Agatha Christie: An English Mystery by Laura Thompson (2007)

Key facts

Agatha Christie was born Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller on 15 September 1890. So just add a ten to the year of publication of any of her books to get her age when it was published – ‘Murder on the Orient Express’ 1934: 34 + 10 = 44 (in fact 43, as it was published in January and she was born in September, but you get the basic idea).

The surname Christie derives from her first husband, Archie Christie, who she married on Christmas Eve 1914, as the First World War was settling in for the long haul (p.94).

In total Agatha Christie published 66 detective novels and 14 short story collections, as well as six non-detective novels under the pseudonym Mary Westmacott.

She created the famous fictional detectives Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple who have featured in countless movie and TV adaptations, not to mention radio, video games and graphic novels. Over 30 movies have been based on her works.

She wrote the world’s longest-running play, the murder mystery ‘The Mousetrap’, which has been performed in the West End of London since 1952.

She is the best-selling fiction writer of all time, her novels having sold more than two billion copies.

Her novel ‘And Then There Were None’ is the world’s best-selling mystery novel and one of the best-selling books of all time, and with over 100 million copies sold.

Childhood

Christie was born into a wealthy upper middle-class family in Torquay, Devon, and was largely home-schooled.

Frederick and Mary Boehmer

Her parents were an odd couple. Her mother, Clarissa ‘Clara’ Margaret Boehmer was born in Dublin in 1854 to British Army officer, Frederick Boehmer, and his wife Mary Ann West. Boehmer died in Jersey in 1863, leaving Mary to raise Clara and her brothers on a small income.

Nathaniel and Margaret Miller

Two weeks after Boehmer’s death, Mary’s sister, Margaret West, married the widowed American dry-goods merchant, Nathaniel Frary Miller.

Foster Clara

To help her impoverished widowed sister, Margaret and Nathaniel agreed to foster nine-year-old Clara Boehmer. In other words, at a very early age Clara was taken away from her mother and brothers and raised by her aunt and never ceased to regret it.

Frederick Miller

Now Nathaniel had a son, Frederick from his previous marriage. Fred was born in New York City and travelled extensively after leaving his Swiss boarding school, returned for visits as Clara grew up. In 1969 i.e. six years into this fostering arrangement, Nathaniel Miller, like Frederick Boehmer before him, died young, leaving Margaret a widow.

Frederick Miller marries Clara Boehmer

Fifteen years after Clara’s father died and nine years after Nathaniel Miller died, in 1878, this Frederick Miller, now 32, proposed to Clara, now 24, and she accepted. They were married in London in 1878.

Madge and Monty

Their first child, Margaret ‘Madge’ Frary, was born in Torquay in 1879. The second, Louis Montant ‘Monty’, was born in Morristown, New Jersey, in 1880, while the family was on an extended visit to the United States.

Fred and Clara buy Ashfield

When Fred’s father (and Clara’s foster father), Nathaniel, had died in 1869, he had left Clara £2,000, something like a quarter of a million in today’s money. In 1881 Fred and Clara used this to buy a villa in Torquay named Ashfield. It was here that their third and last child, Agatha, was born in 1890. Note the age difference between her elder siblings: Madge was 11 years older, Monty 10 years older.

Home schooling

Clara actively prevented Agatha from going to school, believing she should be home schooled. The result was Agatha largely taught herself, not least by voraciously reading everything in her father’s library.

Fred Miller dies

In 1901 Agatha’s cheerful, lazy father Fred died from pneumonia and chronic kidney disease. Christie later said that her father’s death when she was 11 marked the end of her childhood. Two points about this:

1) Fred never worked a day in his life and cheerfully lived off investments. However, income from these had steadily declines, with suspicions of embezzlement or sharp dealing by his American trustees. Whatever the precise reason, Fred’s death left Clara severely straitened for funds. Not that impoverished – she could still afford the upkeep of Ashfield and some servants but could no longer afford to entertain or maintain the traditional upper middle class lifestyle (p.58).

The matriarchy

The other point is The Matriarchy. All these men died young, and the womenfolk lived on with the result that Agatha was raised in a household of women (Clara and Madge), and made regular visits to her great-aunt the ‘magnificent’ (p.77) Margaret Miller in Ealing and maternal grandmother Mary Boehmer in Bayswater.

Nice old ladies

There are dashing young chaps in her novels, older professional men such as judges and police and so on, but I think Agatha’s upbringing in a matriarchy left a strong impression on her fictional world. Her novels abound with highly enjoyable older women, Miss Marple just being the most obvious. The utterly conventional values attributed to characters like Miss Marple or Miss Peabody or numerous others, have such warm-hearted authority because they are, in fact, the values of the utterly conventional Agatha.

  • Miss Jane Marple – elderly spinster who lives in the village of St. Mary Mead
  • Mrs Price Ridley, Miss Wetherby, Miss Hartnell – Miss Marple’s three friends who make up the quartet of old ladies in St. Mary Mead, in the first Miss Marple book, ‘Murder at the Vicarage’
  • Mrs Harfield – who Katherine Grey is a companion to (The Mystery of the Blue Train)
  • Miss Lavinia Pinkerton – suspects there is a murderer at work in the village of Wychwood under Ashe (Murder Is Easy)
  • Miss Caroline Peabody – tubby, sharp and witty spinster lives at Morton Manor, and is the oldest resident of Market Basing (Dumb Witness)

Laura Thompson on Agatha’s childhood

It’s Agatha’s childhood, girlhood and teenage years, mostly spent at the women’s family home of Ashfield, which Laura Thompson’s biography really dwells on. It gives a vivid and sympathetic portrait of a late-Victorian childhood and a girl growing into a young woman during the Edwardian decade, raised with traditional values which Thompson clearly sympathises with.

Music

Music for a while was a passion. Agatha learned piano as a girl and as a teenager took singing lessons to a very high standard. Thompson has page after page quoting Agatha’s diary and letters and the autobiography she wrote at the end of her life to describe her intoxication with music. She had a classic late-Victorian sensibility, with lots of vapouring about beauty, fancy dress balls where people dressed as characters out of Tennyson, she had a lifelong love of Wagner’s music (Wagner died in 1883, so by the 1910s when she was in love with it, it was 30 or more years out of date) (p.61).

Paris

In 1905, Clara sent Agatha to Paris, where she was educated in a series of pensionnats (boarding schools), focusing on voice training and piano playing. She was very good at both but not good enough to take them up professionally. Agatha stayed in Paris for nearly two years. Presumably this influenced the nationality of her greatest creation, Hercule Poirot – not the fact that he’s Belgian so much as Agatha’s confidence in rendering his French speech patterns.

Conventional

Thompson tried to make much of her heroine’s intelligence and Agatha was fluent and articulate and thoughtful, there’s lots of works and autobiography to quote from –but all of it is second rate. There is nothing about ideas or challenging books she read or intellectual pursuits. Instead, as she hit 18 and ‘came out’ to society, Agatha spent all her time going to parties and dances and concerts, amateur theatricals and attending fox hunts (p.64), flirting with large numbers of eligible young men, endlessly discussing their merits with her watchful mother, Clara.

As to her beliefs, she was a run of the mill, ordinary, devout Anglican. As to feminism and women’s rights, Agatha thought it was her role and fate in life to get married. That’s what women of her age and class did, and she never changed her view.

So it’s no surprise to learn that she was a lifelong Conservative voter (p.353).

The Mary Westmacott novels

In describing Agatha’s early years, Thompson draws heavily on the set of six Westmacott novels. Christie was so unstoppably prolific that alongside her murder mysteries she wrote six ‘ordinary’ non-detective novels, about love and relationships etc, sometimes described as ‘romantic’ novels’. They gave her ‘the chance to better explore the human psychology she was so intrigued by, freed from the expectations of her mystery fans’ as her grand-daughter explained.

To distinguish them from the murder mysteries she came up with a nom be plume based on her own middle name (Mary), Westmacott being the blandly English name of some distant relatives. The six Westmacott novels are:

  • Giant’s Bread (1930)
  • Unfinished Portrait (1934)
  • Absent in the Spring (1944) – she wrote this in less than a week!
  • The Rose and the Yew Tree (1947)
  • A Daughter’s a Daughter (1952)
  • The Burden (1956)

Thompson quotes from them extensively. Thus ‘Giant’s Bread’ concerns a sensitive young musician named Vernon Deyre, and Thompson reckons Christie poured into it a lot of her own feelings for classical music, for studying, practicing and performing; and similarly with autobiographical elements of the other books.

Marrying off Agatha

Clara had successfully married Madge off in 1902 to James Watt who had taken her off to his family home in the Midlands. Monty had joined the army and was posted overseas. What about Agatha? For Clara, and Agatha herself, adulthood meant marriage.

1907 to 1908: Trip to Egypt

Clara decided to spend the winter of 1907 to 1908 in the warm climate of Egypt, which was then a regular tourist destination for wealthy Britons. They stayed for three months at the Gezirah Palace Hotel in Cairo. Christie attended many dances and other social functions; she particularly enjoyed watching amateur polo matches.

First story

At 18 Agatha wrote her first short story, ‘The House of Beauty’, while recovering in bed from an illness. It was 6,000 words about ‘madness and dreams’. Her imagination had a decidedly Gothic turn. Subsequent stories dealt with spiritualism and the paranormal. Some of this lingered on into her mature novels, such as the powerful séance scene at the start of The Sittaford Mystery (p.78).

1909: first novel

Around the same time, in 1909 Christie wrote on her first novel, ‘Snow Upon the Desert’ based, predictably enough, on the winter she’d just spent in Egypt (p.67).

Conventional

Agatha was utterly conventional. About everything she had ‘the conventional, sensible attitude’ (p.116). As she came out, aged 18, she took to a life of country house parties, riding, hunting and countless dances, and numerous flirtations with eligible men.

‘Cairo meant nothing to me – girls between eighteen and twenty-one seldom thought of anything but young men’ (Agatha’s Autobiography, quoted p.68)

She had short-lived relationships with four men and an engagement to another (p.74). And Laura Thompson comes over as every bit as conventional, expecting no depths or insights from her heroine. She writes so well about Agatha’s life because she functions at the same shallow, Readers’ Digest level.

It was delight, all of it; the life that any normal, healthy, attractive, young girl would want to live (p.60)

1912: Archie Christie

In October 1912 she was introduced to Archibald ‘Archie’ Christie at a dance given by Lord and Lady Clifford at Ugbrooke, 12 miles from Torquay (p.73). The son of a barrister in the Indian Civil Service and an Irishwoman Ellen, known as Peg, Archie was a year older than Agatha (born September 1880). He was a Royal Artillery officer who was seconded to the Royal Flying Corps in April 1913.

Archie proposes

The couple quickly fell in love. Three months after their first meeting, Archie proposed marriage, and Agatha accepted. (She was something of a pro at all this, having already received three proposals of marriage, and actually being engaged to someone else when Archie proposed, to one Reggie Lucy, p.79.)

Anti-feminism

‘I hate a slobbering female,’ said Miss Percehouse. ‘I like one who gets up and does things.’
(The Sittaford Mystery, Chapter 17)

A naive feminist like Lucy Worsley thinks Agatha is a feminist heroine, but Christie was expressly anti feminist in both the tendency of her characters and stories, and explicitly, in her letters and autobiography – in fact anywhere and everywhere she could express an opinion.

Satirising feminist characters

The novels feature a number of loud-mouthed feminists who Agatha heartily satirises, boomingly women’s libbers like Lady Westholme in ‘Appointment with Death’ or the pretentious (and alcoholic) feminist author Salome Otterbourne in ‘Death on the Nile’. Rather:

[Christie] had a deep regard for working women. Not the strident ones who waved the feminist flag, like the politician Lady Westholme in ‘Appointment with Death’, proclaiming that ‘If anything is to be accomplished, mark my words, it is women who will do it’… (p.85)

Agatha’s anti-feminist attitudes

Pages 83 to 84 are just some of the many where Thompson makes crystal clear how utterly conventional Agatha was in her notions of gender roles. It was a woman’s responsibility to get married. She never considered a career of any kind. I’m going to quote from these pages to really convey the flavour.

