not against it” was the apparently innocuous remark made
by the officer.
Sherlock Holmes had complete
knowledge of the international spies present in England at a particular point
of time, their names and also of their identities. When a very important
document concerning international relations was stolen from the Government
office, the Prime Minister himself sought his help. After listening to the
details, he remarked that the stolen document, most probably were still in
possession of several international spies and secret agents “whose names were
tolerably familiar to him”. He further remarked that at the moment three
foreign spies who might be said to be haeds of their profession, were in
England and he would start his investigation from those people. (SECOND
STAIN)
Mycroft Holmes, the elder brother
of Sherlock, is almost unknown to us and whatever we know, we come to know
through the mouth of Sherlock Holmes alone. According to him, Mycroft was the
examiner of accounts in a Government office. “He was famous in his own circle, but
had no ambition and no energy. He was the founder-member of the Diogenes Club,
the queerest club in London and contained the most unsociable men in town and
no member was permitted to take least notice of any other one.” Mycroft was
“one of the queerest man”. (GREEK INTERPRETER). He , however,
contradicted his earlier statement and in formed Dr. Watson that Mycroft’s
position was unique. “He had made it for himself. He had the tidiest and most
orderly brain. The conclusions of every government department were passed to
him’. The Government, even the ministers, now and often, sought his advice on
important matters. Many a times, the nation’s policies were decided on his
advice only. (ADVENTURE OF THE BRUCE PARTINGTON PLAN). These were all Sherlock’s version about his
elder brother. According to Sherlock, Mycroft was “the central exchange, the
clearing house of all information of all the government departments” and if all
other men in the government were only specialists, Mycroft’s “specialization
was omniscience”.(ADVANTURE OF THE BRUCE PARTINGTON PLAN).
Dr. Watson told us of a character
“Langdel Pike” who kept track of all social scandals and incidents and used to
“earn a four figure income by the paragraphs he contributed to the garbage
papers which catered for the inquisitive public”. Holmes used to keep in touch
with this man and in Dr. Watson’s words “discreetly helped Langdel to knowledge
and on occasion was helped in turn” (ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES).
We will now study the details of
a few adventures, one by one, and examine them critically and objectively. (
….to be continued)
PART – III
In the story of the ADVENTURE
OF BLUE CURBUNCLE a precious diamond, belonging to the Countess of Morcar,
was lost from her room at the Hotel Cosmopolitan. Just a few days prior to the
Christmas, Holmes came to know of the case from newspaper reports, where it was
also mentioned that John Horner, a plumber, was accused for stealing it. James
Ryder, upper attendant at the hotel, gave evidence that he had shown Horner
upto the dressing room of the Countess upon the day of the loss. He left Horner
there and was called away. On returning, he found that Horner had disappeared.
Horner was arrested and trial was in progress. These were all in the newspaper
reports. Meanwhile, Peterson, the commissionaire ( a policeman ) brought to
Holmes one hat and a goose which he found somewhere. Holmes kept the hat and
gave away the goose to Peterson for Christmas enjoyment. While Holmes and Dr.Watson
were discussing about the hat and Holmes, to the astonishment of Dr. Watson was
explaining certain characteristic features of its owner, Peterson rushed into
the room with a jewel which he found in the corp of the goose. Holmes
immediately recognized it as the Blue Curbuncle belonging to the Countess. He
locked it up in his strong box and hinted to drop a line to the Countess to say
that he had it. Then he started his investigation all by himself and ultimately
got a private confession from James Ryder, the hotel attendant, that it was he,
and not Horner the plumber, who had actually stolen the jewel from the
Countess. We come to know from the narration that Holmes allowed Ryder, the
actual thief to go away scot-free and did not hand him over to the police. In
fact, he made quite a show in front of Dr. Watson throwing out Ryder from his
house and made a statement in excuse of his action. His justification was that
he had not been retained by the police and therefore had no obligation to
supply their deficiencies. According to him, Horner, who was arrested on the
charge of stealing the jewel, would be released as Ryder would not any more
appear in court as a witness and the case would collapse. So, by releasing
Ryder, he had actually saved a soul (meaning Ryder) without doing any injustice
to Horner. In his own words, he was, by such action, commuting a felony. From
the story of “A STUDY IN SCARLET”, we come to know that Holmes had a good
practical knowledge of the British Law. He was, in this case, in possession of
a stolen property, without informing either the police or the true owner.
