Hercule Poirot's Christmas

In Part 2, the family reunion at Gorston Hall intensifies the theme of The Inescapable Burdens of the Past. The house itself functions as a repository for memory, forcing characters into confrontations with unresolved history. This is most acute for David, whose distress in his mother’s disused sitting room demonstrates that the past is an active, oppressive force to him. His traumatized reaction culminates when he plays a cherished Mendelssohn piece and brings his hands down on the keys in a “harsh discord.” The music, once a source of comfort, becomes an unbearable link to past suffering. In contrast, Simeon uses his past as a source of power. He boasts of his wickedness to Pilar and clings to his uncut diamonds not for their monetary value, but as a connection to his formative years. For him, the past is a narrative of conquest that reinforces his present tyranny, while for David, it is a legacy of grief.

The arrivals of Harry, Pilar, and Stephen develop the theme of The Fragility of Identity and the Performance of Self. Each character consciously crafts a persona to navigate the environment of Gorston Hall. Harry embraces the archetypal role of the “prodigal son,” a biblical allusion he makes to Tressilian. His boisterous laughter and arrogant demeanor are a deliberate performance as the family rebel, a role Simeon expects him to play. Similarly, Pilar uses a fan to create an air of mystique while her composure conceals her true identity. Stephen’s arrival is marked by a “swagger” that masks his nervousness, an indication that his identity is also a facade. These performances underscore that identity within the Lee family is strategic. The characters adopt roles to conceal motivations, manipulate others, or, in Simeon’s case, to solidify a self-made legend of unrepentant villainy. This theatricality establishes an atmosphere of deception where every action is suspect.

Physical and behavioral resemblances are significant to these chapters, subtly linking Simeon’s disparate sons and foreshadowing the revelation of the killer’s identity. The narrative repeatedly draws attention to the powerful Lee family likeness. Upon Harry’s arrival, Lydia is startled to see Simeon in her brother-in-law’s “sudden impish grin” (45). Shortly thereafter, Stephen’s arrival triggers a sense of déjà vu in Tressilian, who feels that “everything [is] happening twice” (54). Simeon reinforces these connections, declaring that Harry takes after him and claiming Stephen as “one of the family” (57). This pattern of uncanny resemblance suggests that Simeon’s boasts about illegitimate children are true and that these hidden heirs are already present. The motif encourages the reader to seek connections between the characters, anticipating the logic Poirot will later use to unmask the killer based on inherited likeness.

Simeon’s uncut diamonds continue to function as a motif developing the theme of The Corrupting Influence of Wealth and Greed. Unlike his sons, who are motivated by conventional financial need, Simeon is indifferent to the diamonds’ market value. He prefers them in their raw state because, as he explains, “[t]hey take [him] back—the touch of them, the feel of them” (52). The stones symbolize his life and character: brutal, unrefined, and deriving power from raw potential rather than social polish. They represent the value Simeon finds in his wealth: a tangible record of conquest and a tool of psychological control. By showing them to Pilar, he is testing her character and flaunting a power that is entirely his own. This complicates the novel’s exploration of greed, suggesting that the most destructive avarice prizes power rather than money.

The moral framework of the narrative emerges in Pilar’s exchange with Simeon. Her Spanish proverb, “Take what you like and pay for it, says God” (49), serves as a direct challenge to Simeon’s philosophy of unchecked indulgence. His life has been a testament to the first half of the maxim—taking what he wants without regard for others. Pilar’s pointed question, “And you have paid for it?” (49), introduces the concept of consequence, a moral accounting that Simeon has spent his life evading. His angered, unsettled reaction reveals a flicker of vulnerability and fear of retribution. This moment foreshadows the violent “payment” to come, reframing Simeon’s impending murder as a reckoning for a lifetime of moral debts.