To Agatha [marrying Archie] was fate; it was her female destiny. Having been brought up to express herself in any way she chose, she expected only to marry. This was her upbringing, which she had no urge to question. Girls of her sort did not have careers. They had husbands.

Agatha, despite her extraordinary achievements, would always assert that a career was a man’s job – ‘Men have much better brains than women, don’t you think?’ was a typical comment – and that the true value of a woman lay within the personal arena.

‘It makes me feel that, after all, I have not been a failure in life – that I have succeeded as a wife,’ she wrote to her second husband, Max, in 1943.

So as a girl she never chafed against the limits of her life: the conventions, the corsets, the need to speak low or sing to a teddy bear. Unlike her near-contemporary Dorothy L. Sayers – who, at the time of Agatha’s entry into the marriage market, was chewing the intellectual fat over cocoa at Somerville [college] – she had no desire to break free. She felt free anyway.

For all that she loved the novels of May Sinclair, she shared none of her feminist concerns. The frustrations of a girl like Vera Brittain, then at Oxford with Sayers, whose Testament of Youth rages against the male-dominated conventions of the time, would have been utterly remote from her.

The truth is that she liked a man’s world. She saw beyond it, although not in a political sense; later she would live beyond it, with her success and self-sufficiency; yet she loved being female and never felt circumscribed by her sex. She had grown up in a matriarchy after all. And she understood – as ‘cleverer’ girls perhaps do not – that female strength could show itself in many different ways… (pages 83 to 84)

Romantic love

Thompson has page after page after page describing Agatha’s initial love for Archie. Although her mother instantly saw the danger that he was a) selfish and b) attractive to other women, Agatha (who Thompson repeatedly tells us was immature and still basically ‘a girl’) saw the whole situation in Victorian terms, as something out of Tennyson, she as the pure-hearted lady Elaine cleaving to her handsome Sir Lancelot etc etc. He was ‘her dream come true’.

1914: VAD

When the war broke out Archie was sent to France almost immediately and Agatha hastened to join up as a nurse in a VAD:

Voluntary Aid Detachments (VADs) were organizations that provided support to the military during World War I. These detachments, formed by the British Red Cross and the Order of St. John, played a vital role in staffing hospitals and providing various services like nursing, cooking, and general aid.

Doctors

Dr Lord approached the bed, Nurse O’Brien fluttering behind him. Mrs Welman said with a twinkle: ‘Going through the usual bag of tricks, Doctor: pulse, respiration, temperature? What humbugs you doctors are!’
(Sad Cypress, part 1, chapter 5)

As a nurse Agatha saw at first hand how pompous and incompetent many doctors are. There’s a police doctor in most of the murder mysteries, but some doctor characters play larger roles and, by and large, they’re pretty unflattering characters.

  • The Mysterious Affair at Styles – Dr Bauerstein, sinister
  • The Murder of Roger Ackroyd – Dr Sheppard, the murderer
  • Why Didn’t They Ask Evens? – Dr Nicholson, a sinister drug addict
  • Murder is Easy – Dr Thomas
  • Cards on the Table – Dr Donaldson
  • The Sittaford Mystery – Dr Warren
  • And Then There Were None – Dr Armstrong, the murderer

Thompson describes Agatha as being as unflappable and sound in her work as a nurse, calmly describing the amputations, the severed limbs, the crying men, briskly getting on with the work (p.94). This is very much of a piece with the attitude which comes over in the books, brisk and no-nonsense, ‘Stop crying, girl! There’s a job to be done! Pull yourself together!’

And with her extraordinary ability to be interrupted at any point of writing a novel, go out for lunch or dinner, go to a party, come back and pick up exactly where she left off, and carrying on writing. Extraordinarily nerveless and anxiety-free (p.129). What a gift!

1916: The dispensary

In 1916 a drug dispensary was opened at Torquay hospital and Agatha switched to it from nursing. The hours were shorter and the pay better (p.103). The detailed knowledge of drugs, medicines and poisons she acquired her was to stand her in good stead for the rest of her life. The murder in her first detective novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, is entirely premised on professional knowledge of the action of poisons.

Twenty-four years later, in ‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’, the feel for drugs and poisons acquired in Torquay hospital dispensary, along with the relationships between the processions involved, was still underpinning the storyline of a dentist who appears (for a little while at least) to have poisoned a patient with a combination of adrenaline and prococaine.

‘These things happen—they happen to doctors—they happen to chemists…Careful and reliable for years, and then—one moment’s inattention—and the mischief’s done and the poor devils are for it. Morley was a sensitive man. In the case of a doctor, there’s usually a chemist or a dispenser to share the blame—or to shoulder it altogether. In this case Morley was solely responsible.’
(‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’, Chapter 2, section 1)

Unintellectual

Thompson tries to persuade us how imaginative Agatha was and yet what comes over is how utterly unimaginative she was, uninterested in politics, uninterested in suffragettes or feminism, uninterested in any social issues, in philosophy or any of the humanities – but with a vivid sense of her class of people, conceived as stock types.

Surely that’s one of the secrets of her success, is how utterly unthreatening her books are; how populated they are by reassuringly conventional jolly good chaps and plucky chapesses, stern judges, reassuring police inspectors, and so on. Everyone observes the decencies and common courtesies. It’s their lovely manners and good behaviour which are so attractive, reassuring and comforting. Seen from this angle the murders almost don’t register.

Readability

And this goes a long way towards explaining probably the biggest single explanation of her success, which is her immense readability.

The invention of Poirot

Poirot arrived fully formed in her first novel. Later she at various times tried to explain his creation but couldn’t because she was a deeply unreflective, unintellectual writer. Belgian refugees during the war provided the nationality, the rest she plucked from circumstances around her and voilà, he was fully formed. A miracle. What’s so impressive about Poirot is how much he doesn’t change over the next 40 years.

The feature which struck me most about Poirot from his first appearance is that he is old, in fact he has retired from being a detective on his first appearance. And he is old like Miss Marple. So Christie’s two great characters are outwith any concern for sex, outside relationships, the marriage market, the whole thing. Outsiders to the fierce competition over sex, mates, children, resources, jobs, reputations, money. It’s because of this that the books they appear in can observe the silliness of human sex lives – and family rivalries and bitterness about money – with such detachment and amusement.

Yes, amusement, that’s the watchword, the key quality of Christie’s novels and the main reason I like them. I don’t care that much about the murders and the silly clues and the ludicrous explanations; I enjoy the humour of the characters and, above all, the amused, smiling tone of her narrative voice.

1919: Parenthood

The war ended, Archie was demobilised fairly quickly and got a job at the Air Ministry. The couple took to living together as man and wife, something they hadn’t actually done during the war. Within a year Agatha was pregnant and delivered of a baby girl. Like everything else in her life, Agatha accepts pregnancy as the fate of a young wife here, as in everything, adopting the conventional, sensible attitude.

But she wasn’t a natural mother for the simple reason that she herself was still a girl.

Agatha did not need a perfect child: she herself was perfect to Clara. So in love was she with being a daughter… that she was unable to find true fulfilment as a mother. (p.122)

It is a recurring theme in her later novels that mothers often don’t like or resent their daughters (p.123). Lots of evidence that she never really bonded with Rosalind.

Something about this marvellous, bright, sharp-edged child seems to have shrivelled Agatha’s maternal impulses in the bud’ (p.268)

Nonetheless, they came to have a respectful relationship, joshing bonhomie concealing the underlying tension. Thompson quotes a character from the novel ‘Five Little Pigs’:

Many children, most children, I should say, suffer from over attention on the part of their parents. There is too much love, too much watching over the child. It is uneasily conscious of this brooding, and seeks to free itself, to get away and be unobserved. With an only child this is particularly the case, and, of course, mothers are the worst offenders.

Or this from Dumb Witness:

‘What is she like, your cousin?’
‘Bella? Well, she’s a dreary woman. Eh, Charles?’
‘Oh, definitely a dreary woman. Rather like an earwig. She’s a devoted mother. So are earwigs, I believe.’

She was sometimes angry or frustrated that she would never be to her daughter what her mother, Clara, had been for her, her all-in-all.

Writing for money

Archie suggested she write another novel, in fact he actively supported her writing career. ‘The Mysterious Affair at Styles’ made her £25 for serialisation rights in the Weekly Times. Its sequel ‘The Secret Adversary’ made the grand total of £50 and sold better than Styles. There followed in quick succession ‘The Murder on the Links’, ‘The Man in the Brown Suit’ and a bunch of Poirot stories.

1922: tour of the white Empire

Archie was offered a job touring the white Empire nations (Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand) to promote the upcoming 1924 Empire exhibition. He took Agatha and they were abroad travelling for most of 1922.

Thompson judges the novel she wrote during and about the trip, ‘The Man in the Brown Suit’, to be her most joyful and sexy. The heroine, Anne Beddingfield, falls madly in love with the tall adventurer Harry Rayburn and is given to bold idealistic speeches:

‘I shouldn’t dream of marrying any one unless I was madly in love with them. And of course there is really nothing a woman enjoys so much as doing all the things she doesn’t like for the sake of some one she does like. And the more self-willed she is, the more she likes it.’
‘I’m afraid I disagree with you. The boot is on the other leg as a rule.’ He spoke with a slight sneer.
‘Exactly,’ I cried eagerly. ‘And that’s why there are so many unhappy marriages. It’s all the fault of the men. Either they give way to their women—and then the women despise them, or else they are utterly selfish, insist on their own way and never say ‘thank you.’ Successful husbands make their wives do just what they want, and then make a frightful fuss of them for doing it. Women like to be mastered, but they hate not to have their sacrifices appreciated. On the other hand, men don’t really appreciate women who are nice to them all the time. When I am married, I shall be a devil most of the time, but every now and then, when my husband least expects it, I shall show him what a perfect angel I can be!’

Archie was often quite ill on the trip. On their return his job in the City had gone to someone else and he was unemployed and miserable for months. Their (relative) impecunity is turned to comic account of the start of the first Tommy and Tuppence novel, The Secret Adversary.

1924: Brown and money

In 1924 the Evening News offered Agatha £500 for the serialisation rights of ‘The Man in the Brown Suit’. This brought home to her and Archie (and her sister and mother, Clara) that Agatha was looking at the makings of a real career and serious money. With the money she bought her first car, a grey Morris Cowley (p.153).

Agatha always drove a hard bargain, as producers at the BBC were later to complain. Money is a central preoccupation of her books and their characters. Money is the motive in 36 of the 55 murder mystery novels.

There was a silence, and then Tuppence burst out:
‘Money, money, money! I think about money morning, noon and night! I dare say it’s mercenary of me, but there it is!’
‘Same here,’ agreed Tommy with feeling.
(The Secret Adversary, Chapter 1)

In 1924 she signed a three book deal with Collins, who were to remain her publisher for the rest of her life, having left Bodley Head after her initial five-book deal which she felt had taken advantage of her.

1925: Chimneys

In Thompson’s view ‘The Secret of Chimneys was perhaps the happiest book that Agatha ever wrote’ (p.143).

1926: Ackroyd

Her first book for Collins, ‘The Murder of Roger Ackroyd’, transformed her reputation. It is often described as the ‘ultimate detective story’. This is for the simple reason that the narrator, honest-sounding Dr Sheppard, turns out to be the murderer. That’s it.

