PART SIX DECEMBER 27TH VI
Hercule Poirot held his audience under the spell of his personality. They watched him, fascinated,
as he began slowly to speak.
“It is all there, you see. The dead man is the focus and centre of the mystery! We must probe
deep into the heart and mind of Simeon Lee and see what we find there. For a man does not live
and die to himself alone. That which he has, he hands on—to those who come after him. . . .
“What had Simeon Lee to bequeath to his sons and daughter? Pride, to begin with—a pride
which, in the old man, was frustrated2 in his disappointment over his children. Then there was the
quality of patience. We have been told that Simeon Lee waited patiently for years in order to
revenge himself upon someone who had done him an injury. We see that that aspect of his
temperament3 was inherited by the son who resembled him least in face. David Lee also could
one of his children who closely resembled him. That resemblance is quite striking when we
the long sharp line of the jaw7, the backward poise8 of the head. I think, too, that Harry inherited
many of his father’s mannerisms — that habit, for instance, of throwing back his head and
laughing, and another habit of drawing his finger along the line of his jaw.
“Bearing all these things in mind, and being convinced that the murder was committed by a
person closely connected with the dead man, I studied the family from the psychological
standpoint. That is, I tried to decide which of them were psychologically possible criminals. And,
David’s wife. David himself I rejected as a possible murderer. I do not think a person of his
delicate susceptibilities could have faced the actual bloodshed of a cut throat. George Lee and his
wife I likewise rejected. Whatever their desires, I did not think they had the temperament to take a
risk. They were both essentially11 cautious. Mrs. Alfred Lee I felt sure was quite incapable12 of an act
coarse truculence14 of aspect, but I was nearly sure that Harry Lee, in spite of his bluff15 and his
said, was worth no more than the rest. That left me with two people I have already mentioned.
Alfred Lee was a person capable of a great deal of selfless devotion. He was a man who had
controlled and subordinated himself to the will of another for many years. It was always possible
under these conditions for something to snap. Moreover, he might quite possibly have harboured a
sudden and unexpected violence for the reason that when their control does snap, it does so
entirely19! The other person I considered was capable of the crime was Hilda Lee. She is the kind of
individual who is capable, on occasions, of taking the law into her own hands—though never
of this type. Jael and Judith, for example.
“And now having got so far I examined the circumstances of the crime itself. And the first
thing that arises—that strikes one in the face, as it were—is the extraordinary conditions under
which that crime took place! Take your minds back to that room where Simeon Lee lay dead. If
you remember, there was both a heavy table and a heavy chair overturned, a lamp, crockery,
glasses, etc. But the chair and the table were especially surprising. They were of solid mahogany.
It was hard to see how any struggle between that frail22 old man and his opponent could result in so
much solid furniture being overturned and knocked down. The whole thing seemed unreal. And
yet surely no one in their senses would stage such an effect if it had not really occurred—unless
possibly Simeon Lee had been killed by a powerful man and the idea was to suggest that the
assailant was a woman or somebody of weak physique.
“But such an idea was unconvincing in the extreme, since the noise of the furniture would
surely be to anyone’s advantage to cut Simeon Lee’s throat as quietly as possible.
“Another extraordinary point was the turning of the key in the lock from the outside. Again,
there seemed no reason for such a proceeding24. It could not suggest suicide, since nothing in the
death itself accorded with suicide. It was not to suggest escape through the windows—for those
windows were so arranged that escape that way was impossible! Moreover, once again, it involved
time. Time which must be precious to the murderer!
“There was one other incomprehensible thing—a piece of rubber cut from Simeon Lee’s
picked up from the floor by one of the persons who first entered the room. There again—these
things did not make sense! They meant exactly nothing at all! Yet they had been there.
“The crime, you perceive, is becoming increasingly incomprehensible. It has no order, no
method—enfin, it is not reasonable.
