logo

33 pages 1 hour read

The Mysterious Affair at Styles

Fiction | Novel | Adult | Published in 1920

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapters 5-8Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 5 Summary: “It Isn’t Strychnine, Is It?”

Arthur struggles to process the clues as Poirot barrels ahead with his investigation. Arthur is convinced that the poison was delivered in Emily’s cocoa, but Poirot insists on examining the coffee cups and occupies himself with who does and does not take sugar with their coffee. All eyes are on Alfred Inglethorp, still generally considered the prime suspect by his adoptive family.

Alfred will be the subject of an inquest. The family learns that Alfred received an urgent but mysterious summons from Emily just before her death and that Emily annually rewrote her will. Her last will, giving her estate to John and her fortune to Lawrence, was made null and void by her marriage to Alfred.

Having seen a bit of turned earth near the fireplace in Emily’s room and the word “possessed” written in practice on a piece of scrap paper, Poirot has the ingenious idea to question the gardener. Indeed, the gardener confirms that he witnessed a new will written by Emily on the afternoon of Emily’s death—this presumably is the will that was burned in the fire soon after. Emily’s lawyer is astounded.

Evie Howard passionately expresses to anyone within earshot her belief that Alfred Inglethorp is guilty of the murder. Poirot and the lawyer examine Emily’s room, where Poirot is horrified to discover that the previously-locked case has been forced open. A furious Poirot mutters to himself while straightening the items on the mantelpiece.

Running through the evidence on a walk back to town, Poirot notes that his investigation seems to absolve Alfred of guilt, though it is significant that Emily bolted the door leading to her husband’s room at night, and that Alfred was absent the night of the murder, almost as if to concoct an alibi.

Arthur and Poirot run into an agitated young employee of the chemist’s shop on the street. He is very concerned with whether the poison used to kill Emily was strychnine. Poirot speaks a few words in confidence with the boy and declares that Emily “would never forgive me if I let Alfred Inglethorp, her husband, be arrested now—when a word from me could save him!” (70). Arthur is utterly befuddled.

Chapter 6 Summary: “The Inquest”

Annoyed that Poirot continues his investigation without taking him into his confidence, Arthur does his own investigating, learning through rumor that there have been frequent, mysterious visitors to the beautiful young Mrs. Raikes from Styles Court over the course of the last month. Poirot pins down the exact time of arguments that took place on the day of the murder.

At the coroner’s inquest the cause of death is determined to be one grain (equivalent to about 64 milligrams) of strychnine. When she ingested the poison remains a mystery, however, as she was served after-dinner coffee with a light meal at eight in the evening and did not show symptoms until five in the morning. Since her coffee cup was smashed, there is no way of analyzing its contents. There was no strychnine in the cocoa she drank.

At the inquest, Lawrence insists that the death might have been caused naturally or accidentally. This assertion is puzzling, as Lawrence has studied medicine. Mary Cavendish is very cagey and curt as she recounts the argument she overheard between Alfred and Emily concerning a marital scandal. To no one’s surprise, Evie Howard speaks up, still insisting on Alfred’s guilt.

Everyone at the inquest is astonished, however, by the testimony of the chemist’s shop employee, who insists that he sold strychnine to Alfred Inglethorp on the day of the murder and presents a registry book in which Alfred signed his name. Taking the stand, Alfred calmly insists he never bought the strychnine in question, though he cannot produce an alibi. Alfred also denies having an argument with his wife. He does admit to preparing his wife’s coffee, which Dorcas served. In short, his preliminary defense appears quite meager.

Chapter 7 Summary: “Poirot Pays His Debts”

The inquest concluded, Poirot reconnects with Inspector-Detective Japp of Scotland Yard (the London police force), with whom he has worked before. The Scotland Yard men are convinced of Alfred’s guilt. Poirot cautions Japp not to enact the arrest warrant until he’s had a chance to visit Styles Court with him. Japp stands by Poirot’s judgment and experience.

Poirot explains to Arthur that the evidence against Alfred is too “cut and dried” to be satisfying (86). He points out how easy it would be to pass oneself off as Alfred Inglethorp, who wears singularly dark clothing, a black beard, and glasses. Poirot draws attention to Lawrence and Mary, both of whom acted peculiarly during the inquest. Plus, why was Dr. Bauerstein completely clothed at 5:00 am, the time of the murder, and how did Cynthia sleep soundly in the room next door during the whole loud affair?