In ‘Roger Ackroyd she revealed for the first time her natural quality of translucency: her ability to control every sentence of her books, yet allow them breathe free. Agatha did not impose. Nor did she interpose one atom of herself between her writing and her readers. Her words communicate exactly and only what is required; which is not the same as saying they have no life beyond what is on the page. They have, in fact, the mystery of simplicity. They are the conduits for her plots, which are ultimately simple. (p.156)

Agatha’s qualities

Agatha was not a naturally descriptive writer. (p.139)

‘She was by nature remarkably unobservant’ she wrote of herself in ‘Unfinished Portrait’ (quoted p.139)

Agatha was not an especially humorous woman. (p.143)

Chimneys is what nowadays would be called a snobbish book…Impossible to deny that Agatha lived in an enclosure, that of the upper middle class into which she was born. (p.145)

Archie and Agatha grow apart

In 1924 Archie finally got a job in the City and was happy. He was taking home £2,000 a year. He took up golf and slowly this became an obsession. Soon he played every weekend, and resented anyone coming to stay who didn’t play. Agatha tried her best but wasn’t very interested and wasn’t very good. She had thickened since having Rosalind. She was 35 and her young good looks had gone. She rarely drank alcohol (good) but her favourite drink became a mix of milk and cream, such as she had loved as a girl at Ashfield. She put on weight. Archie began to dislike her schoolgirl gushiness, her chunkiness, her resentment at his weekends at the golf course.

Clara dies

Then her mother, Clara, died, on 5 April 1926. Agatha (‘too much of a child herself’) was devastated and went down to Ashfield to spend months clearing out the house of her childhood. Archie reacted badly: he disliked illness and hadn’t wanted to hear about Clara’s decline and refused to go down to comfort or help Agatha. It was the end of the marriage though she didn’t realise it.

Agatha disappears

The most famous incident in Agatha Christies life was when she went missing for 11 days and sparked a nationwide frenzy. She left her car abandoned off a lane on the North Downs overlooking a quarry with a deep pool nearby. The Surrey police were convinced she had killed herself. Day after day more volunteers joined the search scouring the Surrey countryside and numerous people claimed to have sighted the missing woman all around the UK.

Thompson devoted pages a slightly staggering 72 pages to the incident, page 186 to 258. Frankly I find this kind of thing quite staggeringly boring, as it doesn’t really seem to have impacted her writing – certainly not as much as her projection of herself into upper middle class settings, her xenophobia, her ingenuity, and her thumpingly conventional view of human nature do – based on her ‘obtuse and childlike’ character (p.179).

In Thompson’s the whole thing was a ploy to win back Archie’s love. While Agatha was away in Torquay weeping over her lost childhood, Archie decisively fell in love with a younger, sexier woman, named Nancy Neele. Archie told Agatha about it in August 1926, and asked Agatha for a divorce. After many recriminations, they agreed on a three-month trial period to try and save the marriage, but the months passed and Archie continued to spend much time in London or at friends’ house parties with Nancy in attendance.

Finally, in December things came to a head. On 3 December 1926 they had a big argument after Archie announced his plan to spend the weekend with friends, unaccompanied by his wife, but in the presence of Nancy.

Late that evening Christie disappeared from their home in Sunningdale. The following morning, her car, a Morris Cowley, was discovered at Newlands Corner in Surrey, parked above a chalk quarry with an expired driving licence and clothes inside. It was feared that she might have drowned herself in the Silent Pool, a nearby beauty spot.

The disappearance quickly became a news story. One newspaper offered a £100 reward. Over 1,000 police officers, 15,000 volunteers, and several aeroplanes searched the rural landscape. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle gave a spirit medium one of Christie’s gloves to find her.

Christie’s disappearance made international headlines, including featuring on the front page of The New York Times. According to Thompson she wrote and posted a letter to Archie’s brother, Campbell Christie, i.e. her brother-in-law, explaining that she needed time away and was going to a spa in Yorkshire and she caught a train from London to Harrogate where she checked in under the name Mrs Neele. That, of course, was the name of his husband’s mistress.

In Thompson’s view, Campbell Christie was intended to get the letter on the Monday morning, ring up Archie who would have been distressed at her disappearance, and got on the next train to Yorkshire. Harrogate, according to Thompson, is the kind of Yorkshire equivalent of Sunningdale, very posh, and so it shouldn’t have taken Archie long to track her down.

According to eye witnesses (notably a Mr Pettelson, a cultivated Russian exile) she had a lovely time in the Swan Hydropathic Hotel where she checked in, spending the days sightseeing and the evening joining in singing and music making or billiards in the drawing room.

The main source of the delay and the escalation of a private marital squabble into a national manhunt appears to have been the obsession of the police officer in charge of the investigation, police Superintendent Kenward, that Agatha had killed herself. Even when (belatedly) informed of the letter in which she simply explained that she’d gone to stay in Yorkshire, he refused to believe it. Only when guests at the hotel approached the local police to claim that the mysterious Mrs Neele looked strikingly like the missing Agatha, did the cops intervene and invite Archie up. He walked into the hotel at dinner time on the tenth evening and simply identified Agatha, for himself and to a detective who’d accompanied him.

So it appears to have been a pitiful cock-up by the police, egged on by a tabloid press always keen for a scandal. To the members of the press who quickly flooded the hotel, and the railway stations on the route to her sister’s house outside Manchester, then back at their home in Surrey – Archie gave out the same rather desperate story that Agatha had suffered a breakdown accompanied by complete amnesia. The press and most of the public didn’t believe this and Thompson thinks it’s a lie.

Failure and divorce

As an attempt to win Archie back by sparking panic and regret, it was a miserable failure.

Having, as she thought, helped to destroy her marriage by leaving Archie alone while she grieved for her mother, she had now delivered its death blow by making herself an object of public ridicule, and Archie an object of public loathing. (p.256)

Archie lived at the unhappy family home in Sunningdale while he tried to sell it, Agatha lived in a flat in London with her daughter. They met once in 1927, where she begged him again to return but he simply stated he was in love with Nancy and only waiting for her to return from the round the world cruise her family had packed her off on to get her out of the limelight, before he wanted to marry her. So in spring 1928 Agatha petitioned for divorce and was granted a decree nisi against her husband in April 1928. This was made absolute in October 1928 and two weeks later Archie married Nancy Neele. Game over.

(Incidentally Archie remained married to Nancy for the next 20 years, till her death from cancer in 1958. It wasn’t just a flash in the pan.)

(Also incidentally, Agatha, up till then a fairly devout Anglican, never attended communion again after her divorce, p.290.)

The relevance of Agatha’s disappearance for her books

Thompson cites a shrewd quotation from P.D. James who says that Archie’s betrayal and desertion was the first real trauma she’d ever faced in her pampered protected life, that she never really recovered from it – and that this shaped her fiction.

Anybody who’s written about Christie’s novels makes the same point which is that, no matter how brutal the murder(s) and how byzantine the plot and backstories, in the end, everything comes out right: the guilty party is identified, everyone else is vindicated, surprisingly often one or more couples who we’ve met during the narrative end up getting married; and Poirot makes everything better, by tying up all the loose ends and leaving us with one of his little quips, very much like the Afterword to an Elizabethan play craving their audience’s indulgence.

On this reading, every single one of her detective stories does the same thing, which is throw us into death, disorder and ever-more bewildering confusion before… slowly, slowly leading us back up into the light. Thus every one of the novels can be seen as a cathartic experience. Almost every one leaves us with a jaunty smile on our faces.

For Thompson, the failure of her marriage represented Agatha finally growing up after 38 years of pampered privilege: not financially (the couple had been hard-up after the war, and Agatha had independent income from her writing) but in psychological terms. Her mother and her husband abandoned her, within a matter of months. No longer young or attractive or living a life of dreamy illusions, Agatha changed character, buckled down, and became a really professional writer.

The comment about no longer good-looking may sound sexist but it’s Thompson’s view that it came as a liberation.

Without the burden of normal female expectations, she found herself free. There was no longer an obligation to be a certain kind of woman: slim, pleasing, feminine. She could absent herself from these restraints. She could formulate a persona and wear it like a suit of armour – present it to the world in place of herself – and inside she could be whoever she chose. That was the freedom of the creator.

And so she became the staggeringly prolific professional writer. Between 1930 and 1939 Agatha produced 17 full-length novels, plus short stories. Although ‘Agatha Christie’ was her legal name, after the divorce it became a pen-name, a fictional name, a persona. And she used it to create radical reinventions of the detective novel:

  • the murderer who pretends to be a victim
  • the murderer who pretends to be a serial killer
  • the murderer who is also the investigating policeman
  • the cast of suspects who are all innocent
  • the cast of suspects who are all guilty

Mary Westmacott

But while she addressed the murder mystery novel with a kind of cold-blooded forensic experimentalism, at the same time she embarked what became a series of six novels under the alter ego of Mary Westmacott. See the section above. Knowing that they were written soon after her life-changing divorce sheds a different light on them and explains why Thompson mines them so heavily to depict the ‘real’ Agatha.

Travels and Max

In 1928 Christie left England and took the (Simplon) Orient Express to Istanbul and then onto Baghdad. Obviously the Orient Express trip provided the material for the book of the same name.

In Iraq she became friends with archaeologist Leonard Woolley and his wife, Katherine. They stayed with her at her new London home and then invited her to return to their dig in February 1930. On that second trip, she met archaeologist Max Mallowan, 13 and a half years her junior. She was 39, he was just 25 (Max b. 6 May 1904; Agatha b. 15 September 1890) (p.284). The precise occasion was when he took her and a group of tourists on a tour of his expedition site in Iraq.

By the standards of the day it was a fairly quick romance. Christie and Mallowan married in Edinburgh in September 1930. Unlike her first marriage, and like Archie and Nancy, Agatha and Max’s marriage lasted the rest of their lives, until Christie’s death in 1976.

Agatha accompanied Mallowan on all his subsequent archaeological expeditions, and her travels with him contributed background to several of her novels set in the Middle East, notably ‘Murder in Mesopotamia’, ‘Death on the Nile’ and ‘Appointment with Death’. His last trip back to Ur, the ancient city being excavated by Woolley was in 1931.

According to Thompson, Woolley’s wife, Katherine Woolley appears only thinly disguised in ‘Appointment with Death’ as the murderee, Mrs Leidner, a cold woman who enjoyed trifling with all the men around her – a rare instance of Agatha basing a character on an identifiable real life person.

Critics accused young Max of being a gold-digger and Agatha certainly funded his expeditions, notably one to Arpachiyah in Iraq in 1933. In 1935 he took Agatha to Chagar Bazar in Syria. Max wasn’t a brilliant excavator but he was brilliant at organising digs and keeping up to 200 local workmen under discipline. Agatha wasn’t that interested in the finds, but happily played the loyal wife and was also very interested in exotic wildflowers.

It was also, often, extremely uncomfortable, but Agatha was tough and healthy, and always despised complaining women. (p.314)

It’s true she featured archaeologists in some of her books: in ‘Murder in Mesopotamia’ but most critically in ‘Death in the Clouds’ where the narrator mocks the pretensions of the father and son team of archaeologists.

Thompson analyses the relationship at length but what it boiled down to was that Max restored her faith and trust and allowed her to return to a kind of state of pampered childhood, the state she enjoyed with her beloved mother and, at first, with Archie, till he got fed up of her gushing girliness: Max restored it to her and, thus liberated, her imagination was set free to roam far and wide, taking the detective story genre to pieces, and putting it back together in all kinds of interesting forms.

Buying houses

During the 1930s Agatha bought a number of houses with her earnings. At one point Thompson mentions properties at:

  • Sheffield Terrace
  • Campden Street
  • Half Moon Street
  • Park Place
  • a mews cottage at 22 Cresswell Place, Chelsea, SW1 (1929)
  • Lawn Road (p.344)

She finally, reluctantly, allowed beloved Ashfield to be sold but she had bought a comfortable home at Wallington near Oxford (Winterbrook; 1934) abut her romantic purchase was of the grand white house named Greenway, which overlooked the banks of the River Dart in Devon (also 1934).

