Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of English and American Studies

English Language and Literature Teaching English Language and Literature for

Secondary Schools

Mgr. Zuzana Reviľaková

Concepts of Justice in the Selected Works by Christie, Allingham, P. D. James and Fyfield

Master’s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: PhDr. Lidia Kyzlinková, CSc., M.Litt.

2011

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

……………………………………………..

Author’s signature

2

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank my supervisor, PhDr. Lidia Kyzlinková, CSc., M.Litt., for her kind help and guidance.

3

Table of contents

Table of contents ...... 4

Introduction ...... 5

1. The emergence of detective fiction ...... 8

2. “What is justice?” ...... 16

3. Moral justice in detective stories and crime novels ...... 25

3.1 Moral justice in Nemesis, Curtain: Poirot’s Last case and An Unsuitable Job for

a Woman ...... 29

3.1.1 Nemesis …………………………………………………………………. 29

3.1.2 Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case …………………………………………….. 31

3.1.3 An Unsuitable Job for a Woman ……………………………………...... 33

3.2 Moral justice in Murder on the Orient Express, Flowers for the Judge and A

Clear Conscience ………………………………………………………………… 36

3.2.1 Murder on the Orient Express …………………………………………. 36

3.2.2 Flowers for the Judge ………………………………………………….. 39

3.1.3 A Clear Conscience ……………………………………………………. 41

Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 46

Works cited and consulted …………………………………………………………… 53

Resumé [English] …………………………………………………………………….. 57

Resumé [Czech] ...... 59

4

Introduction

In this thesis I want to explore the theme of justice as presented in some works by Christie, Allingham, P. D. James and Fyfield. In order to be able to do so, I selected six works; Agatha Christie‟s Nemesis (1971), Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case (1975) and

Murder on the Orient Express (1934), Margery Allingham‟s Flowers for the Judge

(1936), P. D. James‟s An Unsuitable Job for a Woman (1972) and Frances Fyfield‟s A

Clear Conscience (1994). In the genre of the detective story, in particular between the wars (the "First Wave") and also later from the 1960s (in the so-called "Second Wave of the English Queens of Crime"), women writers emerged in significant numbers and brought many domestic issues into crime fiction. This is also the reason for my exploration of the women writers in this area, as I want to relate these writers to more fundamental subject matters, such as justice, law and order, and prove that the writers examined addressed these areas very seriously, perhaps to the detriment of domesticity.

All these works proved to be a very interesting reading regarding the theme of justice. Based on the selected examples, I came to a conclusion that there is not only a theme of justice in general, but that these writers use different concepts of justice in their works. I argue that there are at least two of them; that in the aforementioned works selected, justice can be further divided into moral and legal. It is not necessary that both of these concepts of justice should be found in each of the above novels. To prove that there is moral justice present in these works, I have decided to explore such works where legal justice is either missing, or playing just an unimportant role. To give evidence that moral justice is widely used in the works of different authors of the genre,

I chose a variety of novels written by four different authors from both, the first and the second wave of the English Queens of Crime.

5

The topic of justice has always interested me, as justice and also its counterpart, injustice, seem to be eternal topics explored not only in crime fiction. People live in societies that have their rules – not only legal rules, but moral rules as well. Sometimes it happens that what seems to be legally just, appears to be morally unjust and vice versa. This is where people most often realize that there is not only justice in general, but that there is more to it; it must be possible to divide it in two, maybe more; otherwise it would not be possible to have this discrepancy between the legal and the moral justice. Reading Christie‟s Nemesis and Fyfield‟s A Clear Conscience not only confirmed my theory, but made me also think about the concept of moral justice and its relation to the issue of revenge; I therefore decided to explore this area and possibly also to give evidence to prove that in English detective fiction there are different concepts of justice present.

I divide my thesis into three main chapters. In the first chapter I provide some information on the genre, as well as the authors whose works I decided to analyse. I examine the four sanctified English Queens of Crime, discuss the two waves and place the authors selected accordingly. Regarding the two waves, I explain the differences between a detective story and a crime novel. To make this chapter complete, I provide some basic biographical data regarding the authors selected.

The second chapter, “What is justice?”, provides the reader with essential ideas on the theme of justice. I discuss definitions as well as theories elaborated by different scholars and philosophers, in order to prove that they also debate on justice which can be further subdivided into the legal and the moral concepts. In order to be able to prove this, I explain what the term jurisprudence means and adopt the ideas and theories of such well known and accepted scholars and philosophers in this field such as Hans

6

Kelsen, Thomas Aquinas, Gustav Radbruch, or Jacques Derrida. I demonstrate how these important scholars understood justice and explained what it was.

The fundamental part of this thesis lies in the third chapter. This chapter is further subdivided into two parts, each of which consists of three sections. The chapter first briefly comments on why legal justice is sometimes not present in real life and subsequently also in the texts selected and on the changes responsible for the fact that in quite a substantial number of detective stories and crime novels their authors recourse to moral justice instead of the legal one. This coincides with the changes in the field of human rights and the field of punishment, as well as with the influence of psychiatry.

The individual texts are then analysed and the two concepts of justice discussed, supported by a substantial amount of evidence.

In the conclusion, I provide the important findings and give some specific examples which either help prove, or disprove the argument.

7

1. The emergence of detective fiction

In order to be able to explore the concepts of justice in the abovementioned works, it is necessary to provide at least some basic information on the emergence of the genre, explain the differences between the detective story and the crime novel, as well as to provide at least some basic information on the authors selected and the era they lived and wrote in.

The reason for the emergence of the detective story not earlier than in the nineteenth century, is simple. There cannot be a detective story without a detective. And there are no detectives without the police in the modern sense of the word. According to

Holquist,

It is a curious fact that the institution of the modern metropolitan police force as we now know it, did not exist before the 19th century. It was the early decades of that century which saw the almost simultaneous foundation of the Suretè in Paris and the precursors of Scotland Yard, the Bow Street Runners, in London. But the foundation of these forces was not enough in itself to inspire the creation of the fictional detective. For one thing they did not immediately inspire confidence in their methods or their morals. (139)

But even after the police forces had gained people‟s confidence and after the role of a detective had been established, there still was not a proper detective story, as “the emphasis was still on crime; the forces of law had not yet become glamorous” (Holquist

140). The change came after Edgar Allan Poe‟s The Murders in the Rue Morgue had been published. Symons claims that “The father of detective fiction, in any serious sense, was undoubtedly Edgar Allan Poe” (1969, 10). This is because it was Poe, who created the first detective: “The father of them all, is, rather, Edgar Allan Poe's

Chevalier Dupin” (Holquist 140). But as Symons further argues, Poe did not write a detective novel in the right sense of the word, as his were just short stories. In Symon‟s

8 opinion then, in order to find the author of the first detective novel, it is necessary to look elsewhere (10-11).

The first detective novel ever written, The Moonstone, was written in 1868 by a close friend of Charles Dickens named Wilkie Collins. According to T. S. Eliot, The

Moonstone is so interesting because it is “the first and best detective story, and certainly it is an original and fascinating book, notable because of its wonderfully ingenious construction, and also because Collins anticipated the standards of fair play already mentioned1, which at the time he wrote were of course unknown” (qtd. in Symons 1969,

12). Although the first detective story was written in the nineteenth century, it was not the nineteenth century in which this genre of detective fiction flourished; it was the twentieth century. It was in the twentieth century that the Golden Age of the detective novel can be traced and it was also the twentieth century when the rules of the detective novel were formulated. It was the twentieth century when the Queens of Crime wrote their masterpieces and it was the twentieth century when a new kind of detective fiction, a crime novel, came into existence.

“As a literary form, the detective story has a place of importance in twentieth century English literature” (Symons 1969, 7). According to Light: “By 1939 one-quarter of all fiction published was detective fiction and it was established as the majority reading of the „coffee break and commuter classes‟” (Light 65). The fact that the detective story, the genre so formulaic and with such rigid rules (as shall be shown hereunder), has been popular for nearly a century, is definitely a very interesting phenomenon. So what is so interesting about the genre that it has attracted such masses and has kept them attracted for such a long time? The attractiveness of the genre in the

1 Here Eliot refers to the “Detective Decalogue” by Father (later Monsignor) Ronald Knox.

9 twentieth century lies in „whodunit‟, a new and modern event not only in literature, but in a society as well: “as a recognisable and distinctive kind of detective story differentiated from those thrillers and mysteries with which stories about crime had formerly overlapped” (Light 65). The popularity of the „whodunit‟ then clearly lies in its lightness and modernity. Also Light claims that „whodunit‟: “seems to have been something recognisably new, a post-war phenomenon which developed out of a desire to modernise the crime fiction of the past” (65-66). There is no wonder that after the

First World War and also in the period between the wars, people were no longer interested in fear and terror and therefore longed for puzzles and something that they could enjoy as a pleasant leisure time activity. Grella states that “Most readers and writers of detective fiction claim that the central puzzle provides the form's chief appeal.

Every reasoning man, they say, enjoys matching his intellect against the detective's, and will quite happily suspend his disbelief in order to play the game of wits.” (31). Another reason for the popularity of the genre is its similarity to fairy tales; there is the good and the evil, but the reader knows that in the end, the good shall prevail and the evil shall be defeated. The culprit is revealed and punished either by the legal or some other authority; the order is restored, the society healed. As Symons claims,

In a social sense the detective story expresses in an extreme form the desire of the middle and upper classes in British society for a firm, almost hierarchical, social order, and for an efficient police force. Classical detective stories, with their strict rules, their invariable punishment of subtle and intelligent wrongdoers, and their bloodhound policemen supplemented when necessary by private detectives of almost superhuman intelligence and insight, are the fairly tales of Western industrial civilisation. (1969, 9)

The lightness of the genre that is very appealing also lies in the shallowness and non-complexity of the characters. The „whodunit‟ concentrates on the crime, provides the reader with hints and evidence, not with the psychology of the murderer or the culprit. Therefore no emotional involvement is needed. It is not a coincidence that the

10

Golden Age of the detective novel comes in the 1920s‟ and 1930s‟. According to

Grella,

The detective novels of the Golden Age never mention the tensions and dangers that threatened the precarious stability of the Twenties and Thirties. They say nothing of the Depression, the social, economic, and political unrest of that time, but choose to remain within the genteel luxury of an aristocratic world, suffering the intrusions of the police and the initially suspected nameless vagabond before the detective hero turns suspicion on society. (47)

Paterson also agrees that “In the age of the Boom, the Great Depression, flappers and gangsterism, and the Fascist Solution, it recalls the sober gentility and crude optimism of an earlier and more complacent generation; it asserts the triumph of a social order and decorum that have all but passed away“ (qtd. in Grella 47).