Holmes himself was very well aware, but did not disclose that, under the law,
Ryder could not escape appearance in court and also could not retract his
earlier statement made before the police. If he failed to appear in court, a
non-bailable warrant could be issued for his arrest and if after appearing he
retracted his earlier statement, he would become the prime suspect. Therefore ,
it does not stand the test of logic that Ryder would not appear in court as a
witness and that the case against
Horner, the plumber, would collapse and he would be released by the court. Thus
Horner, even after such assurance from Holmes, remained in danger of being
punished for a crime not committed by him. At the least, Horner would not be
able to avoid harassment in the hands of the police. His reputation would be in
jeopardy and he would suffer immensely, even if, he was released by the court
of law on the grounds of benefit of doubt. Holmes’ justification of his action,
therefore, fails. There would not have been any doubt as to his good and
genuine intention, had he, immediately as he got the jewel from Peterson, the
policeman, informed the police and the Countess and explained how it came into
his possession. Peterson and Dr. Watson were his witnesses. He could also
advise Peterson to go to the police station with the jewel and hand it over to
them. Moreover, everybody would have accepted the statement from so renowned
and famous a detective as Sharlock Holmes. Such action would have secured
safety for both Horner, the plumber and Ryder, the hotel attendant. And the
question of Ryder’s not appearing in court would not have arisen at all.
Therefore, there remained a doubt about his motive and intention. Why was he so
indulgent about James Ryder, the real thief ? It appears from his action that
either he wanted to keep the valuable jewel for himself or extract a higher
reward from the Countess than she promised. Infact, he made a remark that there
were reasons which would induce the Countess to part with half her fortune to
recover the Gem. Jmaes Ryder, most probably, was one of his accomplices. It was
easy to hoodwink the naive and credulous Dr. Watson by enacting the drama with
James Ryder and then giving a sermon on social justice, forgiveness and saving
a soul. It is evident that Peterson, the policeman, was equally gullible. When
he got the jewel, he did not go the police station direct and inform his higher
authorities, but instead went to Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Homes, whatever was
his reputation, was not a government officer and had no authority to deal with
a matter relating to items lost and found. Peterson, as a policeman, must have
been aware of this. Therefore he, by bringing the Gem to Holmes and handing it
over to him, had acted in an unauthorized manner. Therefore , if per chance, he
tried to raise a question against Holmes at a later stage, nobody would believe
him and he would have lost all credibility. Moreover, he would be charged on
the count of negligence in discharging his duties and even for abetment of the
crime of theft. So, Peterson’s mouth was sealed for ever. In all other stories
Dr. Watson gave complete details of the reactions of the police and the clients
and of their respectful admiration for Holmes. But, in the instant case, when
so valuable a jewel, was recovered, the Doctor not only kept silent but totally
ignored to mention a single word of appreciation either by the Countess or the
police. Therefore it is doubtful whether Holmes did part with the jewel and the
Countess ever got it back.
(….to be continued)
PART – lV
In Charles Augustus Milverton,
one Lady Eva Brackwell placed her piteous case in the hands of Sherlock
Holmes. Milverton, a dubious blackmailer, was in possession of a few love
letters written by Lady Eva in her younger life to a youth. Milverton was then
blackmailing her. Her marital and social life was in real jeopardy. Holmes took
up the case and requested Milverton to see him. When they met, he pleaded with
the blackmailer to have pity on the Lady. But Milverton, a rogue as he was, did
not agree to the terms offered by Holmes and when Holmes tried to use force, it
was found that Milverton also was armed and nothing would be gained by use of
force and rather worsen the matter. Milverton, “with a bow, a smile and a
twinkle” was out of the room and Baker Street residence of Sherlock Holmes.