On page 348, Thompson states that Agatha owned four houses: so presumably that’s Winterbrook, Greenway and two in London, so the other properties must have been flats.

Second World War

Max had a distinguished war career. According to his Wikipedia entry:

After the beginning of the Second World War he served with the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve in North Africa, being based for part of 1943 at the ancient city of Sabratha in Libya. He was commissioned as a pilot officer on probation in the Administrative and Special Duties Branch on 11 February 1941, promoted flying officer on 18 August 1941, flight lieutenant on 1 April 1943 and for some time he also had the rank of wing commander. His first role with the RAF was as a liaison officer with allied forces and, later in the war, as a civilian affairs officer in North Africa.

Thompson summarises Max’s career rather differently on page 319, emphasising the initial struggle he had to find a post.

Peripatetic

Greenway was commandeered by the military before being handed over to the American navy in 1942.(Naval officers billeted there painted a mural round the cornices of the library, celebrating their feats, which sounds like a bit of a liberty).

So Agatha spent the war years in London, moving between her half dozen properties, but mostly at Lawn Road Flats in Hampstead.

Agatha’s prolific war years

Agatha kept on writing at a prodigious rate. Between September 1939 and August 1945, she published:

  • And Then There Were None (1939)
  • Sad Cypress (1940)
  • One, Two, Buckle My Shoe (1940)
  • Evil Under the Sun (1941)
  • N or M? (1941)
  • The Body in the Library (1942)
  • Five Little Pigs (1942)
  • The Moving Finger (1943)
  • Towards Zero (1944)
  • Absent in the Spring (1944)
  • Death Comes as the End (1945)
  • Sparkling Cyanide (1945)

And this doesn’t include the plays she adapted from her own novels, sometimes radically rewriting the endings. Prodigious output, eh?

Five Little Pigs

Of all of these, Thompson singles out ‘Five Little Pigs’ as the masterpiece. This is because of the unusually intense and real feeling with which she describes a marriage on the rocks, as the husband falls for a much younger woman (although, typically, the situation turns out not to be quite as straightforward as it seems for the first three-quarters of the book). It has a ‘lived’ quality, which most of her novels don’t, really.

Stephen Glanville

During the war, while Max was away, Agatha had a brief flirtation, of sorts, with Stephen Glanville, a historian and Egyptologist ten years her junior. He helped her write her strangest novel, a murder mystery set in ancient Egypt, ‘Death Comes as the End’ (pages 330 to 335).

Shakespeare

She developed an intense passion for Shakespeare, attended numerous productions, and adapted her novel, ‘Ten Little N******’ for the stage, in 1943.

Hospital volunteering

In 1940 Agatha began to give a few days a week to voluntary work at University College Hospital, in the dispensary, the same kind of work she’d done during the first war.

Rosalind comes of age and marries

Thompson uses her war chapter to bring us up to speed with the life of Agatha’s difficult daughter Rosalind. Born in 1919, she ‘came out’ in 1937. In 1940, aged just 21, after a brief courtship, she surprised Agatha and Max by marrying a soldier, Major Hubert de Burr Prichard, in Wales. In 1943 they had a child, Mathew Prichard. A year later Major Prichard was killed in the invasion of Normandy. Five years later (in 1949) she married the lawyer Anthony Hicks and kept the married name Rosamond Hick to the end of her life.

Fat as a psychological defence

According to Thompson it was really during the war years that Agatha completely lost her youth and figure and became the stout middle-aged woman we know from the photos. Becoming fat made her sad but ‘she loved to eat’ (p.328). Thompson has a lyrical paragraph describing the change in Agatha’s self image:

It was a long way from the slender, fairy-like girl who had married Archie Christie: between those two there had been the mystery of physical allure, which Agatha still conjured in her books but had deliberately destroyed for herself. She had, indeed, coarsened. She did not merely his behind the public persona of ‘Agatha Christie’; she sheltered within a shroud of flesh, dense and unwieldy, a symbolic defence against the sharp agonies of the past. (p.328)

And even more so after the war:

Her large comfortable physicality was a defence against wounds, and after the war it grew more massive still. She lost the last trace of the attractions she had held, until her early fifties, for a man like Stephen Glanville. Her weight rose to nearly fifteen stone, her legs swelled immensely and she became extraordinarily sensitive about photographs.

And quotes a friend of Stephen Glanville’s daughter who met her in Cambridge in the 1950s:

‘I thought the sight of her surprising, with a fat, somewhat uncoordinated body and messily applied lipstick.’ (p.364)

It made her unhappy but this was the course she had adopted.

Tax troubles

To the amazement of Agatha, her agents in both the UK (Edward Cork of Hughes Massie) and the States (Harold Ober), towards the end of the 1930s she got into trouble with the tax authorities in both countries, trouble with ramified and complexified and ending up dogging her for decades. Thompson’s account begins on page 345 and then the theme recurs for the rest of the book.

As far as I can make out, the problem had two causes. Until the later 1930s Agatha had been categorised by the US tax authorities as a ‘non-resident alien author’ and so didn’t have to pay tax on income earned through the sale of her copyrights in the US, plus the increasing amount of movie and theatrical rights sales. All this changed when the US authorities decided that the wildly successful popular British novelist, Rafael Sabatini, did have to pay tax on the income he earned in the States. In 1938 the US tax authorities began to pry into Agatha’s affairs, quickly revealing how much she earned in the Sates and backdating her tax liability to the start of her career (in 1920). They started impounding her US earnings while the case went through the courts.

But in the meantime, back in the UK Agatha continued to live an upper middle class life, maintain her half dozen properties, with staff etc, and enjoy the high life, but with no income coming in from the States (p.359). She began to go into debt and borrowed to maintain her lifestyle. But at the same time, although she continued to be prolific and popular, wartime conditions in Britain also hit sales, revenue and publishers payments.

Then in 1945, the new Labour government put up tax thresholds to fund the welfare state and other policies, and people like Agatha, well off but not rich, were penalised.

A combination of all these factors means that the war years were marked by growing concerns about her income, her tax, and her lifestyle, worries which dogged her for decades to come.

The impact of war

Several novels Agatha published just after the war deal with its impact:

  • The Hollow (1946)
  • Taken at the Flood (1948)
  • The Rose and the Yew Tree (1948)

With their mood of restlessness and dissatisfaction (p.351).

The post-war

Thompson commences her account of Agatha’s post-war years with a couple of generalisations:

It was in the middle of the century that the phenomenon of ‘Agatha Christie’ really took off. In 1945 she was a popular and successful author whose new books always sold out a print run of 25,000. But by 1950 she was a global brand estimated to have sold 50 million books! And receiving increasing amounts of fan mail (p.361).

Two paradoxes about this:

1. It is generally agreed that this huge popularity came just as the quality of her novels began to fall away. In the 30 years from 1945 to 1976 she wrote a handful of outstanding books, but most of them war solid, reliable, formulaic. Not many matched the brilliance of the 20 or so year before (1926 to 1945) and especially ‘the period of intense, sustained creativity around the war which marks the high point of her achievement’ (p.356).

2. The other paradox is that her fame became truly enormous more from the adaptations of the books than the books themselves. Thus movie versions of:

  • Love From A Stranger (1937)
  • And Then there Were None (1945)

And theatrical adaptations of:

  • And Then there Were None (1943)
  • Hidden Horizon (adaptation of Murder on the Nile; 1944)
  • Murder at the Vicarage (1949)
  • The Hollow (1951)
  • The Mousetrap (1952)
  • Witness for the Prosecution (1953)

Not to mention radio, for example a series of weekly adaptations of the Poirot stories on American radio.

Goodbye

And with that, with Agatha having married off her daughter, undergone a period of prolific productivity, had a brief flirtation but remained fundamentally true to the man who rescued her wounded heart (Max), settling into middle-age and overweight, becoming a global brand but sinking into ever-murkier disputes with the tax authorities in two countries – I’m going to leave this biography. Maybe, when I’ve read the later books, I’ll pick it up and review the post-war years. But not now.


Credit

‘Agatha Christie: An English Mystery’ by Laura Thompson was published in 2007 by Headline Review. Page references are to the 2008 paperback edition.

Related reviews

Aspects of Hercule Poirot

‘Now then, you old dog. I know you Frenchmen!’
Poirot said coldly: ‘I am not a Frenchman!’
(Evil Under The Sun)

‘I prefer the life of the innocent to the conviction of the guilty.’

Poirot’s appearance

Short. Egg-shaped head.

Eyes light up green when he’s excited / on the trail.

Poirot sat up suddenly in his chair. A very faint green light glowed in his eyes. He looked extraordinarily like a sleek, well-fed cat. (The Mystery of the Blue Train, Chapter 17)

Poirot is short

Sherlock Holmes is what people expect of a master detective – tall (a shade over 6 foot), commanding and authoritative. Whereas Poirot is short – everyone comments on it, on how ‘small’ he is i.e. against the masculine stereotype.

Poirot is dapper

When necessary, Holmes is a dab hand with his fists and ready to whip his fencing sword out of his walking stick. The new breed of action heroes born during the war – John Buchan’s Richard Hannay and Sandy Arbuthnot, along with Sapper’s Bulldog Drummond – are even handier with their fists or the nearest weapon. None of them mind getting filthy dirty driving cars or flying airplanes or hiding out on the boggy moors.

Poirot couldn’t be more the opposite of this if he tried. He is not only short, but abhors physical violence and, above all, he is dapper, almost an aesthete – endlessly preening his moustaches and absurdly fussy about even a speck of dust landing on his perfectly pressed trousers.

Poirot’s age

I don’t think it’s stated anywhere, but what is stated, repeatedly, is other characters considering him over the hill, antique. In fact Christie has characters use the same slang expression, ‘gaga’, in numerous books.

After a minute Rosamund said: ‘That little man—Poirot—is he really taking an active interest!’
Kenneth Marshall said: ‘Seemed to be sitting in the Chief Constable’s pocket all right the other day.’
‘I know—but is he doing anything?’
‘How the hell should I know, Rosamund?’
She said thoughtfully: ‘He’s pretty old. Probably more or less ga ga.’
(Evil Under the Sun, Chapter 9)

Here, as in other aspects of his character, Poirot is obviously lulling the other characters and, to some extent the reader, into a false sense of complacency about him – before, of course, he solves the whole thing.

Poirot’s address

His (fictional) address is 56B Whitehaven Mansions, Sandhurst Square, London W1.

In the long-running ITV series starring David Suchet, Poirot’s apartment block was represented by Florin Court, Charterhouse Square, London EC1.

Poirot’s egotism

‘My name is Hercule Poirot,’ he said quietly, ‘and I am probably the greatest detective in the world.’
(The Mystery of the Blue Train, chapter 17)

It amused her to see the little man plume himself like a bird, thrusting out his chest, and assuming an air of mock modesty that would have deceived no one.
(The Mystery of the Blue Train, Chapter 21)

‘You are – you are a detective, aren’t you?’
‘Yes, Mademoiselle.’
‘A very well-known detective?’
The best detective in the world,’ said Poirot, stating it as a simple truth, no more, no less.(Appointment with Death, part 2, chapter 12)

‘Believe me – really – it would be better not to ask them. I am in good hands. Mr Seddon has been most kind. I am to have a very famous counsel.’
Poirot said:
‘He is not so famous as I am!’
Elinor Carlisle said with a touch of weariness:
‘He has a great reputation.’
‘Yes, for defending criminals. I have a great reputation – for demonstrating innocence.’
(Sad Cypress, part 2, chapter 11)

‘I want to show you, mademoiselle, that even in a small unimportant matter, I am something of a magician. There are things I know without having to be told.’
(Five Little Pigs, part 3)

Poirot’s foreignness

Because he is a foreigner in England, Poirot is outside the strict English class system. This allows him to make comic remarks about England’s appalling cuisine or the Englishman’s obsession with mindless sports. It also gives him leeway to intrude beyond the bounds of politeness which might restrain an English detective, as he explains to Roddy Welman in ‘Sad Cypress’:

Poirot said: ‘I apologize – I apologize deeply! It is so hard – to be a detective and also a pukka sahib. As it is so well expressed in your language, there are things that one does not say. But, alas, a detective is forced to say them! He must ask questions: about people’s private affairs, about their feelings.’
(Sad Cypress, part 2, chapter 6)

And it also exposes him to occasional xenophobia.