Neither the „whodunit‟ nor the whole genre of detective fiction would be popular at all provided that there were not fixed rules that had to be followed, in order to enable the reader to follow the story and reveal the culprit together with the detective. The fact that the reader is often not capable of doing so and is thus only forced to admire the wits and conclusions of the detective is not important. Symons argues that the rules are necessary, because the reader, after he opens the book, “expects to find a situation in which a crime has been committed, and in which there is doubt about the means, the motive and the criminal. The most important thing about the story will always be the puzzle that is set to the reader” (1969, 7). The reader does not expect to be deceived by the writer and he would definitely be annoyed if in the course of the story the evidence emerged out of nowhere, the killing weapon used was something new, just invented by the author, or the culprit was a person that does not appear in the story until the crime is solved by the detective. In order to prevent the reader from such a disappointment, in the nineteen-twenties the rules for writing detective stories were laid by Father Ronald

11

Knox. The rules, the „Detective Decalogue‟ as they became to be known, are as follows2:

1. The criminal must be mentioned early on. 2. Supernatural solutions are ruled out. 3. Only one secret room or passage is allowed. 4. No undiscovered poisons are permitted. 5. No Chinamen should appear in the story. 6. The detective must not be helped by lucky accidents, or by intuitions. 7. The detective must not himself commit the crime. 8. Nor must he conceal clues from the reader. 9. The thoughts of the „Watson‟ must not be concealed. 10. There must be special warning of the use of twin brothers, or doubles. (Symons 1969, 22)

Within these rules, reading a detective story meant exercising one‟s logic. As the reader is provided with all the necessary clues, it is his turn to evaluate these and arrive at a conclusion. According to Symons: “The pleasure the intelligent reader gets from reading detective stories is thus partly the fascination of engaging in a battle of wits with the author, something more nearly akin to a game of chase or a crossword puzzle that to the emotional rewards commonly looked for in reading fiction” (1969, 8-9).

Although, in particular in the years between wars these rules had a very important place in detective fiction and many writers worked within their frame, there were authors who were not quite confident with such a strictness and decided to revolt against the,

According to Symons, there were three major figures who decided to revolt against the rules, one of them being a lady often also addressed as one of the Queens of Crime,

Agatha Christie (1969, 24).

A great many books have been written about Agatha Mary Clarissa Miller

(1890-1976), as with no doubt, Christie has become a unique phenomenon. Although her career lasted for over 50 years, her works thus emerging in the Golden Age of

2 The rules are presented here to give the general idea of what the „Detective Decalogue‟ contains.

12 detective stories and also later, when crime novels appeared, hers are detective novels that rank among the first wave of detective stories, “whodunits” that are real puzzles, solved most frequently with the help of a Great Detective – Hercule Poirot or Miss Jane

Marple.

Agatha Christie is the best-selling author of all times. She has sold over two billion books worldwide and has been translated into over 45 languages. In a writing career that spanned more than half a century, Agatha Christie wrote eighty novels and short story collections. She also wrote over a dozen plays, including The Mousetrap, which is now the longest running play in theatrical history. (www.agathachristie.com)

Another acknowledged English Queen of Crime, Margery Allingham (1904-1966), was was not one of those who felt the need to revolt against the rules given, rather on the contrary:

Allingham regarded the mystery novel as a box with four sides - "a Killing, a Mystery, an Enquiry and a Conclusion with an element of satisfaction in it." Once inside the box, she felt secure: the genre gave her the discipline she felt she needed, while allowing her imagination full play to provide the "Element of Satisfaction." This she abundantly did from her first crime novel in 1928 to her last in 1968. (www.margeryallingham.org.uk)

Interestingly, Allingham created a different great Detective, who was much younger than most of the investigating detectives: “Margery Allingham is pre-eminent among the writers who brought the detective story to maturity in the decades between the two world wars. She created an aristocratic, unassuming detective called Albert Campion, who matured from "just a silly ass" of the 1920s to an eminent intelligence veteran forty years later“ (www.margeryallingham.org.uk). Both the works of Christie and Allingham are considered the “first wave” detective stories of the English Queens of Crime. These are, as has been written hereinabove, such stories where the most important features and characteristics are the puzzle and the presence of the Great Detective.

13

Despite the extreme popularity of the genre, there came a call for modernity and a brand new change. First this need was slow and petty, but, as Symons claims: “It was not until a new generation of crime writers appeared, after the second World War, that the decline of the detective story as a literary form became obvious” (1969, 32). One of the reason for this change was the fact that the new authors looked at reality in a different way than the writers of detective stories. The person who may be considered to be a pioneer of the crime novel is Dorothy Sayers: “during the 1930‟s there did arise a new [...] kind of detective story represented in England by Dorothy Sayers‟ new style which became apparent after her 1935 novel Gaudy Night” (Holquist 146). Sayers‟s

Gaudy Night can without any hesitation be understood as a cornerstone of a new wave of detective fiction – a crime novel; however, she is usually placed within the first wave of the Queens of Crime.

There are many differences between the detective story and the crime novel, one of them being the focus of the work. Unlike the detective story, which is all about the puzzle (the term “whodunit” is very self-explanatory in this way), bringing order, the crime novel becomes more complex and concerns with a much wider spectrum of reality. To explain the differences between the detective story and the crime novel, P. D.

James‟s “Introduction” to The Art of Murder seems to be one of the best choices. James argues that:

The detective story in its traditional form is more limited, in achievement, in intention and in potential. The crime novel is, of course, primarily concerned with crime, usually murder, but there is frequently no detective, amateur or professional, and no clues since we may know from the beginning of the book who is or will be responsible for the crime and why. The interest is less in mystery than in motive, less in surprise than in the psychology of the murderer and in the effect of the crime both on the killer and society. The murderer may even be undetected by the end of the book and retribution, if any, is left to the next world rather than this. The moral stance is much less clear and simplistic than in a detective story. [...] The detective story may, and should, share this interest in character and motive and be equally at home on the dangerous edge of

14

things, but there is, nevertheless a recognized convention which differentiates it both from the crime novel and from general fiction. In the detective story we expect a mystery, usually a mysterious murder; a closed circle of suspects each with a credible motive for the crime; a detective, either amateur or professional, who comes in rather like an avenging deity to solve the crime; and a final solution which the reader should be able to arrive at himself by logical deduction from the clues inserted in the novel with essential fairness but deceptive cunning. (2-3)

To the era of crime novels, or the second wave of the English Queens of Crime, two of the authors whose works I explore may be assigned; P. D. James (born 1920) and

Frances Fyfield (born 1948).

P. D. James, or in full Phyllis Dorothy James White, “is the author of twenty books, most of which have been filmed and broadcast on television in the United States and other countries. She spent thirty years in various departments of the British Civil Service, including the Police and Criminal Law Department of Great Britain's Home Office. She has served as a magistrate and as a governor of the BBC. In 2000 she celebrated her eightieth birthday and published her autobiography, Time to Be in Earnest. The recipient of many prizes and honors, she was created Baroness James of Holland Park in 1991. She lives in London and Oxford.“ (www.randomhouse.com)

Writing under the pseudonym of Frances Fyfield, Frances Hegarty, worked as a

British lawyer. She herself describes her life and career in the following words: “I was educated mostly in convent schools; then studied English and went on to qualify as a solicitor, working for what is now the Crown Prosecution Service, thus learning a bit about murder at second hand. Years later, writing became the real vocation, although the law and its ramifications still haunt me and inform many of my novels“

(www.francesfyfield.co.uk). Fyfield, with her first novel published in 1988, is the youngest of all four “Queens of Crime” whose works have been selected to be explored in this thesis. She is also the only one who has not experienced the Golden Age of detective story on her own skin.

15

2. What is justice?

Justice has been an issue ever since the mankind was created or has evolved.

People have been wondering and asking the question “What is just?” and “What is justice?” for centuries. There have been many theories and many philosophers have tried to provide a theory or a definition that would give a universal answer to the questions hereinabove. There is a whole philosophic discipline – a philosophy of law that deals with the issue of law and in connection with the law also with the issue of justice. For this discipline, the term jurisprudence is used as well. Jurisprudence itself is such a large and complex discipline that it is subdivided into three branches: analytical jurisprudence, sociological jurisprudence and the theory of justice.

The theory of justice is concerned with the evaluation and criticism of law in terms of the ideals or goals postulated for it. This involves the identification and articulation of the values that the legal order seeks to realize. This aspect of jurisprudence is inextricably interwoven with ethical and political philosophy, and theories of justice thus tend to parallel the full range of ethical and political philosophies. (www.britannica.com)

It is thus clear that when talking about justice, it is not possible to omit the issues of ethics and politics, as these two fields are always present in the law-making process, the aim of which is to create laws that would be just and perceived as just by the majority.

The aim of this chapter is not only to provide definitions that would explain the meaning of the term “justice”, but also to point out to what is hidden under the whole term; the concepts of justice. It is a truth universally acknowledged that not everything that is just from one standpoint is also just from another. It is possible that a solution perfectly legally just is immoral and the other way around. Therefore, this chapter argues that there are two concepts of justice; legal justice and moral justice. Justice may be therefore seen as the restoration of order; something that is said to be one of the aims of detective stories, as is apparent from the previous chapter of this thesis.

16

Thinking about justice it is impossible without thinking about the law and morality, as one issue is often dependent on the other:

A consideration of fundamental importance in the philosophy of law is that of the distinction between law and morality. The importance of the distinction is illustrated by the main questions to which it gives rise: (1) How far and in what sense should the law of a community seek to give effect to its morality? (2) Is there a moral duty to obey the law even when it does not embody morality, and, if so, are there any limits to this duty? (3) When a legal rule directs conduct that morality forbids, which should the citizen obey? (4) Is there ever (and, if so, when is there) a duty to overthrow an entire legal system because of its conflict with morality? (www.britannica.com)

It is undebatable that the law and morality are not only two different terms, but also two different regulatory systems. It is thus not possible to say that law equals morality. But it is possible to claim that something is just in a sense that it is moral, as it is possible to argue that something is just in the sense that it is lawful. From this it results that justice does not equal justice. And it is therefore necessary to distinguish between moral and legal justice:

In all these questions, the word law refers to the specialized form of social control familiar in modern, secular, politically organized societies. The word morality in the four questions may, however, refer to any of the following: (1) the community‟s relevant factual behaviour patterns (its mores), (2) its socially approved behaviour patterns, as sanctified by some widely held rational or religious ideal, whether observed in practice or not (social morality), or (3) the moral ideals accepted by each individual as binding on himself and on others, whether or not those others agree (individual morality). All these, like law, are means of controlling human conduct by setting normative standards; and all three have a constantly changing interaction with each other, as well as with law. (www.britannica.com)

The answers to the several of the questions raised hereinabove may also be taken from Derrida‟s philosophy, specifically from his “Theory of deconstruction”. Although

Derrida does not exactly distinguish between moral and legal justice and actually suggests that justice means legal justice, he admits that laws “are only

17 conceptualizations of ethical obligations” (Gutting 312). But Derrida also admits that not all laws are just: “we move towards justice simply by remaining ever sensitive to possible limitations of laws, by being always ready to deconstruct laws that are working against justice” (qtd. in Gutting 312). To be able to do so, to realize that certain law is unjust, there has to be something else, something that tells people what even though it is lawful, is not just. And that is morality, be it religious morality, natural or common sense, conventions or traditions that tell people what is right and what is not. Derrida says that “justice is not the law. Justice is what gives us the impulse, the drive, or the movement to improve the law, that is, to deconstruct law. Without a call for justice we would not have any interest in deconstructing the law” (qtd. in Gutting 312). As mentioned above, this proves what was mentioned earlier in this work, the fact that not everything that is legal has to be moral and vice versa. Therefore, it is essential to have justice divided into moral and legal.

