Dumb Witness by Agatha Christie (1937)

‘They don’t understand – old people don’t… they can’t… They don’t know what it is to live!’
(young Theresa, Chapter 2)

‘Let me tell you that no matter is finished with until Hercule Poirot ceases to concern himself with it!’
(Poirot telling off Hastings, Chapter 6)

‘The dog hunts rabbits. Hercule Poirot hunts murderers.’
(Poirot to Hastings, Chapter 9)

‘If one is going to tell a lie at all, it might as well be an artistic lie, a romantic lie, a convincing lie!’
(Poirot justifying fibbing to the people he interviews, Chapter 10)

‘Always trouble after a death, anyway. A man or woman is hardly cold in their coffin before most of the mourners are scratching each other’s eyes out.’
(Miss Peabody, Chapter 10)

‘The various characters in our drama begin to emerge more clearly. In some ways it resembles, does it not, a novelette of olden days. The humble companion, once despised, is raised to affluence and now plays the part of lady bountiful.’
(Poirot acknowledging the hackneyed quality of many of Christie’s plots and characters, Chapter 12)

‘There is something in the depths there – yes, there is something! I swear it, by my faith as Hercule Poirot, I swear it!’
(The conviction that motivates the investigations of not only Poirot but the independent investigators in all her other murder mysteries, Chapter 18)

Dumb Witness

‘Dumb Witness’ is the 17th Hercule Poirot book, the 14th novel (given that the 17 include 2 books of short stories and a play). Interestingly, it is the last one to feature and, indeed be narrated by, his sidekick Captain Hastings, until the final Poirot novel, ‘Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case’ in 1975, a gap of nearly 40 years.

It’s notable because Hastings’s narrative only starts in Chapter 5, the first four chapter having been told by a third-party omniscient narrator, a combining of the two types of narrator which we had previously encountered in ‘The A.B.C. Murders’.

Christie was an restless experimenter not only with the form of her novels, but also the form of her murders. There is a relentless experimenting or playing with who the murderer turns out to be throughout the stories. The experiment in this one is having the murdered person dead and buried months before Poirot is even involved. So instead of being on the spot or arriving at the crime scene the next day, and interviewing everyone for a day or two before briskly revealing the murderer, this is more in the manner of a cold case, months old and, crucially, nobody thinks it was a murder. Everyone thinks an old lady passed away in a perfectly ordinary way, after a series of illnesses and accidents, and left her money to her companion. Bit odd, maybe, but nothing to see here, and the world has moved on.

So why does Poirot get involved or suspect anything untoward? Because, as in numerous previous novels, Poirot is roped in via a letter from the deceased. But the start of the mystery is that she, the deceased, Miss Emily Arundell, died in May and yet Poirot doesn’t receive the letter asking him to come and visit her till nearly two months later, 28 June – and the letter was dated 17 April. Hmm. Puzzling.

Setup

‘Dumb Witness’ is an amusing and entertaining portrait of the clash between the generations in the kind of traditional Victorian family which Christie herself grew up in.

In Miss Arundell’s day, women took second place. Men were the important members of society.

The old-fashioned character of 70-something Miss Arundell is persuasively, lovingly and entertainingly described. Miss Arundell is the doughty old representative of a grand family, the last survivor of five children to long-dead General Arundell, whose drunken binges were kept well hidden from the outside world.

The first four chapters describe her giving a house party for her three closest relatives: Charles and Theresa (brother and sister, children of Miss A’s brother Thomas) and Bella (daughter of Miss A’s sister, Arabella). In these opening scenes we learn how all three of them badly need the fortune Miss A is sitting on i.e. have plenty of motive to bump her off. In fact Charles freely admits telling her to her face that her tightness with money would lead to someone ‘bumping her off’.

These opening chapters are slow and detailed and entertaining and I was just starting to really like Miss Arundell’s character when the fifth chapter jumps us forward a couple of months to the June morning when Poirot opens the letter from her saying she is worried about a family affair and would like to consult him – except that, upon enquiring, Hastings and Poirot discover that Miss Arundell died a month ago, the will was read, she left her entire fortune to her lady companion, Miss Lawson (much to the anger of the three young relatives) and that the fine old Victorian house where the opening chapters are set, Littlegreen House, is up for sale.

If the fears Miss Arundell expressed in her letter to Poirot are justified, if someone was trying to murder her, if she was indeed murdered, then the case has not only gone completely cold but also nobody else, none of the authorities, even think a murder has been committed. Poirot has to first find the evidence that there even has been a murder, before he can think about trying to find the culprit.

All of which explains why I described it as being a characteristically interesting experiment in the form of the detective novel and the type of murder.