The Scotland Yard men and Arthur accompany Poirot to Styles Court, where Poirot sets chairs out for the whole family. There, Poirot informs Alfred Inglethorp that he is suspected in the murder of his wife. Alfred reacts with shock.

It is then that Poirot states that he can produce “no less than five witnesses” (93) who can attest that they saw Alfred Inglethorp escorting the beautiful young Mrs. Raikes, a farmer’s wife, to her home at 6:00 pm on Monday. This corresponds to the exact time Alfred was ostensibly purchasing strychnine from the chemists. Alfred Inglethorp’s alibi for the most devastating evidence against him appears to be airtight.

Chapter 8 Summary: “Fresh Suspicions”

Alfred corroborates both Poirot’s assertion that he was at Mrs. Raikes’s house, confessing that he hadn’t mentioned it at the inquest due to rumors of his infidelity. This supposed infidelity, Poirot informs the group, was the subject of Alfred’s and Emily’s argument on the day of her death. Satisfied that no arrest is yet warranted in the case, Japp investigates the house.

Poirot expresses disappointment in Japp’s method and reacts with fury when Arthur informs him that Dr. Bauerstein had been present in the home the day after the murder. “That alters everything—everything!” Poirot declares (96). He begins to corroborate the true clues and sweeping away the distractions. The only two suspects who definitely didn’t serve the coffee were Cynthia and Mary. Arthur wonders why the investigation has focused very little on Evie Howard; though Poirot dismisses the idea out of hand, he does suggest that he’s been keeping “certain little ideas” about Evie to himself (99). Poirot gives Arthur a cryptic message to give to Lawrence: “Find the extra coffee cup, and you can rest in peace” (100). He adds that he had the cocoa analyzed again, utterly baffling his friend.

After Emily’s funeral, Alfred moves out of the house to an inn in town. To the annoyance of the family, newspapers begin to report the murder. Dorcas remembers seeing a piece of green cloth in a costume box in an attic. Examining it, Poirot and Arthur discover cloth matching the type found in the bolt in Emily’s door, as well as a black stage beard perfectly matching Alfred’s real beard.

Later, Poirot takes Evie Howard into his confidence, asking for her to ally with him to find Emily’s killer. Evie is put off at first, unhappy that Poirot let Alfred escape arrest. In conversation, Poirot vaguely suggests another’s guilt. Evie appears at least partially mollified by this secret suspect, though she showily exclaims that Poirot “must be mad to think of such a thing” (106).

Chapters 5-8 Analysis

Poirot studiously clears away many accidentally and deliberately manufactured clues (and gets down to the business of collecting the real clues) in the mystery of Emily’s murder. To do this, however, he must remove the narrator, and the reader, from his confidence.

Gradually, it becomes clear that Arthur is an unsatisfying narrator. He overvalues his own talents as an amateur sleuth, flirts with Mary (thus contaminating his ability to judge her guilt or innocence), actively misinterprets false evidence, and can only express his complete befuddlement at Poirot’s exhaustive methodology. Whereas his near literary counterpart, Sherlock Holmes’s associate Dr. Watson, expressed nothing but admiration and awe at Holmes’s abilities, Arthur is typically skeptical of Poirot, often thinking to himself that his friend must have gone mad. At the same time, Arthur is a more effective audience surrogate than Watson. Few could hope to keep up with Poirot’s exhaustive mind, so it is a relief for readers to be in the company of a man similarly incapable of correlating so many misleading facts.

This disconnect between detective and narrator has consequences for the plot and for the investigation happening within it. Readers must cope with a vast array of clues, and no way to distinguish between the false clues Arthur emphasizes, such as the cocoa cups, and Poirot’s real conclusions—since Arthur dismisses Poirot’s skills, we don’t know which of them to trust. As we get to know Arthur, we come to understand his limitations and narratorial unreliability. Poirot certainly knows how to deploy Arthur: Advising that “we must be so intelligent that he does not suspect us of being intelligent at all,” Poirot uses Arthur as the perfect decoy (104). 

blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text
Unlock IconUnlock all 33 pages of this Study Guide

Plus, gain access to 8,800+ more expert-written Study Guides.

Including features:

+ Mobile App
+ Printable PDF
+ Literary AI Tools