|
|
We Sherlockians routinely examine every aspect of Holmes’ life
— some of them perhaps better left unexposed — with a scrutiny that would put
his high-powered lenses to shame. So I am not the first devotee to look at
The Master’s penchant, nay, predilection, for gambling. The same abilities
which made Holmes a great detective also assisted him in developing winning
strategies at the track, the fight ring, and the card table. It was not just
the amassing of odds and ends of out-of-the way knowledge, but the
application of what he learned by observation and study.
We hear of his “curious
gifts of instinct and observation” in VEIL. We learn that “his methods were a
mixture of imagination and reality” in THOR; that he “loved precision and
concentration of thought” in NAVA; and that he “systemized common sense” in
BLAN. Combine those indigenous mental processes with his keen judgment of
human character, so often seen in the Canon (BERY, CARD, ILLU, COPP). Holmes
understood what made people tick inside, even when their exteriors were
giving nothing away—what better skill could a gambler have?
Gambling, that is,
successful gambling, represented an important step towards financial independence
for Holmes. He was a pioneer in his field, and we know that his early career
was filled with impecunious governesses and the like. You do not immediately
grow wealthy as the world’s first consulting detective. We know he “worked
for the love of his art rather than the “acquirement of wealth” (SPEC) and
that “my professional charges are
|
|
upon a fixed scale. I do not vary them, save when I remit them
altogether.” (THOR). Baring-Gould points out that by 1891, at the time of
FINA, Holmes tells Watson he could retire and still live comfortably. So how
did he arrive at such a stage of financial independence in such a relatively
short time?
Because Holmes had inside
information that helped him win horse races, boxing matches, and the
occasional card game. It’s hard to know if his personal attraction to the
sports of horse racing and boxing made him take more of a professional
interest in those activities, especially their criminal underbellies, or vice
versa. Whichever way the cards were dealt, Holmes knew when to hold ‘em and
when to fold ‘em.
|
|
Boxing was one of Holmes’ preferred sports in college, and we
have numerous examples of his bettering opponents against whom lesser men
would suffer serious injuries. “I emerged as you see me. Mr. Woodley went
home in a cart.” (SOLI) In later years though not an active participant
in the sport, Holmes was so well up on the boxing scene as to identify Steve
Dixie as “a bruiser” (3GAB) and to know the crime he had committed.
As
for cards, there are a couple of intriguing clues within the Canon that point
to Holmes’ considerable interest. He was very well aware of those London
clubs which
|
|
|
exist solely to provide card playing
venues for their members. Two of the most intriguingly titled unpublished
cases are about this form of gambling: Major Prendergast and the Tankerville
Club Scandal (FIVE), and the atrocious conduct of Colonel Upwood at the
Nonpareil Club (HOUN), a known card scandal. Clearly Holmes knew which card
tables to avoid and whom to watch when they cut the deck.
For
my money, one of the most telling statements is Holmes’ description of
Moriarty in VALL in which he states the professor “stood at the head of the criminal
chain which ended with the minor criminal such as the card sharper.” A card
sharper? I find this peculiar because a person has to be an active
participant to be cheated at cards –
it’s quite the opposite of being a random victim of street crime such as
armed robbery or property theft, which is what comes to my mind as an example
as minor crime. But for Holmes, the card sharper was someone who could
seriously imperil his own financial stability, and as such, worthy of
professional attention.
|