So, as you might expect, Poirot and Hastings head off to Market Basing, where they pretend to be interesting in buying the house in order to be given a tour by the servants (who have agreed to stay on and maintain it till it is sold), discreetly pumping them for information along the way. They then interview everyone they can find in the town, namely Miss Arundell’s contemporary, the acid-tongued Miss Peabody, staid young Dr Donaldson, and the two spiritualist sisters, Miss Julia and Miss Isabel Tripp, close friends of the companion who inherited Miss A’s fortune, Miss Minnie Lawson.

Then it’s back to London to interview the younger generation – Charles and Bella and Theresa – in a bid to understand whether a murder did in fact take place and, if so, who committed it…

It seems too obvious to suspect that Miss Lawson, the person who gained most, was the culprit. More like Christie is the notion that one of the aggrieved three younger relatives tried to pull off a complicated plot which backfired and left Miss Lawson the beneficiary. Or is it a double bluff, and the apparently dim, ineffectual Miss Lawson was in fact a cunning mastermind?

First of all we have to accompany Poirot as he delves deeper into bitter grievances and poisonous enmities of yet another Christie family which turns out to be at war with itself.

‘Miss Peabody tells us that Charles Arundell would murder his grandmother for twopence. Miss Lawson says that Mrs Tanios would murder any one if her husband told her to do so. Dr Tanios says that Charles and Theresa are rotten to the core, and he hints that their mother was a murderess and says apparently carelessly that Theresa is capable of murdering any one in cold blood. They have a pretty opinion of each other, all these people!’ (Chapter 18)

Cast

  • Miss Emily Arundell of Littlegreen House in the little country town of Market Basing, well over seventy, the last of a family of five
  • Bob – her wire-haired terrier
  • Miss Wilhelmina ‘Minnie’ Lawson – her paid companion (and lackey), very interested in seances and clairvoyancy etc. Emily doesn’t think much of her: ‘Poor Minnie! Emily Arundell looked at her companion with mingled affection and contempt. She had had so many of these foolish, middle-aged women to minister to her – all much the same, kind, fussy, subservient and almost entirely mindless’ – and: ‘She is a fool,’ said Aunt Emily, ‘but she is a faithful soul. And I really believe she is devoted to me. She cannot help her lack of brains’

Miss Arundell has three surviving relations:

  • Bella Biggs – ‘Emily Arundell’s niece, had married a Greek, Dr Jacob Tanios. And Emily Arundell’s people, who were what is known as “all service people,” simply did not marry Greeks’ – Bella ‘was a good woman – a devoted wife and mother, quite exemplary in behavior – and extremely dull!’ — In Miss Arundell’s mind a Greek was ‘almost as bad as an Argentine or a Turk’ – Bella had money of her own but Tanios has lost it through speculations – now they want money to pay for the education of their children, Mary and Edward and John
  • Theresa – beautiful and grand, engaged to young Dr Donaldson – ‘Theresa’s clothes were expensive, slightly bizarre, and she herself had an exquisite figure’ – she wants Miss A’s money to continue funding her lifestyle but also free Donaldson to do his research – ‘[Miss Arundell] had no control over Theresa since the latter had come into her own money at the age of twenty-one. Since then the girl had achieved a certain notoriety. Her picture was often in the papers. She belonged to a young, bright, go-ahead set in London – a set that had freak parties and occasionally ended up in the police courts’
  • Charles – ‘tall and good-looking with his slightly mocking manner… charming though he was, was not to be trusted’ – Charles wants Miss A’s money to pay his numerous debts
  • Dr Tanios – a big, bearded, jolly-looking man, married to Bella, but a) has lost most of her money on bad speculations and b) is controlling
  • Dr Rex Donaldson – assistant to Market Basing’s established old doctor, ‘a fair-haired young man with a solemn face and pince-nez’, fiancé of Theresa, clever but ineffectual

Others

  • Caroline Peabody – another older lady from a ‘good’ family, shares the same Victorian values as Miss Arundell: ‘They had known each other for considerably over fifty years. Miss Peabody knew of certain regrettable lapses in the life of General Arundell, Emily’s father. She knew just precisely what a shock Thomas Arundell’s marriage had been to his sisters. She had a very shrewd idea of certain troubles connected with the younger generation. But no word had ever passed between the two ladies on any of these subjects. They were both upholders of family dignity, family solidarity, and complete reticence on family matters’
  • Julia and Isabel Tripp – friends of Minnie, spiritualists, vegetarians etc
  • Dr Grainger – Emily’s doctor: ‘a man of sixty odd. His face was thin and bony with an aggressive chin, bushy eyebrows, and a pair of very shrewd grey eyes’
  • Mr Gabler – estate agent: ‘a grey-haired, middle-aged man entered with a rush. His eye, a militant one, swept over us with a gleam.’
  • Miss Jenkins – can’t-be-bothered assistant in the estate agent’s
  • Ellen – the elderly house-parlour-maid,
  • Annie – the cook
  • Mr Lonsdale – local vicar
  • Mr Purvis – the family lawyer, ‘a big, solidly built man with white hair and a rosy complexion. He had a little the look of a country squire. His manner was courteous but reserved’
  • the gardener – ‘a big, rugged old man’
  • local chemist – ‘a middle-aged man of a chatty disposition’
  • Nurse Carruthers – nursed Miss Arundell in her final illness, ‘a sensible-looking, middle-aged woman’

Good humoured, amiable knowledge of life, or the kind of lives her characters lead. Thus the old lady’s bantering relationship with her doctor:

Emily Arundell replied with spirit – she and old Dr Grainger were allies of long standing. He bullied and she defied – they always got a good deal of pleasure out of each other’s company! (Chapter 4)

Poirot’s method

Christie repeats the basics of Poirot’s method.