Holmes then, having no other alternative, planned to burgle Milverton’s house.
On a stormy night, accompanied by Dr. Watson, he burgled into the house of
Milverton. While they were there, Milverton was murdered in the same room by
another woman and Holmes in a hurry, opened Milverton’s safe with his skill and
tools, took all the papers from the safe and poured them all into the fire in
the fireplace. Somehow, they escaped and came home. Lady Eva was saved. Holmes’
method was technically criminal, though apparently morally justifiable. On the
face of it, it emphasized the magnanimity of his character. But the question
remains that why should he take such great risk, the risk of his life and
reputation, to save his client, who, it appears, was not totally innocent. The
clue to the mystery was in the way Milverton left Holmes’ Baker Street
residence, “with a bow, a smile and a twinkle”. It was not only a challenge but
also an indication that he had materials in his possession concerning Holmes
also. Milverton, during his discussion with Holmes indicated that he had eight
or ten similar cases maturing. A little objective overview of the whole case
would suggest that Holmes took the risk not so much for saving Lady Eva from
social disgrace alone but also to save his own life and reputation. He
confessed to Watson “I have always had an idea that I would have made a highly
efficient criminal. This is the chance of my life in that direction.” It
circumstantially appears that it was not a chance alone but that he had no
other choice. For the purpose of this burglary he brought out his “first class
uptodate burglary kit with nickel-plated jimmy, diamond-tipped glasscutter,
adaptable keys and every modern improvement which the march of civilization
demands.” Very very civilized for a consulting detective to possess and use
indeed !
Dr. Watson told us that opening
of locks and safes was his particular hobby. It may be noted that this peculiar
hobby is not like collecting postage stamps or photography. It is inconceivable
that he used to purchase safes, now and often, to pursue his hobby. It is
absurd that the safe-makers allowed him to fiddle with the safes at their
workshops for practice to his satisfaction and it is far more improbable that
any safe-owner would have allowed him to fondle with their safes. It is but
natural that to unravel a crime, the detective must also think in the same way
as the criminal who committed the crime. But should he also acquire the skill,
practise it and particularly keep all the tools and implements with him for
committing the crime ? It is only natural for a criminal whatever be his social
face, standing and reputation. ( .. to be continued)
Part - V
Lastly, we come to Prof.
Moriarty, the arch-enemy of Sherlock Holmes. In the entire narration of the
adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty was mentioned in only three of them,
“Valley of Fear”, “The Final Problem” and “Empty House”. If we carefully go
through the above three stories, we come to the conclusion that the “Valley of
Fear” was a case earlier to “Final Problem” and “Empty House”. It was in the
story of the Birlstone tragedy (Valley of Fear) where Prof. Moriarty was
introduced for the first time. In Holmes’ own words, Moriarty “was a man of
good birth and excellent education, endowed by nature with phenomenal
mathematical faculty”. He had a most brilliant career as a mathematical genius.
But, according to Holmes, behind the façade of this genius of a man was hidden
a most dubious criminal, who was the king-pin of the British underworld. (Valley
of Fear).
