The Case of the Conan Doyle Conference
This volume came together at a special Sherlock Holmes colloquium, convened at the University of Bern, near the famous Reichenbach Falls.1 Despite the fearsome headlines and morbid details popular in the press coverage of the event, it was mostly a delightful and relaxing conference, with many fascinating papers on deep questions raised by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous mysteries.
The location was lovely, with conference rooms that looked out over the falls where Holmes and Moriarty had their famous battle in “The Final Problem.” Fourteen esteemed scholars were present, and of the thirteen papers read (Dr. Tallon's not being read for obvious reasons), all were back-grounded by the soft, relaxing whoosh of the cataract as it fell into the pool below—the same pool, of course, where the body of Dr. Tallon was found floating after he failed to appear for his session.
The papers presented are here reprinted in this volume in their original order, accompanied by notes about the conference.
In the first session, Dr. David Baggett's paper, “Sherlock Holmes as Epistemologist,” explored the intellectual virtues of Holmes that are conducive to good thinking, whether applied to solving a crime or the mystery of life. Rather than a myopic logic chopper devoid of emotion, as he is often characterized, Baggett argued that Sherlock Holmes exhibits traits that make the most ardent feminist epistemologist proud: passion, instinct, and artistry. These collectively comprise an expansive understanding of reason and rationality that yields not unjustified hubris but hard-won intellectual confidence and courage. Baggett's paper praised the role that intuition plays in understanding the world.
After his paper on the use of abduction, Dr. Baggett fell silent for a long time, as if realizing something.
Next, David Rozema discussed a strange case in the Holmes canon, where Holmes's hatred of a blackmailer seems to send him over the line from hero to the ranks of the criminal class. In “Not the Crime, but the Man: Sherlock Holmes and Charles Augustus Milverton,” Rozema argued that though Holmes's behavior is patently illegal, and by many measures immoral, virtue ethics offers a framework for assessing Holmes's actions that casts them in a more promising light.
Kevin Kinghorn's paper proved a fascinating analysis of the nature of deception. Considering and casting to the side insufficient definitions, Kinghorn arrived at a solid definition of deception. Adding considerable interest to Kinghorn's essay was his extensive use of examples drawn from the Conan Doyle stories. Perhaps most interestingly, however, was how Kinghorn's definition of deception illuminated the relationship between Holmes and Moriarty.
Later, Dr. Kinghorn reported to the police hearing Dr. Baggett and Dr. Tallon arguing in the hallway over missing conference funds. The argument ended when Dr. Baggett stormed off.
During the lunchtime keynote speech, Massimo Pigliucci presented a paper titled “Sherlock's Reasoning Toolbox,” which examined the powers and problems surrounding deduction and induction. Though Holmes is sometimes chided for being less than precise with his supposedly airtight logic, Pigliucci affirmed Holmes's more inductive, probabilistic method.
At the end of the luncheon, Dr. Tallon suddenly began complaining of stomach pains and quickly left the dining hall. When the conference attendees made their way to hear his paper after lunch, a hastily scrawled note on the door indicated that the paper was moved to the next day. The paper, as printed in the conference schedule, was to be an examination of Aristotle's philosophy of friendship with reference to the friendship of Holmes and Watson, although the amendment to the schedule announced the paper was now called “Watsons, Adlers, Lestrades, and Moriarties: On the Nature of Friends and Enemies.” Enemies, it seemed, had been added as a subject for examination as well.
Instead of Tallon's paper, Kyle Blanchette presented his essay, “Eliminating the Impossible,” which discussed Holmes's sometime investigation of the supernatural in The Hound of the Baskervilles and in a recent Sherlock Holmes film. By using Holmes's investigation of an eerie curse and rumors of a resurrection from the dead, Blanchette asked whether it is ever reasonable to keep open the supernatural as a possible cause of events. This provided a natural way for Blanchette to discuss issues surrounding miracles and other issues in the philosophy of religion.
The only strange event of the session happened when Blanchette sat in the presenter's chair and the chair collapsed, sending him backward and nearly impaling him on a decorative sculpture. If Blanchette had been just an inch taller, the attendees agreed, it could well have punctured his skull.
Andrew Terjesen's paper discussed the controversial death of Sherlock Holmes in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's “The Final Problem.” This was an event that caused so much ire among fans at the time that Conan Doyle received more threats and hate mail than most real-life murderers. Terjesen posed a fascinating question, unique in the ethical literature: “Was it morally wrong to kill off Sherlock Holmes?” Drawing on aesthetics, ethics, and the literature surrounding copyright, Terjesen considered both sides of the equation.
After Terjesen's presentation, the session was briefly interrupted when gunshots were heard outside the hall, although on inspection, the sounds were discovered to have come from firecrackers, probably left by local hooligans. When everyone returned to the hall, however, the projector was no longer functioning, forcing everyone to relocate to the south conference room. Later, police found footprints and a pair of binoculars in the bushes on the south side of the building.
