Sherlock Holmes was reading The Times whilst I, his
companion Dr Watson, was reading The Telegraph.
Breakfast had been over for
approximately an hour and Mrs Hudson had long ago cleared away the table, leaving
us with our coffees. At some point we
intended to exchange newspapers.
We were two gentleman at leisure, enjoying the fact they
both had nothing, in particular, to do.
That was until our landlady, Mrs Hudson, knocked on the
door, opened it, stepping into the room.
“Excuse me Mr Holmes, but there is a
gentleman who wishes to see you, if, as he said, ‘you could spare him a moment
of your time’?”
Holmes quickly folded his paper up and thrust it down the
side of his chair. “Is he an interesting looking gentleman, Mrs Husdon?”
She nodded, a slight smile on her face. “Oh, yes, Sir. He is
that! He gave me his calling card.”
Holmes accepted the proffered card and said: “Good Lord,
Watson! We are being visited by no other luminary than Isambard Kingdom Brunel,
the famed railway and civil engineer! Mrs Hudson, please ask our esteemed
visitor to join us and offer him whatever refreshments he may wish to partake
of!”
When our visitor was shown into the room, we greeted him,
warmly. When he took off his top hat we were surprised by the extraordinary
height of it, we quickly realised this was to provide the trompe l'oeil effect
of making the owner of the hat appear taller than he was. His height, we
adjudged, to be just a shade over 5 feet.
Both of us being urbane gentlemen of the modern era, the
height of Victorian sensibilities, we dealt with his extraordinary shortness by
the simple expediency of ignoring it.
“Mr Brunel, it’s a great honour to welcome such an
illustrious engineer to my home. What service might we be able to render to
you?”
“Mr Holmes, on behalf of the Great Western Railway I am
constructing the Box Tunnel which will pass through Box Hill on the Great
Western Main Line between Bath and Chippenham.
“The railway tunnel will be 1.83 miles long. It will be of
straight construction and descends on a 1 in 100 gradient from its eastern end.
“The problem I face is Professor Dionysius Lardner. He is
approaching the Parliamentary Hearings and he proposes to criticise my design
for the tunnel. He will claim that, according to his calculations, should the
brakes of a train fail in the tunnel, it would eventually accelerate to a speed
in excess of 120 mph and cause the train to fly into pieces killing train crew
and passengers.”
Holmes looked thoughtful. “I presume this is untrue, Mr
Brunel?”
“As far as I am aware it is certainly untrue. However,
Professor Lardner has created something of a reputation for himself as an
expert on railway matters. I am wondering why he is making this claim?”
Holmes was thinking. “Is it possible a rival has employed Professor Lardner to attempt to disrupt your railway project?”
“That’s possible,” said Brunel. “But I can’t think of anyone
who would do such a thing.”
“Do you have his mathematical workings, Mr Brunel?”
“Yes, Mr Holmes. I have a copy here for you.” He took some
papers out of a leather bag of the type common to Victorian Doctors.
The papers were covered in mathematical calculations. “Can
you understand these calculations, Mr Homes?” asked Brunel.
“I cannot, I am afraid. However, I do know a fellow who can
understand them. I promise that I will quickly get to the bottom of this matter
for you. How may I get in contact with you, Mr Brunel?”
“Whilst in London I stay at the Diogenes Club. Do you know it?”
Holmes smiled “Yes, indeed I do. It was co-founded by my
brother Mycroft, so I am fully away of that club and I know where it is.”
After discussing terms of payment (which they swiftly agreed
on) Brunel left, heading back to the club.
“Watson, what do you know of Professor Dionysius Lardner?”
“Let us look in our file of press cuttings and information
files.”
I was swiftly able to locate the information that we required.
“Professor Dionysius Lardner FRS FRSE is an Irish born
scientific writer who is something of a polymath genius, he popularises scientific
matters for the general public and is the editor of the 133-volume Cabinet
Cyclopædia.
“He has also published books on steam railways with James
Renwick. The Steam Engine Explained and
Illustrated: With an Account of Its Invention and Progressive Improvement, and
Its Application to Navigation and Railways; Including Also a Memoir of Watt. Also, Popular Lectures on the Steam Engine, in which Its Construction and
Operation are Familiarly Explained: With an Historical Sketch of Its Inventions
and Progressive Improvement, with James Renwick.”
“So he is, or likes to appear to be seen as something of an
expert on steam railways. If that is the case, why is he not working with
Brunel? I shall have to raise this point with Mr Brunel this afternoon.”
“Holmes, how will you validate the mathematical calculations
of Professor Lardner?”
“I shall approach the best mathematical mind of our
generation. Another professor, Professor James Moriarty.”
“Moriarty?” I gasped. “Please be careful, Holmes!”
“Oh, you have no need to worry. As you will recall Moriarty
is now safely ensconced at Her Majesty’s Pleasure, having been placed there by
our good friend Lestrade. I have nothing
to fear from Moriarty.”
“Do you think he will help you, Holmes?”
“Oh, I am quite certain that he will. This will appeal to
his vanity and also because I fully intend to sweeten the cake by offering to
speak up for him at his sentencing. If he is willing to help me, that is.”
“What can I do, Holmes?” I asked.
“Watson, you can be of invaluable assistance by visiting the
British Library for me today and undertaking some detailed research on
Professor Lardner. I intend to speak with Brunel at his club to see what else I
can glean from him on the gentleman in question.”
Certain aspects of the following are recreated from my
conversations with Holmes.
Later that afternoon Holmes was enjoying a drink with Brunel
at The Diogenes Club. “Please explain to me, Mr Brunel, why it is that
Professor Lardner has no involvement with the Great Western Railway? After all,
he has published several books on steam power, locomotives and railways and has
accrued to himself a certain reputation for expertise in the field?”
Brunel shook his head. “But is it a deserved reputation, Mr
Holmes? It is the opinion of many, and I find myself increasingly in that body
of men, that the real work on those books was that of James Renwick, and that
Professor Lardner merely added the icing to the cake, to coin a phrase, by
adding his name to it and writing some non-technical passages in the book.”
“So you believe that his expertise is more apparent than
genuine?”
Brunel nodded.
This gave Holmes food for thought.
That evening after our meal, we talked about our findings.
“So Professor Lardner is perhaps not as much of an expert as
one might presume?” I enquired.
Holmes nodded. He said: “What did you learn for me at the
British Library?”
“Holmes, in my research in the British Library I was able to
confirm that Professor Dionysius Lardner is an Irish born scientific writer who
is, as we established this morning, something of a polymath genius. Or he likes
to portray himself as such, in any case.
“He writes on many different scientific and mechanical
subjects and he popularises scientific matters for the general populace whilst
also acting as editor for the Cabinet Cyclopædia.
“Professor Lardner is, or so it seems, always ready with a
wide range of opinions on many scientific subjects and also some non-scientific
subjects, too.”
“Thank you, Watson. Your research will, I feel certain, help
us to establish exactly what game is afoot, at least concerning Professor
Lardner.”
The next morning, with the assistance of a note written by
his brother Mycroft, Holmes was granted an audience with Professor (or rather
ex Professor) Moriarty.
“My dear Holmes” said Moriarty in an unctuous manner. “What
brings me the dubious pleasure of your company?”
“The opportunity to offer assistance in a matter of the
construction of a major railway project and the opportunity to have a letter to
your sentencing judge pointing out how valuable your assistance was to this
case.”
“Are you here to see Moriarty the Napoleon of crime? Or in
another capacity?”
“I am here to see Professor James Moriarty one of, if not
the, leading mathematical minds of our generation.”
“Then I shall accept your kind offer. In what way can I help
you?”
Holmes swiftly outlined the problem and that Professor
Lardner was going to present his findings to the Commission. He passed the papers
to Moriarty.
Moriarty studied the calculations of Professor Lardner. He
made clucking noises and shook his head.
“Good Lord. So this is the work of the self-styled genius, the great Professor Dionysius
Lardner?”
“You know of him?” asked Holmes.
“Yes, I do. In my line of work it pays to know a great deal
about a large number of people. My informants have lead me to believe that
Professor Dionysius Lardner, whilst not exactly a mountebank, is certainly not
the genius that he likes to portray himself as.”
“Interesting” said Holmes. “How would you describe him?”
“Based on my informants I’d say that he is, to borrow a
recently minted phrase from our American cousins, a bloviating braggart, a hack
writer of articles of dubious value and of doubtful veracity.”
Holmes interrupted him. “Thank you for that potted biography
of the man. Have you had a chance to
study his mathematical calculations, Professor Moriarty?”
“I have Holmes. And I have to say that, under some utterly
unique circumstances his calculations would be valid. However, due to the fact
that he omitted some crucial components in his mathematics, his calculations
are utterly worthless.”
“I had hoped that might be the case, my dear fellow. But
mathematics is a foreign language to me, I am afraid. It is as if I can pick up
the odd word or phrase here and there, but that’s really all. What did he
omit?”