Another scholar and philosopher, Thomas Aquinas, distinguishes between two kinds of laws: natural and positive. Whereas the positive law is something that is artificial and created by society, or individual human beings, natural law is “a system of right or justice held to be common to all humans and derived from nature rather than from the rules of society, or positive law” (www.britannica.com). Aquinas also provides the answer to what happens when these two kinds of law get into conflict. For him, the positive law is something that people create. And as people are fallible, it is the natural law that must be obeyed and that prevails in such conflict situations: “Such positive law as violated the natural and thus the eternal law “was not law” or merely was not binding

“in conscience” (www.britannica.com). It is therefore clear that for Aquinas, there are two concepts of justice. One that results from the positive law and one that results from natural law, whereas the natural law should be the decisive one in the case of the

18 conflict of these two. As there is not a sole definition of natural law, it may be argued that natural law is either similar to, or equal to morality. It is then possible to claim that also Aquinas accepts two concepts of justice; the moral one and the legal one. Natural law experienced its revival in the twentieth century. Surely, it is no wonder as after the two world wars causing so much damage, so many deaths and casualties people should feel the need to know that there was at least something that was given and not changing.

They needed to be sure that when the positive laws are removed and not executed, there is still something to protect them. The fact that morality is a crucial aspect of justice is clear from the view of a German legal philosopher, Gustav Radbruch:

Positivism, Radbruch argued, had encouraged German lawyers to stand by at Nazi barbarism, declaring “Gesetz ist Gesetz” (“Law is law”). Nor was Radbruch‟s turn to natural law in any way cryptic. He came to declare quite openly that: where justice is not even striven for, where equality which is the core of justice is constantly denied in the enactment of positive law, there the law is not only “unjust law” but lacks the nature of law altogether. (www.britannica.com)

Despite the fact that Radbruch does not use the term “morals” or “morality”, it is apparent that he does not agree with the fact that justice only covers what is legal. He, as all the other philosophers examined here, agrees that there is more to justice than only the quality of legality. There is some kind of quality that ensures and indicates that if legal justice is not enough or missing completely, there is still hope for just trials and sentences.

Dividing justice into moral and legal ones does not provide the answer to the question “What is justice?”. Although doing this may seem easy, as justice has always been a widely discussed topic, when one comes down to providing a real definition, it becomes clear that there is no answer to this question, no matter how easy the question may appear. In Encyclopaedia Britannica, the entry “justice” reads as follows:

19

In philosophy, the concept of a proper proportion between a person‟s deserts (what is merited) and the good and bad things that befall or are allotted to him or her. Aristotle‟s discussion of the virtue of justice has been the starting point for almost all Western accounts. For him, the key element of justice is treating like cases alike, an idea that has set later thinkers the task of working out which similarities (need, desert, talent) are relevant. Aristotle distinguishes between justice in the distribution of wealth or other goods (distributive justice) and justice in reparation, as, for example, in punishing someone for a wrong he has done (retributive justice). The notion of justice is also essential in that of the just state, a central concept in political philosophy. (www.britannica.com)

But this is only one definition, out of many. Kelsen argues that “... no other question has been the object of so much intensive thinking by the most illustrious thinkers from Plato to Kant; and yet, this question is today as unanswered as it ever was” (Kelsen 1). Jerome Hall agrees with Kelsen when he observes: ““Justice in the 20th

Century” has as many meaning as there are moral and social philosophers” (Hall 752).

From this statement it is clear Hall agrees that justice does not only cover something that is legally just, but includes morality and moral justice, as well. Kelsen does not fall into despair and despite the aforementioned, he is able to give a definition of justice. For

Kelsen “Justice is primarily a possible, but not a necessary, quality of a social order regulating the mutual relations of men. Only secondarily it is a virtue of man, since a man is just, if his behaviour conforms to the norms of a social order supposed to be just” (Kelsen 1-2). Defining justice in this way does not really end the debate, as there is a need to define the word “just”. In this way it would be possible to go on and on and, as has already been pointed out hereabove, arrive at no conclusion.

Another definition of justice is provided in a legal dictionary, where, under the entry “justice”, it is written: “1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal” (www.thefreedictionary.com). Justice may also be defined as:

1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness, 20

2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason,

3. the moral principle determining just conduct,

4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment,

5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward (www.dictionary.com).

Also from these entries it is explicit that justice does not only mean justice in the legal sense, but also in the moral one. When one looks at this definition of justice, it is clear that justice not only incorporates legal justice, but that it also incorporates moral justice.

In Christie‟s Nemesis there are both of these two concepts of justice present, as the fact that after the real culprit is revealed, Mark is released from prison may be understood as legally just, but at the same time it must be considered morally just. It is in conflict with law that an innocent person should be punished for someone else‟s deeds, thus it is unjust. The same is true as regards moral rules, as punishment is a means of revenge and at the same time a means of prevention, help and protection of the society from such a misconduct that may be considered harmful to society. Moral rightness or the moral principle determining just conduct may be seen in all the novels chosen to be explored in this thesis. Christie‟s Murder on the Orient Express raises the question whether the conduct of the twelve people who stab Cassetti is right or wrong, just or unjust. The fact that there are two answers to this question is a proof of the existence of two concepts of justice, as the conduct of the self appointed killing jury is in conflict with law, and thus unjust. Yet at the same time, such a conduct may be seen as just, because Cassetti is guilty with kidnapping and killing a little girl and therefore deserves to be punished accordingly. Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case by Christie is also one of the novels where moral justice has its place. Here Poirot‟s murder of Norton is not an act of revenge, but Poirot‟s effort to help people around him. Poirot‟s conduct may be

21 seen as morally just, as his aim is unselfish; he wants to protect the society, as well as bring justice to Norton; but not the legal one, as Norton would not be found guilty if tried, but the moral one. Norton gets what he deserves. He is punished in such a way that prevents him from doing any more harm. Fyfield‟s Cath in A Clear Conscience is also driven by something pure; she is driven by love that she feels both to Damien and to Joe. Hers is not revenge, but something that they deserve; something that she must do in order to free herself. Moral justice in P. D. James‟s An Unsuitable Job for a Woman may be found in several situations in the novel. What Miss Leaming does, the fact that she shoots Mr. Callender, may be considered just, because she is driven by love to her son, who was killed by Mr. Callender because of money. Also the fact that Lunn, who attempts to kill Cordelia dies in a car crash may be seen as morally just. Finally, Miss

Leaming, now a culprit commits a suicide when her car drives off the road. The only one who survives is Cordelia. It may appear that Cordelia is not punished in any way, which, as she is an accomplice of Miss Leaming does not seem just. But justice can be found in her destiny as well, as she must live with what she has witnessed and been an active part of.

In Allingham‟s Flowers for the Judge, there is legal as well as moral justice. The sort of legal justice present in the novel is very similar to the one in Christie‟s Nemesis.

Here an innocent person is arrested for a crime he had never committed and later released. Moral justice in Flowers for the Judge may be seen at two points in the novel.

The first being the fact that despite the fact that the murderer is not punished legally, justice is executed, because Ritchie gets what he has always wanted and deserved; his freedom. Although he kills two people, neither Tom Barnabas, nor Campion report him to the police, because they know what Ritchie had to suffer all his life. It is only just that for all this suffering he now is let to live his new life. The other occasion where

22 there is moral justice present is when one learns the precious Gallivant is only a fake one, because the real and valuable one had been sold by Tom Barnabas before he disappeared. Tom Had always wanted to live his life somewhere else, but he had to stay in the family company, which he did not like. Instead of selling his share on the company, he took and sold its most valuable asset. There then cannot be any doubt that what Tom did was moral; he got what he ought to have got.

To explain his idea of justice and define justice, Kelsen uses a simple sentence, consisting of only four words. He says that “Justice is social happiness” (Kelsen 2).

This extremely simple question carries a very deep meaning, indeed. Only those, who are just are happy; those who are unjust cannot be, because there is a certain burden they have to carry with them throughout their whole lives. As shall be clear from the following chapters of this thesis, this definition of justice has its validity. In Christie‟s

Nemesis, after killing Verity, Clotilde lives a sad life and in the end she actually commits a suicide just because her deed is revealed and she cannot bear her burden anymore. Christie‟s Murder on the Orient Express also shows that the one who is unjust is not happy. Here Cassetti, who is later killed, is afraid that someone wants to kill him.

He cannot live his real life and has to hide; he knows that for his crime he will be punished. Poirot, the murder in Christie‟s Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case, Poirot is so unhappy with his deed that he chooses to die; he puts his pills away, so when he feels a strong chest pain, he cannot reach them. Poirot does not want to kill; he is made to kill by the circumstances. The same is true for Fyfiled‟s Cath, who is also unhappy not only because she kills her husband, but also because she kills her brother, whom she loves. In

P. D. James‟s An Unsuitable Job for a Woman, Mr. Callender wants to find out why his son, Mark, committed a suicide. He is not happy, because he claims he does not know why his son would do anything so horrible. The truth is, he is not happy, because he

23 knows who killed Mark and he also knows why. When the truth is revealed, Mr.

Callender is killed by Miss Leaming, who is actually Mark‟s mother. It may therefore appear that of all definitions, this simple, four-word sentence is a true and valid definition of justice. But it is not always so and one would definitely be able to find examples where this definition does not apply. Moreover, as has already been written above, this definition just like others, contains a word that would need to be further explained; that word is happiness. In such a way it would be possible to continue presenting definitions and ideas on what justice is. However, it is not possible, nor desirable to present all of them, as it is not an immediate purpose of this thesis.

What is crucial for this thesis is the fact that from all definitions and dictionary entries presented hereinabove, it is apparent that there has never been a universal definition of justice although there have been many theories of justice advocated by well-known scholars and philosophers. In addition, one may reiterate that justice has always included morals. Therefore it is not possible to claim that there is only justice in general, as any person‟s conduct may be legally just and morally unjust at the same time, or vice versa. There are two concepts of justice; legal justice and moral justice.

