It was a theory that not only gave rise to the work of Descartes, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton but also had far-reaching implications for the rise of modern science—the Earth would henceforth no longer be considered the center of the cosmos but merely one planet among many.

61 This, opines William Baring-Gould, would appear to be another situation in which Holmes is doing some “leg-pulling.” The detective’s knowledge of astronomy is clear from references in “The Musgrave Ritual” (Holmes speaks of “allowance for personal equation, as the astronomers have dubbed it”), “The Bruce-Partington Plans,” (Mycroft’s visit to 221B is likened to “a planet leaving its orbit”), and “The Greek Interpreter” (Holmes chats about “the causes of the change in the obliquity of the ecliptic”).

62 In “The Lion’s Mane,” Holmes appears to contradict this statement by proudly proclaiming that “I am an omnivorous reader with a strangely retentive memory for trifles.”

63 “A list of Watson’s own points might, at this juncture, have been headed by the specification: 1. Knowledge of Sherlock Holmes.—Nil,” says Edgar W. Smith.

64 In the preface to His Last Bow, Watson reports that Holmes, in retirement, divides his time “between philosophy and agriculture.” That this is not an interest developed late in life is evident from Holmes’s reading of books such as Winwood Reade’s The Martyrdom of Man, which (in The Sign of Four) Holmes termed “one of the most remarkable [books] ever penned.” Therefore, we must conclude that this is another misperception of Watson’s.

65 H. W. Bell believes that Watson may underestimate Holmes’s knowledge of international politics, well displayed in such cases as “The Naval Treaty” and “The Second Stain.” Likewise, S. C. Roberts emphasises Holmes’s staunch belief in democracy and progress by noting Holmes’s description, in “The Naval Treaty,” of board-schools (England’s first taxpayer-supported schools, dedicated to educating the poor) as “Light-houses, my boy! Beacons of the future! Capsules with hundreds of bright little seeds in each, out of which will spring the wiser, better England of the future.” “It would be difficult,” Roberts observes, “to find a more concise expression of the confident aspirations of late Victorian liberalism.”

Siding with Watson’s “feeble” assessment is T. S. Blakeney, who reminds us that in “The Bruce-Partington Plans,” Holmes’s interest was not particularly aroused by “the news of a revolution, of a possible war, and of an impending change of Government.” Blakeney holds that Holmes, “who had so close a grip on realities,” would hardly be interested in the petty squabbles of politicians, nor, in Blakeney’s view, “could so strong an individualist have anything but contempt for the equalitarian ideals of much modern sociological theory.”

66 Throughout his career, Holmes refers frequently to classic stories of crime. In The Valley of Fear, he compares Professor Moriarty to Jonathan Wild, a notorious fence who sold stolen goods back to their owners and was hanged at Tyburn in 1725. In “The Illustrious Client,” he alludes to “Wainwright,” who may have been either Thomas Griffiths Wainewright, the art critic who allegedly poisoned his uncle, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law; or Henry Wainwright, a brush manufacturer who killed his mistress and was caught attempting to dispose of her body parts. As book-dealer Madeleine B. Stern observes, while Holmes likely owned various editions of The Newgate Calendar—a series of wildly popular books containing accounts of prisoners who had been incarcerated at Newgate—his “immense” knowledge of crimes seems to draw heavily on “his own commonplace books in which, from time to time, he placed his cuttings on crime, pasted extracts, and made out his ever-useful indexes.”

67 The singlestick was a slender piece of wood, resembling a cane and used in fencing. One end, thicker than the other, was encased in a basket guard, which protected the user’s hand. Singlesticks were invented in the sixteenth century as a means of practising swordplay, but in the eighteenth century, singlesticking became a sport in its own right. The instrument was used much like a sabre in that one player would strike his opponent with its edge, rather than sticking him with the point. Thomas Hughes gives a marvellous and graphic description of the sport in Tom Brown’s Schooldays (1857): “The old gamester going into action only takes off his hat and coat, and arms himself with a stick; he then loops the fingers of his left hand in a handkerchief or strap, which he fastens round his left leg… . Then he advances his right hand above and in front of his head, holding his stick across, so that its point projects an inch or two over his left elbow; and thus his whole head is completely guarded, and he faces his man armed in like manner; and they stand some three feet apart, often nearer, and feint, and strike, and return at one another’s heads, until one cries ‘hold,’ or blood flows.”

There is no express instance of Holmes actually using the singlestick, although he wields a hunting crop in a similar manner in “The Speckled Band,” and in “The Illustrious Client” he reminds Watson that he is “a bit of a single-stick expert” and speaks of taking blows from men armed with sticks “on his guard” (perhaps meaning his walking-stick).

68 Albert P. Blaustein, in “Sherlock Holmes as a Lawyer,” maintains that Holmes was a lawyer. Not only does he talk like a lawyer (see, for example, “The Noble Bachelor,” where he reports that the maid Alice “deposes” that she went to her room), he acts like one in “The Boscombe Valley Mystery,” when he prepares objections for trial and submits them to McCarthy’s defense counsel. He points also to Holmes’s legally punctilious behaviour in “The Six Napoleons” in obtaining title to the sixth bust. Fletcher Pratt concurs, in “Very Little Murder,” adding that “when the record of Mr. Holmes’s cases is examined, we find that in every single case where an actual crime has been committed … he obtained legal proof full enough to satisfy any jury; witness evidence plus circumstantial evidence, and in many cases … a confession in addition.”

Such a view is not universally shared. Attorney Andrew G. Fusco, in “The Case Against Mr. Holmes,” argues in great detail that Holmes had no special legal knowledge or training. He points out that Holmes’s use of legal terminology is often improper technically. In “The Boscombe Valley Mystery,” he may have done nothing more than present the facts of the case to defense counsel, which readily produced objections to be raised at trial. His diligent search for legal proofs of guilt may be nothing more than the product of his compulsive personality. Furthermore, there is no evidence of Holmes receiving any formal legal education.