‘As you say – a regrettable failure to employ order and method in the mental processes, and without order and method, Hastings –’
‘Quite so,’ I interrupted hastily. ‘Little grey cells practically non-existent.’ (Chapter 5)

Suspect everyone.

Mon ami, you know my suspicious nature! I believe nothing that any one says unless it can be confirmed or corroborated… “He says”, “she says”, “they say”. Bah! what does that mean? Nothing at all. It may be absolute truth. It may be useful falsehood. Me, I deal only with facts.’ (Chapter 12)

He hates talk of intuition or instinct. These are nothing but the accumulated insights of order and method.

‘Instinct! You know how I dislike that word. “Something seems to tell me” – that is what you infer. Jamais de la vie! Me, I reason. I employ the little grey cells.’ (Chapter 5)

‘You have the mistaken idea implanted in your head that a detective is necessarily a man who puts on a false beard and hides behind a pillar! The false beard, it is vieux jeu, and shadowing is only done by the lowest branch of my profession. The Hercule Poirots, my friend, need only to sit back in a chair and think.’ (Chapter 6)

The importance of psychology

‘Do not neglect the psychology – that is important. The character of the murder – implying as it does a certain temperament in the murderer – that is an essential clue to the crime.’
‘I can’t consider the character of the murderer if I don’t know who the murderer is!’
‘No, no, you have not paid attention to what I have just said. If you reflect sufficiently on the character – the necessary character of the murder – then you will realize who the murderer is!’
(Chapter 22)

Thinking

‘Then think, Hastings – think. Lie back in your chair, close the eyes, employ the little grey cells.’ (Chapter 25)

How to soften up your interviewee

I have often had occasion to notice how, where a direct question would fail to elicit a response, a false assumption brings instant information in the form of a contradiction. (Chapter 7)

Discussions of death and such matters do more to unlock the human tongue than any other subject. Poirot was in a position to ask questions that would have been regarded with suspicious hostility twenty minutes earlier. (Chapter 8)

Poirotisms

As far as I know I’ve coined the term ‘Poirotism’ for the occasions when Christie mocks her creation by having him mangle a well-known English proverb or saying. For some reason ‘Dumb Witness’ is particularly rich in Poirotisms.

‘On the contrary, my friend, ‘any old lie,’ as you put it, would not do. Not with a lawyer. We should be – how do you say it? – thrown out with the flea upon the ear.’ (Chapter 13)

‘The only thing is – I am afraid.’
‘Afraid? Of what?’
He said gravely: ‘Of disturbing the dogs that sleep. That is one of your proverbs, is it not?’
(Chapter 18)

‘It is true that I am pig-headed – that is your expression, I think? Yes, definitely I have the head of the pig,’ said my friend meditatively. (Chapter 21)

Poirot patted her reassuringly on the shoulder. ‘It was the narrow squeak – yes?’ (Chapter 26)

‘Bien,’ said Poirot, rising with the check in his hand. ‘We have done our part. Now it is on the knees of the gods.’ (Chapter 26)

‘She is not one who wishes to wash the dirty linen in public, as the saying goes.’ (Chapter 29)

Poirot and Hastings bicker like an old married couple

Poirot to Hastings:

‘This conversation has occurred on previous occasions. You are about to say that it is not playing the game. And my reply is that murder is not a game.’ (Chapter 15)

Hastings is confused:

‘You know, Poirot, I don’t quite understand all this.’
‘If you will pardon my saying so, Hastings, you do not understand at all!’ (Chapter 25)

Foreignness

Much is made of how the older generation of posh ladies don’t like or trust foreigners, specifically the Greek doctor, Tanios, who Miss Arundell’s niece Bella has married. Animosity against and distrust of him run through the story like a silver thread.

Bella had married a foreigner – and not only a foreigner – but a Greek. In Miss Arundell’s prejudiced mind a Greek was almost as bad as an Argentine or a Turk. The fact that Dr Tanios had a charming manner and was said to be extremely able in his profession only prejudiced the old lady slightly more against him. She distrusted charm and easy compliments.

