by Carol P. Woods
Among the curious incidents in the lives and careers of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, surely none is more obscure than the matter of Dr. Watson's bull pup.
In the initial contact between Holmes and Watson, as related in A Study in Scarlet, Watson informed Holmes (or, perhaps it should be said, confessed to Holmes), "I keep a bull pup." And that, it seems, is the last we hear of the dog.
Holmes did not object to Watson having the dog in their lodgings, but we hear no more of it. Or do we? Was Watson's bull pup in fact the terrier upon which Holmes performed his experiment with the poisoned pill? If this is so, let us first dispose of any doubt concerning the use of the terms "bull pup" and "terrier" to describe the same dog. It is common knowledge that Dr. Watson was rather distressingly lax in his terms. Let us concede that this laxity extended to the dog in this case. Then let us consider the assumption that the dog was in fact the pet of Mrs. Hudson and not of Watson. Is there any basis for this? No.
Holmes says, "Now would you mind going down and fetching that poor little devil of a terrier which has been bad so long, and which the landlady wanted you to put out of its pain yesterday?" There is nothing in this statement to indicate ownership of the dog, except perhaps Mrs. Hudson's desire that Dr. Watson put it out of its pain, which might indicate that, responsibility going with ownership, it was indeed Watson's dog.
Allowing this, the matter of what became of Watson's pet is well taken care of. Holmes poisoned it. After being given the doubtful pill, dissolved in milk, the "unfortunate creature's tongue seemed hardly to have been moistened in it before it gave a convulsive shiver in every limb, and lay as rigid and lifeless as if it had been struck by lightning."(SCAR)
This would seem to dispose effectively of the mysterious and so far baffling matter of Dr. Watson's dog - and the dog itself.
But this conclusion is too easy. It is noted that Watson does not specifically refer to the dog which has just met its sad fate as his; nor, if it were, does he express any advanced degree of emotion at its passing. This would seem contrary to the good doctor's nature.
The matter is worth further pursuit, because this dog is one of the few mentioned in the Holmes saga, and should not be dismissed briefly when three rivals for attention are accorded much greater fame.
First, of course, comes the Hound of the Baskervilles, whose role in life was based on nothing more worthy than frightfulness, "that huge black creature with its flaming jaws and blazing eyes. The beast was savage and half-starved." On such is fame based. Second, there is the famous dog which played its part in Silver Blaze, and a peculiar part it was; as Holmes phrased it, ". . .the curious incident of the dog" which "did nothing in the night-time." On this complete inactivity is this fame based. Third, and more worthy among the dogs, is Toby, who appears to good purpose in The Sign of the Four as "a queer mongrel with the most amazing power of scent. I would rather have Toby's help than that of the whole detective force in London." But Toby's worthiness does not mean that Watson's dog should be forgotten.
Let not the simplicity of the suggestion first made keep us from looking still further into the matter. This in spite of Occam's Razor - Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, the maxim that assumptions introduced to explain a thing must not be multiplied beyond necessity. Rather, let us follow the current trend and instead multiply our assumptions.
We will start with the premise that Watson's powers of observation are much to be questioned. How much reliance should be placed on the perceptions of a man who pursued a long career of making, in fact, false assumptions? How much confidence are we to have in a man who has been uncertain as to the location of his own wounds received in the Battle of Maiwand, or who appears to be uncertain of the number of his wives? Very little, judgement answers.
In view of this apparent weakness in Watson's powers of observation, the following evidence is presented, based on his own statements, revealing a startling ignorance of character and appearance:
Watson, referring to Tobias Gregson and Lestrade: "There will be some fun over this case if they are both put upon the scent," a canine reference in A Study in Scarlet. Yet, shortly thereafter, Watson refers to Lestrade as "lean and ferret-like as ever." He had earlier said of Lestrade, "There was one little, sallow, rat-faced, dark-eyed fellow who was introduced to me as Mr. Lestrade."
Adding to the confusion Lestrade himself says, "It's all very well for you to laugh, Mr. Sherlock Holmes. You may be very smart and clever, but the old hound is the best, when all is said and done."
Watson's questionable attitude is further illustrated in this comment, also in Study, referring to Holmes: " this amateur bloodhound carolled away like a lark ." The comparisons continue, with Watson saying, "Gregson, Lestrade and Holmes sprang upon him like so many staghounds."
In The Boscombe Valley Mystery, Watson refers to Lestrade as "a lean, ferret-like man."
In The Adventure of the Second Stain Watson says, "Lestrade's bulldog features gazed out at us."
In The Hound of the Baskervilles Watson states, referring to Lestrade, "The London express came roaring into the station, and a small, wiry bulldog of a man had sprung from a first-class carriage."
In The Cardboard Box Watson describes Lestrade thus: "As wiry, as dapper, and as ferret-like as ever."
In the same account, Holmes calls Lestrade "as tenacious as a bulldog."
In another context, in The Adventure of the Second Stain, Watson says, "If in telling the story I seem to be somewhat vague in certain details, the public will readily understand." Could there be a hint here that something occurred to impair Watson's facilities? Perhaps it happened in The Cardboard Box when Watson says, "Leaning back in my chair I fell into a brown study." We had not known there was a study in the Holmes-Watson quarters, let alone that it was decorated in brown. It must have been at a lower level if Watson could fall into it. Perhaps he meant something else; we can only surmise. Did he strike his head?