In the awesome majesty of Mrs Bishop’s black-clad presence Hercule Poirot sat humbly insignificant. The thawing of Mrs Bishop was no easy matter. For Mrs Bishop, a lady of Conservative habits and views, strongly disapproved of foreigners. And a foreigner most indubitably Hercule Poirot was. Her responses were frosty and she eyed him with disfavour and suspicion.
(Sad Cypress, part 2, chapter 4)

He is regularly described as making a ‘foreign’ gesture:

Hercule Poirot said:
‘But, then…?’
He spread out his hands in a wide, appealing foreign gesture.

Poirot is Belgian, not French

It may have been a semi-random stroke to make him Belgian – at the end of her life Christie could only remember it being something to do with the Belgian refugees who arrived in her home town of Torquay at the start of the war – but it had an interesting effect.

This is that most people think he is French and, when Poirot frostily reminds them that he is, in fact Belgian, it unnerves people. It puts them off their stroke. English people, specially in the 1920s and ’30s, had familiar received opinions about the French, but this need to correct almost everyone he speaks to, subtly gives him the advantage, subtly wrongfoots people, and indeed introduces the very notion of subtle distinctions, the noticing of which is very much Poirot’s profession.

Poirot’s method

  1. Trust no-one – everyone is a suspect until proven innocent.
  2. Every witness keeps something back, no matter how trivial, sometimes unconsciously.
  3. Seek out who the crime benefits.
  4. Use order and method to establish the facts and arrange them logically.
  5. Then employ ‘the little grey cells’ to come up with ‘little ideas’ i.e. draft theories, which connect the facts.
  6. Accept no theory which doesn’t accommodate all the facts i.e. don’t jump to conclusions or hold onto pet theories which there is evidence disproving.
  7. Finally, your theory must be congruent with psychology i.e. with the characters of the people involved.

Suspect everyone

‘I am a good detective. I suspect. There is nobody and nothing that I do not suspect. I believe nothing that I am told.’ (Chapter 35)

Arrange the facts in a logical order

  • ‘Let us arrange our facts with order and precision…’
  • ‘I mean nothing,’ said Poirot. ‘I arrange the facts, that is all.’
  • ‘It is nothing,’ said Poirot modestly. ‘Order, method, being prepared for eventualities beforehand—that is all there is to it.’ (all from The Mystery of the Blue Train)

Do not suppress awkward facts

Your theory must fit all the facts. If any facts stick out, do not ignore them (as Inspector Japp notoriously does), adapt your theory.

‘It is certainly curious,’ I agreed. ‘Still, it is unimportant, and need not be taken into account.’
A groan burst from Poirot.
‘What have I always told you? Everything must be taken into account. If the fact will not fit the theory—let the theory go.’
(The Mysterious Affair at Styles, Chapter 5)

And then, the theory you derive from all the facts must pass the final, most important threshold – it must comply with the psychology of the people involved, it must be psychologically plausible,

Poirot and psychology

Psychological plausibility is the last and most important criterion any theory must comply with.

‘The psychology, it is the most important fact in a case.’

In ‘Appointment with Death’ Colonel Carbury asks Poirot how he proposes to solve the murder mystery and Poirot gives a handy summary of his method:

‘By methodical sifting of the evidence, by a process of reasoning… And by a study of psychological probabilities.’ (p.127)

But Christie had a wide-ranging interest in psychology from the start, in at least 3 senses:

1. A key part of Poirot’s methodology is that, once you’ve assembled all the facts and data, the solution must not only fit the facts and evidence you’ve gathered, it must go further and have a psychological plausibility i.e. the person the evidence points towards must be psychologically consistent with a murderer.

The perfect solution must explain everything.

‘It was a solution that fitted the outer facts, but it did not satisfy the psychological requirements.’ (Chapter 28)

2. The psychological moment. In his reconstructions of murders, Poirot often points out that they occur at just the right moment, at a psychological tipping point.

3. General theories of psychological types or personalities e.g. the discussion of inferiority complexes and other complexes in ‘The ABC Murders’.

Dr Tanios was sitting in an armchair reading one of Poirot’ s books on psychology. (Chapter 23)

Or the extended discussion about human nature between doctors Gerard and King in ‘Appointment with Death’.

Poirot’s talking method

The best way to achieve this psychological accuracy, to know whether this or that action could have been performed by this or that character, is to let people talk – either in formal interview situations (which occur in so many of the novels soon after the murder) or in the numerous informal conversations Poirot happens to / manages to have with all the key characters. Let people talk long enough and sooner or later they will reveal themselves!

‘To investigate a crime it is only necessary to let the guilty party or parties talk.’ (Appointment with Death p.217)

Explained at greater length in Death in the Clouds:

‘What a horrible, tricky sort of person you are, M. Poirot,’ said Jane, rising. ‘I shall never know why you are saying things.’
‘That is quite simple. I want to find out things.’
‘I suppose you’ve got very clever ways of finding out things?’
‘There is only one really simple way.’
‘What is that?’
‘To let people tell you.’
Jane laughed.
‘Suppose they don’t want to?’
‘Everyone likes talking about themselves.’
‘I suppose they do,’ admitted Jane.
‘That is how many a quack makes a fortune. He encourages patients to come and sit and tell him things. How they fell out of the perambulator when they were two, and how their mother ate a pear and the juice fell on her orange dress, and how when they were one and a half they pulled their father’s beard; and then he tells them that now they will not suffer from the insomnia any longer, and he takes two guineas; and they go away, having enjoyed themselves – oh, so much – and perhaps they do sleep.’
‘How ridiculous,’ said Jane.
‘No, it is not so ridiculous as you think. It is based on a fundamental need of human nature – the need to talk – to reveal oneself.’
(Death in the Clouds, Chapter 16)

Poirot’s Eureka moment

Towards the end of every story, there’s a Eureka moment when the penny drops, and when Poirot always describes himself as a fool or imbecile for not seeing it sooner.

Then he uttered a grunt. ‘Imbecile that I am! Of course!’ (Dumb Witness, Chapter 23)

Poirot’s big reveal

‘You are probably wondering why I have gathered you all here this evening…

In the course of my association with Poirot I had assisted at many such a scene. A little company of people, all outwardly composed with well-bred masks for faces. And I had seen Poirot strip the mask from one face and show it for what it was – the face of a killer!
(Dumb Witness, Chapter 29)

Actually this classic scene doesn’t happen quite as often as legend suggests, only about 4 or 5 times in the 20 or so novels I’ve read.

Poirot likes to make things difficult

Early on in the books Inspector Japp accuses Poirot of deliberately making everything he’s involved with more difficult than it need be, and thereafter the phrase and accusation recur regularly as, for example, in this little exchange between Poirot and an exasperated Jane Olivera in ‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’.

‘Is she dead?’
‘I have not said so.’
‘She’s alive, then?’
‘I have not said that either.’
Jane looked at him with irritation. She exclaimed:
‘Well, she’s got to be one or the other, hasn’t she?’
‘Actually, it’s not quite so simple.’
‘I believe you just like making things difficult!’
‘It has been said of me,’ admitted Hercule Poirot.

Poirot’s OCD

I knew about obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) but it was only from reading around Poirot that I discovered the existence of symmetry OCD. According to the internet:

Symmetry OCD is a subtype of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) where individuals experience intense anxiety or distress related to the alignment, arrangement, or balance of objects and even their own actions. This can manifest as a need for things to be perfectly symmetrical, aligned, or ‘just right’, leading to repetitive behaviours like arranging, ordering, or touching items to achieve this perceived perfection.

Two points. 1) Obviously Poirot’s tendency to rearrange trivial household objects, on a mantelpiece or table top, is intended as an external corollary of his internal need to arrange the facts of a case with method and order and logic. All part of the same tendency. Everything in a case must be arranged just so:

‘But one does not like things that one cannot explain.’ (One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, p.217)

And again, in ‘Evil Under The Sun’:

‘My orderly mind, that is vexed by trifles!’ (Chapter 8)

But 2) the noteworthy thing about Poirot’s OCD is actually, I think, how restrained Christie is about it. In most of the novels there is only one minor momentary instance of Poirot rearranging things: blink and you’d miss it – and in some of the novels it’s not even mentioned at all. I.e. it’s done with surprising subtlety. Just one mention per book is enough to make the point.

Poirot took a little time to speak. Methodically he arranged an ash-tray or two and made a little heap of used matches. (Appointment with Death, p.127)

It’s in ‘Appointment with Death’ that we learn that Poirot insists on cleaning his own shoes. He takes everywhere his own little shoe-cleaning outfit and duster (AWD, p.150). Sweet.

Poirot’s house of cards

In ‘Peril at End House’ Poirot sends Hastings to buy a pack of cards so that he can sit quietly making houses of cards with them. Helps him think. Again, like the OCD, this is underplayed rather than over-used. In fact it only happens once in the 20 or so novels I’ve read.

That night, when I came into the sitting-room about ten o’clock, I found Poirot carefully building card houses – and I remembered! It was an old trick of his – soothing his nerves. He smiled at me.
‘Yes – you remember. One needs the precision. One card on another – so – in exactly the right place and that supports the weight of the card on top and so on, up.’
(‘Peril at End House’, Chapter 17)

Poirot smokes tiny cigarettes

Hercule Poirot, with care and precision, lighted a very tiny cigarette.
(Sad Cypress, part 2, Chapter 1)

Poirot… extracted his cigarette case and lit one of those tiny cigarettes which it was his affection to smoke.
(Evil Under The Sun, Chapter 2)

The bourgeois detective

Jane Olivera is a feisty young American woman who takes against Poirot from the start. But she is the only one who insults him in quite this way:

She paused, then, her agreeable, husky voice deepening, she said venomously: ‘I loathe the sight of you – you bloody little bourgeois detective!’
She swept away from him in a whirl of expensive model drapery. Hercule Poirot remained, his eyes very wide open, his eyebrows raised and his hand thoughtfully caressing his moustaches.
The epithet bourgeois was, he admitted, well applied to him. His outlook on life was essentially bourgeois, and always had been, but the employment of it as an epithet of contempt by the exquisitely turned out Jane Olivera gave him, as he expressed it to himself, furiously to think…
(One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, p.156)

Poirot’s sidekicks

Captain Hastings

Poirot is associated, not least because of the ITV dramatisations, with well-meaning but slow and dim sidekick Captain Arthur Hastings. Hastings appears in Christie’s very first novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles – in fact he narrates it – before going on to appear in seven further novels:

  • The Mysterious Affair at Styles (1920)
  • The Murder on the Links (1923)
  • The Big Four (1927)
  • Peril at End House (1932)
  • Lord Edgware Dies (1933)
  • The A.B.C. Murders (1936)
  • Dumb Witness (1937)

And there his presence ends until the final Poirot novel, Curtain which, although written in the early 1940s, wasn’t published until 1975.

Hastings obviously plays the role of the Dr Watson figure, the confidant to the great detective, allowing him to ponder the evidence and work through theories out loud, as it were, so that the reader can overhear every stage of the great man’s developing theory, which is half the fun of a detective novel. No sidekick, everything would be locked up in the great man’s mind.

