Sherlock Holmes: A Study on "A Study in Scarlet"

In On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History, the Victorian writer and social commentator Thomas Carlyle uses various examples of great men throughout recorded history to convey his notion of a Hero, whom he regards as the epitome of masculinity. He writes of the hero: 'Intellect is not speaking and logicising; it is seeing and ascertaining. Virtue, Vir-tus, manhood, hero-hood, is not fair-spoken immaculate regularity; it is first of all … Courage and the Faculty to do' (218). To what extent does Holmes meet this definition of the hero? In which respects is he heroic and un-heroic?

The concept of heroism is not unique to any particular time or stage in history. It can be argued that the individual figures who a society admires, or look to as an ideal, reflect upon that society. The ancient Greeks conceived of heroism as an aristocratic ideal, where the “honour and status” (Lateiner, 2004, pp25) of a hero was fiercely defended with winged words and swords alike. Equally, there exists a modern conception of the hero. Although this conception can be considered to be much broader, with examples ranging from the superhero, or the athlete, to the movie-star, or even the soldier, there is one fundamental similarity to the Greek ideal. Both conceptions are fundamentally concerned with the individual; the very concept of the hero is intrinsically an individualistic one that emphasis the role of a single person in shaping a society and, indeed, in shaping history.

The Victorian age, too, had its conception of hero, which was shaped by its own ideas and social forces. This essay will us the views of Thomas Carlyle, as expressed in his 'On Heroes, Hero-Worship and the Heroic in History' (1897), as a model for the Victorian conception of heroism. Whether or not Carlyle's model is truly representative of Victorian attitudes is not going to be debated here. For the purposes of this essay, the critical point will be to isolate the key characteristics of Carlyle's hero, and to question which ones apply to Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional creation Sherlock Holmes, as he appears in the novella 'A Study in Scarlet', and which ones do not. Reasons for the discrepancies between Carlyle's ideal and Holmes's character will then be broadly discussed. Again, a thorough analysis of Victorian society will not be possible here, but, as 'A Study in Scarlet' first appeared toward the end of the Nineteenth century, a time of rapid social and literary change and development, this study may be useful in identifying a shift in the attitudes and beliefs of the time, particularly in the area of gender, for, as Smith has shown, “gender is one of the key elements of the Holmes tales.” (2004, pp127).

It can be argued that Carlyle's conception of hero is essentially a masculine one. For Carlyle, a hero should be intelligent, rational, humble, practical, and must have a strong moral doctrine, all of which, especially when viewed within the broader context of Carlyle's ideas, can be viewed as traditionally masculine traits. Additionally, Carlyle's heroes are defined by action, which, in the early Victorian era, inherently meant within the world of men. This action itself, Carlyle believed, should be directed only toward things of great importance in the material, intellectual and spiritual world (Carlyle, 1897). If this, then, is accepted as Carlyle's heroic ideal, the question then becomes, does Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, of 'A Study in Scarlet', conform to Carlyle's heroic ideal?

The young Sherlock Holmes of 'A Study in Scarlet' (SCAR from here on) is an enigmatic figure, ostensibly devoted to the perfection of his craft. He views his brain as “little empty attic” with “elastic walls” (SCAR, 17), which is capable of holding a limited amount of information. He has devoted his life to filling his mind with the knowledge or “tools” (SCAR, 17) he requires to perfect the art of the detection of crime. With this end in mind, he has developed a method of logic, which enables him to observe a set of material conditions and determine the means by which they came be in that state. Using these powers of “analytically reasoning,” (SCAR, 123) Holmes is able to deduce what would seem an incredible amount of very particular information from a given situation. This is Holmes's self-conception, as described by Watson, the narrator, in SCAR. If he is taken at his word, this represents a decidedly Carlylian doctrine. However, this idea of Holmes is as quickly contradicted in the novella as it is expressed. Holmes is, in fact, much wider read than Watson gives him credit for in SCAR. As Roberts puts it, this assessment of Watson's was “hasty and not wholly reliable” (1953, pp19.). A perfect example of this, as Dakin has shown, is when Holmes, having told Watson that he knows nothing of Thomas Carlyle and his literary exploits, a few pages later quotes him (Dakin, 1972, pp17).

Equally, a contradiction arises when Holmes's seemingly unemotional and logical processes of deduction are analysed. The process is, on the surface, reminiscent of Carlyle's heroic ideal; as Diana Barsham puts it describing Doyle's “masculine models,” they “are persuasive because of the romantic unreliability with which he harnesses his commitment to realist detail and accurate oral testimony” (2000, pp.101). However, here in lies another contradiction in Holmes's character. Yes, he employs a cold, methodical approach to crime detection; however, at the same time, he is continually indulging in long explanations of outcomes that he has previously described as simple or elementary (SCAR, 25-26 & 124). In detailing this logic, in order to make it appear credible, Doyle is both reinforcing Holmes's heroic trait of the practical application of intelligence, but is also creating the decidedly unheroic trait of hubris. It should also be noted that it is Watson who, more often than not, facilitates this process, as Jann has shown (1990). This is significant because it is Watson's constant affirmation of Holmes's conclusions that, in a sense, turn his unheroic “speaking and logicising” into the practical and heroic “seeing and ascertaining” of Carlyle's conception. Additionally, Watson may be viewed as a means by which Holmes, who has no time for late Victorian journalism, informs the world of his exploits; or, as Iain Sinclair puts it, “Holmes, preternaturally gifted, vain, emotionally repressed, finds [in Watson] the one person 'innocent' enough to do justice to his legend” (2001, pp10).