Or as Miss Peabody puts it:

‘His manners are really delightful. But I don’t trust foreigners. They’re so artful!’ (Chapter 15)

Here’s the housekeeper, Ellen:

‘Miss Bella’s husband, the foreign doctor, he went out and got her a bottle of something, but although she thanked him very politely she poured it away and that I know for a fact! And I think she was right. You don’t know where you are with these foreign things.’ (Chapter 20)

Even Hastings is prey to glib stereotypes about swarthy Mediterranean types:

I must say that my first sight of Dr Tanios was rather a shock. I had been imbuing him in my mind with all sorts of sinister attributes. I had been picturing to myself a dark bearded foreigner with a swarthy aspect and a sinister cast of countenance. Instead, I saw a rotund, jolly, brown-haired, brown-eyed man… (Chapter 17)

Poirot mocks Hastings for his xenophobia:

‘You found him an agreeable man, open-hearted, good-natured, genial. Attractive in spite of your insular prejudice against the Argentines, the Portuguese and the Greeks – a thoroughly congenial personality?’ (Chapter 18)

This of course echoes and amplifies the fact that Poirot himself is a foreigner and outsider in England, although he can see it both ways i.e. sometimes he feels an outside to the class system, posh public school diction about ‘playing the game’, about the intricacies of the aristocracy, and so on. But other times he is able to use his outsiderness, as when he soothes Bella’s irritation at old Miss Arundell for mistrusting her husband.

‘As you say, elderly ladies distrust foreigners sometimes,’ said Poirot. ‘I am sure they think that English doctors are the only doctors in the world. Insularity accounts for a lot.’ (Chapter 16)

Abroad was far away

But it’s as well to remind ourselves that 1936 was not 2025: there were far fewer means of travel, planes were expensive, cruise ships time consuming, and so travel abroad was a luxury, a rarity. Hence the atmosphere of exoticness and luxury which trails around her stories set on the Blue Train or Orient Express or Rhodes. As demonstrated by this statement by Dr Tanios which was, presumably, unremarkable in its day:

‘Yes, indeed. I am very fond of my wife.’ There was a rich tenderness in his voice. ‘I always feel it was so brave of her to marry me – a man of another race – to come out to a far country – to leave all her own friends and surroundings.’ (Chapter 23)

Nobody would think of moving to Greece as a brave action, leaving friends and family for ‘a man of another race’ nowadays.

Sherlock

There is always at least one reference to Sherlock Holmes in every one of her novels. It’s compulsory. Here there are two.

‘Poirot, I – the humble Watson – am going to hazard a deduction.’
‘Enchanted, my friend. What is it?’
I struck an attitude and said pompously: ‘You have received this morning one letter of particular interest!’
‘You are indeed the Sherlock Holmes! Yes, you are perfectly right.’ (Sherlock Holmes)

And she mentions the incident of the dog in the night-time, again.

‘Well, out with it. What’s the interesting point? I suppose, like the “incident of the dog in the night-time”, the point is that there is no interesting point!’ (Chapter 5)

In praise of things Victorian

The sympathetic descriptions of old Miss Arundell take in an appreciation of her old-fashioned habits and values, the Victorian values Christie herself (born 1890) was brought up amidst in her late-Victorian childhood and, to some extent, an affectionate portrait of her mother and her lady friends and their generation. Anyway, the book has notably more references to Victoriana of various types than any of her earlier books.

‘She has made her bed and she must lie on it.’ And having uttered this final Victorian pronouncement she went on: ‘I am going to the village now…’ (Chapter 1)

But her sensible, shrewd, Victorian mind would not admit that for a moment. There was no foolish optimism about the Victorians. (Chapter 3)

This room was definitely Victorian. A heavy mahogany dining-table, a massive sideboard of almost purplish mahogany with great clusters of carved fruit, solid leather-covered dining-room chairs. On the wall hung what were obviously family portraits.

In especial, one big jar with a lid on it seemed to attract him. It was not, I fancy, a particularly good bit of china. A piece of Victorian humour – it had on it a rather crude picture of a bulldog sitting outside a front door with a mournful expression on its face. (Chapter 8)

Morton Manor proved to be an ugly substantial house of the Victorian period. (Chapter 10)

[Miss Peabody] She chuckled – a rich Victorian fruity chuckle. (Chapter 10)

‘He’s a dear little doggie…’

Personally I don’t like dogs. Out on country walks I’ve been terrorised, chased and bitten by them, and seen small children scared out of their wits by huge barking animals, to have anything but fear and aversion to them. Plus the dog poo everywhere. And the streets reeking of dog pee whenever it rains.

But I appreciate that tens of millions of people love dogs, including Christie, and this book is by way of being a tribute to doggy love in the shape of the charismatic wire-haired terrier named Bob, old Miss Arundell’s pet, who everyone claimed to love and play ball with.

