The Jewish Sherlock Holmes
Leil Leibowitz writing in the 9/27/12 posting of Tablet Magazine linked above, subtitles her article: The world’s most famous detective, returning to TV tonight, is the embodiment of the non-Jewish Jew.
The non-Jewish Jew. What can that possibly mean in the psychological sense? It seems to mean that when Jews cannot top the Aryan they attempt to subsume him into the tribe. Hence we have this remarkable passage closing Leil’s piece, and a nice piece it is too: Italics mine.
Still, how to reconcile Holmes’ mind- the likes of which have been cultivated in yeshivas for centuries- with the rest of the persona, a bohemian freak who keeps his tobacco in his slipper and shoots at the walls for pleasure? One way would be to see him as a non-Jewish Jew. In his masterpiece, The Jewish Century, historian Yuri Slezkine argues that such non-Jews- think Deutscher, himself, or, more notably, Freud and Marx- were the paragons of modernity, representing a new way of being in the world that ushered in the age of cosmopolitan globalism.
This, Slezkine argues, was because humanity, roughly speaking, comes in two shades [us and them]: The Apollonians who are rural folk who till the soil and live off the land, and the Mercurians, who do not. The latter Slezkine wrote, are “urban, mobile, literate, articulate, intellecually intricate, physically fastidious, and occupationally flexible.” They are, in other words, Jewish. Put differently they are Sherlock Holmes. They don’t announce their ethnic and religious identity; they simply embody it.
Let’s try to untangle that stunning paragraph.
In the first place Sherlock Holmes did not exist while Deutscher, Freud and Marx were corporeal; that is they had living physical existence contra Holmes who was a psychological projection. Holmes like Yahveh, the old pastoral god, now apparently dead, replaced by Holmes, were psychological projections of their creators; in other words, phantoms of the mind, dream figures, wishful thinking.
According to Leil, Holmes stands as an ideal representation of the Jewish persona while his creation was an incredibly tautological impossiblity as a non-Jewish Jew.
While Holmes was not Jewish actually Deutscher, Marx and Freud were so that they can hardly be termed non-Jewish Jews as they were steeped, raised in the Jewish ethnicity, religion and culture. None of the three can be understood outside a Jewish context as, when the need arises Jews will claim.
Despite Holmes astonishing mental acuity, reminiscent of the ‘Jewish’ namesake, Edgar Allan Poe’s Dupin, who had real mental acuity that made Holmes look like an amateur, he can be described as a ‘bohemian freak’, sort of a Shel Silverstein dancing at the Freaker’s Ball from across the racial divide. Apparently Leil is one of the ‘lace curtain’ Jews, to borrow an Irish term.
Apollo and Mercury are closely related having many if not most of the same attributes, as Mercury or Hermes in the Greek original preceded Apollo in creation, so Leil’s example leaves me somewhat mystified. Nevertheless Leil pictures her Apollonians as dull clods, still inaccurately mythologically, beneath contempt while the Jewish Mercurian or Hermetics are bright and perky. Thus, not only is she appropriating a non Jew, that is an Aryan, as a Jew she is appropriating non-Jewish Aryan mythology as somehow Jewish.
It seems clear that the ‘revamping of pop culture’s most iconic detective, in the the new TV series will be to cast him in a Jewish new age globalist direction with a female Chinese Dr. Watson. Holmes is appropriately moved from London to the Jewish capitol of the world, New York City.
If the above picture of a reclining figure is that of the new Holmes then we do have a Jewish Jew cast as the non-Jewish JewBrilliant Mind. But then, while Holmes cannot in any way be construed as a Talmudic scholar nevertheless his method may be described as the Jewish game of pilpul according to Leil. Not only that but Jewish Talmudic scholars have been using the same mehtod for, oh, thousands of years. I hope I’m not being snide but as the Jews picked up their learning from the Babylonians during their sojourn in that New York City of the ancients it looks like the ‘Talmudic method’ may be older still while possibly acquired from the Aryan heritage. As Leil knows Aryans preceded Jews in history. There were no Jews when the Aryan Prometheus was bound to his rock.
Leil says that in this reconsideration of Holmes ‘we may just discover a yarmulka peeping from underneath the famed deerstalker.’ She then continues quite accurately: This, on the surface, is a ridiculous statement, one that smacks of the cheapest kind of chauvinism.
Not alone on the surface, Leil, but under the deerstalker as well. And yes, your article was of the cheapest sort of chauvinism. Who’s next? Tarzan of the Jewish Apes?