What is important then is the fact that even when it is not possible to grant someone what is legally just, or perform one‟s deeds in a legally just way, there is still some kind of justice to fill the space and ensure at least some kind of retribution or re- establishment of order.

24

3. Moral justice in detective stories and crime novels

The fact that, as shall be shown in the following course of this thesis, there are quite many pieces of detective fiction with a total or substantial lack of legal justice is, among other, also a reflection of the era. In order to prove that even when legal justice does not take place there is still something what may be considered just as regards criminal offenders and their offences, six works by four authors have been chosen. The four authors, as has been mentioned in the introduction to this piece of work, are

Christie, Allingham, P. D. James and Fyfield. The six works then are Nemesis, Murder on the Orient Express, Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case, Flowers for the Judge, An

Unsuitable Job for a Woman and A Clear Conscience. The works actually react on what was happening in Europe after World War I. and later also after World War II.; the fact that being punished for a criminal offence was not necessarily an inevitable consequence of one‟s illegal actions.

As people and the whole humankind became more human and aware of the fact that there were certain rights all people were entitled to and of which they could not be deprived, which could not be annulled or alienated, the system of punishing changed. In

England, this led to the abolishment of Capital punishment in 1965. With the development of the theories of human rights, also the punishments for criminal offences ceased to be an act of retribution for such offences and became a means of prevention, correction and protection of the society against unlawful behaviour and criminal offenders themselves3. According to Hall:

The salient 20th century fact about criminal law is widespread scepticism of punishment. Punishment is said to be ineffective; after centuries of punishment,

3 Hall explains that: “Corrective justice concerns not only crimes, but also torts, breaches of contract and other harms or damage for which restitution, compensation, punishment and treatment are the appropriate sanctions. Distributive justice deals with different situations – not with harmdoers, but with the allotment of values, including economic goods” (753).

25

crime seems to be on the increase, penitentiaries are written off as schools of crime and retribution is sharply disparaged, as, at best a disguised for of vengeance. Accordingly, if both deterrence and retribution are excluded from the orbit of a legal policy, only rehabilitation remains as the single rational goal. (753)

Detective fiction gains popularity also because, unlike in real life, in detective stories and crime novels the culprit is always revealed and punished. Often there is present some kind of legal justice, some kind of legal punishment. As shall be proved in the following chapters, provided the legal justice is missing completely, or it does not seem to be adequate, there is still some kind of retribution present, ordinarily in the form of death. Unlike in real life, where the culprit often is not punished, because the respective state institutions refrain from prosecution, in detective stories and crime novels, there is always order restored. According to Hall, for the course of events occurring in the era of punishing in the twentieth century, psychiatry is highly responsible. Hall Argues that:

“What seemed a cold-blooded murder by a person who looks perfectly normal, may, after thorough psychiatric examination, be understood as an act of desperation or explosion by an irrational, emotionally torn victim of uncontrollable forces” (755). Such behaviour can be definitely seen in Fyfield‟s A Clear Conscience. Cath might very well be considered a victim, not an intentional murderer. She may be seen as a person acting irrationally as she is influenced by her predominantly negative emotions. Cath has been a victim of domestic violence and at the same time a mistress of her own brother, whom she loved not as a brother, but as a man and who was responsible for the fact Cath could not have children as she had to go to abortion after she had got pregnant with Damien‟s baby. All these experiences must have done a lot of harm and there is no wonder that for

Cath, killing her husband Joe and killing her brother Damien, is something that must be done, because it is a right thing to be done. What Joe and Damien get, they deserve; but not only that. What they get, Cath deserves. She deserves to be freed from the two men

26 that have been responsible for her misery. In Christie‟s Nemesis, Clotilde is so dependent on Verity that instead of letting her leave, she kills her. Clotilde, as well as

Cath, may be seen as a victim of her extreme emotions that after a proper medical examination could easily be considered as a kind of a mental illness from which

Clotilde was suffering. In both these cases there it then would be a possibility that these murderers would not be tried and punished, as their actions would be considered to be the products of their ill minds and any kind of severe punishment would be considered an inadequate response.

As legal justice is dependent on the system of legal protection provided by respective state institutions and established within a society and built and created by the society, it is clear that as people are fallible, also this system may be fallible. Therefore, as best seen in Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case and Murder on the Orient Express and also as argued by Hall: “Even the best legal system inevitably falls short of achieving desirable and feasible goals, and that legal justice needs to be supplemented by the efforts of individuals both within and without the confines of the law” (767-8). Hall presents two options. Either justice may be brought by individuals within the confines of law – as is often present in detective stories and crime novels when the great detective solves the case and commits the culprit to the police or to trial, or, on the other hand, it may be brought by individuals, but without or rather outside the confines of law. This second option is often present in detective fiction as self help, meaning that the culprit is not brought to legal justice, but that this justice is executed by someone else, who is not authorised to such an action. Nevertheless, it is still justice that occurs.

It may but no longer be spoken of legal justice, as the self help takes the form of some illegal action. The act itself then only may be considered morally just. In Curtain:

Poirot’s Last Case, it is not possible to bring the culprit to legal justice, as he would not

27 be found guilty and punished. Therefore there is the need for an individual action. In this case, it is Poirot himself who is the executor of justice. He kills the culprit.

Definitely, Poirot‟s act is illegal and if revealed, Poirot would most probably be brought to legal justice, tried, found guilty and punished. In Murder on the Orient Express a criminal offender is murdered; a man who after being brought to legal justice for his action, is able to bribe several people and flee from the prosecution. Here there occurs no legal justice; the culprit is not punished by the respective authorities. Therefore the family of the kidnapped girl takes the role of the executive forces. There are twelve of them – a self committed jury, who decide the culprit is guilty and shall be punished. In this respect, what they do, the fact that they kill Cassetti, is perfectly just. Not from the legal point of view, but definitely from the moral one. Here justice is also brought outside the confines of the law.

When talking about moral justice in all the abovementioned works, it is important to realize that there are often two or more subjects in connection to whom the moral justice may be considered. In Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case these two subjects are

Norton and Poirot; in An Unsuitable Job for a Woman these two subjects are Mr.

Callender and Miss Leaming; in Murder on the Orient Express they are Cassetti and the

Armstrong family; in Flowers for the Judge there are Ritchie and Tom; and finally, in A

Clear Conscience there are three such subjects – Damien, Joe and Cath. In all these situations it is important to realize “which laws are enforced, against whom and by whom” (Hall 768).

As shall be proven in the following subchapters, there is justice present in every single one out of the six chosen works. However, it is not necessarily legal justice. It is moral justice taking its different forms. As there are certain similarities among these six works, for the sake of clarity, the following works shall be examined together: Nemesis,

28

Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case and An Unsuitable Job for a Woman; Murder on the Orient

Express, Flowers for the Judge and A Clear Conscience.

3.1 Moral justice in Nemesis, Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case and An Unsuitable Job

for a Woman

What these three works have in common is the fact that in every one of them moral justice occurs; but not only this. It is more the form of moral justice that occurs and that makes these three works so similar, than the sole fact that there is moral justice present. In each of these works the culprit, the murderer is revealed. Nevertheless, unlike in the rest of the works explored in this thesis, in none of these novels the murderer is brought to legal justice and punished, as the murderer does not live, but is either killed or dies. In Nemesis, Clotilde drinks poisoned milk; in Curtain: Poirot’s

Last Case, Poirot does not take his pills and dies; in An Unsuitable Job for a Woman,

Mr. Callender is shot by his secretary and mother of his son, Miss Leaming, who herself commits a suicide driving her car off a road, after she kills Mr. Callender. As is clear, it does not strictly matter whether the culprit dies intentionally or whether their death is a result of an omission doing. Nonetheless, the death of the culprit is, in a particular case, a vital and key presuppose of all novels.

3.1.1 Nemesis

In Nemesis both concepts of justice may be found. The presence of legal justice is marginal but also crucial at the same time. That is because the whole story heads towards a certain result, which is the restoration of justice. But before the truth is revealed, the theme of legal justice seems to occupy only a negligible role. What

29 prevails is the other concept of justice, the moral one. After the real culprit is revealed, it is apparent that it is not legal justice, but legal injustice that is present in the novel. In this novel, Miss Marple is requested to investigate a crime by an acquaintance, Mr.

Rafiel, who carefully plans what Miss Marple should do as a Nemesis after his Death.

Gradually, Miss Marple learns about an incident of terrible injustice that happened years ago. Miss Marple finds out that Michael, son of Mr. Rafiel and Verity‟s beloved boyfriend was arrested and sentenced to prison for killing Verity and another girl, whose body has never been found. In the end, after Miss Marple finds out who the real murderer is, Michael is released from prison. Here is the point where legal justice occurs. When Miss Marple talks to Michael, she tells him that his father wanted to help him: “Your father, when he was a dying man, was determined to see that you got justice” (218). Here legal justice is meant. The applicable law always aims at punishing those who are guilty, not those who prove to be innocent. Therefore, it would be legally unjust to make Michael remain in prison. The paradox is that Michael‟s stay in prison is both just and unjust. From the legal as well as from the moral standpoint, Michael‟s punishment is just, because he is found guilty of murder. Just after the real culprit is revealed, this sentence becomes legally and morally unjust. As regards moral justice,

Michael‟s situation after he is released from prison cannot be understood as just. It is not just that he had to live in prison for so many years. And it is even more unjust that nobody can return those years of Mark‟s life. Not Mark, but Clotilde is the one who years ago killed both girls, because she could not stand the idea of Verity leaving her. In the end, there is only moral justice present, when Clotilde commits a suicide – and so she escapes legal punishment. When Miss Marple finds out that it was Clotilde who actually killed Verity, because of love she felt for her, because she did not want Verity to leave and marry Mr. Rafiel‟s son and after Clotilde is confronted, she commits a

30 suicide, drinking poisoned milk that was originally brought for Miss Marple to drink.

Miss Marple is not shocked, moreover she can understand Clotilde‟s reasons: “any agony so great as what Clotilde has suffered all this time – ten years now – living in eternal sorrow. Living, you see, with the thing she had to live with” (214). It is apparent that for Clotilde the punishment was harsh. Like Michael, since Verity‟s death, Clotilde has lived in prison. But unlike Michael‟s prison, Clotilde‟s prison was not an institution; it was her own mind, her heart, her memories. Here it is apparent that moral justice is the one prevailing. And its instrument is not death, but life; the cruel, empty, sad life full of sorrow which Clotilde has lived since she killed Verity. Her punishment is so cruel that she cannot bear it any longer. Clotilde‟s destiny may not seem just at all. She commits a suicide, but only after she kills another person and attempts to kill Miss

Marple. One could therefore ask where is the moral justice in this novel and what is so just about Clotilde‟s death. The answer is as follows; the moral justice may be seen in

Clotilde‟s suffering during her life without Verity. What is moral about Clotilde‟s death is the fact that she does not live, as do not her victims. She dies as she deserves for all that she does.