In this story we find that Holmes
got a coded message from one Mr. Porlock, who worked for Moriarty and informed
Holmes of some danger at Birlstone House. It was later learnt from the Scotland
Yard detective that Mr. Douglas of Birlstone Manor House was horribly murdered
that morning. We find that Holmes immediately on getting the news started a
vocal campaign against Moriarty and tried to impress upon the police detective
that Moriarty was connected with the crime. In the process, he disclosed so
many information concerning Moriarty, such as, his legal income, the twenty
banking accounts he maintained, that the bulk of his fortune was kept in
foreign countries and about his illegal activities, income and wealth. It may
please be noted at this stage that there was nothing against Prof. Moriarty in
police records till then. On enquiry, he confessed that Porlock, who sent him
the coded message, was a nom-de-plume and was not known to him. But Holmes used
to pay him money for information through the Camberwell Post Office. In fact,
before “Valley of Fear”, we do not come across Moriarty or even thereafter,
excepting in the “Final Problem”. Sherlock Holmes also did not or could not
prove any relation or connection between Prof. Moriarty and any crime, directly
or indirectly or in any manner whatsoever. And as it has already been stated,
there was nothing against Prof. Moriarty in police records also. The question
which obviously comes to the fore is that when there was no case against Moriarty
or about his involvement in any crime, why should Holmes collect such detailed
information about him ? No case was referred to him either by any of his
clients or the police. Why should he implant a mole or an informer in his house
? That Porlock was Holmes’ mole is beyond doubt. Otherwise, he could not send a
coded message understandable to both of them. How could Holmes know that
Porlock, the person who sent him the coded message, was a nom-de-plume ? The
person who kept track of such meticulous details about Moriarty, would not know
his informer, is simply unacceptable. He could easily be traced through the
Camberwell Post Office. Moreover, Holmes was paying him money for information.
How this entire transaction of sending information, nature of information etc.
and payment against those could be done without a prior understanding and
arrangement between them ? The vital
question, however, is that why a private detective should collect information
about another citizen when no case was referred to him involving that person?
The way Holmes tried to impress the police detective was rather peculiar and
vindictive. When the story ends, no connection of Moriarty with the events
narrated was found or established. Nor did Holmes could or did establish any connection
of the murder to Moriarty. The facts of the case did not even require an
investigation in that direction. Why then, Moriarty was so forcefully and out
of context, brought up by Holmes even before the murder took place and before
the investigation was started at all ? The answer to this question can be
traced in the “Final Probem”. It must be remembered that there was nothing
against Prof. Moriarty in any records including Police records.
( .. to be continued)
Part – VI.
In the “Final Problem”, we find
Holmes suddenly appearing before Dr. Watson one evening and narrated that he
had collected all evidences against Moriarty and in three days’ time the
Professor with all the principal members of his gang would be in the hands of
the police. But Moriarty had already got scent of Holmes’ activities and as a
result, He was in mortal danger. So he wanted to get away for the few days till
Moriarty and his gang members were arrested. He wanted to flee to the continent
and requested Dr. Watson to accompany him. He also told that his presence would
be necessary for the conviction and he would come back in time for that purpose
after the arrests. Watson agreed and according to the plan, both of them left
for the continent the next morning. On the train, Homes suddenly told Watson
that Moriarty would obviously follow them, but not by the same train. He would
engage a special. Therefore, to give Moriarty a slip, he proposed to get down
at a midway station for an alternative route to the continent. They got down at
Canterburry. While they were still at Canterburry railway station a special
train actually passed with a rattle and a roar. Eventually, by resorting to
many subversions and diversions, both of them finally reached the village of
Meiringen, where they put up at a place ran by one Peter Steiler, who spoke
excellent English. They then started for another place across the hills and on
the way stood the now famous Reichenbach Falls. When they reached a placed near
the falls, they saw a Swiss boy come running to them with a letter purportedly
from the inn-keeper Peter Steiler to Dr.Watson requesting him to come back
immediately to attend a serious patient. So Watson returned back to the inn
with an arrangement that the young swiss messanger would remain with Holmes as
a guide and companion, while the doctor, after attending the patient would
rejoin Holmes at Rosenlaui in the evening. While Watson was hurrying back to
attend the patient, he saw a man walking very rapidly towards the place where
he left Holmes. Reaching Meiringen he could however discover that the letter
was a fake one and the inn-keeper suggested that it must have been written by
the tall Englishman who came there after Holmes and Watson had left. Watson
then surmised that it was definitely a trick played by Moriarty and hurried
back to the place where he left Holmes. But back at the site of the falls there
was no sight of any human being. Then he found the letter written by Holmes to
him. In fact, it was the last dying statement of a person, wherein Holmes gave
a definite hint that he was going to die in the hands of Moriarty. Watson
concluded that both Holmes and Moriarty died while combating for life, reeling
over into the dreadful cauldron of the swirling water of Reichenbach Falls.
