“The point under discussion was how far any singular gift in an
individual was due to his ancestry and how far to his early training.”
_The Greek Interpreter_
Allusions are made in several of the tales to the subject of
genetics--that is, the science of heredity. Many of the observations
set forth, although perhaps not entirely acceptable today, are
nevertheless intellectually stimulating.
Nearly all human beings--some much more than others--are interested
in matters pertaining to heredity. Most of us like to hear about our
grandparents and even about our great-grandparents, despite the fact
that the deeds of some of our ancestors, and the lives they lived, may
cause us some embarrassment.
In this connection, I am reminded of a statement made to me one evening
(a long time ago) by a distinguished Southerner of the old school, a
Kentucky gentleman, during a discussion of our ancestors. In effect,
he suggested that perhaps we should not examine the lives of our early
kinfolk too closely, because one of them might have been hanged as a
horse thief.
When we uncover some irregularity in the behavior of our ancestors, we
often toss it aside by pointing out that after all they were products
of their times, which indicates, in part at least, that environment
was highly important. There is doubtless considerable truth in this
statement, but an honorable man in the eighteenth century probably had
(or anyway, _should_ have had) the same high standard of conduct
as an honorable man in the twentieth century. Rather than sermonize
further, let us turn to the tales of Sherlock Holmes.
We find Doctor Watson and Sherlock Holmes talking together on a
beautiful summer evening. Doctor Watson writes:
... the conversation ... came round to the question of atavism and
hereditary aptitudes. The point under discussion was how far any
singular gift in an individual was due to his ancestry and how far to
his early training.
_The Greek Interpreter_
Watson expressed the thought that Holmes’ faculty of observation and
his peculiar facility for deduction were due to his own systematic
training. Holmes ventured this was true only to some extent. When
Watson asked him why he thought it hereditary, Holmes replied, “Because
my brother Mycroft possesses it in a larger degree than I do.”
Doctor Watson was amazed at this answer, and expressed the sentiment
that if any other man in England possessed greater keenness in
observation and deductive powers than did Sherlock Holmes, the public
would surely know of him. Watson hinted it was Holmes’ modesty which
caused him to extoll his brother’s powers. Holmes quickly made this
rejoinder: “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.”
There are doubtless many people who would take issue with the thoughts
Holmes expressed. But they do contain more than a modicum of truth.
Is there not an expression to the effect that false modesty is not a
virtue? Does not the matter of intellectual honesty also enter into
this picture? We will not at this time pursue the matter further,
although it is tempting.
Sherlock Holmes suggested to Dr. Watson that, since he had never
met Mycroft, it would be fitting for him to make his acquaintance.
Accordingly, they set out for the Diogenes Club, where Holmes assured
Watson that Mycroft, on account of his routine life, would be found
this very hour of the day.
Watson was presented to this extraordinary person:
... his face ... had preserved something of the sharpness of
expression which was so remarkable in that of his brother. His eyes,
which were of a peculiarly light, watery gray, seemed to always
retain that far-away introspective look which I had only observed in
Sherlock’s when he was exerting his full powers.
Watson has skillfully depicted the family likeness--that is, the highly
intelligent face and the dreamy and introspective look. Obviously,
Mycroft and Sherlock were both remarkably keen, alert men.
At the Diogenes Club, Mycroft and Sherlock seated themselves before a
window which gave them a clear view of the street. As they sat there
conversing, two strangers were approaching along the sidewalk. Mycroft
called attention to them, and the following brilliant dialogue ensued:
“Look at these two men ... coming toward us....”
“The billiard-marker and the other?”
“Precisely. What do you make of the other?”
(Dr. Watson then explained that he noted some chalk marks on the
waistcoat of one of the men which was the only evidence of billiards
he could see, and that the other one was carrying several packages.)
“An old soldier, I perceive,” said Sherlock.
“And very recently discharged,” remarked the brother.
“Served in India, I see.”
“And a non-commissioned officer.”
“Royal Artillery, I fancy,” said Sherlock.
“And a widower.”
“But with a child.”
“Children, my dear boy, children.”
Watson laughingly remarked that this was too much. Sherlock and Mycroft
assured him it was not. They pointed out some of the salient points
which had enabled them to make their astute conclusions. Among those
mentioned were that the man in question had the bearing of a soldier,
wore the expression of authority, and had a deeply tanned skin (which
suggested he had served in India). The fact that he was wearing deep
mourning indicated he was probably a widower.
The dialogue actually was a contest of wits between Sherlock and
Mycroft. The latter obviously won when he said, “Children, my dear boy,
children.” This winning stroke Mycroft explained in this way: “He has
been buying things for his children.... There was a rattle which shows
one of them is young ... a picture book under his arm shows that there
is another child to be thought of.”
When Mycroft had finished, Holmes merely turned to Watson and smiled,
not only to acknowledge his brother’s genius but also his superiority
in observation and deduction.
Sherlock Holmes apparently believed firmly that heredity played an
extremely important part in the life of an individual. There is no end
to the argument among biologists whether heredity or environment plays
the more significant role in the development of an individual. It is
especially so with a person’s mental capacity. One who unfortunately
has inherited a mediocre mind will always be handicapped, to a degree,
regardless of his environment or training. The mental powers will
remain ordinary. Conversely, the individual who is endowed with a
keener intellect will always be potentially the intellectual superior
of his less fortunate brother. There is no doubt that training and
environment in general will aid both types of individuals, but even
the most ideal developmental conditions can not completely overcome a
deficient genetic constitution.