“And now we come to a further difficulty. Superintendent Sugden was sent for by the dead
man; a robbery was reported to him, and he was asked to return an hour and a half later. Why? If it
is because Simeon Lee suspected his granddaughter or some other member of the family, why
does he not ask Superintendent Sugden to wait downstairs while he has his interview straight away
with the suspected party? With the superintendent actually in the house, his lever over the guilty
person would have been much stronger.
“So now we arrive at the point where not only the behaviour of the murderer is extraordinary,
but the behaviour of Simeon Lee also is extraordinary!
“And I say to myself: ‘This thing is all wrong!’ Why? Because we are looking at it from the
wrong angle. We are looking at it from the angle that the murderer wants us to look at it. . . .
rubber. But there must be some way of looking at those three things which would make sense!
And I empty my mind blank and forget the circumstances of the crime and take these things on
their own merits. I say—a struggle. What does that suggest? Violence—breakage—noise . . . The
key? Why does one turn a key? So that no one shall enter? But the key did not prevent that, since
the door was broken down almost immediately. To keep someone in? To keep someone out? A
snip of rubber? I say to myself: ‘A little piece of a spongebag is a little piece of a spongebag, and
that is all!’
impressions remain: noise—seclusion—blankness. . . .
“Do they fit with either of my two possibles? No, they do not. To both Alfred Lee and Hilda
Lee a quiet murder would have been infinitely29 preferable, to have wasted time in locking the door
from the outside is absurd, and the little piece of spongebag means yet once more—nothing at all!
“And yet I have very strongly the feeling that there is nothing absurd about this crime—that it
is on the contrary, very well planned and admirably executed. That is has, in fact, succeeded!
Therefore that everything that has happened was meant . . .
“Blood — so much blood — blood everywhere . . . An insistence31 on blood — fresh, wet,
gleaming blood . . . So much blood—too much blood . . .
“And a second thought comes with that. This is a crime of blood—it is in the blood. It is
Simeon Lee’s own blood that rises up against him. . . .”
Hercule Poirot leaned forward.
“The two most valuable clues in this case were uttered quite unconsciously by two different
people. The first was when Mrs. Alfred Lee quoted a line from Macbeth: ‘Who would have
thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?’ The other was a phrase uttered by
Tressilian, the butler. He described how he felt dazed and things seemed to be happening that had
happened before. It was a very simple occurrence that gave him that strange feeling. He heard a
ring at the bell and went to open the door to Harry Lee, and the next day he did the same thing to
Stephen Farr.
“Now why did he have that feeling? Look at Harry Lee and Stephen Farr and you will see
why. They are astoundingly alike! That was why opening the door to Stephen Farr was just like
Stephen Farr has a high-bridged nose, a habit of throwing his head back when he laughs, and a
trick of stroking his jaw with his forefinger34. Look long and earnestly at the portrait of Simeon Lee
as a young man and you see not only Harry Lee, but Stephen Farr. . . .”
Stephen moved. His chair creaked. Poirot said:
remember it, that he would swear he had better sons born the wrong side of the blanket. We are
back again at the character of Simeon Lee. Simeon Lee, who was successful with women and who
almost the same age! So I came to this conclusion: Simeon Lee had not only his legitimate37 family
in the house, but an unacknowledged and unrecognized son of his own blood.”
Stephen got to his feet. Poirot said:
“That was your real reason, wasn’t it? Not that pretty romance of the girl you met in the train!
You were coming here before you met her. Coming to see what kind of a man your father was.
. . .”
Stephen had gone dead white. He said, and his voice was broken and husky:
wasn’t going to let him know who I was. I pretended to be old Eb’s son. I came here for one
reason only—to see the man who was my father. . . .”
Superintendent Sugden said in almost a whisper:
“Lord, I’ve been blind . . . I can see it now. Twice I’ve taken you for Mr. Harry Lee and then
seen my mistake, and yet I never guessed!”
He turned on Pilar.
“That was it, wasn’t it? It was Stephen Farr you saw standing outside that door? You
hesitated, I remember, and looked at him before you said it was a woman. It was Farr you saw,
and you weren’t going to give him away.”
“No,” she said. “You’re wrong. It was I whom Pilar saw. . . .”
