Monthly Meeting Minutes - 28th April 2022

Date of Meeting: 28th April 2022

Location of Meeting:

The Sherloft, My House, Portsmouth, UK

 

Attendees:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller)

 

Apologies:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) smelt apologetic

  

Motions:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) moved that we shouldn't do that sort of thing anymore. "The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) apologised and said he didn't know anyone was looking.

 

Toast:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) toasted Sherlock Holmes's legs:

 Sherlock Holmes had two legs -

One on either side.

They had the skin wrapped around them

And gooey bits inside.

They bridged the gap between his waist

And his little feet

Both of them bent at the knees

And he used them once a week.

 

Presentation:

"The Entire Canon" (Paul Thomas Miller) presented the following far too long paper about Holmes's religion: 

Was Sherlock Holmes a Pastafarian?

By Paul Thomas Miller

Foreword and Terms Defined

Pastafaianism, FSMism and The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are all terms referring to a religion which has been emerging from the shadows ever since the prophet Bobby Henderson came forward in 2005. In short, Pastafarians believe that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) and it was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. They feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him. I am not, here, going to delve into an in depth discussion of the history and beliefs of FSMism, but encourage the reader to look them up for themselves: https://www.spaghettimonster.org/

FSMism has two holy books – The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Loose Canon. For references to The Gospel, I will state GOSPEL and the page number on which extracts may be found in the HarperCollins 2006 edition. The Loose Canon is available for free to download online - https://www.spaghettimonster.org/2010/07/the-loose-canon/ - and is split into chapters and verses in much the same way as the Christian Bible. References to passages from this book will be given in such a format.

Equally, a chapter and verse version of the Holmesian Canon is available and references to this will be given in such a format too. This version is available for free here: https://chapterandverseholmes.co.uk/

Due to there being two “Canons” involved in this essay there is need to avoid confusion. When referring to the texts relating to Sherlock Holmes, I will use the term “Holmesian Canon”. When referring to the second holy book of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I will use the term “Loose Canon”.

 

Introduction

Several other Holmesians have attempted to answer the question of whether Holmes had a religious faith and if so what it was (for example “The Theology of Sherlock Holmes”, Wayne Wall, BSJ V29N3). I have found all of their arguments and conclusions unconvincing, so I decided to have a go myself. As a kicking off place, I began by considering the number of mentions of religions in the Holmesian Canon. The results were not tremendously convincing.  The religion most mentioned was “Mormonism” or “Mormons”, which came up twenty-two times – although never in a very flattering way, so we may safely reject this particular candidate. “Christ”, “Christmas” and “Christians” get a total of twenty mentions. This is far more than the two mentions of “Mohammedans”, three of “Hindoos”, three of “Buddha” or “Buddhism”, two of “Voodoo” and six of “Jews” or “Hebrew”. The count, then, seems to suggest Holmes may have been a Christian. But let us consider this more closely. Take this extract from the Holmesian Canon where Watson is suggesting a book which both Holmes and Porlock (a Moriarty henchman) may own:

“The Bible!” I cried triumphantly.

“Good, Watson, good! But not, if I may say so, quite good enough! Even if I accepted the compliment for myself I could hardly name any volume which would be less likely to lie at the elbow of one of Moriarty's associates. (VALL 1:143-146)

This seems to suggest that Holmes did not own a Bible. Which would be unusual for a genuine Christian. Next, consider this moment from the beginning of The Devil’s Foot:

The vicar of the parish, Mr. Roundhay, was something of an archaeologist, and as such Holmes had made his acquaintance. (DEVI 1:28)

It is clear that the only reason Holmes made the vicar’s acquaintance was through a shared interest in archaeology. Otherwise, it seems, Watson should expect them to not meet. So Holmes can’t have been a churchgoer. Finally, we see his attitude to the Christian Devil in The Hound of the Baskervilles:

“But surely, if your supernatural theory be correct, it could work the young man evil in London as easily as in Devonshire. A devil with merely local powers like a parish vestry would be too inconceivable a thing.”