In addition, Hastings is a comic character because he is consistently wrong, slow on the uptake and quick to draw completely the wrong conclusions. Somewhere Poirot explicitly states that he loves having Hastings around because whenever he makes a suggestion or theory, Poirot can be confident it’s wrong and remove it from his list.

But even as I read  the novels through, I myself became bored with Hastings. His dimness wears thin, as does his rather creepy habit of falling in love with any nubile young woman involved in the plot. I can see why Christie eventually dropped him altogether. There are 33 Poirot novels and Hastings appears in just eight.

Colonel Race

Christie’s maturing taste and style are reflected by the appearance of Colonel Race to play the sidekick role. As an Army officer and secret service agent, Race is a much more intelligent and reliable confidant, much more at Poirot’s own level of keen intelligence and insight. He plays a leading role in four novels:

  • The Man in the Brown Suit (1924)
  • Cards on the Table (1936)
  • Death on the Nile (1937)
  • Sparkling Cyanide (1945)

as well as being mentioned in Appointment with Death (1938).

So Poirot has sidekicks to confide in and share the sleuthing with in about 12 of the novels, meaning he is much more of a solo operator in the other 20 or so.

Poirot’s one woman

Sherlock Holmes admired just one woman, the one woman who had outwitted him, Irene Adler, who he ever afterwards refers to as ‘the Woman’.

Well, in another straight steal from Conan Doyle, Agatha Christie gives her world famous detective One Woman who he from time to time remembers with a wistful sigh. In the middle of ‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’, Poirot goes for a walk through Regents Park, noting the nursemaids and courting couples, young people everywhere:

They were chic, these little London girls. They wore their tawdry clothes with an air. Their figures, however, he considered lamentably deficient. Where were the rich curves, the voluptuous lines that had formerly delighted the eye of an admirer?

He, Hercule Poirot, remembered women… One woman, in particular – what a sumptuous creature – Bird of Paradise – a Venus… What woman was there amongst these pretty chits nowadays, who could hold a candle to Countess Vera Rossakoff? A genuine Russian aristocrat, an aristocrat to her fingertips! And also, he remembered, a most accomplished thief… One of those natural geniuses…

With a sigh, Poirot wrenched his thoughts away from the flamboyant creature of his dreams… (One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, p.186)

Poirot’s friends in high places

In ‘One, Two, Buckle My Shoe’, we learn that Poirot has friends in impressively high places – exactly like Sherlock Holmes he is said to have saved individual ministers’ bacon or even the entire government.

Poirot called at Scotland Yard and asked for Japp. When he was taken up to the Chief Inspector’s room: ‘I want to see Carter,’ said Hercule Poirot. Japp shot him a quick, sideways glance. He said:
‘What’s the big idea?’
‘You are unwilling?’
Japp shrugged his shoulders. He said: ‘Oh, I shan’t make objections. No good if I did. Who’s the Home Secretary’s little pet? You are. Who’s got half the Cabinet in his pocket? You have. Hushing up their scandals for them.’
Poirot’s mind flew for a moment to that case that he had named the Case of the Augean Stables. He murmured, not without complacence: ‘It was ingenious, yes? You must admit it.’
(One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, p.173)

Sentiments echoed by the CID officer in charge of the Elinor Welman case in ‘Sad Cypress’:

Inspector Marsden smiled indulgently. He said:
‘Got the present Home Secretary in your pocket, haven’t you?’
(Sad Cypress, part 2, chapter 8)

Poirot gets seasick

Miss Brewster, noting the glance, said kindly: ‘You’d soon get that off, M. Poirot, if you took a rowing‐boat out every day.’
‘Merci, Mademoiselle. I detest boats!’
‘You mean small boats?’
‘Boats of all sizes!’ He closed his eyes and shuddered. ‘The movement of the sea, it is not pleasant.’
‘Bless the man, the sea is as calm as a mill pond today.’
Poirot replied with conviction: ‘There is no such thing as a really calm sea. Always, always, there is motion.’
(Evil Under The Sun, Chapter 1)

Poirot’s pitilessness

At the end of ‘Murder on the Orient Express’, having established the identities of the murderers, Poirot famously (well, it’s famous if you know about it) lets them off, letting the authorities believe a false version of events. This is because the murdered man turns out to himself have been a disgusting child murderer and all the murderers had been affected by his terrible crime.

No such luck, though, for the Boynton family in ‘Appointment with Death’. When the evil matriarch, Mrs Boynton, is bumped off suspicion falls on all of them. It takes an outsider, Nadine, married to the (grown-up) son, to beg Poirot to stop his investigations and let the family, which has suffered so much, get on with their lives. But Poirot says no.

Nadine said passionately: ‘I have heard, M. Poirot, that once, in that affair of the Orient Express, you accepted an official verdict of what had happened?’
Poirot looked at her curiously. ‘I wonder who told you that.’
‘Is it true?’
He said slowly: ‘That case was… different.’
‘No. No, it was not different! The man who was killed was evil,’ her voice dropped, ‘as she was…’
Poirot said: ‘The moral character of the victim has nothing to do with it! A human being who has exercised the right of private judgment and taken the life of another human being is not safe to exist amongst the community. I tell you that! I, Hercule Poirot!’
‘How hard you are!’
‘Madame, in some ways I am adamant. I will not condone murder! That is the final word of Hercule Poirot.’
(Book 2, chapter 7)

Same thing happens in ‘Sad Cypress’. Dr Lord argues that even if the woman he loves, Elinor Welman, did murder Mary Gerrard, it was out of jealousy founded on love for the man Mary had won from her (Roddy). Love does funny things to people and so, on that basis, he wants Poirot to investigate the case and help get her off even if she did it. He says:

‘Supposing she was driven desperate? Love’s a desperate and twisting business. It can turn a worm into a fine fellow—and it can bring a decent, straight man down to the dregs! Suppose she did do it. Haven’t you got any pity?’
Hercule Poirot said:
‘I do not approve of murder.’
(Sad Cypress, part 2, chapter 1)

Poirot’s favourite foods

Poirot has a very sweet tooth. He always drinks chocolate for breakfast, a revolting habit according to Captain Hastings in ‘Dumb Witness’. And again:

George entered the room with his usual noiseless tread. He set down on a little table a steaming pot of chocolate and some sugar biscuits.
(One, Two, Buckle My Shoe)

But in ‘Evil Under The Sun’:

Hercule Poirot breakfasted in his room as usual off coffee and rolls.

Well, Christie isn’t on oath to be consistent.

In ‘Lord Edgware Dies’ we learn that Poirot’s favourite dessert is a Baba au Rhum i.e. rum baba.

Poirot’s favourite drink is the non-alcoholic sirop de cassis, ‘syrup of the blackcurrants’ as he puts it, or blackcurrant cordial, not unlike the English cordial, Ribena. In ‘Death on the Nile’ he drinks ‘a double orangeade full of sugar’. No wonder he’s so tubby.

I thought this sweet tooth was going to be ubiquitous but in xxx he also drinks wine and, being Francophone, it is hinted that he is a connoisseur, though this is nowhere dwelled on.

Poirot on English cuisine

‘The coffee in this country is very bad anyway—’ said Poirot.
‘I’ll say it is,’ agreed Mr Raikes with fervour.
‘But if you allow it to get cold it is practically undrinkable.’
(One, Two, Buckle My Shoe)

Like any sensible person, he dislikes tea, or at least the way the English make it, milky and sweet.

Nurse Hopkins was hospitable with the teapot, and a minute later Poirot was regarding with some dismay a cup of inky beverage.
‘Just made—nice and strong!’ said Nurse Hopkins.
Poirot stirred his tea cautiously and took one heroic sip.
(Sad Cypress, part 2, chapter 13)

Poirot’s watch

In her biography of Christie, Laura Thompson says she wasn’t a very humorous woman. Maybe, but her books are. Her books are full of delightful little comic touches. That’s why I read them.

Poirot glanced at his watch, a large grotesque turnip of a watch.
‘Family heirloom?’ enquired Carbury, interestedly.
‘But yes indeed, it belonged to my grandfather.’
‘Thought it might have done.’
(Appointment with Death, Chapter 15)

Poirot likes shoes and feet

‘I came out from my séance at the dentist’s and as I stood on the steps of 58 Queen Charlotte Street, a taxi stopped outside, the door opened and a woman’s foot prepared to descend. I am a man who notices a woman’s foot and ankle. It was a well-shaped foot, with a good ankle and an expensive stocking, but I did not like the shoe…’
(One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, p.215)

Later, in Evil Under The Sun, sitting with oldsters on the terrace of a hotel looking down on rows of half-naked sunbathers:

Major Barry said appreciatively: ‘Good‐looking fillies, some of ’em. Bit on the thin side, perhaps.’
Poirot cried: ‘Yes, but what appeal is there? What mystery? I, I am old, of the old school. When I was young, one saw barely the ankle. The glimpse of a foamy petticoat, how alluring! The gentle swelling of the calf – a knee – a beribboned garter –’
‘Naughty, naughty!’ said Major Barry hoarsely.
(Evil under the Sun, Chapter 1)

Poirotisms

I’ve mentioned how Poirot’s foreignness is raised a number of times. It can also be used for pure comic purposes, as when Christie has Poirot mangle an English proverb or common phrase, as he does at least once in every story. I’ve christened these comic malapropisms ‘Poirotisms’:

‘For the same reason, when she sets out the following day to get rid of the golf clubs, she continues to use the attaché-case as a – what is it – kippered herring?’
‘Red herring,’ Japp said.
(Murder in the Mews, Chapter 10)

Poirot held up a hand. ‘I do what you call explore all the avenues.’
(The Incredible Theft, Chapter 4)

‘Ah, yes, it is what you call the old gasp – no, pardon, the old wheeze, that – to come back for a book. It is often useful!’
(The Incredible Theft, Chapter 4)

‘One has, sometimes, a feeling. Faintly, I seem to smell the fish.’
(Dead Man’s Mirror, Chapter 1)

‘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.’
(Dumb Witness, 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?’
(Dumb Witness, 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.
(Dumb Witness, Chapter 21)

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

‘The hotel’s half empty, and everyone’s about a hundred—’
She stopped—biting her lip. Hercule Poirot’s eyes twinkled.
‘It is true, yes, I have one leg in the grave.’
(Death on the Nile, Chapter 2)

Simon said boyishly: ‘You must tell us something about your cases on board the Karnak.’
‘No, no; that would be to talk—what do you call it?—the shop.’
(Death on the Nile, Chapter 4)

‘Up to a point it is all the clear sailing.’
(Death on the Nile, Chapter 16)

Poirot nodded. ‘But for the moment,’ he said, and smiled, ‘we handle him with the gloves of kid, is it not so?’
(Death on the Nile, Chapter 18)

‘I am talking about facts, Mademoiselle—plain ugly facts. Let us call the spade the spade.’
(Death on the Nile, Chapter 19)

Poirot said with a sigh: ‘Alas, the proverb is true. When you are courting, two is company, is it not, three is none?’
(One, Two, Buckle My Shoe, p.188)

Poirot is droll

‘Let us say that I shall have definite proof in my hands tomorrow.’ Dr Donaldson’ s eyebrows rose in a slightly ironical fashion.
‘Ah,’ he said. ‘Tomorrow! Sometimes, M. Poirot, tomorrow is a long way off.’
‘On the contrary,’ said Poirot, ‘I always find that it succeeds today with monotonous regularity.’
(Dumb Witness, Chapter 27)

Poirot’s manservant

George, Poirot’s immaculate and extremely English manservant, opened the door.
(Dumb Witness, Chapter 23)


Related reviews

Stories of the East by Leonard Woolf (1921)

Leonard Woolf’s first novel, the brilliant evocation of peasant life in Ceylon, ‘The Village in the Jungle’, was published in 1913. His second novel, the more conventional ‘Wise Virgins’, a thinly disguised account of his and Virginia’s Bloomsbury friends, was published the following year. There then followed a seven year hiatus while he concentrated on publishing the serious political and sociological works he wished to be remembered by:

  • International Government – 1916
  • The Future of Constantinople – 1917
  • The Framework of a Lasting Peace – 1917
  • Cooperation and the Future of Industry – 1918
  • Economic Imperialism – 1920
  • Empire and Commerce in Africa – 1920
  • Socialism and Co-operation – 1921

Then, in among all these serious works about international affairs and the future of imperialism (of which he was a fierce critic) the Hogarth Press, which he had set up with Virginia in 1917, published a slim volume titled ‘Stories of the East’. There are just three stories:

  1. A Tale Told by Moonlight
  2. Pearls and Swine
  3. The Two Brahmans

1. A Tale Told by Moonlight

The setup

This has the influence of Joseph Conrad all over it, from the narrator within a narrator structure, through to the pretty insignificant story itself, which is jazzed up to try and make it about treatment and atmosphere which, in my opinion, doesn’t come off.