3.1.2 Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case

Curtain is the last novel of Poirot series, at the end of which Poirot dies. His whole life is filled with the effort to solve different crimes and even in his dying hour he remains loyal to this effort. In a strange way Poirot ensures that a person responsible for several murders is punished. Because Poirot knows that “X could not be touched by the law. He was safe” (262), he is convinced that some other kind of justice must be brought to the scene. And it is the moral justice. In order to protect the people around him, he decides to punish the criminal himself, in the way he detests the most; by

31 cheating and eventually even by committing a crime: “I, who do not approve of murder

– I who value human life – have ended my career by committing murder” (261). When

Dr. Franklin‟s wife dies, Poirot knows it was an intended murder, but despite that he advocates a different theory, and claims that Mrs. Franklin committed a suicide. “If

Mrs. Franklin‟s death was thought to be anything but suicide suspicion would inevitably fall on either Franklin or Judith. On two people who were utterly and completely innocent” (276). Poirot does not want to allow that, he does not want the innocent to pay for someone else‟s crime. His whole life he has been pursuing the truth and chasing murderers. Therefore he lies and because he is considered to be a great detective, nobody doubts his judgement: “I [Poirot] am a man experienced in the matter of committing murder – if I am convinced it is suicide, well, then, it will be accepted as suicide” (277). Here it can be clearly seen that Christie adopts the concept of moral justice, when she does not let the innocent be punished, even though the prize she has to pay is high; she must make her great detective die.

Out of the roles moral justice has to play in this novel, this is only the minor one.

The more demanding role is yet to come. It comes when a murder is committed at

Styles, when Norton is killed. Poirot knows that Norton is morally responsible for at least five murders. But he also knows that he can never be brought to legal justice, because he would never be found guilty, as he has never literally killed anyone. His share of guilt is in his lies and assurances that make other people kill. In the same way, was it not for Poirot, he could have made Hastings pay for his deeds: “You are not a murderer, Hastings. But you might have been hanged for one – for a murder committed by another man who in the eyes of the law would be guiltless” (273). Understanding how dangerous Norton is to other people, Poirot knows what he has to do. He would never ask anyone else to do it, because as Poirot says: “For the worst part of murder,

32

Hastings, is its effect on the murderer” (273). As he knows he is dying and will not be able to stop Norton otherwise, he decides to bring Norton to justice. Poirot restores the order by shooting Norton. Even though he feels this is necessary, in order to be able to save the innocent, Poirot is not sure whether what he does is right or not: “I do not know, Hastings, if what I have done is justified or not justified. I do not believe that a man should take the law into his own hands. [...] By taking Norton‟s life, I have saved other lives – innocent lives. But still I do not know” (284).

The fact that Poirot does not shoot Norton to make him pay for his actions, but to prevent him from ruining the lives of other innocent people is a clear evidence of the fact that the question of revenge cannot be even considered. Poirot‟s aim is not to punish Norton, but to restore order and help everyone around and the only way to do so is to kill Norton. Poirot does that, because, despite the fact he knows nothing that

Norton has done is illegal, he feels that all of it is immoral. So immoral that it is unjust, and so the moral justice must be restored. Norton does not feel any guilt: “He [Norton] did not deny it. No, mon ami, he sat back in his chair and smirked” (278) and as he displays no evidence of regret, Poirot knows that the only way to restore moral justice is to kill Norton; to make the only thing that can stop him.

3.1.3 An Unsuitable Job for a Woman

In P. D. James‟s An Unsuitable Job for a Woman, moral justice may be seen at two places, taking two different forms. The first being the murder of Ronald Callender,

Mark‟s father, by his secretary and his son‟s mother, where the culprit dies and the second being Miss Leaming‟s life after she kills Mr. Callender and her subsequent suicide. The second form of justice also applies to Cordelia, who unwillingly becomes

33

Miss Leaming‟s accomplice. In both cases mentioned earlier, it is Miss Leaming who is the executor of justice. In Cordelia‟s case then it is Cordelia herself who takes the role of the executor of moral justice; it is no one else but Cordelia herself, who decides to support Miss Leaming and thus exposes herself to any consequences attached to such an act. In this James‟s work, there is no legal justice present, as even after Cordelia Gray finds out who the murderer of Mark Callender is, she does not report him, as she knows she does not have the essential evidence to be able to report Mr. Callender to the police.

She would have, had she been willing to disclose what she had found out about Mark‟s death. But she is not willing to do so, as she feels a kind of connection with Mark and thus does not want anyone to know how he died and how he was found. Furthermore,

Mr. Callender knows he cannot be touched by legal justice:

No one would believe him [Lunn]. No, any more than they will believe you [Cordelia Gray]. You‟ve been determined to earn your fee, Miss Gray. Your explanation is ingenious; there is even a certain plausibility about some of the details. But you know, and I know, that no police officer in the world would take it seriously. [...] But you [Cordelia] mustn‟t indulge your imagination outside this room. Neither the police nor the courts are sympathetic to slander nor to hysterical nonsense. And what proof have you [Cordelia]? None. (170)

Mr. Callender is sure that legal justice cannot touch him, as he is a well-known and accepted scientist whereas Cordelia only an inexperienced private eye. It would only be her word against his word. Miss Leaming, Mark‟s real mother eavesdrops the conversation of Cordelia and Mr. Callender and at the moment when she learns that it is him, who killed Mark, her son, she knows what she has to do. As Mr. Callender cannot be tried and sentenced to an adequate punishment, she takes justice into her own hands; she kills Mr. Callender, thus making him pay the highest price for her son‟s life. Now there seems to be equality in the whole issue, would it not be for the fact that the role of culprit shifts from Mr. Callender, who kills his son, to Miss Leaming, who kills her employer and a father of her son.

34

Looking at Mr. Callender as a heartless beast able to kill his only son for the reason of money may, from one point of view, be appropriate. On the other hand, when taking into account the fact that Mr. Callender is a very important scientist working on a project that could help millions of people, his motive may not seem so absurd. In this case, one could argue that Mr. Callender was advocating some greater good, a common interest and that he was not utterly absent minded when he said it was better for one person to die, or rather to be sacrificed for many. His murder may therefore be seen as unjust to many whom his work might have helped. As Mr. Callender himself tells

Cordelia: “And don‟t say that what I am doing here isn‟t worth one single human life”

(172). Long and unending debates have been conducted to find out whether killing one person for the sake of bringing certain benefits to many is or is not appropriate. But as has already been written hereinabove, Britain solved this question in 1965, when the

Capital punishment was abolished.

From the moment of Mr. Callender‟s murder, Cordelia and Miss Leaming are accomplices. The second form of legal justice, that shall also be explored hereunder, is the one where the culprit is not killed, but stays to live with his or her feeling of guilt. In a way, such a life is also a kind of justice, because it is immensely difficult not to think of one‟s guilt every minute of every day. When Cordelia visits Dalgliesh, she is tired, because: “She hadn‟t been sleeping very soundly for the past ten days” (215). Neither

Miss Leaming seems to be in peace with what she did and therefore she commits a suicide.

James‟s An Unsuitable Job for a Woman is a piece of work, where there is definitely moral justice present. This justice takes two forms, one, where the culprit dies to pay for his or her conduct and the other, when the culprit stays to live with his guilt.

35

3.2 Moral justice in Murder on the Orient Express, Flowers for the Judge and A

Clear Conscience

These three works are similar from the point of view that in all of them the culprit stays alive. Here moral justice is present as well, but unlike in Nemesis, Curtain:

Poirot’s Last Case and An Unsuitable Job for a Woman, the culprit does not die, or is not killed, but stays alive to live with their sin. What is just about that is the fact that these people are described as such who are really punished in this way, for whom it is very difficult to live with what they did. What is more, is that in every of the abovementioned works there is someone who makes a decision based on which the culprit is free to go and is not prosecuted. For such a person, be it Fyfield‟s Helene

West, Christie‟s Poirot, or Allingham‟s Campion, it is their call to decide whether they should take any action, whether they should report the culprit to the police or not. In all of the works that will be explored hereunder, the respective detectives will decide it shall be better for the culprits to live with what they did. In some cases, as in Fyfield‟s A

Clear Conscience, the respective authority, namely Helen West is responsible for Cath‟s freedom. But there is a prize Helen has to pay for Cath‟s freedom; and that prize is her own freedom, freedom of her conscience. Helen can no longer sleep peacefully, because she knows she did something she should not have done.

3.2.1 Murder on the Orient Express

In the novel Poirot solves a case of a murder, but the murderer is never brought to justice. Besides the fact that in this novel a concept of moral justice is adopted, the novel also provides an explanation regarding the topic of revenge. What is interesting in this novel is the fact that in one way, there cannot be real justice executed, because there

36 is not one murderer, but many. The practice of criminal responsibility is built on the concept of individualisation of guilt. So in order to find a person guilty of murder it is essential to prove that this person really killed the victim. In this case it is not possible to find out who is a murderer and who the accomplice is. Poirot knows that very well and he is not against the idea of not punishing anyone in particular, on the contrary, he even suggests that nobody is punished.

On a train from Callais a murder is committed. Because there is a limited number of passengers on the train and because the train has run into a snowdrift, Poirot is able to interrogate all the suspects. He starts interrogating the passengers and later finds out who the murderer is. What is crucial is the fact that the real identity of the victim is revealed. Once this happens, suddenly the motive of the murder seems to be clear – a revenge. The victim is a notorious kidnapper who years ago kidnapped a three- year-old child who was later found dead despite the fact that a ransom was paid. Poirot solves the case and finds out that the victim was stabbed twelve times and killed by twelve people, not by one. Poirot reveals the identities of these people and realizes each of them is somehow related or closely connected to the Armstrong family involved in the case of the kidnapped child.

In the novel there are both concepts of justice present. The legal justice was applied: the kidnapper, Ratchett, or Cassetti as he was known before he changed his name, was tried for his offence. It is a question whether the fact that Cassetti was tried is enough to claim that legal justice occurred, when it is clear that Cassetti was not found guilty. Had it not been for the money and Cassetti‟s ability to bribe his way out of the country, order would have been restored: “Cassetti was the man! But by means of the enormous wealth he had piled up and by the secret hold he had over various persons, he was acquitted on some technical inaccuracy. Notwithstanding that, he would have been

37 lynched by the populace had he not been clever enough to give them the slip” (97).

Poirot in fact shares these ideas when he says: “I [Mr. Bouc] cannot regret that he is dead – not at all! I [Poirot] agree with you” (98).