I’ve mentioned the two narrators – the third-person narrator who opens the novel and then Captain Hastings who takes over – but in a jokey way there’s a third voice, because Christie spends some time imagining what Bob the dog is saying, via his barks and expression. Thus:

The bushes were thin at that point and the dog could be easily seen. He was a wire-haired terrier, somewhat shaggy as to coat. His feet were planted wide apart, slightly to one side, and he barked with an obvious enjoyment of his own performance that showed him to be actuated by the most amiable motives.
‘Good watchdog, aren’t I?’ he seemed to be saying. ‘Don’t mind me! This is just my fun! My duty too, of course. Just have to let ’em know there’s a dog about the place! Deadly dull morning. Quite a blessing to have something to do. Coming into our place? Hope so. It’s durned dull. I could do with a little conversation.’ (Chapter 6)

Or:

[Poirot] stopped and patted Bob. ‘Brave chien, va! You loved your mistress.’
Bob responded amiably to these overtures and hopeful of a little play went and fetched a large piece of coal. For this he was reproved and the coal removed from him. He sent me a glance in search of sympathy.
‘These women,’ it seemed to say. ‘Generous with the food, but not really sportsmen!’ (Chapter 8)

Christie also appreciated the savage violence of dogs, although I imagine the following is intended to be humorous and charming:

Then we strolled off in the direction of Littlegreen House. When we rang the bell. Bob immediately answered the challenge. Dashing across the hall, barking furiously, he flung himself against the front door.
‘I’ll have your liver and your lights’ [note 1] he snarled. ‘I’ll tear you limb from limb! I’ll teach you to try and get into this house! Just wait until I get my teeth into you.’ (Chapter 20)

Everyone thinks their dog is a sweety, and when it barks its head off at small children or the postman or terrifies cows or savages sheep, it’s always ‘playing’, right up till the moment when it rips a baby’s face off. Ellen the housekeeper makes the usual dog owner’s excuses:

‘He makes such a noise and rushes at people so it frightens them [but] he’s quite all right, really.’

For dog owners and lovers, their beast frightening the living daylights out of people is just fine. They don’t mean it, really.

Anyway, what with all this emphasis on Bob the dog (not a very imaginative name, is it?) and his involvement in the first suspicious incident i.e. Miss Arundell supposedly tripping over his rubber ball and falling down the stairs and nearly breaking her neck, and with the cover of the book featuring a big picture of a wire-haired terrier, I for a long time thought that Bob would turn out to be the dumb witness of the title – that somehow something the dog did would provide the key which unlocks the case. So it was very disappointing to reach the end of the book and find out this wasn’t the case.

Note 1: incidentally, in that quotation, ‘lights’ is a butcher’s term meaning ‘the lungs of an animal, typically pigs, sheep, or other livestock.’

House prices

Here’s the estate agent’s details for Littlegreen House:

‘Period house of character: four reception rooms, eight bed and dressing rooms, usual offices, commodious kitchen premises, ample outbuildings, stables etc. Main water, old-world gardens, inexpensive upkeep, amounting in all to three acres, two summer-houses, etc. Price £2,850 or nearest offer.’

Bargain.


Credit

‘Dumb Witness’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1937 by the Collins Crime Club.

Related links

Related reviews

The Mysterious Affair at Styles by Agatha Christie (1920)

Spoiler alert: in line with common practice, I will not reveal who dunnit or the later parts of the plot.

‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’ was 1) the first detective novel by British writer Agatha Christie and 2) introduced her fictional detective, Hercule Poirot, who was to go on to have a long career, not only in her books, but in umpteen movies and TV series right up to the present day.

In an oblique way, it has a claim to be a ‘war novel’, in the sense that:

  1. she wrote it in the middle of the First World War, in 1916
  2. it is set during the war
  3. the narrator is an Army officer who has served, been wounded and invalided out of the service
  4. the inhabitants of the posh country house where it is set repeatedly talk about the privations of war, about scrimping and recycling for the war effort (p.170)
  5. then, about two-thirds of the way through, it has a little espionage sub-plot, as one of the characters (I won’t say who) is accused of being a German spy!

So a very strong wartime vibe throughout.

The novel made Christie’s reputation and kept a special place in her affections. When she’d made enough money from writing to buy a fine house, she named it ‘Styles’.

Hastings and Hercule

Just like the Sherlock Holmes stories, it is narrated by an Army officer recently invalided out of the service, in this case Captain Arthur J. M. Hastings, invalided out of the Great War (compare with Holmes’s Dr Watson, invalided out of the Second Afghan War (1878 to 1880)).

Hastings has a high opinion of himself which he reveals through numerous remarks which sound self-deprecating but in fact reveal his preening nature: ‘I am not a vain man where women are concerned…’ (p.137). He thinks he is smart and is quick to look down on others’ intelligence:

‘The dear fellow isn’t perhaps very bright,’ I said thoughtfully.