“You put the matter more flippantly, Mr. Holmes, than you would probably do if you were brought into personal contact with these things. (HOUN 3:111-113)

Dr. Mortimer chastises Holmes’s flippant attitude towards Satan, but what could be more natural for a man who does not believe Satan exists. Cumulatively, the evidence makes it very unlikely that Holmes could have been a Christian. But if this is the case, what are we to make of his behaviour at university:

Trevor was the only man I knew, and that only through the accident of his bull terrier freezing on to my ankle one morning as I went down to chapel. (GLOR 1:22)

This seems to indicate that Holmes did attend church, contrary to my observation above. But I would be far from the first to discuss the problem of a dog on campus. Dogs weren’t allowed on either campus of Oxford or Cambridge (most scholars agree Holmes would have attended one of these two universities), so how did Holmes encounter one on his way to chapel? All manner of convoluted theories have been put forward to account for this, but a much simpler one is available. Is not a more likely scenario that he was attending a chapel off campus? Something other than the Christian ones on campus? But where should we look for clues as to which religion’s chapel he was on his way to?

We do known something of Holmes’s attitude toward religion in general:

“There is nothing in which deduction is so necessary as in religion,” said he, leaning with his back against the shutters. “It can be built up as an exact science by the reasoner. Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. 337Its smell and its color are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers.” (NAVA 1:322-338)

This attempt to use logical induction in the pursuit of theological certainties has, to my knowledge, only been attempted by one religion – The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Indeed Holmes’s argument above is remarkably like a passage in GOSPEL page 23 which makes a similar argument about different dog breeds being provided by FSM to serve different specific purposes and, further, whether any other theories could really explain the platypus. And the teleological argument put forth on GOSPEL page 170 is an entirely deductive one, such as Holmes sought.

It is this scientific approach to religion which leads me to consider whether Holmes may have been a member of The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster – a creed which, while at odds with science, also takes pains to provide scientific proof of its truth. The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is littered with discussions of science and superscience and their connection with Pastafarianism. Indeed, pages 163 through 211 are dedicated to mathematical, theologerbraic and scientific proofs of FSMism.

Going back to the search for mentions of religion in Holmes’s texts we see a startling amount of FSMism indicators. Certainly, there is no mention of pasta, spaghetti or noodles in the Holmesian Canon, but this is not surprising given how secretive the Church has been up until recent years. However, “meat” gets five mentions and “balls” get thirteen. “Monster” achieves ten mentions and “flying” racks up nineteen appearances. This makes a total of forty-seven mentions of FSM, more than double any other religion.

(In the interests of transparency, it should be noted that “God” gets one-hundred and fifteen mentions in the Holmesian Canon. But this proves very little as there is no way of knowing which God was being referred to – Jehovah, Jupiter, Jah or whatever.)

We should not take any lack of the Holmesian Canon directly mentioning Holmes being a Pastafarian as indicative of whether he was or was not. Before 2005 Pastafarians were very secretive about their beliefs, and with good reason:

The commonly propagated myth that Pirates were thieves can be traced, unsurprisingly, to the Christian theologists of the Middle Ages. It’s Just another example of the discrimination and misinformation that we’ve had to contend with over the years, and another reason Pastafarians have been so secretive about their beliefs. (GOSPEL page 70-71)

If Holmes were a Pastafarian it would never have been explicitly stated in the text. But if he wanted to drop hints to others of his creed, we would be much more likely to find Watson leaving hidden clues scattered through his accounts. And I have found plenty of such examples. Consider the traditional depiction of FSM – a mass of spaghetti with two eye stalks and multiple noodle appendages surrounding precisely two meat balls:

The Spaghetti took with it two meatballs, and grew googly eyestalks. (FPP-PETE 3:10)

Now consider this extract from The Valley of Fear and ask yourself if it is not an example of Watson hinting at a hidden truth. It is certainly a queer turn of phrase to use otherwise:

Menzies, the Scotchman, gave a roar of rage at the sight and rushed with an iron spanner at the murderers; but was met by two balls in the face which dropped him dead at their very feet. (VALL 12:170, my emphasis)

And when we consider this passage from The Loose Canon:

He has chosen, in His Holy Sauced Wisdom, to reveal only these certain truths: that after the Earth itself, came mountains, trees and a midgit/midget (but not necessarily in that order), and that thereafter He took three days off, Friday being the Holiest among them. (2ANC 4)

is it not apparent that in The Sign of the Four Watson was making allusions to the FSM creation story when he mentioned these three creations: mountains, trees and a midget, all in the form of one man - Thaddeus Sholto:

A blaze of yellow light streamed out upon us, and in the centre of the glare there stood a small man with a very high head, a bristle of red hair all round the fringe of it, and a bald, shining scalp which shot out from among it like a mountain-peak from fir-trees. (SIGN 4:2, my emphasises)

In The Book of Midgets/Midgits in The Loose Canon, we frequently see the midgets/midgits exclaiming “Bork Bork Bork!” Can there be any doubt that this is what Watson was referencing when he pseudonymed the German spy “Von Bork” in His Last Bow?

Finally, compare this section of The Random Number of Not Commandments, Suggestions in The Loose Canon to Holmes’s treatment of Grimesby Roylott in the Speckled Band when Roylott burst into the 221b sitting room uninvited:

Thou shalt be amused rather than angered by the words and deeds of idiots; for I am thy Noodly Lord and I have created idiots solely for entertainment purposes, Mine first and thine likewise. (SUG 13)

Holmes chuckled heartily. “Your conversation is most entertaining,” said he. “When you go out close the door, for there is a decided draught.” (SPEC 1:261-263)

The evidence seems to keep piling up. My hypothesis, then, is this: Sherlock Holmes was a Pastafarian.

 

Why Would Pastafarianism Appeal To Holmes?

As I’ve already stated above, Holmes would have first been drawn to FSMism by it’s scientific, deductive and logical explanations for its beliefs. But what might have induced him to take it further?

For starters both Holmes and FSMism exhibit a dislike of moral absolutes. For the FSM’s part, consider what He said to Pirate Mosey:

“I’m all for flimsy moral standards.” (PIR 4:4)

The Gospel and The Loose Canon time and again refer to the rejection of dogma. Rather than a list of moral absolutes (or “Commandments”) The Gospel provides The Eight “I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” (page 99- 101) and The Loose Canon provides The Random Number of Not Commandments, Suggestions (SUG). In both cases this is in recognition that no strict rule-set can be applicable in all situations and that, moreover, we already know what is right and wrong without needing an authority figure’s threats to encourage us to act appropriately. As The Loose Canon so rightly says:

“And he shall not follow any dogma, for that only causes problems. If he feels my rules are bad, he may choose to ignore them. I’m cool with that.” (PIR 11:3)

Dost thou really need these carved into a rock? (SUG 2)

Holmes understands this rejection of moral absolutes only too well. In his pursuit of justice he repeatedly rejects the dogma of British Law, insisting that greater justice may be done by following his heart instead:

“I have learned caution now, and I had rather play tricks with the law of England than with my own conscience.” (ABBE 1:432)

To give just a few examples, Holmes helps the killer of Charles Augustus Milverton escape (CHAS) and lets off the thieves who stole the Blue Carbuncle (BLUE). Indeed, he engages in illegal activities himself on several occasions – breaking into the homes of Hugo Oberstein and Charles Augustus Milverton for example. Each of these transgressions of law is taken because he believes the right thing to do is contrary to the contemporary prevalent dogmas.

Another factor of FSMism which may have appealed to Holmes would be its value system. Through parable, The Loose Canon details five characteristics which FSM believes are important to keep in mind (FPP-BOB 1:1-6:24). These are Compassion, Trustworthiness, Avoiding Prejudice, Humbleness and Loyalty. For all five there is evidence in the Holmesian Canon demonstrating that Holmes shared FSM’s respect for these qualities.

1. Compassion. Holmes repeatedly shows compassion towards the vulnerable in the Holmesian Canon. As with Helen Stoner:

“You must not fear,” said he soothingly, bending forward and patting her forearm. “We shall soon set matters right, I have no doubt.” (SPEC 1:34-35)

2. Trustworthiness. That Holmes endeavoured to be trustworthy is borne out by the delicate cases which were brought to him by others. Consider, for example, the King of Bohemia’s opinion which he expressed to Holmes:

“Your recent services to one of the royal houses of Europe have shown that you are one who may safely be trusted with matters which are of an importance which can hardly be exaggerated. This account of you we have from all quarters received.” (SCAN 1:73-74)

3. Avoiding Prejudice. Holmes knows well the value of rejecting prejudice. He makes a point of rejecting it in his cases and his assessments of people.