The narrator is staying somewhere in the English countryside with Alderton, the novelist. The other house guests are Pemberton the poet and Hanson Smith, the critic. The fourth member of the party is Jessop who the narrator starts the story by telling us is generally unpopular for his habit of being blunt to the point of rudeness and incivility.

After dinner these chaps stroll down through the fields to the river and lie around chatting as dusk falls. When it’s dark they hear footsteps coming along the river and realise it’s a young couple out for a stroll. Concealed in the darkness and on a bank over the riverside path, our chaps hear the young couple murmuring sweet nothings then the sounds of kissing, before they stroll on.

This puts our chaps in a sentimental mood and they share stories about first loves and wooing. All except Jessop who hears the others out then weighs in with his unsentimental withering opinion, which is:

‘Think of it for a moment, chucking out of your mind all this business of kisses and moonlight and marriages. A miserable tailless ape buzzed round through space on this half cold cinder of an earth, a timid bewildered ignorant savage little beast always fighting for bare existence. And suddenly it runs up against another miserable naked tailless ape and immediately everything that it has ever known dies out of its little puddle of a mind, itself, its beastly body, its puny wandering desires, the wretched fight for existence, the whole world. And instead there comes a flame of passion for something in that other naked ape, not for her body or her mind or her soul, but for something beautiful mysterious everlasting—yes that’s it the everlasting passion in her which has flamed up in him. He goes buzzing on through space, but he isn’t tired or bewildered or ignorant any more; he can see his way now even among the stars. And that’s love, the love which you novelists scatter about so freely…’

So Jessop ridicules all the soppy talk about love and moonlight and says real love is strange, uncanny, unpredictable, makes no sense, is the rarest thing in the world. He’s knocked around the world and only ever seen two cases of it, and he’s now going to tell us about one of them.

So all this has been by way of introduction and this it is so redolent of Conrad: the all-male company; after dinner, in the dark; all described by an unknown narrator who then introduces one of the party telling a story-within-a-story. Structurally, it’s identical with the famous setting of Heart of Darkness.

The story

Among Jessop’s many friends and acquaintances was a man named Reynolds, a novelist. They were at Rugby (public school) together. Jessop was living ‘out East’, in Ceylon, in the capital Colombo. Reynolds and he exchanged occasional letters until Reynolds announced he was heading in that direction and it was arranged he’d come and stay for a week.

He was a thin, weedy man who’s ‘stood aside’ from life, out of nervousness, a legacy of being bullied at school, knew all about people’s little tricks and mannerisms but didn’t know how they felt because he’d never felt anything except fear and shyness. So Jessop took him to all the expat clubs and they sat and talked about love and life and Jessop realised he’d never actually lived a day in his life.

So he determines to show him a side of life he hadn’t seen before, and takes him in a rickshaw out into the seedy, native part of town, to a dingy house which is a native brothel. Here they are greeted by ten or so beautiful young scantily-clad women, laughing and giggling. Poor Reynolds is terribly embarrassed at the bare boobs and golden bodies and doesn’t respond to their kisses or caresses so most of them gravitate over to Jessop who can speak their language and is prepared to listen to their stories about the native villages they come from and the arduous lives they’ve escaped to come to the big city. All except one.

She was called Celestinahami and was astonishingly beautiful. Her skin was the palest of pale gold with a glow in it, very rare in the fair native women. The delicate innocent beauty of a child was in her face; and her eyes, Lord, her eyes immense, deep, dark and melancholy which looked as if they knew and understood and felt everything in the world. She never wore anything coloured, just a white cloth wrapped round her waist with one end thrown over the left shoulder. She carried about her an air of slowness and depth and mystery of silence and of innocence.

Long story short, they fall in love and, Jessop insists, it was the real thing not the milk and moonlight version of English poets and novelists. It was something deep and inexplicable.

He looked into her eyes that understood nothing but seemed to understand everything, and then it came out at last; the power to feel, the power that so few have, the flame, the passion, love, the real thing. It was the real thing, I tell you; I ought to know…

So Reynolds becomes hooked and goes back to the brothel night after night in order to see Celestinahami. But Reynolds becomes so unhappy at the impracticality of the whole situation that he makes a feeble attempt to shoot himself. He buys a revolver but Jessop burst into his room to find him struggling with the mechanism which clips chamber shut and seized it out of his hands.

Then Jessop read him the riot act and this is the bit I didn’t really understand, or thought contradicted itself. Because Jessop tells Reynolds that the girl is nothing like he imagines:

not a bit what he thought her, what his passion went out to—a nice simple soft little animal like the bitch at my feet that starved herself if I left her for a day

BUT, at the same time, acknowledging that what Reynolds feels for her IS the real thing:

You’re really in love, in love with something that doesn’t exist behind those great eyes. It’s dangerous, damned dangerous because it’s real—and that’s why it’s rare.

So it’s real love, one of the only two times Jessop has seen ‘real’ love – and yet he’s perfectly aware that it’s love for something which doesn’t exist. Reynolds is utterly projecting something onto this girl which simply isn’t there. And yet this is what Jessop calls real love. See why I’m a bit confused?

Anyway, Jessop roughly tells Reynolds to either get on the next ship home or ‘practise what you preach and live your life out, and take the risks.’ So for the first time in his life, Reynolds takes a chance on life. He buys the girl out of the brother (for the bargain price of 20 rupees) and Jessop fixes them up in a nice cottage by the sea.

At first they were happy. He taught her English and she taught him Sinhalese. He started to write a novel about the East. But pretty quickly he comes to realise the truth. He comes to realise the vast difference in intellect and education and culture between them.

He couldn’t speak to her and she couldn’t speak to him, she couldn’t understand him. He was a civilized cultivated intelligent nervous little man and she—she was an animal, dumb and stupid and beautiful.

He loved her but she tortured him. She got on his nerves.

But the cruellest thing of all was that she had grown to love him, love him like an animal; as a bitch loves her master.

Because:

There’s another sort of love; it isn’t the body and it isn’t the flame; it’s the love of dogs and women, at any rate of those slow, big-eyed women of the East. It’s the love of a slave, the patient, consuming love for a master, for his kicks and his caresses, for his kisses and his blows. That was the sort of love which grew up slowly in Celestinahami for Reynolds. But it wasn’t what he wanted, it was that, I expect, more than anything which got on his nerves.

So, the story tells us, there are two types of love: the big visionary type which, it has been clearly explained, Reynolds projected onto Celestinahami; and the dog-like, slave-like master-love of Celestinahami. Neither sound to me like ‘the real thing’, which Jessop set out to describe.

She used to follow him about the bungalow like a dog. He wanted to talk to her about his novel and she only understood how to pound and cook rice. It exasperated him, made him unkind, cruel. And when he looked into her patient, mysterious eyes he saw behind them what he had fallen in love with, what he knew didn’t exist. It began to drive him mad.

And so the story hurtles to its inevitable, Conradian end. She takes desperate steps to try and keep his ‘love’, the most florid being to dress up like the white women she sees in Colombo, in stays and white cotton stockings and shoes. But the more she tries, the more she destroys the image Reynolds had of her, the more angry he becomes, the more wretched she.

Eventually Reynolds realises he has to leave and carry on his travels. He swears to Celestinahami and Jessop that he’ll be back, he considerately makes over the house to Celestinahami’s ownership, then one fine day sails away on a P&O liner.

I never saw Reynolds again but I saw Celestinahami once. It was at the inquest two days after the Moldavia sailed for Aden. She was lying on a dirty wooden board on trestles in the dingy mud-plastered room behind the court… They had found her floating in the sea that lapped the foot of the convent garden below the little bungalow—bobbing up and down in her stays and pink skirt and white stockings and shoes.

I suppose this is all very well done, but very much in the manner of Conrad even down to the punchline. Just as in one of Conrad’s classic tales told by his sailor-narrator Charles Marlow, the storyteller ends his tale, there’s a pause, and then one of the company of listeners brings us back to reality with a down-to-earth comment.

Jessop stopped. No one spoke for a minute or two. Then Hanson Smith stretched himself, yawned, and got up. ‘Battle, murder and sentimentality,’ he said. ‘You’re as bad as the rest of them, Jessop. I’d like to hear your other case—but it’s too late, I’m off to bed.’

Commentary

The feel and structure of the thing are, as pointed out, very Conradian, from the double narrative structure through to the deliberately throwaway ending, designed to evince that mood of cynical, jaded, man-of-the-world indifference to what is, in essence a tragedy (reminiscent of the plot of Puccini’s opera ‘Madame Butterfly’).

And you don’t have to be a feminist to find the fundamental structure – or two narrative structures – objectionable. What I mean is the frame story, in which four comfortably-off men sound off to each other about love without much or any admission of the woman’s point of view – and then listen to a tragedy based around the innocence and ignorance of poor Celestinahami. The power imbalances in both these structures are there for everyone to see. And the worldly note of the throwaway ending may be designed to indicate the fundamental heartlessness of the world, but it highlights that none of the listeners has a word of lament over poor Celestinahami.

But what puzzled me, more than anything, was that the story, the first narrator, and then Jessop all promise some great revelation about The Truth of Love, and then it doesn’t arrive. Maybe the narrator and Jessop’s point is that such a thing doesn’t exist, and instead, what actually exists in the real world is more complex, unsentimental, irrational and almost unpleasant, than the moon-in-June sentimental clichés.

In which respect, then, it chimes very much with the heartless worldview which radiates from his wonderful if extremely bleak novel, ‘The Village in the Jungle’.

2. Pearls and Swine

The setting

The unnamed first-person narrator is staying at a hotel in Torquay. After dinner and a game of billiards he joins three other chaps sitting round the fire. They’re talking about India, which reminds him of the 15 years he spent out there. Two of the three – a stock jobber and a clergymen – have never been out East and so sound off with insufferably imperialist cant and clichés: the stock jobber says the Indians must accept our racial superiority; the clergymen says we are undoubtedly raising them up to our level of civilisation, not least through the work of earnest young missionaries, basing his views on:

‘I read the papers, I’ve read books too, mind you, about India. I know what’s going on.’

All this cant goads the third member of the group, a small man with dark skin and wrinkles round his eyes (the narrator recognises a fellow servant of empire) beyond endurance, and he bursts out with a Tamil proverb. When asked to translate he explains that it’s a polite way of indicating the foolishness of earnest young Englishmen who go out to idea full of naive ideas drummed into them by their School Board education and think that somehow, after just 18 months, they understand the place from top to bottom, from ‘Benares to Rameswaram’. Compared to the Tamils who have lived in India for at least 7,000 years, compared to the hundreds of races who share the continent (‘there are more races in India than people in Peckham’).

Mention of views and opinions provides the hinge or pretext for the little Anglo-Indian man to announce that instead of views, he will tell them some facts. And this is what he proceeds to do.