As Princess Dragomiroff says to Poirot: “You do not believe in doing your utmost to further the ends of justice? In this case I consider that justice – strict justice – has been done” (300). From this it is apparent that murdering Cassetti is something that must be done in order to restore justice and bring order into the whole affair. Too many people died because of Cassetti‟s crime and now the time came for Cassetti to pay for all those lives. Princess Dragomiroff herself calls Cassetti‟s murder “an entirely admirable happening” (156). She is not the only person who is glad to hear that Cassetti is dead. When Colonel Arbuthnot is interrogated, immediately after he is told Rachett‟s real name, he also expresses satisfaction with the fact that Cassetti is dead. “Then in my opinion the swine deserved what he got. Though I would have preferred to have seen him properly hanged – or executed, I suppose, over there” (175). Also Mr.MacQueen thinks what happened to Cassetti is just: “If ever a man deserved what he got, Ratchett or Cassetti is the man. I‟m rejoiced at his end. Such a man wasn‟t fit to live!” (114). On the whole train, after hearing who was really murdered is not a single person who would feel sorry for Cassetti. Mrs. Hubbard confesses that she would kill Cassetti with her own hands: “My, I‟d have liked to get my hands on him” (136). It is clear that not only was everyone absolutely positive that Cassetti‟s murder was something he earned; some were even willing to execute the justice.

In the last chapter the motive of vengeance is explained and suddenly, it becomes clear that killing Cassetti is not a murder for revenge, but rather an execution of justice: Poirot imagined “a jury of twelve people who condemned him to death and were forced by exigencies of the case to be their own executioners” (338). Poirot claims

38 it would not be difficult for any of the passengers to murder Cassetti at any time after they had found him and sees the effort of those involved to execute Cassetti, to bring back order, to restore justice. And as that cannot be done at the court by a proper jury, it must be done elsewhere by a specific jury of twelve people who joined together to do what has to be done; to do what is just and moral; to see that the moral justice is done if the legal one failed.

3.2.2. Flowers for the Judge

In this Allingham‟s novel, both forms of justice may be found – the legal and the moral one. As shall be proven hereunder, the moral justice may then be further divided into two forms. The legal justice is present after Mark is arrested as a suspect of Paul‟s murder. The importance of legal justice is clear from the fact that immediately when the police have doubts that it was Mark who killed Paul, Mark is released from prison: “The police don‟t want to convict the innocent, you know; that‟s the one thing they say their prayers about” (238). John becomes suspect, but dies before he can be brought to trial.

First it seems John committed a suicide. After the police start investigating the case, it becomes apparent that it was not a suicide, but a murder. This truth is not revealed and is kept confidential by the police.

The other kind of justice present in this novel is the moral one. The moral justice in Flowers for the Judge takes two forms. One is the form of justice as regards the culprit, Ritchie Barnabas. The police have information about the fact that Ritchie is responsible for Paul‟s and John‟s murders. But they do not arrest him:

For what he [Campion] had not told Mike, and what the police were so far attempting to hide from the Press, was the indisputable fact that at eight o‟clock that morning, Mr. Ritchie Barnabas has paid his bill at his lodgings, […] and had

39

gone out ostensibly to take his annual holiday and had vanished as utterly and unobtrusively as his brother had done twenty years before. (246)

The fact that the police are not looking for Ritchie is clear from Campion‟s talk with

Tom Barnabas, when Campion says: “The police […] preserve an open mind. There is one whom they would interview if they found him, but I do not think they are looking for him” (250). The fact that Ritchie killed two people and the police are not trying to find him and bring him to trial is very strange. But it is for the sake of everyone‟s good.

Ritchie has been a part of family business for long years and this life of his has always been horrible, it felt like prison to Ritchie. Therefore what happens is in a way just, as

Ritchie has suffered for such a long time that he has already paid for his crimes.

Moreover, he will have to live with the feeling that he killed two people. Not even Tom,

Ritchie‟s brother cares about the fact that his own brother is a murderer, but right on the contrary. Tom is glad that Ritchie is finally free: “for so many years now he has spent his holiday with us. Now it‟s all holiday. He is free - that‟s the main thing, […]. Been imprisoned, as I was, all his life. Now the fellow‟s free – free as air” (250).

Undoubtedly, it is no legally just that Ritchie is not arrested for his deeds. On the other hand, moral justice is present; therefore it is not possible to tell that the whole situation regarding Ritchie is unjust.

The other form of moral justice does not regard murder and punishment for murder, but it regards Gallivant, a very valuable asset of Barnabas and company. Tom

Barnabas works in the family business, but does not like such a life. Therefore, after his uncle dies, Tom wants to sell his share in the company and change his life.

Unfortunately, he is not allowed to: “I [Tom] wanted to sell out my share in the business when Uncle Jacoby died, but old John would not hear of it. So to save trouble, I took the firm‟s most mobile asset and went off, leaving John with my share in exchange. It was

40 quite fair” (252). Tom does not want to hurt John by selling his share in the family owned business, because he feels that would be unjust to John, who does not even want to hear about it. On the other hand, tom knows he cannot live such a life any longer and therefore decides to „disappear‟. He wants to buy a circus and he needs money for that, therefore he takes Gallivant and sells it to a collector. The fact that Tom leaves his family without saying goodbye and explaining his reasons is not very morally just in respect to the family. Tom is punished for that in a way. He does not see them again and they do not know he lives. Therefore there is a balance; the prize he has to pay for his freedom is equal to the suffering he causes to his family and the company.

3.2.3 A Clear Conscience

In Fyfield‟s A Clear Conscience, Helen West, the crown prosecutor deals with various criminal offences at her work and every time she tries to bring the offender to court and let an impartial and unbiased jury decide upon the destiny of the alleged offender. She is very angry when things go wrong. And so is Mary Secura, a Police

Constable who helps Helen with Shirley Rix case. They both are really furious when the victim – a wife of a criminal offender decides not to give evidence. Mary Secura expresses her anger when she tells Mark Ryan about the case: “We‟d got this bastard husband dead centre, in custody, court date fixed, perfect. Only the wife skipped on the day of the case and the CPS got it put off for a month. I‟m so frigging mad because this bastard‟s going to get away with it, I reckon he may as well stop where he is for another couple of weeks” (130). Helen‟s anger is apparent when she is waiting for Mary Secura who should come to court with Shirley Rix and she is told Shirley was not coming to give evidence: “The stupid, stupid bitch. The silly cow. What does she think she‟s

41 doing” (39). Both Helen and Mary want the offender to get punished, to bring him to legal justice, because that is what they feel and know must be done. They not only want to protect Shirley from a violent man, but also know that offences like domestic violence must be punished. The reason for punishing criminal offenders is clear from everything Mary and Helen do – they feel it is right that way and they want to protect the victims. Geoffrey Bailey, a senior policeman and Helen‟s boyfriend wants the same justice from Cath‟s husband Joe. Bailey is convinced that Joe killed Cath‟s brother

Damian, but he cannot find enough evidence to prove it. Although Helen is a devoted

Prosecutor, which is apparent from the aforementioned quote, something inside of her changes, but she does not know why. After she gets to know Cath and realises Cath is a murderer, she does not do what she is expected to do: “It was somewhere on the way back Helen came to the conclusion that she would say nothing unless anyone asked.

Even if Cath was guilty of collusion in a death, so be it. Even if it went completely against her principles and her belief in justice by the rules” (259). “Two years ago, she

[Helen] thought, I would never have agreed. I have always believed in letting a jury decide. Why did I change? (276). Helen does change, but not completely. She does not stop believing in justice. But this time, she believes in moral justice.

The last sentence at the back cover of Fyfield‟s A Clear Conscience reads:

“Helen is only too happy to turn a blind eye to Cath‟s unhappiness, until, as the paths of her private and professional lives unwillingly collide, she becomes a witness to the destructive forces of love and guilt, and finds herself applying her own version of justice”. What is meant by the expression “her own version of justice” is moral justice, not the legal one. What happens is that Helen finds out what crimes Cath has committed. She realizes that Cath killed both, her brother and her husband. But she does not report it. She does not act as a Crown Prosecutor, whose duty it is to report such

42 criminal offences so Cath can be brought to justice. Helen lets things be, instead. She knows that although Cath will escape the legal justice, she can never escape the moral one. She knows as well as Bailey does: “Were we right about Cath? [...] I think so.

Why, don‟t you [Helen]? We did not have a jury in on this one, that‟s why. There should be a jury. Evidence, all the safeguards which should come before judgement day.

It feels arrogant. He [Bailey] nodded gravely. I know. I think I know. There are exceptions” (282). The representations of moral justice are everywhere in Fyfield‟s crime novel. Here, as this is the second wave novel, the interest is not in putting things into order again, but finding out why, seeing the reasons for the actions of the offender.

As P.D James claims: “The crime novel is primarily concerned with crime [...]. The interest is less in mystery than in motive, less in surprise than in the psychology of the murderer and in the effect of the crime both on the killer and society. The murderer may even be undetected by the end of the book and retribution, if any, is left to the next world rather than this” (2-3). In Fyfield‟s A Clear Conscience the murderer is known to the reader and Helen West, but not to the police or any court or prosecutor. It is known by Helen West as a person, as a human being. And here one of the representations of moral justice may be seen. Because Helen does not report Cath‟s crime as she should, she must face some consequences: “Bailey was still asleep. Sleeping the slumber of the just. To which she was no longer entitled” (284). The fact that she would be punished legally is not important for the reader, but the moral extent is. She becomes Cath‟s accomplice and therefore she has to share the inconveniences of her decision.

Cath loses everything. She will not go to court; there will not be a legal sentence for her. But there is some form of justice that will haunt her for the rest of her life – the moral one. First of all, she must live with what she did to her brother and to her husband. She loses the husband whom she loved and loses her brother, whom she loved

43 even more and who fathered her unborn child: “I‟m grieving. I loved him [Joe]. Or at least, I sort of loved him. [...] I loved Damien, you see. I loved him to pieces. I couldn‟t have loved anyone else like that. He gets me pregnant, leaves me in the club, lets me get on with it, I lose the baby and get this sodding great scar” (278). Because Joe feels there is something more between Cath and Damien than pure love between two siblings, he beats Cath. “Joe loves me. [...] Till he finds out. Well, he thinks he finds out about me and Damien, only he daren‟t say, just hits me” (279). Beating is Joe‟s form of revenge; that is, what is just. Something that Cath deserves for cheating on him. But surely it is not legally just. Cath‟s revenge for which she feels no guilt is killing Joe. Joe deserves it; it is her sense of moral justice; because he has beaten her for such a long time and because he is not Damien: “Cath leaned forward and kissed him [Joe] on the cheek. I gave you the chances, she whispered. I gave you the chance to look after me, and you could not take it. I can‟t do anything else, my love. [...] She had her left arm firmly round his shoulder for balance as she plunged the blade into his belly” (247). It is apparent that killing Joe is not an act of revenge; Cath does not want to kill him because she hates him, or because she cannot bear his beating any longer. She kills him, because he lets her down, because he does not understand her. Even the Police Constable Mary

Secura thinks it was just to kill Joe: “She [Cath] could well have killed him. Poor bitch.