For most of the book Hastings laments that his friend Hercule Poirot seems to be on the wrong track, misunderstanding clues, getting worked up about nothing, is past his best, and so on. Of course, Christie makes it abundantly clear that it is Hastings who continually gets things wrong. Slowly we come to realise he has wrong opinions about more or less everyone and everything, which makes him a comic character.

The remark seemed so utterly irrelevant that I did not even take the trouble to answer it. But I decided that if I made any interesting and important discoveries—as no doubt I should—I would keep them to myself, and surprise Poirot with the ultimate result. There are times when it is one’s duty to assert oneself. (p.120)

To my surprise Poirot himself is an eccentric, oddball character. His most overt foible is a dapper attention to his own clothes and appearance, especially the famous waxed black moustache. But it is accompanied by a pronounced obsessive-compulsive disorder, for example his need, after lighting a cigarette, to place the spent match in a little China pot (p.77); or his habit, when excited by new information or disappointment, to fastidiously rearrange the objects on a mantelpiece or shelf.

And if Hastings’s view of Poirot is belittling, Poirot’s opinion of himself is a mirror image, a comic over-estimating of himself, a Napoleon complex:

‘I tell you, mon ami, it puzzles me. Me – Hercule Poirot!’

‘Mesdames and messieurs! I speak! Listen! I, Hercule Poirot!’

So at the heart of the story is this comic duo and it is their comic interplay – Hastings’ preening confidence in his own insights and their continual failure, contrasted with Poirot’s pompous self-importance and endless fussiness about details – which make the book so appealing, so amusing at so many moments that for long spells you forget it’s about a murder at all.

Detective story tropes

The story overflows with so many classic detective story tropes it’s hard to know where to start.

  1. The victim is rich, 70-something Mrs Emily Inglethorpe.
  2. She is murdered in her bedroom in her grand old house, Styles Court, in lovely countryside (in Essex).
  3. She is the head of an extended household of family, friends of family, servants and professional services (doctor, lawyer).
  4. So all the suspects are impeccably upper middle-class with perfect manners.
  5. On the surface everything is wonderfully civilisé but one of the suspects tells Hastings that, below the surface, they all hate each other and all hate the old woman.

So a rich old lady is murdered in a grand old house. There are six or seven suspects. The narrator just happens to be on the spot and friendly with the whole family, so he gives us good portraits of them all. All the suspects are revealed to have motives for the murder.

And the whole thing is tied up, in the classic style, by Poirot calling all the main characters together in the drawing room for his detailed explanation of the murder, who did it, and summary the clues which led him to it.

A surfeit of information

As usual with crime or detective novels, it contains a great deal of information which the reader needs to process and bear in mind, far too much for me; I find reading Joseph Conrad or D.H. Lawrence much easier, because their plots are much simpler, but here there are hundreds of facts to be aware of, process and bear in mind.

First all the relationships between the main characters. Then the motives which (we slowly learn) pretty much all of them might have for bumping the old lady off. Then all the resentments among them (Miss Howard hates Alfred; John is estranged from his wife and hates Dr Bauerstein and so on).

Then the relationship stuff on the eve of the murder. We learn that only a few days before, Emily had an argument with her loyal companion, Evelyn Howard, which prompted the latter to pack her bags and leave (warning Hastings, on the way out, that they’re all a pack of sharks). We learn that on the day of her death, Mrs Inglethorpe had a standup argument with a man which was loud enough to be heard down the corridor from her room.

On a more micro level there is an incredible amount of information about minutiae. We are given a precise floor plan of the house; how the doors into Mrs Inglethorpe’s were locked or bolted from the inside; who prepared the coffee taken up to Mrs I that fateful night; just where in the hall the coffee was left to cool so that someone might or might not have slipped the poison into it. In the room of the deceased Poirot discovers a few fragments of a will someone had burned in the fireplace, fibres of a green dress or cloak on one of the bolts. What is the meaning of the smashed coffee cup on the floor? Why has Mrs Inglethorpe’s locked despatch case been forced? Why was the bedside table knocked over and what caused the large splash of candle grease on the carpet? These and scores of other details or designed to provide aficionados with a surfeit of clues.

Poirot discovers some of this by examining the scene of the crime himself; some of it emerges when he interviews everyone in the house, down to the lowliest servant; more emerges when a formal inquest is held in the local town and everyone testifies. And then there is a continual drip-drip of detail from casual conversations in between these set-piece events. The text amounts to a continual provision of data and clues.

And all this information allows some of the cast and Hastings in particular to concoct their own theories using various bits of information, to whip up entire conspiracies and postulate certain people as the murderer. Hastings, in particular, is given to wild speculations, rash assumptions and half-baked theories:

Suddenly I remembered that first conversation at tea on the day of my arrival, and the gleam in her eyes as she had said that poison was a woman’s weapon. How agitated she had been on that fatal Tuesday evening! Had Mrs. Inglethorp discovered something between her and Bauerstein, and threatened to tell her husband? Was it to stop that denunciation that the crime had been committed?