The story

This is the real point of the story. The Anglo-Indian gives a ten-page account of his time serving in southern India as government administrator of a peal fishery. This was based on a God-forsaken stretch of the coast which consisted of nothing but barren sand and scrub for hundreds of miles, without a town or village or river or fresh water. But off this coast were marvellously rich oyster beds and every year, for 6 to 8 weeks between monsoons, thousands of fishermen in hundreds of boats, come to farm the oysters, a varied crew including scores of different races of Indians, plus Arabs and their Black ex-slaves, a multicultural community devoted to one end, diving to bring up thousands of oysters every day, to leave them rotting in the sun for the flies to devour, in the hope they will reveal pearls of great price embedded in their flesh.

The British Imperial government taxes their catch, taking two-thirds of the pearls. And the small, dark intense storyteller once performed this role and now describes, in vivid and powerful detail, what it was like – the heat, the unbearable flies, the nauseating smell of thousands of rotting oysters, the babble of native voices. All the several thousand fishermen had to be confined in a compound for 6 to weeks, creating a madly unhygienic and disease-ridden environment.

So that establishes the ground base of the story. Into this environment come two more white men: one is Robson, a 24-year-old bright spark who passed the Civil Service exams and is overflowing with bright new ideas about reforming everything, who criticises the narrator for giving up on changing the East and instead letting the East change him.

He was too cocksure altogether, of himself, of his School Board education, of life, of his ‘views’. He was going to run India on new lines, laid down in some damned Manual of Political Science out of which they learn life in Board Schools and extension lectures.

Predictably, his body and mind are not prepared for the disgusting conditions of the compound, the heat and the flies, and he ends up vomiting lots of time every day, becoming sicker and sicker.

The other white man is (ironically) named White. He’s a drunk, a rummy, with a pinched face and sharp teeth with gaps between them. But he’s a white man so Robson and the (unnamed) narrator let him eat at the same table. White tells the others he went to public school, which is probable, failed in England and so came out East. But even here he has been bedevilled by ‘damn bad luck’ and tells sob stories about a succession of dubious-sounding jobs.

So that’s the setup: three white men in a huge barren hot inhospitable semi-desert next to the sea, trying to control thousands of native pearl divers from all across India and beyond. We expect trouble, if not tragedy.

Sure enough, things happen. First a fight breaks out between a group of Arabs and one of Tamils over a handful of oysters which fall out of a bag. By the time the narrator separates them one Tamil is dead and ten or so have been injured. Idealistic Robson, for all his fancy ideas of ‘Reforming The Empire’, turns out to be predictably useless, running around like a distracted hen and crying.

But the main event in the story is that White comes down with a severe attack of delirium tremens or DTs. He starts raving and threatening violence so the narrator has to knock him out with a rifle butt. When he comes round, the narrator ties him to his bed. His raving, his tormented hallucinations are a trial for the narrator but tip young Robson over the edge, reducing him to sitting and crying.

All this allows Woolf to write some highly enjoyable bravura passages of the different mentality of the old India hand, of how you come to adopt the native mentality, become more passive, and accept the vast impersonal forces which dictate life, your life, everyone’s lives.

One just did one’s work, hour after hour, keeping things going in that sun which stung one’s bare hands, took the skin off even my face, among the flies add the smell. It wasn’t a nightmare, it was just a few thousand Arabs and Indians fishing tip oysters from the bottom of the sea. It wasn’t even new, one felt; it was old, old as the Bible, old as Adam, so the Arabs said. One hadn’t much time to think, but one felt it and watched it, watched the things happen quietly, unastonished, as men do in the East. One does one’s work,—forty eight hours at a stretch doesn’t leave one much time or inclination for thinking,—waiting for things to happen. If you can prevent people from killing one another or robbing one another, or burning down the camp, or getting cholera or plague or small-pox, and if one can manage to get one night’s sleep in three, one is fairly satisfied.

And again, a meditation on the profound difference between East and West:

Things here feel so different; you seem so far from life, with windows and blinds and curtains always in between, and then nothing ever happens, you never wait for things to happen, never watch things happening here. You are always doing things somehow—Lord knows what they are—according I suppose to systems, views, opinions. But out there you live so near to life, every morning you smell damp earth if you splash too much in your tin bath. And things happen slowly, inexorably by fate, and you—you don’t do things, you watch with the three hundred millions. You feel it there in everything, even in the sunrise and sunset, every day, the immensity, inexorableness, mystery of things happening. You feel the whole earth waking up or going to sleep in a great arch of sky; you feel small, not very powerful. But who ever felt the sun set or rise in London or Torquay either? It doesn’t: you just turn on or turn off the electric light.

This is all rather wonderful. But White won’t stop raving, all through the night. He moves on from hallucinations to describing shocking, immoral, cruel and corrupt behaviour all through his life, which is worse, more demoralising. The narrator moves him from his bed and ties him to a pole near his official desk where he can keep an eye on him. Arabs and Tamils come to watch him silently. The narrator explains that he is ill, the heat has driven him mad, and they accept this as they accept everything and move away with the ‘calm patient eyes of men who watched unastonished the procession of things’.

For one long night White raves and then, as dawn arrives, he cries out and dies. The narrator cuts him down from the pole and lays him out. But at that exact moment he is called by some locals. An oyster boat is coming inshore with a dead body on it, an Arab who died in mid-dive.

Woolf creates a very deliberate and stark contrast between the two dead men: White is a symbolic figure, symbolising the absolute worst of white men in the East, a corrupt drunk and public scandal who dies with horrible indignity.

By contrast the dead Arab is brought ashore by his colleagues, his brother sits by his body quietly weeping, an Arab sheikh comes up, lays his hand on the head of the lamenting man, and quietly and calmly consoles him. He died doing his work, doing his duty as a man. Everyone – dead man, brother and sheikh – are drenched in dignity and honour as the dawn breaks.

At this point the little brown man finishes his story. As with ‘A Tale Told by Moonlight’ the ending is deliberately dismissive, realistic, indicating the place of this, just one more story among a million stories in the western realm of endless discourse.

There was silence in the smoking-room. I looked round. The Colonel had fallen asleep with his mouth open. The jobber tried to look bored, the Archdeacon was, apparently, rather put out.

This feels much better than the first story for two obvious reasons. The dichotomies or binaries are easy to spot and enjoy, namely: between the shallow pontificating of the stock jobber and the clergyman, and the little brown Anglo-Indian; then between young idealistic Robson and the narrator; and then between the dignified locals and the wildly undignified, drunken White. There is the deeper dichotomy between imperial rules and the ruled to unpick as well, if you want to.

But mostly what makes it enjoyable is Woolf’ couple of paragraph-length descriptions of the mentality of the East, the spirit of the East, so utterly different from the pampered ignorance of London clubland where the frame story is set. All very neat, well constructed and enjoyable.

The Two Brahmans

Description of Yalpanam, a very large town in the north of Ceylon, which always feels abandoned and sleepy as all the living goes on behind the high fences made of the dried leaves of the coconut palms which conceal the compounds in which sit the huts and houses.

In the north of the town is the section devoted to Brahmans, to most senior caste in India’s caste system, who must keep themselves from being defiled, losing caste and face in countless ways. For example they do no work for themselves, all their needs are catered to by lower cast workers devoted to trades such as fishing tending rice, digging wells and so on.

In order to avoid defilement, the 50 or so Brahman families in Yalpanam all live in the same part of town, on the northern edge abutting the big lagoon. And for centuries if not millennia they have all married off their sons and daughters to each other to preserve their purity.

The story spans four generations of two particular families, headed by two fathers Chellaya and Chittampalam whose compounds neighbour each other. To be brief, both Chellya and Chittampalam shame their families by undertaking manual work. They try to keep it hidden but words get out and the other Brahman families cut them off. Among other things, this means their children and their children’s children and their children’s children’s children, will not be accepted for marriage by anyone in the town. They’ll have to go to distant settlements to find Brahman families which have never heard of their shame.

Chittampalam is a miser. When the water in his well starts to become brackish he should have gotten an earth carrying caste member to dig him a new well. Instead, in order to save, money he dug it and carries the soil away on his head himself. People saw him and he lost caste.

But it’s Chellaya who gets the lion’s share of (this very short) story. He likes to spend his afternoons staring out over the big lagoon and slowly becomes obsessed with the fishermen who wade out into the water and cast their nets. It looks so idyllic, it looks so relaxing. So one day he shamefacedly asks one of the fisherman if he could show him how to cast a net. He comes up with a cock-and-bull story about having made a vow to some god to do it as reward for healing his son but nobody is fooled. So for a small payment the fisherman sells him a net and then on successive days, far away from the village, shows him how to cast it. But someone, inevitably, sees, and he, too, loses caste.

I was wondering how these two bad Brahmans were going to be brought into contact or conflict but they aren’t. Chittampalam dies soon after being discovered carrying earth and Chellaya a few years later. It’s their great-great-great grandchildren who are. Four generations later the male descendants of the two naughty Brahmans bear the same names, Chellaya and Chittampalam.

Everybody’s forgotten which one of them carried the earth and which one cast nets, but they are still shunned by the other Brahman families and still have to marry outside the town.

And so we reach the climax of this little tale. The descendant Chellaya and Chittampalam still live in the same compounds as their ancestors, next to each other. And Chittampalam has a very beautiful daughter and Chellaya has one son unmarried, who one day sees the beautiful daughter through the compound wall, and suggests to his father that he marries her.

So the two fathers meet up and are in agreement that it would be an excellent marriage. However there’s one sticking point, the same sticking point there always is in all these native marriages, the size of the bride’s dowry: the father of the girl wants the dowry to be small and the father of the boy wants it to be large.

Well, the denouement, climax or punchline of the story turns out to be that… each time they meet to discuss the dowry it isn’t long before Chittampalam loses his temper and calls Chellaya a fisher, Chellaya loses his temper and calls Chittampalam a pariah and they both storm off.

Chellaya’s son calms his father down and arranges for the two men to have another meeting a few days later, but the exact same thing happens, with negotiations which start sensibly ending in a shouting match and both men storming away. Oh well, they realise; like their fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers before them, they will have to marry off their children to partners from some distant village which has never heard of their shame.

So the moral of the story, children, is that the sins or errors or mistakes of the ancestors continue to bedevil and stymie the wishes of their descendants. Silly, isn’t it? And yet it’s those values and traditions which give our lives their meaning and aren’t as easy to shake off as glib outsiders think.

In a poignant and symbolic coda, Chellaya’s son, lovesick for Chittampalam’s daughter, takes to going and sitting at the exact same spot where his great-great-great-grandfather Chellaya used to sit and watch the fishermen cast their nets.

Maybe it’s not just social conventions and transgressions which are passed down through the generations, but something deeper; something about gestures and longings and desires which are revived and repeated in every generation…

Thoughts

‘Pearls and Swine’ is clearly the best of the three stories, which is why Eland chose to include it in their paperback edition of ‘The Village in the Jungle’ but not the other two.

‘The Two Brahmans’ is fine as far is it goes, conveying not only the restrictions of Brahman life but, better, the sense of the yearning of the Brahman who wanted to become a fisherman, briefly standing for everyone who has a dream or desire beyond their station in life; but is too short to make a big impact.

‘A Tale Told by Moonlight’ is clearly the worst story, because of the unsympathetic character of Jessop the blunt cynic; because it is based – like so many turn-of-the-century stories, plays and operas – on the immiseration and suicide of an innocent young woman; but most importantly, I thought it didn’t live up to the promise to be some kind of meditation on the nature of Real Love. Didn’t strike me as being that at all, but instead a cliché, and an unpleasant exploitative cliché at that.


Credit

‘Stories of the East’ by Leonard Woolf was published by the Hogarth Press in 1921. I read ‘Pearls and Swine’ in the 2008 Eland Publishing paperback edition of ‘The Village in the Jungle’ which includes it as a kind of bonus. The other two I read online.

Related link

Related reviews