Sherlock Holmes, the Bar-Room Brawler
There is a new Sherlock Holmes movie, interestingly titled “Sherlock Holmes” scheduled for release on Christmas Day, 2009. The movie is directed by Guy Richie and stars Robert Downey as Holmes, Jude Law as Watson, and Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler. It is a big-budget job with big-name stars, expected to be heavily hyped.
Chances are, as a visitor to this web site, you are more interested in Sherlock Holmes than is the average person. The site is not intended for the those who have only a passing or casual interest in the Great Detective, although of course, all are welcome to read and explore. In the months leading up to the movie’s release we can expect to see commentary from those who know Holmes well, and from those who know him not-so-well. A couple of early comments we have seen indicate the movie will attempt to be somewhat contemporary in presenting Holmes. Some traditionalists fear the portrayal of a Victorian James Bond. Movie trailers that are available tend to back this up, although they must be taken lightly, as they are made to entice a general audience with scenes a few seconds long showing the most exciting action but none of the plot. Here is a link to one:
http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00025726.html
We have already seen interviews with film “industry” insiders telling us to expect more emphasis on physicality than on intellect. Our comment at this time is that we should reserve judgment until we see the movie. The notion of Holmes being an armchair detective who will not or cannot handle himself in a fight is not a correct one. He fought, and fought tough, and fought well, and did not back away from physical dangers. There is plenty of evidence of this in the 56 short stories and 4 novels that make up the Canon, as we call it. Here are a few samplings.
Our favorite is the bar-room brawl in The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist (SOLI), in which Homes takes on Mr. Woodley. Here is Holmes relating the incident to Watson. (Don’t mistake his genteel Victorian description of the brawl as meaning it was a genteel encounter.) “(Mr. Woodley) walked in. He had been drinking his beer in the taproom and had heard the whole conversation. Who was I? What did I want? What did I mean by asking questions? He had a fine flow of language, and his adjectives were very vigorous. He ended a string of abuse by a vicious backhander, which I failed to entirely avoid. The next few minutes were delicious. It was a straight left against a slogging ruffian. I emerged as you see me. Mr. Woodley went home in a cart.” So after being sucker-punched, Holmes mopped the floor with him, in modern vernacular.
It seems Holmes did not win all his fights. In The Adventure of the Empty House (EMPT) Holmes told Watson of one which took place in a railway station. Holmes mentions Mathews, “who knocked out my left canine in the waiting-room at Charing Cross.” This was a passing mention, with no relation to the plot of the story, nor any mention of what caused the dispute in the first place.
Holmes was not averse to gun-play. Here are his instructions to Watson as they set off to capture the suspect in The Adventure of the Speckled Band (SPEC): “And now, Watson, this is too serious for dawdling, especially as the old man is aware that we are interesting ourselves in his affairs, so if you are ready we shall call a cab and drive to Waterloo. I should be very much obliged if you would slip your revolver into your pocket. An Eley’s No. 2 is an excellent argument with gentlemen who can twist steel pokers into knots. That and a toothbrush are, I think, all that we need.” (Note: An Eley’s No. 2 was a cartridge for Watson’s handgun.)
Similarly, in The Red-Headed League (REDH), Holmes told Watson: “There may be some little danger, so kindly put your army revolver in your pocket. If they fire, Watson, have no compunction about shooting them down.”
In The Adventure of the Copper Beeches, (COPP) Holmes makes another coy reference to gun-play, when he says “having met you, (he) succeeded by certain arguments, metallic or otherwise, in convincing you that your interests were the same as his.” Here, by “metallic argument” Holmes meant using a gun to back up a position in a dispute.
Holmes tended to favor his riding-crop as a weapon, and often left the gun-play to Watson. However, in The Hound of the Baskervilles (HOUN) Holmes maintained his cool and shot and killed the “Hound of Hell” when they were attacked in the foggy night; Watson and Lestrade being too scared and shocked to act.
In the new Sherlock Holmes movie, Holmes will do some bare-knuckle boxing and fist-fighting. These activities are nothing new to Holmes. After Holmes and Watson first meet, in A Study in Scarlet (STUD), Watson, who at the time was a invalid, set about to list the personal characteristics of Holmes. He noted that Holmes “Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman.” To get an idea of the original Holmes engaging in violence, let’s take a look at these three.
Sword-fighting. Other than that reference, there is no instance in the original Holmes stories of him engaging in sword-fighting, or any standard fencing.
Singlestick. Singlestick was a form of fencing using a wooden stick as the weapon, loosely based on the idea that a gentleman could defend himself using his walking-stick. It was a popular sport for a few decades around the turn of the century (1900), and was even an Olympic sport in the 1904 summer games. The sport was somewhat in decline even then, and did not last long as an Olympic event. Only 2 countries competed in 1904, the USA and Cuba. The Cuban won the gold, but he was actually an American.
There is only one record of Holmes engaging in singlestick competition, and he came in second-best. To his credit, he was defending himself against more than one assailant. He ended up with serious injuries, but suffered no permanent harm. Then he exaggerated his injuries to lure his suspect into a trap. Holmes description of the encounter: “I’m a bit of a single-stick expert, as you know. I took most of them on my guard. It was the second man that was too much for me.” From The Adventure of the Illustrious Client (ILLU).
Boxing. In addition to the brawl with Mr. Woodley, Holmes did well as an amateur boxer. This encounter with the professional, McMurdo, took place in The Sign of the Four (SIGN). The pro remembered his match with Holmes:
“That you, Mr. Thaddeus? (said the boxer) But who are the others? I had no orders about them from the master.”
“No, McMurdo? You surprise me! I told my brother last night that I should bring some friends.” . . . “This is too bad of you, McMurdo!” he said. “If I guarantee them, that is enough for you. There is the young lady, too. She cannot wait on the public road at this hour.”
“Very sorry, Mr. Thaddeus,” said McMurdo, inexorably. “Folk may be friends o’ yours, and yet no friends o’ the master’s. He pays me well to do my duty, and my duty I’ll do. I don’t know none o’ your friends.”
“Oh, yes, you do, McMurdo,” cried Sherlock Holmes, genially. “I don’t think you can have forgotten me. Don’t you remember the amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison’s rooms on the night of your benefit four years back?” “Not Mr. Sherlock Holmes!” roared the prize-fighter. “God’s truth! how could I have mistook you? If instead o’ standin’ there so quiet you had just stepped up and given me that cross-hit of yours under the jaw, I’d ha’ known you without a question. Ah, you’re one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy.”
“You see, Watson, if all else fails me, I have still one of the scientific professions open to me,” said Holmes, laughing. “Our friend won’t keep us out in the cold now, I am sure.”
This incident establishes Holmes’ credentials as an expert boxer, regardless of the incident at the Charring Cross station where he lost his tooth. (Note: The boxer McMurdo in this story has no relationship to the Society, McMurdo’s Camp.)
Holmes engaged in some illegal and thuggish behavior in The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax (LADY). He was looking for the missing Lady Carfax, whom he had good reason to believe was dead or imprisoned in a particular house. He knew the police were on their way with a warrant, but time was short.
“I mean to find her,” said Sherlock Holmes. “I’m going through this house till I do find her.”
“Where is your warrant?”
Holmes half drew a revolver from his pocket. “This will have to serve till a better one comes.”
“Why, you are a common burglar.”
“So you might describe me,” said Holmes cheerfully. “My companion is also a dangerous ruffian. And together we are going through your house.”
Obviously, Holmes was by no means hesitant to use his “metallic argument” to get the job done.
The above examples illustrate that Sherlock Holmes was a “tough guy” by any standards. A Victorian gentleman, certainly, but physical enough to dominate the world he lived in, populated by highly proper Victorians, criminals, and dangerous miscreants. The stories are full of other examples, and we may provide more in the coming weeks, in plenty of time to expand our premise prior to the release of the new movie. Robert Downey with his modern interpretation of Sherlock Holmes shouldn’t surprise anyone who is a true follower of the master if he has to muscle his way out of some tough spots.
Readers are encouraged to give us more examples of Holmes the tough guy, using the “comments” feature. Click “Leave a Comment” just below. In the meantime, if you read about the new movie being a more modern, more physical and violent Holmes, take it with a grain of salt. The original Sherlock Holmes was no wimp!