All of these are, of course, created, to fail and as foils to Poirot’s final masterly revelation. In a sense, the entire character of Hastings is an enormous red herring.

I suppose there are two attitudes to this blizzard of information. One type of person, the type who likes crosswords or sudoku, see the book as a puzzle to crack, might carefully note each new micro-detail and try , tracking the shifting kaleidoscope of clues, and work out the culprit before the book reveals it. The other type is like me, too tired, lazy or stupid to think about figuring it out – happy to follow the amiable narrative, bite or not at the numerous red herrings, content to be carried entertainingly along until Poirot’s final reveal.

Cast

The family

Emily Inglethorp – A wealthy old woman in her 70s. She married Mr Cavendish when he was a widower with two small boys and so became their stepmother. When Cavendish died she inherited his home, Styles Court, and care of the boys. That was long ago and they are all grown up and in their 40s when they learn to their dismay, that their mother is planning to marry again, to the tall, black-bearded Alfred Inglethorpe, who she first engaged as a secretary to help her with her many charities. She dies on the morning of 18 July, when other guests in the house hear banging and break down the locked door to find her expiring in the throes of some kind of poisoning. She was quite a cool, business-like lady, and no blood relative of her two ‘sons’.

Alfred Inglethorp – Tall, aloof, secretive man who joined the household as Emily’s secretary but then persuaded her to marry him. Twenty years younger than her, he is considered by her family to be a fortune-hunter and is, to begin with, the prime suspect.

John Cavendish – Emily’s elder stepson, from her first husband’s previous marriage, and the brother of Lawrence. John trained and practised before quitting to become a country squire at Styles. It is he who invites Hastings to come and stay at Styles near the beginning of the story. He is married to the fragrant Mary but she, it seems, has grown a tad too close to a local doctor, Dr Bauerstein.

Mary Cavendish – John’s wife and very beautiful. Hastings is smitten from the first moment he sees her but slowly learns that she has become close to a local physician, Dr Bauerstein.

Lawrence Cavendish – Emily’s younger stepson from her first husband’s previous marriage, and the brother of John. He studied medicine and qualified as a doctor although he doesn’t practice, and so would have a working knowledge of poisons.

Evelyn Howard – Emily’s companion and a second cousin of Alfred Inglethorp who she fiercely dislikes. She is a bluff woman in tweeds who speaks her mind in a telegraphic style. She came over to me as a certain type of lesbian.

Cynthia Murdoch – ‘The daughter of an old schoolfellow of [Emily’s] who married a rascally solicitor. He came a cropper, and the girl was left an orphan and penniless.’ Emily took her in but never stopped reminding her of her subservient status. She performs war work at the Red Cross Hospital at Tadminster, seven miles away. She works in the dispensary where she has access to medicines and poisons.

Servants

William Earl – under-gardener at Styles, sent by Mrs Inglethorpe to buy a blank will form on the day before her death.

Old Manning – gardener at Styles Court.

Dorcas – maid at Styles, very loyal to Mrs Inglethorp.

Annie – one of the housemaids, ‘a fine, strapping girl’.

Providers of professional services

Dr. Wilkins – Mrs Inglethorp’s own doctor, ‘a portly, fussy little man’.

Dr Bauerstein – a well-known toxicologist with an international reputation who happens to live close to Styles and who, we slowly learn, is seeing a lot of Mary Cavendish. Are they in love?

Mr. Wells – the family lawyer, testifies that old Mrs Inglethorpe made lots of wills.

Amy Hill – shop assistant who testified at the inquest to having sold a will form William Earl, under-gardener at Styles.

Albert Mace – chemist’s assistant who testified to selling strychnine poison to a man he claimed was Alfred Inglethorpe, who later turns out to be a man disguised as Alfred Inglethorpe.

The outsiders

Mrs Raikes – very attractive wife of a local farmer. Slowly it emerges that Alfred Inglethorpe might have been seeing her.

Hercule Poirot – Renowned Belgian private detective. He is a refugee. He fled Belgium after the Germans invaded and was kindly taken in by Emily Inglethorpe, along with half a dozen of his compatriots. He lives alone in a cottage, Leastways Cottage, in the grounds. So, like Hastings, he is right on the spot when the murder takes place and so it’s only natural that he should get involved.

Captain Arthur Hastings – Poirot’s friend and the narrator of the story. He had been serving on the Western Front but was invalided out, spent some time in a convalescent home then was given one month’s official leave. It was then that he happened to bump into his old friend John Cavendish who invited him to come and stay for the month at the Cavendish family home of Styles Court.

Detective-Inspector Inspector Japp – ‘Jimmy Japp’, a Scotland Yard detective sent to investigate the murder. He has worked with Poirot before on a number of cases (the Abercrombie forgery case, the tracking down of ‘Baron’ Altara, p.93) knows his quality and so respects his judgements.