This story, particularly the way it ended with the news of the death of
Sherlock Holmes, created a furore amongst the public and Holmes’ fans. ( .. to be continued)
Part VII
Let us now critically examine the details of the
situation and the narrative. When Holmes met Watson at his residence, the
entire story was from Holmes’ words alone and there was, till then, no real
evidence either in police records or were produced against Moriarty. Holmes
claimed to have all the evidences but did not hand those over to the police. He
told Watson that he was in mortal danger. Is it not strange that he did not
seek protection from the police, but came to Watson with the bizarre idea of
fleeing to the continent? He could hand over all the evidences to the police
force and asked for protection. That would have been the most reasonable and
normal step taken under the circumstances. He did not also seek help of so
powerful and influential a person as
Mycroft Holmes, his own brother, for a few days till Moriarty and his
gang members were arrested. There is, therefore, every doubt that he had made
an extremely exaggerated statement about his brother being the central
exchange, the clearing house of all information of all government departments
and that he was the person to whom conclusions of every government department
were passed to him and that the nation’s policies were decided, many a times,
on his advice only. Such an influential and high-ranking person could easily
have made arrangements for his protection. Evidently Holmes made a complete
misstatement of the entire episode as might be revealed from the facts of the
case.
When the special train, which
Holmes suggested that Moriarty would take to chase him, passed the Canterburry
Railway station, Watson did not see the Professor or any other person in the
train. In fact, Dr.Watson, most probably did not even ever met or saw Prof.
Moriarty. It was Holmes who suggested that Moriarty was following them in a
special train and Watson believed. When Holmes was so certain that Moriarty was
following him in the special train, he could immediately alert the police about
it so that they could alert all the police stations on the way and the sea
ports to make arrangement for his arrest. But that was not in Sherlock Holmes’
scheme of things. He did not at all want Moriarty to be arrested or be in the
hands of the police, as we shall see. Now take the letter, the vital clue
through which Watson concluded about his death, which Watson found at the spot
near Reichenbach Falls. In this letter Holmes told that he could write the
letter by the courtesy of Moriarty. He even suggested that both he himself and
Prof.Moriarty were going to die. He also gave clue to the details of all
materials for the police to convict Moriarty and his gang. But did not Holmes
tell Watson in London that Moriarty and his gang would be arrested in three
days’ time? On what evidence would the police take the action? On Holmes’ words
alone? On his promise to place all the evidences after arrest? The Scotland
Yard never acted in such an irresponsible manner. Even if they acted on his
words alone, could they not arrange for his safety till Moriarty and his gang
was arrested? Would they not ask Holmes to remain in their safe custody with
all the papers till the case was started before the court of law and framing of
charges were completed? According to Holmes it was evident that Moriarty
arrived at the spot with the sole intention of killing Holmes. If that was
true, would he have allowed Holmes to write the letter, a statement of a dying
person, wherein he gave all the clues to the evidences against Moriarty and
particularly the suggestion that Moriarty was his murderer? Moriarty, even if
we believe all that Holmes stated about him, definitely did not know that he
also was going to die. Even if he knew that he would also die, the contents of
the letter would jeopardize his otherwise blameless character and reputation as
a mathematical genius and a good citizen, as also the safety and security of
the other members of his gang, if he really had any. It must be remembered that
till then, there was nothing against the Professor and he was a respectable
member of the society. It is, therefore, absurd to accept either that the
Professor arrived at the spot with the intention to kill Holmes or to get
himself killed. We should take note of that particular sentence in Holmes’
letter where he stated , “I was quite convinced that the letter from Meiringen
was a hoax, and I allowed you to depart on that errand under the persuasion
that some development of this sort would follow.” There is no proof that the
person whom Dr.Watson saw coming towards the spot where he left Sherlock Holmes
was really Professor Moriarty or it was a different person altogether. And what
happened to the swiss youngman whom Watson left with Holmes as a companion and
a guide? He vanished into the thin air. The entire event, therefore, clearly
points to the conclusion that it was Sherlock Holmes, who allured Professor
Moriarty to meet him at the spot alone. When Holmes left London he definitely
did not declare from the rooftop that he was going to the village Meiringen
near Reichenbach Falls. How was it possible then for Prof.Moriarty to reach the
exact spot almost by the same time as Holmes and Watson in the big continent of
Europe when Holmes supposedly played every trick to give the professor a slip?