Poirot said:
“You, madame? Yes, I thought so. . . .”
Hilda said quietly:
“Self-preservation is a curious thing. I wouldn’t believe I could be such a coward. To keep
silence just because I was afraid!”
Poirot said:
“You will tell us now?”
She nodded.
“I was with David in the music room. He was playing. He was in a very queer mood. I was a
little frightened and I felt my responsibility very keenly because it was I who had insisted on
coming here. David began to play the ‘Dead March,’ and suddenly I made up my mind. However
odd it might seem, I determined41 that we would both leave at once—that night. I went quietly out
of the music room and upstairs. I meant to go to old Mr. Lee and tell him quite plainly why we
were going. I went along the corridor to his room and knocked on the door. There was no answer.
I knocked again a little louder. There was still no answer. Then I tried the door handle. The door
was locked. And then, as I stood hesitating, I heard a sound inside the room—”
She stopped.
“You won’t believe me, but it’s true! Someone was in there—assaulting Mr. Lee. I heard
tables and chairs overturned and the crash of glass and china, and then I heard that one last
horrible cry that died away to nothing—and then silence.
“I stood there paralysed! I couldn’t move! And then Mr. Farr came running along and
and we saw the room, and there was no one in it—except Mr. Lee lying dead in all that blood.”
Her quiet voice rose higher. She cried:
“There was no one else there—no one, you understand! And no one had come out of the
room. . . .”
点击收听单词发音
1 momentary | |
adj.片刻的,瞬息的;短暂的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 frustrated | |
adj.挫败的,失意的,泄气的v.使不成功( frustrate的过去式和过去分词 );挫败;使受挫折;令人沮丧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 temperament | |
n.气质,性格,性情 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 resentment | |
n.怨愤,忿恨 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 harry | |
vt.掠夺,蹂躏,使苦恼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 aquiline | |
adj.钩状的,鹰的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 jaw | |
n.颚,颌,说教,流言蜚语;v.喋喋不休,教训 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 poise | |
vt./vi. 平衡,保持平衡;n.泰然自若,自信 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 judgment | |
n.审判;判断力,识别力,看法,意见 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 qualified | |
adj.合格的,有资格的,胜任的,有限制的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 irony | |
n.反语,冷嘲;具有讽刺意味的事,嘲弄 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 truculence | |
n.凶猛,粗暴 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 bluff | |
v.虚张声势,用假象骗人;n.虚张声势,欺骗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 bluster | |
v.猛刮;怒冲冲的说;n.吓唬,怒号;狂风声 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 grudge | |
n.不满,怨恨,妒嫉;vt.勉强给,不情愿做 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 meekest | |
adj.温顺的,驯服的( meek的最高级 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 motives | |
n.动机,目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 testament | |
n.遗嘱;证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 frail | |
adj.身体虚弱的;易损坏的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 proceeding | |
n.行动,进行,(pl.)会议录,学报 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 peg | |
n.木栓,木钉;vt.用木钉钉,用短桩固定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 superintendent | |
n.监督人,主管,总监;(英国)警务长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 snip | |
n.便宜货,廉价货,剪,剪断 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 infinitely | |
adv.无限地,无穷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 glimmer | |
v.发出闪烁的微光;n.微光,微弱的闪光 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 insistence | |
n.坚持;强调;坚决主张 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 standing | |
n.持续,地位;adj.永久的,不动的,直立的,不流动的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 muddled | |
adj.混乱的;糊涂的;头脑昏昏然的v.弄乱,弄糟( muddle的过去式);使糊涂;对付,混日子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 forefinger | |
n.食指 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 tirade | |
n.冗长的攻击性演说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 bodyguard | |
n.护卫,保镖 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 legitimate | |
adj.合法的,合理的,合乎逻辑的;v.使合法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 obsession | |
n.困扰,无法摆脱的思想(或情感) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 rustle | |
v.沙沙作响;偷盗(牛、马等);n.沙沙声声 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 determined | |
adj.坚定的;有决心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 batter | |
v.接连重击;磨损;n.牛奶面糊;击球员 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |