January 6th, 1854 is the birthday of detective character Sherlock Holmes, a date never mentioned nor have even been alluded to in the entire canon. However, there are a few reasons why January 6th is the date agreed upon amongst Sherlockians.

Christopher Morely, an American writer who established the organisation “The Baker Street Irregulars”, decided that since Sherlock Holmes quoted the Shakespeare play “Twelfth Night” a total of two times in the entire canon, that the twelfth day of Christmas would be his birthday. The logic being that if he quoted it twice then that means he loves that play, and that he loves it because it reminds him of his birthday. The reason he was born in 1854 comes from the story “His Last Bow”, a story set in 1914, where Sherlock Holmes, in disguise, was described to be “a tall, gaunt man of sixty.”

It is not lost amongst fans that these reasons are absolutely wild. If Sherlock Holmes was real, he would probably be disappointed (much like how he gets frustrated with Watson’s depiction of him in the stories). But this begs the question: why are we so obsessed with giving him a birthday when he’s not even real? Why do we find joy in pretending that this fictional character is a real person?

This attitude towards Sherlock Holmes has existed for as long as he has. It is common knowledge that Arthur Conan Doyle was met with criticism after the story “The Final Problem” in which Sherlock Holmes dies. The Strand Magazine (which the stories were published on) lost tens of thousands of subscribers, and the citizens of London supposedly staged funerals, protests, and organised groups to bring the detective back. To the people in 1893, Sherlock Holmes was already beloved as if he was a person.

He was also dissected as if he was a person. Within Sherlockian history, fans would participate in “the game” (also Sherlockian game, Holmesian game, or the great game) where fans analyse the character and story elements while pretending that Holmes and Watson were real people. Author Dorothy L. Sayers described the game, saying, “one could disintegrate a modern classic as speciously as a certain school of critics have endeavoured to disintegrate the Bible.” Some early papers participating in the game were Ronald Knox’s “Studies in the Literature of Sherlock Holmes” and Sydney Roberts’ “A Note on the Watson Problem”. I’ve been exposed to and participated in the game ever since I started interacting with the Sherlock Holmes canon, long before I knew there was a term for it, simply because it is essential within the discourse of Sherlock Holmes. Leslie Klinger’s “The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes” follows the events of the stories while correlating it to our real historical timeline. Vincent Starrett’s “The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes” details the “biography” of Sherlock Holmes, and the fictional character’s relationship with the real world. I was fascinated with the idea that Sherlock Holmes was simultaneously fictional and real, and wrote this when reading Starrett’s book:

“‘It was as if a god had been destroyed by treachery. So children mourn, perhaps, when Santa Claus is murdered by their elders’ (about the public’s reaction to Holmes’ death).

…It’s interesting how even when talking about Holmes’ death as a character, he is described as a real human being; it’s not “Doyle hated writing him”, but “Doyle hated him”. Starrett put it perfectly—at that moment, Holmes’ death would’ve been like when kids found out that Santa Claus wasn’t real, when people realize he’s simply a character that the author can decide to discard at any moment. But Starrett also acknowledges that Holmes is more than that, he is beyond a fictional character. Doyle, without realizing, has lost control over this character that he has created. It doesn’t belong just to him anymore. This writer is no longer the god of his creation, instead Holmes is the god and Doyle only brings upon the treachery…”

With the existence of online fandoms, this sort of behaviour is no longer novel. Wherever you go, you’re bound to see fans consuming and analysing media as if the characters were real. However, we may give credit to Sherlock Holmes for being a pioneer in this phenomenon. Even within modern fandoms, terms like “Doylist” and “Watsonian” can be used in media analysis to describe the way the analysis is being done.

And though it’s been 98 years since the last Sherlock Holmes story was published, he lives on through countless modern adaptations. The newest being the audio drama podcast “Sherlock & Co.”, where Holmes lives as a contemporary man. He lives on my screen once a year as RDJ from the Guy Ritchie movies, and he lives as a doctor as I’m watching House.

Like Starrett beautifully puts: “but there can be no grave for Sherlock Holmes or Doctor Watson…Shall they not always live in Baker Street? Are they not there this moment, as one writes?…Outside, the hansoms rattle through the rain, and Moriarty plans his latest devilry. Within, the sea coal flames upon the hearth and Holmes and Watson take their well-won ease…So they still live for all that love them well: in a romantic chamber of the heart, in a nostalgic country of the mind, where it is always 1895.” Happy Birthday Sherlock Holmes.