by Otto Penzler
The Late Sherlock Holmes
JAMES M. BARRIE
(Published Anonymously)
JAMES MATTHEW BARRIE (1860–1937), the beloved Scottish playwright who created one of literature’s iconic characters, Peter Pan, formed an unlikely friendship with Arthur Conan Doyle that survived many years and vast differences between two of the most popular writers of their time.
Conan Doyle was a sportsman. Fond of skiing, he has been credited with introducing that vigorous activity to Switzerland. An aficionado of pugilism, he was praised for his skill as a boxer and wrote two books with boxing themes: Rodney Stone (1896), which focused on bare-knuckle fighting during the Regency era, and The Croxley Master: A Great Tale of the Prize Ring (1907), about a boxing medical student. Famously, Conan Doyle was asked to referee the racially charged Jack Johnson-Jim Jeffries heavyweight championship fight in 1910. Johnson, the new champion, was an arrogant black man, so Jeffries, the old former champion, was called out of retirement in the interest of white supremacy. Conan Doyle declined the offer, stating that it was more likely to foster bigotry than combat it.
Barrie, on the other hand, stopped growing when he was still quite small (5′3½″ according to his passport), was extremely introverted, and though he was married, his relationship was apparently unconsummated. “Boys can’t love,” he explained to his wife.
Nonetheless, Barrie and his friends, Jerome K. Jerome, Conan Doyle, P. G. Wodehouse, and others, founded a cricket club, called Allahakbarries. Conan Doyle was the only member who could actually play cricket. Barrie’s friendship with Conan Doyle undoubtedly inspired him to write three Sherlock Holmes parodies, all of which are included in this collection.
“The Late Sherlock Holmes” was first published anonymously in the December 29, 1893, issue of The St. James’s Gazette; it was first published in book form in the anthology My Evening with Sherlock Holmes, edited by John Gibson and Richard Lancelyn Green (London, Ferret Fantasy, 1981).
THE LATE SHERLOCK HOLMES
James M. Barrie
THE LATE SHERLOCK HOLMES, SENSATIONAL ARREST.
WATSON ACCUSED OF THE CRIME.
(By Our Own Extra-Special Reporters.)
12:30 p.m.—Early this morning Mr. W. W. Watson, M.D. (Edin.), was arrested at his residence, 12a, Tennison-road, St. John’s-wood, on a charge of being implicated in the death of Mr. Sherlock Holmes, late of Baker-street. The arrest was quickly effected. The prisoner, we understand, was found by the police at breakfast with his wife. Being informed of the cause of their visit he expressed no surprise, and only asked to see the warrant. This having been shown him, he quietly put himself at the disposal of the police. The latter, it appears, had instructions to tell him that before accompanying them to Bow-street he was at liberty to make arrangements for the carrying on during his absence of his medical practice. Prisoner smiled at this, and said that no such arrangements were necessary, as his patient had left the country. Being warned that whatever he said would be used as evidence against him, he declined to make any further statement. He was then expeditiously removed to Bow-street. Prisoner’s wife witnessed his removal with much fortitude.
THE SHERLOCK HOLMES MYSTERY.
The disappearance of Mr. Holmes was an event of such recent occurrence and gave rise to so much talk that a very brief resume of the affair is all that is needed here. Mr. Holmes was a man of middle age and resided in Baker-street, where he carried on the business of a private detective. He was extremely successful in his vocation, and some of his more notable triumphs must still be fresh in the minds of the public—particularly that known as “The Adventure of the Three Crowned Heads,” and the still more curious “Adventure of the Man without a Wooden Leg,” which had puzzled all the scientific bodies of Europe. Dr. Watson, as will be proved out of his own mouth, was a great friend of Mr. Holmes (itself a suspicious circumstance) and was in the habit of accompanying him in his professional peregrinations. It will be alleged by the prosecution, we understand, that he did so to serve certain ends of his own, which were of a monetary character. About a fortnight ago news reached London of the sudden death of the unfortunate Holmes, in circumstances that strongly pointed to foul play. Mr. Holmes and a friend had gone for a short trip to Switzerland, and it was telegraphed that Holmes had been lost in the terrible Falls of Reichenbach. He had fallen over or been precipitated. The Falls are nearly a thousand feet high; but Mr. Holmes in the course of his career had survived so many dangers, and the public had such faith in his turning-up as alert as ever next month, that no one believed him dead. The general confidence was strengthened when it became known that his companion in this expedition was his friend Watson.