In the same session, D. Q. McInerny, brother of the late well-known philosopher and mystery writer Ralph McInerny (creator of Father Dowling), presented on Holmes as an “Artist of Reason,” dispelling notions that Holmes is merely a calculating machine. As evidence, McInerny drew our attention to Holmes's more metaphysical musings about the fundamental intelligibility of the cosmos. McInerny argued that Holmes may just as reasonably be seen to be a philosopher, one looking for the meaning of things—someone passionately dedicated to the truth, not merely facts.
Bridget Costello and Gregory Bassham presented a paper on Holmes's over-mastery of certain subjects and complete ignorance of others, asking whether Holmes's philosophy of mind is sound and whether his obsessive focus on just a few activities is healthy. The paper included discussion of one of the most famous passages in the Holmes canon, wherein Watson records the gaps in Holmes's knowledge of various subjects, including ignorance about the earth's rotation around the sun. Finding Holmes's understanding of memory to be not much more impressive than his understanding of astronomy, the authors offered a helpful critique. They were much easier on Sherlock's narrow interests, perhaps because Holmes is more well rounded than how he presents himself.
In “Passionate Objectivity in Sherlock Holmes,” Charles Taliaferro and Michel Le Gall asked which was more important when making an ethical decision: to be analytical, impartial, cool, and dispassionate, or to be passionate and emotionally engaged with and committed to those about whom one cares most. This question is not just relevant to the Conan Doyle mysteries but also to developments in philosophy and literature in the nineteenth century. Despite Holmes's claims to dispassionate objectivity, Taliaferro and Le Gall showed how Holmes is a man with loyalties. Does this make Holmes irrational? Quite the opposite, they argued: “Some passion or acquaintance with passion is essential if one is to be objective and rigorously analytical.”
Dr. Tallon had seemingly recovered and was in attendance for the session. Dr. Baggett was likewise present for the reading of the paper. At the end of the session, however, the bearded man everyone took for Dr. Baggett was revealed to be a local drunkard wearing a fake beard. When pressed for an explanation of what he was doing there, the man mumbled some words in French and stumbled away, leaving the beard behind. Dr. Tallon seemed upset by this and rushed out another door.
In another paper, Gregory Bassham considered Holmes's considerable workaholism. As Conan Doyle writes, “[When Holmes] had an unsolved problem upon his mind, [he] would go for days, and even for a week, without rest, turning it over, rearranging his facts, looking at it from every point of view until he had either fathomed it or convinced himself that his data were insufficient.” Bassham considered Holmes in light of the psychological signs of being a workaholic, all of which perfectly describe the great detective's lifestyle. Bassham then considered the problems (and pluses) of workaholism, considering why we perhaps should not wish to cure Holmes of his condition.
After this session, Dr. Bassham saw Dr. Tallon complaining to the desk clerk that his room had been burgled and demanding to speak to the cleaning staff. When the hotel clerk offered to call the police, Dr. Tallon refused to let them.
Carrie-Ann Biondi's paper, “The Dog That Did Not Bark,” offered lessons in observation: learning to read the book of life. This helps us see not merely when things are present, but when they are notably absent. The question “am I missing something?” can be as useful in philosophy as it was in the famous Conan Doyle story, “Silver Blaze,” with its well-known curious incident of the silent dog.
During her presentation, Biondi reported seeing Dr. Tallon out on the lawn, walking toward the falls. Because the window faced away from the falls, however, she was not sure this was where Dr. Tallon was truly heading. This is the last reported sighting of Dr. Tallon. Dr. Baggett was present at the session.
The evening session, a reading of Dorothy L. Sayers's 1935 essay, “Aristotle on Detective Fiction,” was held in the grand ballroom. The paper, read by a local actress dressed as Sayers, considered the merits of the detective story against the modern novel, describing how Aristotle's criteria for good drama are satisfied by the well-told whodunit. Witnesses report that Dr. Baggett was present in the session, though some said that they heard him muttering in French under his breath.
Elizabeth Glass-Turner was presenting her paper, “The Grim Reaper on Baker Street,” the next morning when she was interrupted by one of the conference staff, who indicated that Dr. Tallon's name badge had been found by the observation pier, along with a solitary shoe. A survey of the attendees revealed his absence. The police were called and Glass-Turner resumed, explaining how the presence of the corpse is a powerful occasion for reflection. “To philosophize is to learn to die,” Glass-Turner said, invoking Montaigne. Through examination of the Holmes mysteries, Glass-Turner described how the lifeless body reveals Holmes's and Watson's different senses of the world and the value of human life.
Philip Tallon did not appear at his rescheduled session, and a search party was created. Dr. Tallon's body was found later that day in the falls. The police reported that the railing on the falls overlook had been loosened. Several screws were found on the ground near the scene of the accident, and a screwdriver was found in the pool at the bottom of the falls. Dr. Tallon's head was rather badly smashed, and police could not conclude whether he had sustained head injuries before the fall or after.
Dr. Baggett was held for questioning, then released. The case remains unsolved. However, the local police have recruited an amateur detective, renowned for his ability to solve intractable mysteries. The rumor is that he is close to a solution.
1. This whole account is totally not true.