Another contradiction can be found if Holmes's motivation for his pursuit of criminal investigations is considered. That Holmes is wholly devoted to his craft in SCAR is clear, but the reasons for his devotion are less clear. When first discussing with Watson his “practical theories”, and the nature of his work, Holmes says, “I depend upon them for my bread and cheese” (SCAR, 21). This statement appears reasonable as it was their mutual financial difficulties that brought Holmes and Watson together in the first instance. However, Holmes's tone quickly changes as he laments about the level of crime that has become his staple in recent times, “there is no crime to detect, or, at most, some bungling villainy with a motive so transparent that even a Scotland Yard official can see through it” (SCAR, 23). This statement indicates that the pursuit of crime is not simply a matter of subsistence for Holmes.

Socially altruistic or moralistic motivations for Holmes's activities also seem unlikely. Holmes often shows little interest in the welfare of others and in society as a whole, as his statement lamenting the low standard of crime indicates; he even engages in ethically dubious conduct, such as the poisoning of the dog in SCAR (63-64). Questions can also be raised about the gravity of his work. Holmes is a man of considerable talents, and, while bringing criminals to justice is certainly socially valuable, is it really the most useful way for this gifted man to spend his time? Considering these character traits, it can be argued that Holmes simply enjoys investigating crime and may even have a kind of morbid curiosity with the criminal mind; his pursuit of crime, therefore, may be considered an end in of itself. There is an implicit artistic element in this part of Holmes’s character. He possesses what Roberts calls “a spirit of lofty altruism” (1953, pp18.), which is exhibited in SCAR not just by his lack of a clear motivation for the pursuit of his craft, but in more tangible ways, such as his love for the violin.

These few examples show that, while, on the surface, Holmes can be considered as representative of Carlyle's masculine heroic ideal, there is a certain duality of personality, which could be considered something quite different. Certainly, Holmes is logical and rational, at times almost to the extreme, but equally he is not above seemingly pointless displays of hubris. What's more his character lacks a clear moral doctrine, which leaves the reader unsure to his motives, and suggests a certain decadence of character. He is also wider read than he would like Watson, or perhaps the reader, to believe; appears to devote himself to a vocation simply for the art or enjoyment of it; and engages in long periods of unexplained convalescence, all of which are difficult to reconcile with Carlyle's ideal.

It may, then, be worth considering the society from which Doyle's creation emerged, in search of the origin of these contradictions. The end of the nineteenth century was a time of great change in Victorian Britain. Gender, and the role of gender in society, was a question on the forefront of many people's minds. The emergence of the 'New Woman' not only changed the way that men and women thought about women, but also changed the way that men thought about themselves. This is what Andrew Smith terms the “reassessment of traditional models of masculinity” (2004, pp02). For example, there was the emergence of the aesthetic movement, as personified by Oscar Wilde. New forms of masculinity were being created, ones that differed greatly from the earlier Victorian thinking of the likes of Carlyle. Equally there were those, such as Max Nordau, who were concerned about this development, seeing it as a threat to the fundamental social contract (Smith, 2004, pp03).

It can be argued that Sherlock Holmes and his paradoxical nature represent the times in which he was created: a time of transition. His rationality and logic represent the more traditional ideas of masculinity, and, therefore, are representative of Carlyle's heroic ideal; while his hubris and lack of clear moral doctrine represent a kind of “artistic amorality” (Smith, 2004 pp 03) that can be viewed as representative of a shift in the role of gender in Victorian society. Because of his dual nature, it cannot be said that Holmes represents a new ideal altogether. Rather, it can be argued that he was a paradoxical and somewhat confused figure, who emerged from a paradoxical and confused time.

Reference List

Barsham, Diana, 2000, Arthur Conan Doyle and the Meaning of Masculinity, Ashgate Publishing Limited, Aldershot, England.

Carlyle, Thomas, 1897, On Heroes, Hero-Worship and The Heroic in History, The Macmillan Company, London.

Dakin, D. Martin, 1972, A Sherlock Holmes Commentary, Redwood Burn Limited, Devon.

Doyle, Arthur Conan, 2001, A Study in Scarlet, Penguin Group, London.

Jann, Rosemary, 1990, Sherlock Holmes Codes the Social Body, ELH, Vol 57, No. 03, pp685-708.

Lateiner, Donald, 2004, "The Iliad. An Unpredictable Classic," in R. Fowler, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Homer chapter 2 on plot of Iliad (11-30), Cambridge

Roberts, S, 1953, Holmes & Watson, Oxford University Press, London.

Sinclair, Iain, 2001, Introduction to 'A Study in Scarlet', Penguin Group, London.

Smith, Andrew, 2004, Medicine, Masculinity and the Gothic at the Fin de Siecle, Manchesteer University Press, Manchester.