In the story of _The Yellow Face_, it will be recalled that a
white woman had married a Negro. The child, according to the story,
had even a darker skin than her father: “It was our misfortune that
our only child took after his people rather than mine. It is often so
in such matches, and little Lucy is darker than her father was.” This
statement must be challenged. It appears incredible that a child born
of a white mother could be darker than her Negro father. If the mother
had had some Negro blood, then by certain arrangements of genes this
could have happened, but not otherwise. Dr. Watson doubtless is in
error in this instance.
A hereditary likeness once enabled Holmes to solve a mystery (_The
Adventure of the Cardboard Box_). A maiden lady (Miss Cushing)
had received in the mail a small cardboard box containing two human
ears--one that of a woman. Holmes was called in, and during the course
of the investigation visited the receiver of this gruesome package.
He noted the resemblance of one of the severed ears to the ears of
the lady upon whom he was calling. Because of the striking likeness,
he felt certain that the person whose ear had been dismembered was a
close relative of the Miss Cushing whom he had come to interrogate.
Holmes remarks to Dr. Watson: “I perceived that her ear corresponded
exactly with the female ear I had just inspected.... There was the same
shortening of the pinna, the same broad curve of the upper lobe, the
same convolution of the inner cartilage.... It was evident that the
victim was a blood relation, and probably a very close one.” It will be
recalled that the dismembered ear proved to be that of Miss Cushing’s
sister.
Holmes propounds an interesting theory of the development of the
individual, in _The Adventure of the Empty House_. Speaking of
the terrible Colonel Moran, he expressed the idea that the individual
represents the whole procession of his ancestors in his development,
and that the person becomes the epitome of the history of his own
family. Doctor Watson thought this rather fanciful, and Holmes’
rejoinder was that he would not insist upon it.
In _The Hound of the Baskervilles_, Holmes successfully demonstrates
by means of a family portrait that the villain Stapleton is actually
a Baskerville. It will be remembered that Holmes stands upon a chair
and uses his arm to cover the broad hat and the long ringlets depicted
in the portrait. Now that only the features are visible, the portrait
of old Hugo Baskerville boldly stands out. Watson is astounded when he
beholds the results. Holmes remarks that it was an interesting instance
of a throwback, apparently both physical and spiritual.
The discovery that Stapleton markedly resembles one of his early
ancestors is not too surprising, for this surely could happen in any
family. The remarkable thing is that Holmes had had the acumen to cover
up certain portions of the old family portrait to make the face of
old Hugo Baskerville stand out. This clever demonstration would not
have occurred to many people. The extraordinary family resemblance
portrayed is a splendid example of atavism--that is, a reappearance of
the characteristics of a remote ancestor which presumably had been more
or less absent in intervening generations. The matter of atavism would
make a most interesting study. Therein lies the value and interest of
the old family album which used to grace the center table in the parlor.
In _The Adventure of the Copper Beeches_, Holmes makes a neat
point in regard to the subject of heredity: “My dear Watson, you as a
medical man are continually gaining light as to the tendencies of a
child by the study of the parents. Don’t you see that the converse is
equally valid. I have frequently gained my first real insight into the
character of parents by studying their children.”
This is an interesting analysis. Let us pursue the thought further. The
expression is often heard that a child’s behavior resembles that of one
of his parents. A popular way of putting it is that he is “a chip off
the old block.” This makes it appear that the pattern of behavior is
set up early in life. An old maxim has it: “As the twig is bent, so the
tree will incline.”
The problem is not always as simple as Holmes suggests. It is true that
we all have seen fine and lovable children whose parents have similar
qualities. But we also have seen ill-mannered, nasty-tempered children
whose parents have fine characters and possess charming manners. One
is reminded of a statement attributed to the gentle and amiable Robert
Louis Stevenson: “It has been a source of perpetual mystification to
me where all the disagreeable medical students go to, and all the
admirable doctors come from.”
I think the same may be said about some of the spoiled, unlovable
children. Many of them develop into sterling young men and women who
later in life carry on with noble purpose and high resolve. These
individuals often form the backbone of their community.
The entire matter of heredity is a complicated one, and much is still
to be learned about the subject. It is extremely important in the
study and practice of medicine. There are some common diseases which
certainly run in families, such as migraine, high blood pressure
(hypertension), and diseases of the coronary arteries. And it is
definitely known that diabetes may be inherited. In my own experience,
I have known a father with diabetes whose three daughters had all
developed this condition early in life. There are other diseases just
as formidable: for example, certain neurological and mental diseases.
Any researches which may throw any light on the subject of heredity
should be encouraged.
As we have seen, there are not many allusions in the Sherlock Holmes
stories to genetics. It is a pity that the topic of crime and heredity
was not touched upon. As far as I know, no specific reference is made
to it. I am not sufficiently acquainted with crime statistics to know
how commonly one would find several criminals in one family--that is,
in a single generation. However, one does think of those Missouri
bandits: the James brothers, the Younger brothers, and the Daltons.
Perhaps there are others. In any case, one would like to know whether
their parents or grandparents had criminal records. I submit, however,
that these last-named cases are rather special ones, for the James
brothers and their colleagues were products of an unusual period.
Doubtless, a black sheep may be found in an otherwise respectable
family. As Sherlock Holmes stated to Dr. Watson, once in a while a
carrion crow appears among the eagles (_The Adventure of Shoscombe
Old Place_).