Following the purchase reported at reference 1, I have just finished reading the story called 'A Stoic', almost exactly 100 pages long, so rather shorter than a Maigret, which, from memory usually come in at around 150.
A story of the last few weeks, if not days, of the life of an unscrupulous businessman, still chairman of a small shipping company at the age of 80. From whom I associated to the Simeon Lee of Agatha's novel twenty years later (reference 4). Although Lee was morally simpler in the sense that, at least as an old man, he was thoroughly unpleasant as well as decrepit.
A businessman who had been a successful, albeit with some ups and downs, who had had a colourful life and who believed in living life to the full. Which included eating and drinking a good deal. Which probably included plenty of swindling and sharp practise, although we only get to be told about his closing swindle.
An interesting yarn, mainly about this closing swindle. We learn something of the management of the shareholders and creditors of a middle sized company at the beginning of the 20th century. It seems that managing shareholder meetings, which were not the formalities they became and involved far fewer people, was quite an art. I was reminded that there were no building societies in those days, that land, while giving status, did not give much income - and that if you wanted your money to work for you, you needed to invest it yourself - and take your chances.
The businessman is almost brought to book by a solicitor who is both shareholder and creditor in a small way. But he escapes disgrace by managing to die after a last, solitary meal. With plenty to eat, to drink and to smoke.
The odd thing is that one's sympathy - or at least my sympathy - is all with the crook, rather than with the rather unpleasant solicitor who almost brings him to book. One already knew that plenty of people who take a high moral tone are rather unpleasant at close quarters, but still and all. Why would Galsworthy chose to have us side with the bad'un. Where were his moral standards?
Furthermore, why was the story given its title? Stoicism, according to Wikipedia, looks to have little in common with said bad'un. I need to reflect.
Galsworthy's use of the phrase 'carpe diem' is a better fit, and Past Master Johnson might remember from his Bullingdon days that the phrase is taken from a poem by a chap called Horace:
PS 1: twenty years seemed like a rather short life for the ship snapped above, albeit quite a small one. But, according to Gemini, not that short by the standards of the time - and then there was the depression, which did not occur to me.
PS 2: once again, the word 'Forsyte' occurs just once.
PS 3: no trolleys, but one washer today. From Christchurch Road.
References
Reference 1: https://psmv6.blogspot.com/2026/01/galsworthy.html.
Reference 2: A Stoic - John Galsworthy - 1916.
Reference 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoicism.
Reference 4: Hercule Poirot's Christmas - Agatha Christie - 1939.
No comments:
Post a Comment