Can we trust the Canon? by Tom Crammond

Recently, at a society meeting, there was a discussion about FINA. During the discussion it was purported by some that possibly some of the events did not happen as Watson stated them in FINA. From there the discourse turned to the idea that much of what Watson wrote in FINA was simply not true or that Watson had grossly exaggerated some of the details? Even more preposterous was the idea put forth that Holmes had invented Moriarty and that most of what Holmes had related to Watson was not true – Holmes fabricated the story or Holmes had not told Watson the real facts concerning Moriarty.

Immediately in mind, I flashed back to the GREE. What always struck me as a central theme of the Canon was Holmes’s confidence in Watson and Watson’s loyalty to Holmes. In GREE, Watson is surprised to discover that Holmes has an older Brother Mycroft, who is also a gifted observer and logician. Watson even goes so far as to question Holmes when Holmes tells Watson that Mycroft has even better powers of observation than Holmes possesses! Of course, at the window of the Diogenes Club Watson sees the truth play out, and thanks to Watson’s narrative, we also see it play out. But Holmes’s retort to Watson about his brother’s powers has always been for me a central axiom of the Canon:

“My dear Watson,” said he, “I cannot agree with those who rank modesty among the virtues. To the logician all things should be seen exactly as they are, and to underestimate one’s self is as much a departure from truth as to exaggerate one’s own powers. When I say, therefore, that Mycroft has better powers of observation than I, you may take it that I am speaking the exact and literal truth.”

This assertion by Holmes tells us that everything that Watson records about their adventures in the Canon are fundamentally true! Further, that when Holmes speaks about a case or a criminal, he speaks the exact and literal truth! Of course, we know that a few times in the Canon, Holmes has strived to protect Watson; and in DYIN, for example, Holmes lies and deceives Watson in order to get Watson to aid him in apprehending Mr. Culverton Smith. But afterwards, Holmes confesses to Watson why he fooled Watson and details the exact and literal truth about the events in DYIN!
When FINA ends Watson is indeed, fooled and again misinformed, but in the opening of EMPT, Holmes relates the exact and literal truth to Watson and even apologizes to Watson for putting Watson through a terrible mental ordeal.

To be clear, there may be the occasion where Watson may have exaggerated some minor details or perhaps been a bit florid in his depiction of events, but essentially Watson is always telling what he literally saw happen! Further, most importantly, Watson is always being sure to accurately record and publish information which Holmes tells Watson about the case at hand or the info/details Holmes relates about events related to a particular case or previous cases.

One instance where I, myself, think Watson might have exaggerated takes place in CHAS. You recall after the shots rang out, Holmes and Watson are desperate to get away from Appledore Towers. Watson wrote the following about the incident:

“It was a six-foot wall which barred our path, but he sprang to the top and over. As I did the same I felt the hand of the man behind me grab at my ankle; but I kicked myself free and scrambled over a glass-strewn coping. I fell upon my face among some bushes; but Holmes had me on my feet in an instant, and together we dashed away across the huge expanse of Hampstead Heath. We had run two miles, I suppose, before Holmes at last halted and listened intently. All was absolute silence behind us. We had shaken off our pursuers and were safe.”

Watson may have indeed been exactly correct about this escape or may have been slightly been mistaken about the height of the wall – actually height is a detail one can only guess? Further, being a middle-aged physician in, perhaps, not the best of shape, they just might have not run two miles before they halted to listen. It may have only been one and half miles, but the exact distance in not a pivotal detail.

The importance of this example being Watson related the story in a manner which retells all the salient points and details. It is important to note that in this story Holmes relates to Watson the vile character of Milverton. And we know that what Holmes states is the exact and literal truth:

Do you feel a creeping, shrinking sensation, Watson, when you stand before the serpents in the Zoo and see the slithery, gliding, venomous creatures, with their deadly eyes and wicked, flattened faces? Well, that’s how Milverton impresses me. I’ve had to do with fifty murderers in my career, but the worst of them never gave me the repulsion which I have for this fellow. And yet I can’t get out of doing business with him—indeed, he is here at my invitation.”

Here we must accept what Holmes says about Milverton as the exact and literal truth? If we do not, and consider this an exception to the truth, then one would have to be suspect whenever Holmes relates the history of a criminal and/or a case. We must remember what Holmes said To Count Sylvius in MAZA:

"It is a small point, Count Sylvius, but perhaps you would kindly give me my prefix when you address me. You can understand that, with my routine of work, I should find myself on familiar terms with half the rogues' gallery, and you will agree that exceptions are invidious."

Invidious, indeed, and we simply can not let the entire Canon become suspect because we are appalled or puzzled by FINA. There is much to speculate about in Watson’s narrative concerning The Final Problem. However, we simply can not go down a wrong road about the authenticity of the Canon, just because we find some of the events in FINA to be bizarre. Remember what Holmes told Watson at the beginning of IDEN:

My dear fellow,” said Sherlock Holmes as we sat on either side of the fire in his lodgings at Baker Street, “life is infinitely stranger than anything which the mind of man could invent.”

Well, there we have it! Once again, Holmes has given us the explanation for our puzzlement. In fact, he gave us this sage advice when we first delved into The Canon. It would be most excellent if we would all heed his counsel!