“Now, I make a point of never having any prejudices, and of following docilely wherever fact may lead me…” (REIG 1:359)

“I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money, and the most repellent man of my acquaintance is a philanthropist who has spent nearly a quarter of a million upon the London poor.” (SIGN 2:122)

4. Humbleness. With Holmes, humbleness is displayed in his adherence to fact. He neither boasts, nor talks himself down:

“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.” (GREE 1:18-19)

5. Loyalty. Perhaps the greatest example of Holmes exhibiting loyalty is found towards the end of The Three Garridebs when Watson is grazed by a bullet:

It was worth a wound—it was worth many wounds—to know the depth of loyalty and love which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain. All my years of humble but single-minded service culminated in that moment of revelation. (3GAR 1:439-442)

Finally, I suspect that the element of contradiction in the Pastafarian texts may have also appealed to Holmes. In most Pastafarian literature, you will find an acknowledgement and acceptance of these contradictions:

“In my opinion, the texts of the Canon should never be altered or eliminated, however, any text, no matter how contradictory, can be canonized. Even this first edition has texts that contradict each other and even the Gospel of the FSM” (3ANC 11-12)

“As with all religious texts,” pointed out Dee Dee the First, “this one is confusing and obscure, with inherent contradictions, for it is the inspired and gathered lore of a religious people over time.” (PVH 1:50)

Holmes too, had a propensity for contradiction. For example, between the years 1891 and 1894 Holmes was exploring Tibet, Persia, Mecca, Khartoum and Southern France having faked his own death in Switzerland (EMPT 1:179-182). However, while playing dead and being thoroughly abroad he also popped up in Esher to solve a crime in 1892 (WIST). This is by no means the only example of contradiction in the Holmesian Canon which Holmes appears to have no difficulty acknowledging and accepting.

 

How does Holmes measure up as a Pastafarian?

If we are to compare Holmes’s behaviour to that we can expect of a Pastafarian, we should first consider Watson’s early impressions of Holmes, given in his famous list of Holmes’s limits (STUD 2:56-72). Most of the points Watson mentioned can be seen to be representative of the Pastafarian faith documented in The Loose Canon.

 

Knowledge of Literature.—Nil. (STUD 2:56)

The word “Literature” does not appear once in the entire Loose Canon showing that Holmes and FSMism both exhibit similar interest in literature.

 

Philosophy.—Nil. (STUD 2:57)

Traditional philosophy is rejected by both Holmes and FSMism:

[the Dark Lord Darwin] corrupts [students] with reason and evidence, tricking them into thinking the myth of evolution true and causing them to choose Science and Philosophy over our holy and delicious teachings. (SOTM 15)

 

Astronomy.—Nil. (STUD 2:58)

As in revealed by FSM, Holmes recognises that the earth, the moon and the stars are transitory and unimportant:

The fourth Holy Pirate sounded his trumpet and a third of the earth the moon and the stars became nothing. (1REV 4:5)

 

Politics.—Feeble. (STUD 2:59)

Holmes’s feeble knowledge of politics reflects a Pastafarian understanding of the damned nature of politicians:

“There is a reservation [in HellLight] for the tricksters, the con-men, the corrupt, unrepentant politicians…” (FAQ 51)

 

Botany.—Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening. (STUD 2:60-62)

Holmes recognises the importance of some knowledge of poisons, as do Pastafarians:

In the split of a second, in the instant of an eye, the food of the evil one poisoned him and he perished. (1REV 11:29)

 

Geology.—Practical, but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. 65After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them. (STUD 2:63-63)

Holmes seems only to be interested in geology as far as it assists him in his work. Similarly, proper geology is not trusted in FSMism as it is believed that FSM has messed with the Earth to produce an effect contrary to reality for His own amusement:

All those fossil layers put there just to trick us. (PTRN 3:5)

 

Chemistry.—Profound. (STUD 2:66)

This may seem an unlikely skill for a Pastafarian, as generally FSMism is very suspicious of science. But if you really look into it, is chemistry a proper science? Chemistry – with all its mixing and heating - could more accurately be described as a type of cookery – an act clearly considered holy within Pastafarianism:

And their prize trade possession was Olive Oil and an ever expanding range of pasta sauces. (MID 4:5)

 

Anatomy.—Accurate, but unsystematic. (STUD 2:67)

It stands to reason that a follower of a faith with a Stripper Factory in Heaven would have some knowledge of anatomy and that this knowledge may well be unsystematic:

Yes, the Beer Volcano and Stripper Factory of Heaven await thee… (SOL 80)

 

Sensational Literature.—Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century. (STUD 2:68-69)

This has very little to do with Pastafarianism and no doubt represents only the professional part of Holmes’s life.

 

Plays the violin well. (STUD 2:70)

The connections between the violin and ravioli are self-evident, as is the connection between ravioli and Pastafarianism. Clearly, when choosing an instrument to learn, a Pastafarian would chose the most Holy instrument of his faith which happens to be the one Holmes chose too.

 

Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman. (STUD 2:71)

Holmes’s sporting interests here seem to match up with those of the FSM faith. With Pastafarianism’s highly piratical nature, it is unsurprising that a Pastafarian would teach themselves the useful pillaging arts of combat – especially swordsmanship. Although note should be made that Pastafarian pirates are discouraged from using physical force – for example:

No good pirate should brandish thine cutlass, or thine hook, or thine peg, nor any manner of implementation bestowed unto him by Him, nor act in such a way with malice aforethought to thine fellow creatures, which are all part of His magical, delicious, plan, for, in so doing, thine treat thine fellow creatures contrary to His magical, delicious, plan; unless yee be acting to prevent some greater evil that is exceedingly hostile to His plan, or, if the consumption of strong drink has rendered yee unaccountable unto Him for thine acts and thou hast felt the greatest of sorrow for thine transgressions against Him. (GDLNS 1:5)

 

Has a good practical knowledge of British law. (STUD 2:72)

As with “Sensational Literature” we cannot expect Holmes’s interests to solely revolve around his faith – his work features in this list too – hence knowledge of British law which is entirely unimportant to the Pastafarian church.

 

Moving on from Watson’s list, we also know that Holmes was a big fan of science – not just the chemistry which Watson noted, but the scientific method in general. Holmes describes himself as a “scientific detective” (SIGN 1:90) and Watson twice titles chapters of his books “The Science Of Deduction” (STUD and SIGN). Indeed, before introducing Watson and Holmes, Stamford is clear on this point:

He is a little queer in his ideas—an enthusiast in some branches of science. (STUD 1:40)

All of this may seem contrary to Pastafarianism – which is known for being suspicious of science. However, FSMism’s relationship with science is a lot more complicated than this simple statement. If you look at the church’s propaganda leaflets you will almost always find a section boasting about the “Scientific Proof” of FSMism. Indeed, a whole section of The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is dedicated to such proofs. As mentioned above, pages 163 to 211 are dedicated to the “Enlightenment Institute” – mathematical and scientific proofs of the truth of FSM. In this regard, Holmes’s dual scientific yet questioning nature is entirely consistent with FSMism.

Another often remarked quality of Holmes was his attitude to class boundaries:

So unworldly was he—or so capricious—that he frequently refused his help to the powerful and wealthy where the problem made no appeal to his sympathies, while he would devote weeks of most intense application to the affairs of some humble client whose case presented those strange and dramatic qualities which appealed to his imagination and challenged his ingenuity. (BLAC 1:4)

He is as at home assisting the more wretched members of Victorian society (e.g. Shinwell Johnson and Kitty Winter in ILLU) as he is scornful of the rich and obnoxious (e.g. Neil Gibson in THOR). He offers the poor street urchins of his local area honest work in the form of his famous Baker Street Irregulars – young strays who he pays for their assistance in his investigations. In short, Holmes is not a snob. Rather he is a charitable person who sees all humans as equal. This is a typically Pastafarian attitude:

“As you treat the least of the midgets, so you treat Him.” (PVH 3:20)

Moving on, WWAPD is a section of the GOSPEL which starts at page 85. The initials stand for What Would A Pirate Do and they represent an advised FSMism approach to dealing with life’s difficulties. The seven parts of this process are given in detail and it is not surprising to find that Holmes’s approach to setting himself up as a consulting detective closely follows the method (with one or two Victorian twists). I shall discuss each step in turn:

1. A pirate would drink some grog.

Holmes’s intoxication of choice was somewhat stronger than grog. The opening passage of SIGN details Watson’s frustration with Holmes’s use of morphine and cocaine. But Holmes was by no means a tea-totaller either: whisky and soda pops up in REDH and NOBL, Tokay in LAST and brandy in REIG to name just a few examples. While not strictly “grog”, these are sufficient lubrication-for-the-mind to be a reasonable alternative for a Londoner of his era.