I also think it doesn‟t matter. He deserved it” (270).

Killing Damien is something that Cath does not plan. She goes to help him, she is scared because she hears there has been a fight and when she sees him, all that he has ever done to her comes on her mind. She wants to make him a scar just like she has. She wants him to have something that she has, something he is responsible for, and something that makes her feel less valuable: “You aren‟t worth a shit with a belly like mine” (279). Cath also knows that Damien wants to leave her and she does not want to

44 let him do that. Therefore she decides to kill him when she sees him in the park, sitting under a tree: “I saw Damien [...] sitting down by a tree, and then I thought, you bugger, and I knew what I wanted to do. Give him back that scar he gave me, is what. So I did. I loved him. He loved me. Simple. He was doing wrong, dumping me. I couldn‟t live knowing that. He‟d walk away from me like he did from that fight, leaving everyone else with the scars” (280). Cath does not feel guilt or that what she did was wrong. It was inevitable; it had to be like that. She did not want Damien to leave.

In this work Fyfield shows what moral justice is. Although all Cath‟s actions could be understood as acts of revenge, it is clear from the plot as well as from the title of the book that revenge is not the issue. Cath‟s intentions are not negative; she does not kill, because her husband and her brother hurt her. Cath kills, because her husband and her brother let her down. The role of Helen West is very important in the whole course of things. Helen learns the whole truth, but decides to do something she should not be doing. Helen in this case becomes someone else; she changes position from the one who is paid for bringing people to prosecution to someone who is actually an executor. And the fact that this change is not easy and Helen has to pay for it is clear from the fact that

Helen herself understands she is no longer entitled to what she used to be; a peaceful sleep. She has to live with her decision, as Cath has to live with hers. And that is one more representation of moral justice in this novel, because it is right that one should be able to face the consequences of one‟s actions.

45

Conclusion

In this work I decided to explore the issue of justice in selected works of four

English Queens of Crime - Christie, Allingham, P. D. James and Fyfield. To be able to do that, I chose six works by these authors: Agatha Christie‟s Nemesis, Curtain:

Poirot’s Last Case and Murder on the Orient Express, Margery Allingham‟s Flowers for the Judge, P. D. James‟s An Unsuitable Job for a Woman and Frances Fyfield‟s A

Clear Conscience. I decided to argue that in detective stories and crime novels, there is not present only justice as such or justice in general, but that there is a concept of justice that is different from the legal kind of justice; that concept may be and in this thesis was named moral justice.

Not much has been written about these two concepts explicitly, a lot has been written on justice as such. As will be concluded hereunder, there are as many theories and definitions of justice as there are philosophers, scholars and societies. As each society is different and unique, each has a special set of rules that it executes. In this work, it was my intention to show that all the authors mentioned hereinabove worked with these unwritten rules, this concept of justice that I named moral justice.

To be able to prove my point, I knew it was necessary to provide the reader with a short survey as regards the genre of detective fiction. Therefore, after explaining what this thesis shall be about in the introduction to it, I decided to give at least some basic information not only on the genre itself, but also on its specific features, reason for its appearance, some very brief information on the four writers whose works I have chosen to explore and pursuant to this also some points and notes regarding the era and the changes that occurred. Thus in the second chapter of this thesis the reader learns that detective fiction as a genre has its roots in the nineteenth century and could not emerge before the police forces were created and had gained importance and confidence in

46

Britain. The chapter labels Edgar Allan Poe the father of detective stories, despite the fact that he only wrote short stories and for the first detective story one had to wait until

Wilkie Collins wrote his The Moonstone, which may be regarded the first actual detective story because it met the standards of fair play.

In this chapter I also explained what happened to the genre in the 20th century and also included a very important term - a „Whodunit‟. I explained what a „Whodunit‟ is and when and above all why it became so popular. I claimed that the popularity of detective stories lied in their lightness, modernity, but predominantly in their puzzles.

Detective stories became a form of leisure time activity, because they made the reader feel safe and at the same time enabled the reader to follow all the hints and clues to be able to disclose the culprit. The readers seemed to like the fact that detective stories led to restoration of order and secured justice that after two world wars was very important.

The reader did not have to think about the psychology of the reader, He knew that at the end the good will win, bad shall be punished and order restored. As detective stories provided all of these, they became extremely popular and came to their Golden Agen in the 1920s and 1930s.

In order to secure that the detective story shall remain unchanged, Father Ronald

Knox wrote some basic rules that had to be considered and followed when writing a detective story. These rules were named „Detective Decalogue‟ and not all the writers were happy to use them. One of those who decided to revolt was Agatha Christie. As I decided to investigate the topic of justice in some of her works as well, I decided to enrich the second chapter with some basic information on her and also on another first wave author, Margery Allingham.

Besides the abovementioned information, the second chapter also provides information on the second wave of detective fiction – the crime novel. It explains that

47 crime novel appeared after the Second World War and that it again was a call of a new generation of authors for modernity and change. The beginning of crime novel in

Britain is actually represented by Dorothy L. Sayers‟s Gaudy Night, which was published in 1935. This chapter then aims to compare and contrast a detective story and a crime novel and concludes that as far as the main attraction of a detective story is its puzzle, what is important and alluring about a crime novel is its focus on the characters and the psychology of the culprit. There is no need for the Great detective to be present and not necessarily must the culprit be detected and punished. To this second wave of detective fiction, to the crime novel, I assigned two of the authors whose works I decided to explore – P. D. James and Frances Fyfield. In this chapter, therefore, also very brief information on these two Queens of Crime is to be found.

The third chapter bears the title “What is Justice” and is concerned with the topic of justice. It explains the term „Jurisprudence’ and not only provides the reader with several dictionary entries which give definition of the word justice, but also introduces several theories of justice as it was seen by such philosophers and scholars as

Hans Kelsen, Thomas Aquinas, Jacques Derrida or Gustav Radbruch. The aim of this chapter was to give definition of justice and to prove that under the term justice, there is more hidden; that there are at least two concepts of justice – the legal one and the moral one. At the beginning of the chapter I simply explain that justice does not always equal justice; that is – there are situations when what is moral and what is just in the legal sense of the word, come into conflict. If there was just one concept of justice, a general one, this could never happen.

In the next course of the chapter I tried to give evidence that would support my theory that there is more than one justice. I decided to adopt Derrida‟s „Theory of deconstruction‟ in which he says that in case laws are unjust, meaning in conflict with

48 morality, there is a need to deconstruct them, to change them. Next I chose a scholar

Thomas Aquinas to prove what I stated at the beginning of the third chapter. Aquinas worked with two kinds of laws: positive that was created by people and natural that was given. When in conflict, according to Aquinas, natural law was more important. Natural law regained its importance in the 20th century. Gustav Radbruch, a philosopher, explained that any law that lacks justice and denies equity is not law at all. In this way he actually commented on the fact that during the Second World War there were rules that in the opinions of many Nazis had o be followed. Radbruch does not agree and from his point of view and philosophy it is clear that when law has to be just and in a way moral and not deny equity, then there must be at least two concepts of justice – the legal one and the moral one.

In the rest of chapter two I did my best to provide at least some definitions of justice and found out that a general definition does not exist. Furthermore, I realized that although justice is a very complicated issue, there might be definitions that are very simple, as that of Hans Kelsen, which only consists of four words. In this chapter I definitely succeeded in proving that justice is more than some general complex which only covers legal justice, but that there is more to it and that there are at least two concepts of justice; the legal one and the moral one.

The third chapter is the main part of the work. As much as I would have liked to support my arguments in the third chapter with the evidence from secondary sources, I was not able to do that. Not much has been written about some of the works I have decided to explore. Even less there has been written on justice in these works. I do not mean only the concepts of justice, but justice in general. Therefore, I tried to provide as much evidence from primary sources, the selected works, as possible. Unlike chapters one and two that are supported by a lot of evidence from secondary sources, chapter

49 three is based on my ideas and the evidence from the primary sources. The third chapter begins with some brief information on the changes regarding punishments. After the second World War, there has been quite an important development not only in psychology and social sciences, but also in the field of human rights and basic freedoms. A lot of new theories emerged and the system and purpose of punishing changed from retributive to protective and preventive.

In such an era the importance of moral justice has risen. Because not of the culprits in the novels selected are the same, I decided to divide this chapter into two subchapters according to the form of moral justice they execute. The first concerns with the form of moral justice which does not let the culprit live – the prize for their crime is their death either in the form of murder or a suicide. Into this subchapter I put Christie‟s

Nemesis, where Clotilde, a murderer of Verity commits a suicide, Christie‟s Curtain:

Poirot’s Last Case, where Poirot becomes the culprit and knowing what he did was wrong dies when he cannot reach his pills, which he intentionally puts to a place where he cannot reach them. In P. D. James‟s An Unsuitable Job for a Woman the culprit, Mr.

Callender is killed by Miss Leaming, the mother of Mark, who is killed by his father,

Mr. Callender.

In the second subchapter there are also three works. In all of these works the culprit or culprits live to cope with their deeds. That is a different form of moral justice.

The novels in this subchapter are Murder on the Orient Express, where a kidnapper,

Cassetti is stabbed by twelve people, a self-appointed jury. Because Cassetti managed to escape the United States of America before he could be legally tried and sentences to a fair punishment, these twelve people, members of the kidnapped girl‟s family decide that the execution of justice must be taken into their own hands. In this case nobody is legally punished, but all these people have to live with their deed till the ends of their

50 lives. A slightly different kind of moral justice, although also the one where the culprit stays alive, is present in Allingham‟s Flowers for the Judge. Here the culprit, Ritchie, who kills two people is not reported to the police and punished, despite the fact

Campion finds him in Avignon in France. As the culprits from the Orient Express, also

Ritchie has to live with what he has done till the rest of his life. In this novel there may be also other aspects of moral justice seen. Campion does not report Ricthie, because he knows Ritchie is not coming back to England, to his family‟s business, which he detests. Ritchie gets justice after many years of despair. Finally he is free and it is just that way. For all his suffering not being legally punished is what he deserves. In this novel there is also the second form of moral justice. It is when Tom Barnabas steals

Gallivant. It could appear illegal and unjust, but bearing in mind he is one of the shareholders of the company and does not get his share, stealing the company‟s most valuable asset seems a just way to get to what he is entitled to. Moreover, in this novel there is also the legal justice executed. Mark is arrested for murdering Paul, but immediately after doubts about his guilt are raised (john is murdered in the same way

Paul was killed), Mark is released from prison.