Professor Moriarty nodded. “He omitted two key components
from his calculations. He failed to take into account the effect of the air in
the tunnel causing wind resistance and he also failed to take into
consideration the resistance of the metal train wheels on the metal railway
lines.
“His calculations would only be valid if the train was
travelling in a perfect vacuum and was travelling upon a surface that had zero
resistance. Those are the two unique circumstances that I alluded to.
“Even with all our scientific advances, Holmes, we have yet
to be able to achieve such wonders as those. One day, perhaps we might. But not
at all in the immediate future.”
After chatting for a few more minutes, the two old
adversaries parted, if not as friends, certainly with a deeper understanding
one of the other.
Later that afternoon Homes rapidly write a letter to the
sentencing judge as he had promised Moriarty he would. A member of the Baker
Street Irregulars posted it in the post box in Baker Street.
I was absolutely astonished by what Holmes told me. “But
that’s disgraceful, Holmes! Utterly indefensible that Lardner could risk
damaging the work of Mr Brunel by using dubious and erroneous mathematical
calculations,” I said, aghast.
“Oh, I agree,” said Homes.
I spoke thoughtfully to Holmes: “Do we have any ideas as to
who might have employed Professor Lardner, Holmes?”
Holmes poured us both a glass of single malt Scotch (a
gift from a grateful client who was a Scots Laird) and splashed some water in
the glasses before he spoke.
“I have concluded that Professor Lardner is not in the
employment of anyone. I suspect that he was deeply unhappy about not obtaining
a paid position as a consultant with the Great Western Railway and that he
wished to try to damage the reputation of that company, but more so to sully
the reputation of Brunel.”
I said, somewhat dubiously, “Do you think he deliberately
omitted those parts of his calculations?”
“Having spoken further with Moriarty, I have concluded that
he did not leave those components out of his calculations on purpose. In fact
Moriarty was able to show to my satisfaction how and why Lardner made the
mistakes that he made. His calculations were sloppy and, because they appeared
to prove that Brunel was wrong, he failed to double check his arithmetic.
“There was no mysterious paymaster behind him, urging him to
prove that Brunel was wrong. I think he was driven by hubris.”
“Ah,” I nodded in response. “In the context of over
confident in one’s self, plus an excess of self-pride?”
“Precisely so,” beamed Holmes.
“That’s a singular difference between you and Lardner,
Holmes,” I opined.
“Oh?” Holmes was clearly intrigued. “Please tell me what you
have deduced, my old friend.”
“Holmes, you are an expert on a number of specific topics.
You are conversant in the law, in botany, geology and the like, have a deep
knowledge of Chemistry, know more than most medical students about anatomy and
you have a passable knowledge of medical matters.
“But on subjects of which you know nothing, such as
politics, literature and philosophy, you would readily and cheerily admit your
lack of knowledge. I doubt that poor Lardner could do that. He would have to
play the part of the expert, even if his knowledge of a particular subject was
somewhat lacking, perhaps?”
Holmes raised a toast to me. “A capital statement on the
good professor! And I am sad to say that you are almost certainly correct in
your judgement of the man.
“I saw Brunel at his club this afternoon and I passed on the
findings of Professor Moriarty. Tomorrow poor Professor Lardner will give his
evidence to the Parliamentary hearings which are discussing the proposal of the
Great Western Railway. And Brunel will refute them. I almost feel sorry for the
fellow!”
Holmes lit his pipe and smoked contentedly.
The next day at the hearing Brunel took Professor Lardner to
task, pointing out that his calculations, whilst superficially correct, were
ultimately completely wrong because he had omitted to take into consideration
the twin factors of air-resistance and friction.
This was, Brunel told the hearing, a basic error that completely
negated Professor Lardner’s calculations.
Lardner should have been disgraced, but he took his
humiliation in his stride.
This was not the last time that Lardner’s calculations
proved fallible. Several years later he stated, with great certainty, that
steamships would be unable to carry adequate coals to make a crossing from
Britain to America, because, according to his calculations, this would be
impossible.
Three years after he made this Delphic prognostication,
whilst on one of our rare visits to America, Holmes and I were amused to see
that we were sharing the steamship with none other than Professor Lardner
himself, who was making the apparently impossible journey.
Holmes and I joked about approaching Lardner and questioning
him about this, another example of his errant calculations, but we decided to
restrain ourselves and did not do so.
After all, we were both urbane gentlemen of the modern era,
the height of Victorian sensibilities.