2. A pirate would obtain a parrot.

This, FSMism tells us, is for their ability to repeat making them a valuable note keeper. The Gospel accepts that these days a PC or diary might serve the same function in a push, but regrets that they aren’t as much fun. Holmes found a unique solution – he found a Watson.

3. Find ye a band of marauders.

A great Pastafarian needs a great team. And Holmes was by no means the lover of solitude that Watson sometimes claimed him to be (e.g. FIVE 1:295). Besides Watson, his “band of marauders” included the Baker Street Irregulars, Mrs. Hudson, Lestrade, Gregson, Porlock, Shinwell Johnson, Langdale Pike, Stamford, Billy the page and Mercer.

4. If you can’t steal one, build yar ship.

Having chosen a career which would base him on land, this part of the WWAPD method does not apply so strongly to Holmes. Certainly, he enjoyed his high speed chase on a police steam launch in SIGN, but Holmes’s “ship” of choice was more often the Hansom cab, which could sail with ease through the sea of London streets.

5. Find thee a wench!

As Watson made clear at the start of SCAN, Holmes was never going to be one to get himself a wench:

He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. (SCAN 1:6)

All that Holmes required for companionship he found for many years in his closest friendships (e.g. Victor Trevor, John H. Watson and Harold Stackhurst) and this was sufficient to content him. With FSMism’s rejection of dogma, there is no theological difficulty here with Holmes substituting friends for lovers.

6. When in doubt, plunder!!

The Gospel states here that “The only way to avoid inaction is to take action,” and encourages Pastafarians to get out and have adventures. Certainly the Holmesian Canon provides us with sixty clear examples of Holmes doing exactly that and hints at many more which remain unrecorded.

7. Arrrgh!!!

This, I believe is self-explanatory. Holmes could not be more Argggh!!! If he tried.

 

Finally, we can make some deductions about Holmes’s adherence to Pastafarianism based upon the way he dressed. It is stated in the Pastafarian Gospel and Loose Canon that adherents should wear pirate regalia – the Holy garb of FSMism:

…His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. (BOBBY 26)

So it may seem negatively indicative that Holmes is never reported to wear a pirate hat, sash or peg leg. However, the acceptance that wearing full pirate regalia in public is difficult for modern Pastafarians was acknowledged  by FSM in AGREE 1-11. Further, while the pirate hat is the headgear still promoted by stricter Pastafarians, the colander has become the choice of less orthodox believers. Indeed, as early as PEN 2:7 the Pastafarian prophet Penelope is described as having a “Holy Colander on her head”.

Holmes was certainly not an orthodox individual – Watson insists that he was in possession of a “Bohemian soul” (SCAN 1:14) and “Bohemian habits” (ENGR 1:6) so the colander is probably the head-gear he would favour over the orthodox pirate hat. As is well known, it is due to an illustrator’s interpretation of the text that Holmes is closely associated with the deerstalker, but is it not possible that when Watson spoke of an “ear-flapped travelling-cap” (SILV 1:17) he was much more likely to be referring to Holmes’s religious garb – the collandeerstalker. While there are no collandeerstalker’s available to buy today, I have managed to produce a rough version of this head gear as a sort of proof-of-concept:

Conclusion

In conclusion, I find the evidence overwhelming that Sherlock Holmes was a closeted Pastafarian and had definitely been touched by His noodle appendage. That said, we should bear in mind that this might all be “False Evidence which has been placed by the Flying Spaghetti Monster as part of some Obscure Plan of which only He has Apprehension,” (SEM PREFACE).

Any Other Business:

I hope not. That went on far too long.