This is further established from the fact that though Holmes claimed to possess
all the evidences for the conviction of Moriarty, he did not hand those over to
the police. It is evident that he chanced himself to strike a bargain with
Moriarty, if possible. Holmes had all along doubted that Professor Moriarty had
knowledge about his real or other identity and that was the reason for him to
allure the professor to such a remote and quiet spot. His intention was to
strike a bargain, if possible or extract all the clues and evidences the
professor had against him and then murder him in cold blood.. He wanted to meet
the professor alone and that is why he sent away Watson knowing fully well that
the letter about the patient at Meiringen was a hoax. It is clear that the
inn-keeper at meiringen and the swiss youngman were his accomplices in this
design. He asked Dr.Watson to accompany him to the continent as a guard for the
safety of his own life but knowingly allowed him to leave him at the very
crucial juncture of his life. He made Dr.Watson believe that it was Moriarty
who was following them. The special train from London which passed before the
eyes of Watson at Canterburry Railway station, could have been arranged by
Holmes himself or by any of his accomplices including his brother Mycroft
Holmes. Dr.Watson would never know. Holmes was fully aware of the naivety of
Dr.Watson and of his love and admiration for him. He therefore, took Dr.Watson
along with him to make him see what he wanted him to see, to believe what he
wanted him to believe and to narrate later exactly what he wanted him to
narrate and thus used Dr.Watson to publicize the story of his death.
( .. to be continued)
Part - VIII
But why? We may surely surmise that either Prof.Moriarty
had the knowledge and evidence to prove that Holmes had a different identity,
which was not very honourable, other than the publicly known one as a famous
detective or that both of them were rivals in the underworld and it was a case
of bitter rivalry and hatred between two underworld dons. But from the narration
and the facts, the idea that Prof.Moriarty was a criminal and an underworld
kingpin can easily be discounted.
The narrative of the “EMPTY HOUSE” only helps to confirm
and pinpoints in that direction. In “Empty House” Sherlock Holmes reappeared
with the story that the Professor attacked him at the spot near the Reichenbach
Falls, not with any weapon, but threw his long arms around Holmes. If Moriarty
had any intention to kill Holmes, he would not have allowed him to write the
letter addressed to Dr.Watson but would have killed him instantly with some
weapon and surely would not have thrown his long arms around him. It was not
the move of a calculated man, a mathematical genius, a brain behind all crimes
as was painted by Sherlock Holmes about his character and who was never even
suspected at all by the police in any crime at any time. It is also now clear
from the narrative that Moriarty did not carry any weapon with him when he went
to meet Sherlock Holmes. It can also fairly be presumed now that the letter
which Holmes wrote addressed to Dr. Watson was actually drafted and written
much earlier, and most probably before he set out for the place in the morning.
Sherlock Holmes went to spot fully prepared to meet Moriarty alone at that
lonely spot and left the letter there for Watson to find out, after completing
the job for which he came there. The only possibility, rather the truth, which
came out by reasoning and analysis is that Holmes planned the whole event to
happen in that fashion. He wanted to meet the professor alone. He lured him to
that particular lonely spot on some pretext or other. He wanted to know how
much the professor knew about him, whether he had any evidence in his
possession and if so, to extort all the information and the source of evidences
and where those are stored and then kill Professor Moriarty and throw his body
into the gorge of the Reichenbach Falls. He wanted some time to recover and
destroy all the evidences against himself and for that purpose alone wanted
everybody to believe that he was dead. His own confession in this respect is
recorded in the story of the “Empty House”. “I owe you many apologies, my dear
Watson, but it was all important that it should be thought I was dead and it is
quite certain that you would not have written so convincing an account of my
unhappy end had you not yourself thought that it was true.” And in this way he
further wanted to hoodwink Professor
Moriarty’s friends and catch them unawares when he could buy his own safety
from the Law And he did exactly that. It came out that Colonel Sebastian Moran,
a good friend of the professor was by some means aware of the truth and was
also aware that Holmes was alive. He patiently waited for Holmes to resurface
and then to take revenge on him for his friend’s murder. Holmes anticipated
this and laid his net accordingly to catch him red-handed and hand him over to
the police on the charge of attempted murder of Sherlock Holmes. To seal the
fate of the Colonel for ever, he further accused him for the murder of the
Honourable Ronald Adair, without furnishing any evidence, direct or indirect,
in support. He confessed that he had only one confidant, his own brother
Mycroft Holmes. He invented a good story that Colonel Moran was the murderer of
Ronald Adair. A careful study , however, would only reveal that he did not
provide any real evidence in support of his contention. But it appears from the
events following that the police officer Lastrade was impressed. Sherlock
Holmes was successful.
(…to
be continued)
Part – IX (Concluding Part).
We must now judge the character and identity of Sherlock
Holmes in the light of the analysis as above. We must see his relationship with
the petty street criminals like Higgins and the boys afresh. It was a close
relation no doubt. Those boys were almost at his beck and call. They obeyed him
like their own master and addressed him as “Yes, Guv” which was the normal
language of address meant for the leader in the under-world. Admittedly, Holmes
was not a retired police officer choosing the profession of a consulting
detective, so that he could utilize and maintain his connections made during
the service period. The credulous fans would argue that he had to keep the
connections to keep himself abreast of the happenings in the crime world. It is
perfectly all right for the police or detective department or any other
government agencies to keep or develop moles and informers in the criminal
world. But does it equally be in order and possible for a private consulting
detective? How will he develop the contact? We know that Holmes operated alone
and not in the style of detective agencies of modern times. He was a private
consulting detective only. “The only unofficial consulting detective. The last
and the highest court of appeal in detection”. His knowledge about the foreign
spies operating in the country is equally shrouded in mystery. (Second Stain).
In normal circumstances we find that even the government’s espionage department
officials do not always have knowledge of the identities of foreign spies. The
moment someone’s identity is doubted, the man is shadowed. His identity is not
disclosed to any outsider and is arrested only if caught red-handed. But in Second
Stain we find that the immediate reaction of Sherlock Holmes after hearing the
case was of not only knowing the names and identities of those foreign spies
but also that he had the knowledge that the heads of espionage departments of
three foreign countries were then present in England. How could he have the
knowledge unless he himself was attached with the espionage department of a
country ? It was nowhere disclosed that he was so attached with the government
agency of his own country. His addiction to drugs and methods of procuring the
drugs are also not clear. From the story of Charles Augustus Milverton we know
of his hands in burglary. The blue curbuncle, the valuable jewel which he got
by chance through Peterson was not handed over to its owner the Countess of
Morcar. His relationship with Langdel Pike, the journalist, who used to collect
and publish spicy and scandalous news items in newspapers also raises doubt
about his integrity and character. And finally there is no doubt that he
murdered Professor Moriarty in cold blood.
But all said and done, Sherlock Holmes was a successful
person. He was successful everywhere and in all respect and with wonder, we may
watch the reaction of Colonel Sebastian Moran, when caught. His only words were
“….you fiend ! you clever, clever fiend
! you cunning, cunning fiend !”
Perhaps Colonel Moran was the only person during his time
to correctly assess Sherlock Holmes.
C O N C L U D E D.
_________________