Superintendent Summerhaye – sidekick to Jimmy Japp and his opposite regarding Poirot i.e. deeply sceptical of the Belgian’s abilities: ‘Summerhaye gave an incredulous snort’.

In court

Sir Ernest Heavywether – the famous K.C., for the defence. Heavyweather is another example of Christie’s comedy. He is James Robertson-Justice avant la letter, a blustering bear of a barrister who bullies yes or no answers out of his witnesses and so is extremely effective.

Mr. Philips, K.C. – for the prosecution.

The characterisation of Poirot

Poirot was an extraordinary looking little man. He was hardly more than five feet, four inches, but carried himself with great dignity. His head was exactly the shape of an egg, and he always perched it a little on one side. His moustache was very stiff and military. The neatness of his attire was almost incredible. I believe a speck of dust would have caused him more pain than a bullet wound. Yet this quaint dandified little man who, I was sorry to see, now limped badly, had been in his time one of the most celebrated members of the Belgian police. As a detective, his flair had been extraordinary, and he had achieved triumphs by unravelling some of the most baffling cases of the day

As you can see, Christie from the start has a very strong sense of Poirot’s individuality. Over and above his physical attributes, she deploys other strategies or tactics to really distinguish him.

One is that all the characters are made to underestimate Poirot. For a start he’s short, so everyone refers to him as that little man, a dear little man, such a dear little man etc. Hastings especially is made to systematically underestimate Poirot, dismissing him as obtuse, fussing about irrelevancies. He also tells everybody that Poirot used to be a great detective ‘in his day’ but has now rather gone to seed. Hastings refers to Poirot as ‘the little man’ more than all the other characters combined. Of course all this is designed to make Poirot’s triumphant solving of the case all the more triumphant rising, as it were, from the depths of such universal dismissal.

Poirot himself is given a number of memorable attributes. Short. Dapper and clothes conscious. Obsessive attention to detail. French accent but not actually French (Belgian is a sort of French without the historical animus), which means he can say Voila and Chut and other schoolboy French phrases at dramatic moments. He has green eyes which become particularly bright at moments of excitement.

I had often before noticed that, if anything excited him, his eyes turned green like a cat’s. They were shining like emeralds now. (p.73)

And other physiognomical indications:

Poirot, I noticed, was looking profoundly discouraged. He had that little frown between the eyes that I knew so well. (p.165)

Poirot’s procedures

Nothing Poirot says is as pithy as Sherlock Holmes’s ‘When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’ or ‘You know my method. It is founded upon the observation of trifles.’ Poirot has his own set of principles which, of course, he shares with Hastings.

‘Imagination is a good servant, and a bad master. The simplest explanation is always the most likely.’ (p.75)

‘What have I always told you? Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory – let the theory go.’ (p.77)

‘Now all is arranged and classified. One must never permit confusion.’ (p.78)

Jimmy Japp’s locutions

I enjoyed the way Christie makes Detective-Inspector Inspector Japp talk in hackneyed phrases, not quite Cockney but clichéd, suggesting the commonplace working of his mind:

‘My word,’ he cried, ‘you’re the goods! And no mistake, Mr. Poirot!’

‘And, if it hadn’t been for Mr. Poirot here, arrested you would have been, as sure as eggs is eggs!’

Antisemitism

Many of Christie’s novels between the wars show signs of antisemitism and employ antisemitic tropes. The animus several character in this novel show towards Dr Bauernstein is at least in part attributable to the fact that he is Jewish.

‘I tell you, Mary, I won’t have it.’
Mary’s voice came, cool and liquid: ‘Have you any right to criticize my actions?’
‘It will be the talk of the village! My mother was only buried on Saturday, and here you are gadding about with the fellow.’
‘Oh,’ she shrugged her shoulders, ‘if it is only village gossip that you mind!’
‘But it isn’t. I’ve had enough of the fellow hanging about. He’s a Polish Jew, anyway.’
‘A tinge of Jewish blood is not a bad thing. It leavens the’—she looked at him—’stolid stupidity of the ordinary Englishman.’
Fire in her eyes, ice in her voice. (Chapter 9)

And:

‘He is, of course, a German by birth,’ said Poirot thoughtfully, ‘though he has practised so long in this country that nobody thinks of him as anything but an Englishman. He was naturalized about fifteen years ago. A very clever man—a Jew, of course.’ (Chapter 10)

Why ‘of course’?

The end

I won’t give the plot away, not least because it would take pages to explain the complicated sequence of events and non-events which Poirot finally explains to Hastings in the final chapter.

‘Dear me, Poirot,’ I said with a sigh, ‘I think you have explained everything. I am glad it has all ended so happily.’ (p.188)


Credit

‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’ by Agatha Christie was published in 1920 by John Lane. References are to the 1971 Pan paperback edition.

Related links

Related reviews