Finally, in this subchapter there is Fyfield‟s A Clear Conscience, a novel in which Cath, an unhappy woman has to live without her two loves; her beloved and adored brother Damien and her husband Joe. Cath kills them both, because in her opinion it is just, it is something they deserve, because they hurt her. Cath‟s justice is not a call for revenge. Her motif is not hatred, but love. After she murders these two men, Cath stays alone with her grief. Another culprit in this novel is the crown prosecutor Helen West. Although Helen does not commit any criminal offence, she is the one who is responsible for Cath‟s destiny. She decides not to report Cath‟s crimes, although as a prosecutor she should. Therefore Helen has to face all the consequences.

51

What she does may be moral, but definitely this deed of hers is a breach of her duties and since she is the one who has to care about legal justice being executed on those who break the law, she is responsible for the legal injustice that occurs in the novel.

To conclude, I can say that all the aims of this thesis that I stated in the introduction have been fulfilled and this thesis proves that there is not only one concept of justice in the novels selected, but that the general term justice covers two concepts of justice – the legal one and the moral one. This thesis explores the moral justice and confirms that the moral justice is a matter seriously discussed and adopted by all of the above selected women writers.

52

Works cited and consulted

“Agatha Christie”. Tangled Web UK. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2010.

< http://www.twbooks.co.uk/authors/achristie.html>

Allingham, Margery. Flowers for the Judge. London: Penguin Books, 1988.

Bargainnier, E.F. The Gentle Art of Murder: The Detective Fiction of Agatha Christie.

Bowling Green U Popular P, 1980. Print.

---. Ten Women of Mystery. Bowling Green U Popular P, 1981. Print.

“Biography”. Francesfyfield.co.uk. N.p, n.d. Web. 30 May 2010.

Christie, Agatha. Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case. London: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2002.

Christie, Agatha. Murder on the Orient Express. London: HarperCollinsPublishers,

2007.

Christie, Agatha. Nemesis. Glasgow: HarperCollinsPublishers, 1994.

Davies, Norman. The Isles: A History. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. Print.

Ford, Boris. Early Twentieth-century Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1992. Print.

“Frances Fyfield”. Tangled Web UK. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2010.

Fyfield, Frances. A Clear Conscience. London: Corgi Books, 1995.

"Gustav Radbruch." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2011.

53

Gutting, Gary. French Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge

UP, 2001. Print.

Grella, George. “Murder and Manners: The Formal Detective Novel”. JSTOR. A Forum

on Fiction, Autumn 1970. Web. 14 May 2010.

Hall, Jerome. “Justice in the 20th Century”. JSTOR. California Law Review, Inc., May,

1971. Web. 14 May 2010.

Holquist, Michael. “Whodunit and Other Questions: Metaphysical Detective Stories in

Post-War Fiction”. JSTOR. The Jonson Hopkins UP, Autumn, 1971. Web. 5 Apr

2011.

Hubly, Erlene. 'The Formula Challenged: The Novels of P. D. James', Modern Fiction

Studies, 29.3 (1983): 511-521. ELF.MUNI. Web. 22 May 2010.

James, P. D. "Introduction", in The Art of Murder, British Crime Fiction, A British

Council Exhibition Brochure, The British Council, 1993, 2-12. Print.

James, P.D. An Unsuitable Job for a Woman. London: Faber and Faber, 2000.

James, Phyllis Dorothy. Život nejsou jen vraždy. Praha: Academia, 2000. Print.

“Justice”. Dictionary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr 2010.

"Justice." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia

Britannica, 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2010.

Kelsen, Hans.What is Justice? Justice, Law and Politics in the Mirror of Science. New

Jersey: Union, 2000. Print.

Light, Alison. 'Femininity, Literature and Conservatism between the Wars'. Forever

54

England, London: Routledge, 1991, pp. 61-112. Print.

Lovell, Colin Rhys. English Constitutional and Legal History: a Survey. New York,

Oxford UP, 1962. Print.

“Margery Allingham”. The Margery Allingham Society. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2010.

< http://www.margeryallingham.org.uk/news.htm>

Marwick, Arthur. British Society since 1945. Harmodnsworth: Penguin Books, 1996.

Print.

Munt, Sally R. Murder by the Book?, London: Routledge, 1994, pp. 1-29. Print.

"Natural law." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2010.

“P.D. James”. Contemporary Writers. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2010.

< http://www.contemporarywriters.com/authors/?p=auth193>

“P.D. James”. Ramdomhouse.com. Np, n.d. Web. 22 May 2010.

< http://www.randomhouse.com/features/pdjames/>

"Philosophy of law." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 29 Apr. 2011.

Robbins, Keith. The Eclipse of a Great Power: Modern Britain 1870 – 1992. London:

55

Longman, 1994. Print.

Rowland, Susan. From Agatha Christie to Ruth Rendel: British Women Writers in

Detective and Crime Fiction. Houndmills: Palgrave, 2001. Print.

Symons, Julian. Bloody Murder, From the Detective Story to the Crime Novel,

Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, 1974. Print.

---. The Detective Story in Britain. Harlow: Longmans, Green & Co. 1969. Print.

“The Queen of Crime”. Agathachristie.com. Agatha Christie Limted, n.d. Web. 30 May

2010.

“The Queen of Crime: P.D. James”. The New York Times. The New York Times, 5 Oct.

1986. Web. 30 May 2010.

Trodd, Anthea. 'Crime Fiction'. In Women's Writing in English, Britain 1900-1945,

London: 1998, pp. 129-136. Print.

Ward, P. A. “Moral Ambiguities and the Crime Novels of P.D. James.“ Religion

Online. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 May 2010.

online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1403>

56

Resumé

This thesis explores the concepts of justice in selected works by Christie,

Allingham, P. D. James and Fyfield. The works selected for this thesis are Nemesis

(1971), Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case (1975) and Murder on the Orient Express (1934) by Christie, Flowers for the Judge (1936) by Alligham, An Unsuitable job for a Woman

(1972) by P. D. James and A Clear Conscience (1994) by Fyfield. The thesis aims to prove that under the general term „justice‟, there are two concepts of justice hidden – the legal one and the moral one.

The thesis consists of an introduction, three chapters and a conclusion. In the introduction the basic information on the thesis is provided as well as the aim of the work described. The first chapter, called “The emergence of detective fiction” provides basic information on the genre of detective fiction, its emergence and advancement. It divides the English Queens of Crime into two waves and describes the Golden Age of detective stories. This chapter also describes the era of crime novel and compares and contrasts the detective story and the crime novel. Furthermore, there is brief bibliographical information regarding each Queen of Crime explored in this thesis.

The second chapter is called “What is justice?” and its purpose it to render a brief treatise on different theories and dictionary entries concerning the theme of justice.

Theories by such well-known scholars as Hans Kelsen, Thomas Aquinas, Gustav

Radbruch or Jacques Derrida are adopted to prove that there are two concepts of justice

– the moral one and the legal one. The dictionary entries are used to picture the whole milieu of justice.

The third chapter represents the major section of this thesis. It is divided into two parts, the first concerning with moral justice in Nemesis, Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case

57 and An Unsuitable job for a Woman. These three works are explored in one subchapter, because the form of moral justice present in all of them is very similar to one another. In these novels, the culprit dies, either by his own, or someone else‟s hand. The second subchapter lists the novels Murder on the Orient Express, Flowers for the Judge and A

Clear Conscience. In these novels there is also some form of moral justice present, but here the culprits stay alive and have to live and cope with their deeds.

In the conclusion there is the work evaluated from the standpoint of fulfilling the aim of the thesis and there are specific examples given that prove that there are two concepts of justice present in the abovementioned works by Christie, Allingham, P. D.

James and Fyfield.

58

Resumé

Tato diplomová práce analyzuje koncepty spravedlnosti v dílech Christie,

Allingham, P.D. James a Fyfield. Svolenými díly pro tuto práci jsou Nemesis (1971),

Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case (1975) a Murder on the Orient Express (1934) od Christie,

Flowers for the Judge (1936) od Alligham, An Unsuitable job for a Woman (1972) od

P. D. James a A Clear Conscience (1994) od Fyfield. Diplomová práce se snaží prokázat, že pod obecným pojmem „spravedlnost“ jsou ukryté dva koncepty spravedlnosti – právní koncept a morální koncept.

Diplomová práce sestává z úvodu, tří částí a závěru. V úvodu jsou základní informace o této práci a rovněž cíl práce. První kapitola, nazvaná jako „Vznik žánru detective fiction“, poskytuje základní informace o tomto uměleckém žánru, jeho vzniku a taktéž vývoji. Rozděluje tzv. Anglické královny zločinu na dvě vlny a popisuje zlatý věk detektivních příběhů. Tato kapitola se zaobírá rovněž dobou kriminálních románů a srovnává detektivní příběhy a kriminální romány. V neposlední řadě tato kapitola obsahuje i stručnou bibliografickou informaci o příslušné Královně zločinu.

Druhá kapitola se nazývá „Co je spravedlnost?“ a jejím cílem je poskytnout stručné pojednání o různých teoriích, využívaje mj. i slovníkové definice, zabývajících se problematikou spravedlnosti. Teorie obsažené v pracích známých učenců jako je

Hans Kelsen, Tomáš Akvintský, Gustav Radbruch či Jacques Derrida jsou průkazem toho, že zde jsou dva koncepty spravedlnosti – právní (legální) spravedlnost a morální spravedlnost. Slovníkové definice spravedlnosti i v této části dokreslují celkový obraz o konceptu spravedlnosti.

Třetí kapitola představuje hlavní část této práce. Je rozdělena na dvě části, přičemž první pojednává o morální spravedlnosti v dílech Nemesis, Curtain: Poirot’s

59

Last Case a An Unsuitable job for a Woman. Tyto tři práce jsou analyzovány v jedné podčásti, neboť koncept morální spravedlnosti ve všech těchto dílech je značně podobný. V těchto románech provinilec umírá svou vlastní vinou či s pomocí někoho jiného. Druhá podkapitola pojednává o následujících dílech: Murder on the Orient

Express, Flowers for the Judge a A Clear Conscience. V těchto románech sice lze najít stopy morální spravedlnosti, nicméně na rozdíl od výše uvedených děl, v těchto románech provinilec neumírá, nýbrž provinile žije svůj život dále a snaží se s následky svých činů vyrovnat.

V závěru této diplomové práce je obsaženo zhodnocení naplnění cíle předpokládané touto prací a jsou zde dále obsaženy konkrétní příklady, jež prokazují, že ve zkoumaných dílech Christie, Allingham, P. D. James a Fyfield, existují dva výše zmíněné koncepty spravedlnosti.

60