WATSON’S STATEMENT.
Unfortunately for himself (though possibly under the compulsion of the police of Switzerland), Watson felt called upon to make a statement. It amounted in brief to this: that the real cause of the Swiss tour was a criminal of the name of Moriarty, from whom Holmes was flying. The deceased gentleman, according to Watson, had ruined the criminal business of Moriarty, who had sworn revenge. This shattered the nerves of Holmes, who fled to the Continent, taking Watson with him. All went well until the two travellers reached the Falls of Reichenbach. Hither they were followed by a Swiss boy with a letter to Watson. It purported to come from the innkeeper of Meiringen, a neighbouring village, and implored the Doctor to hasten to the inn and give his professional attendance to a lady who had fallen ill there. Leaving Holmes at the Fall, Watson hurried to the inn, only to discover that the landlord had sent him no such letter. Remembering Moriarty, Watson ran back to the Falls, but arrived too late. All he found there was signs of a desperate struggle and a slip of writing from Holmes explaining that he and Moriarty had murdered each other and then flung themselves over the Falls.
POPULAR TALK.
The arrest of Watson this morning will surprise no one. It was the general opinion that some such step must follow in the interests of public justice. Special indignation was expressed at Watson’s statement that Holmes was running away from Moriarty. It is notorious that Holmes was a man of immense courage, who revelled in facing danger. To represent him as anything else is acknowledged on all hands to be equivalent to saying that the People’s Detective (as he was called) had
IMPOSED UPON THE PUBLIC.
We understand that printed matter by Watson himself will be produced at the trial in proof of the public contention. It may also be observed that Watson’s story carries doubt on the face of it. The deadly struggle took place on a narrow path along which it is absolutely certain that the deceased must have seen Moriarty coming. Yet the two men only wrestled on the cliff. What the Crown will ask is,
WHERE WERE HOLMES’S PISTOLS?
Watson, again, is the authority for stating that the deceased never crossed his threshold without several loaded pistols in his pockets. If this were so in London, is it not quite incredible that Holmes should have been unarmed in the comparatively wild Swiss mountains, where, moreover, he is represented as living in deadly fear of Moriarty’s arrival? And from Watson’s sketch of the ground, nothing can be clearer than that Holmes had ample time to shoot Moriarty after the latter hove in sight. But even allowing that Holmes was unarmed, why did not Moriarty shoot him? Had he no pistols either? This is the acme of absurdity.
WHAT WATSON SAW.
Watson says that as he was leaving the neighbourhood of the Falls he saw in the distance the figure of a tall man. He suggests that this was Moriarty, who (he holds) also sent the bogus letter. In support of this theory it must be allowed that Peter Steiler, the innkeeper, admits that some such stranger did stop at the inn for a few minutes and write a letter. This clue is being actively followed up, and doubtless with the identification of this mysterious person, which is understood to be a matter of a few hours’ time, we shall be nearer the unravelling of the knot. It may be added, from information supplied us from a safe source, that the police do not expect to find that this stranger was Moriarty, but rather
AN ACCOMPLICE OF WATSON’S,
who has for long collaborated with him in his writings, and has been a good deal mentioned in connection with the deceased. In short, the most sensational arrest of the century is on the tapis.
The murdered man’s
ROOMS IN BAKER-STREET
are in possession of the police. Our representative called there in the course of the morning and spent some time in examining the room with which the public has become so familiar through Watson’s descriptions. The room is precisely as when deceased inhabited it. Here, for instance, is his favourite chair in which he used to twist himself into knots when thinking out a difficult problem. A tin canister of tobacco stands on the mantelpiece (shag), and above it hangs the long-lost Gainsborough “Duchess,” which Holmes discovered some time ago, without, it seems, being able to find the legal owner. It will be remembered that Watson, when Holmes said surprising things, was in the habit of “leaping to the ceiling” in astonishment. Our representative examined the ceiling and found it
MUCH DENTED.
The public cannot, too, have forgotten that Holmes used to amuse himself in this room with pistol practice. He was such a scientific shot that one evening while Watson was writing he fired all round the latter’s head, shaving him by an infinitesimal part of an inch. The result is a portrait on the wall, in pistol-shots, of Watson, which is considered an excellent likeness. It is understood that, following the example set in the Ardlamont case, this picture will be produced in court. It is also in contemplation to bring over the Falls of Reichenbach for the same purpose.
THE MOTIVE.
The evidence in the case being circumstantial, it is obvious that motive must have a prominent part in the case for the Crown. Wild rumours are abroad on this subject, and at this stage of the case they must be received with caution. According to one, Watson and Holmes had had a difference about money matters, the latter holding that the former was making a goldmine out of him and sharing nothing. Others allege that the difference between the two men was owing to Watson’s change of manner; Holmes, it is stated, having complained bitterly that Watson did not jump to the ceiling in amazement so frequently as in the early days of their intimacy. The blame in this case, however, seems to attach less to Watson than to the lodgers on the second floor, who complained to the landlady. We understand that the legal fraternity look to
THE DARK HORSE
in the case for the motive which led to the murder of Mr. Holmes. This dark horse, of course, is the mysterious figure already referred to as having been seen in the vicinity of the Falls of Reichenbach on the fatal day. He, they say, had strong reasons for doing away with Mr. Holmes. For a long time they were on excellent terms. Holmes would admit frankly in the early part of his career that he owed everything to this gentleman; who, again, allowed that Holmes was a large source of income to him. Latterly, however, they have not been on friendly terms, Holmes having complained frequently that whatever he did the other took the credit for. On the other hand, the suspected accomplice has been heard to say “that Holmes has been getting too uppish for anything,” that he “could do very well without Holmes now,” that he “has had quite enough of Holmes,” that he “is sick of the braggart’s name,” and even that “if the public kept shouting for more Holmes he would kill him in self-defence.” Witnesses will be brought to prove these statements, and it is believed that the mysterious man of the Falls and this gentleman will be found to be one and the same person. Watson himself allows that he owes his very existence to this dark horse, which supplies the important evidence that the stranger of the Falls is also a doctor. The theory of the Crown, of course, is that these two medical men were accomplices. It is known that he whom we have called the dark horse is still in the neighbourhood of the Falls.
DR. CONAN DOYLE.
Dr. Conan Doyle is at present in Switzerland.
AN EXTRAORDINARY RUMOUR
reaches us as we go to press, to the effect that Mr. Sherlock Holmes, at the entreaty of the whole British public, has returned to Baker-street, and is at present (in the form of the figure 8) solving the problem of The Adventure of the Novelist and His Old Man of the Sea.
Sherlock Holmes and the Drood Mystery
EDMUND PEARSON
EDMUND LESTER PEARSON (1880–1937) is best known as a career librarian, humorist, expert on real-life crimes, reviewer of books, and the author of a weekly column of essays and stories titled “The Librarian” that was published in the Boston Evening Transcript from 1906 to 1920. Born in 1880 in Newburyport, Massachusetts, Pearson graduated from Harvard College in 1902 and went on to obtain a BLS from the New York State Library School in Albany in 1904. While at Harvard, he published his first writings in the school periodical, the Harvard Advocate. After graduating, Pearson held the position of Librarian in the Washington, D.C., Public Library, worked in the Library of Congress in the Copyright Division, and worked in the Military Information Division of the War Department. In 1914, he became the Editor of Publications at the New York Public Library.
Pearson’s most famous work is a collection of essays on true crimes, Studies in Murder (1924), in which he details the Lizzie Borden murders, among other crimes. Other publications include Murder at Smutty Nose and Other Murders (1926) and Five Murders (1928), several autobiographical books focused on his childhood, and three books about books: Books in Black or Red (1923), Queer Books (1928), and Dime Novels (1929). In addition to “Sherlock Holmes and the Drood Mystery,” Pearson’s other works in the Sherlockian world are “Ave atque Vale, Sherlock!” in the July 20, 1927, issue of The Outlook, and “Sherlock Holmes Among the Illustrators” in the August 1932 issue of The Bookman.
“Sherlock Holmes and the Drood Mystery” originally appeared in the April 2, 1913, issue of the Boston Evening Transcript; it was first collected in The Secret Book (New York, Macmillan, 1914). It was later published as a separate pamphlet (Boulder, Colorado, Aspen Press, 1973).
SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE DROOD MYSTERY
Edmund Pearson
“WATSON,” SAID SHERLOCK Holmes, beaming at me across the breakfast table, “can you decipher character from handwriting?”
He held an envelope toward me as he spoke. I took the envelope and glanced at the superscription. It was addressed to Holmes at our lodging in Baker Street. I tried to remember something of an article I had read on the subject of handwriting.
“The writer of this,” I said, “was a modest self-effacing person, and one of wide knowledge, and considerable ability. He—”
“Excellent, Watson, excellent! Really, you outdo yourself. Your reading is quite Watsonian, in fact. I fear, however, you are a bit astray as to his modesty, knowledge, and so on. As a matter of fact, this letter is from Mr. Thomas Sapsea.”
“The famous Mayor of Cloisterham?”
“Quite so. And for pomposity, egregious conceit coupled with downright ignorance, he has not his peer in England. So you did not score a bull’s-eye there, my dear fellow.”
“But what does he want of you?” I asked, willing to change the subject. “He isn’t going to engage you to solve the mystery of Edwin Drood?”
“That is precisely what he is doing. He is all at sea in the matter. Come, what do you say to a run down to Cloisterham? We can look into this matter to oblige the mayor, and take a ramble through the cathedral. I’m told they have some very fine gargoyles.”
An hour later, we were seated in a train for Cloisterham. Holmes had been looking through the morning papers. Now he threw them aside, and turned to me.
“Have you followed this Drood case?” he asked.
I replied that I had read many of the accounts and some of the speculations on the subject.
“I have not followed it as attentively as I should have liked,” he returned, “the recent little affair of Colonel Raspopoff and the czarina’s rubies has occupied me thoroughly of late. Suppose you go over the chief facts—it will help clear my mind.”
“The facts are th
ese,” I said. “Edwin Drood, a young engineer about to leave for Egypt, had two attractions in Cloisterham. One was his affianced wife—a young school-girl, named Miss Rosa Bud. The other was his devoted uncle and guardian, Mr. John Jasper. The latter is choir-master of the cathedral. There were, it seems, two clouds over his happiness. One of these was the fact that his betrothal to Miss Bud—an arrangement made by their respective parents while Edwin and Rosa were small children—was not wholly to the liking of either of the principals. They had, indeed, come to an agreement, only a few days before Edwin Drood’s disappearance, to terminate the engagement. They parted, it is believed, on friendly, if not affectionate terms.
“The other difficulty lay in the presence, in Cloisterham, of one Neville Landless—a young student from Ceylon. Landless has, it seems, a strain of Oriental blood in his nature—he is of dark complexion and fiery temper. Actual quarrels had occurred between the two, with some violence on Landless’s part. To restore them to friendship, however, Mr. Jasper, the uncle of Edwin, arranged for a dinner in his rooms on Christmas Eve, at which they were to be the only guests. The dinner took place, everything passed off amicably, and the two left, together, late in the evening, to walk to the river, and view the great storm which was raging. After that they parted—according to Landless—and Drood has never been seen again. His uncle raised the alarm next morning, Landless was detained, and questioned, while a thorough search was made for the body of Drood. Beyond the discovery of his watch and pin in the weir, nothing has been found. Landless had to be released for lack of evidence, but the feeling in Cloisterham was so strong against him that he had to leave. He is thought to be in London.”