The Innocence in the Novels of Agatha Christie

Porinets Yurii Yur'evich PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign Literature at Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia 191186, Russia, g. Saint Petersburg, ul. Nab. R. Moiki, 48 porinets2015@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

One of the central questions of any detective novel is the question of who is the criminal, which of the characters is to blame. The peculiarity of Agatha Christie's novels is that one of the central motives is the motive of innocence.

The significance of the motive of innocence for the detective genre has already been the subject of consideration. Thus, K. Chapek wrote about the detective genre: "In this world of the virtuous and the wicked, there is no place for half-heartedness and two-faceedness, prerequisites and mitigating circumstances. Clearly, like the kernel of a nut from the shell, the eternal motive of Guilt and Innocence emerges from the plot" ^{[1, p. 340]}.

The significance of the motive of innocence for the detective genre as a whole, without stopping at specific examples, was considered in 1948 by W.H. Auden in his essay "The Guilt of the Vicarage" ("The Guilty Vicarage"). He wrote that one of the obligatory components of the detective genre is the image of a closed society in which everyone is closely connected with each other. "This society should seem to be an innocent society in a state of grace" (Our translation – Yu. P.) ^[2]. Crime violates this state of innocence, causes a crisis. Until the fallen one who destroyed this heavenly state is revealed, everyone will be under suspicion and as if they will fall under the rule of the law, not grace.  In Auden's interpretation, the formula of the detective genre is "this is innocence, which contains guilt; then suspicion that someone is guilty; and finally real innocence, from which the guilty is expelled, healed not by me or my neighbors, but by the miraculous intervention of a genius from outside, who removes guilt, making the guilty known" (Our translation. – Yu. P.) ^[2]. In this sense, the goal of the detective reader is "a fantasy about returning to the gardens of Eden, to a state of innocence, where he can learn love as love, and not as law." ^[2]. A. Rob–Grillet said that "at the end of the book the reader should gain confidence" ^{[3, p. 274]}.  In the novel "Holidays in Limstock" ("The Moving Finger") there is such a dialogue:

"What a lovely place for a man who has come to lie in the sun and heal his wounds! It's full of poison, this place – and it looks peaceful and innocent, like the Garden of Eden!

"Even there,– Owen said dryly, "there was one snake" ^{[4, p. 54]}. In the "Caribbean Mystery" there is a similar fragment: "Molly looked out the window. The place seemed like an earthly paradise. Sun, sea, coral reefs, music, dancing… But even in the garden of Eden, a serpent appeared" ^{[5, p. 46]}.  

Thus, the crime is the destruction of paradise, and the identification of the true culprit is the restoration of the original harmony and integrity not only of the world, but also of all the characters. N. Volsky notes that "against this background of an established and stable existence, something unusual, unpredictable arises, something that should not be in our world" ^{[6, p. 58]}. This concept is essential for understanding the novels of Agatha Christie. The characters' reflections on the fact that after committing a crime, until the killer is identified, people will not be able to live an ordinary life, everyone is under suspicion, and happiness and joy are impossible, are present, for example, in the novel "The Dead Man's Quirk": "Innocent blood has been shed. And as long as the shadow of the victim remains here, there will be no peace. You understand this very well" ^[7].

After a detailed analysis of Agatha Christie's crime, as a rule, the killer himself commits some actions, which are confirmation that he is the criminal. He either confesses himself, or gives himself away by some careless remark or action, etc. This is necessary for the author in order to emphasize the finality of what is happening, the guilt is not just proved by the detective, it is directly or indirectly confirmed by the criminal himself, and there is no possibility for another interpretation of what is happening. The true culprit will be punished, and the innocent will be able to live an ordinary life, the guilt is finally and unconditionally removed from them. The disclosure of a crime brings the world out of a "special state of uncertainty of being" ^{[6, p. 58]}. The finale of the detective novel, with rare exceptions, is unambiguous. As D. Kavelti writes: "the formula element creates an ideal world in which there is no disorder, ambiguity, uncertainty and limitation of the real world" ^{[8, p. 39]}.

Poirot in various novels calls his basic principle that he does not approve of murder. "We have the same principles. We do not approve of murder."^[9] The detective refuses to see murder primarily as a work of art and to admire it, to admire the sophistication of the criminal. Poirot, in his words, "has a purely bourgeois idea of murder" ^{[10, p. 13]}. ("Cards on the table"). Murder is not normal, so it must be investigated at all costs. Justice is needed precisely to prevent innocent victims. This is repeatedly stated in the novels. "Poirot could not agree with them. He used to think first of all about justice. He was always suspicious of excessive charity. From his experience in Belgium and in this country, he knew that it often leads to new crimes, the innocent victims of which would not have become such if justice had been taken care of first and mercy second."^[9]

In the novel The Riddle of the Endhouse, Poirot argues: "Really, are all criminals abnormal? I am inclined to believe that yes. But that's the doctors' concern. I have other tasks ahead of me. I have to think not about the guilty, but about the innocent, not about the criminals, but about the victims. I'm interested in you now, Mademoiselle, not the unknown man who wanted to kill you. You are young, beautiful, the sun is shining, the world is beautiful, you have life and love ahead of you. That's what I'm thinking, mademoiselle" ^{[11, p. 277]}. The special significance of this idea is given by its almost verbatim repetition in the same novel. Poirot tells Hastings: "I am defending the interests of the innocent. Mademoiselle Nick, whom they wanted to kill. Mademoiselle Maggie, who was murdered" ^{[11, p. 342]}.

Thus, the investigation in Agatha Christie's detectives is carried out not so much to punish the guilty, but to protect the innocent. Protect those who might get hurt. "We cannot allow innocent children like Agnes Wooddell to be killed"! ^{[4, p. 110]} – exclaims the heroine of the novel "Holidays in Limstock", Mrs. Dane-Calthrop. The victims are not justified by anything: neither by the genius of the criminal ("Halloween Party"), nor by references to the highest state interests. "I'm not interested in nations. I am concerned about the fate of people who have the right to hope that their lives will not be taken away" ^{[12, p. 173]}, says Poirot in the novel "One–two-Three-buckle up." No necessity justifies killing. The dialogue between Miss Pebmarsh and Colin in the novel "The Clock" is indicative in this respect, in which Poirot is opposed to Lenin: "You are not fit for this job. You're just like Rosemary's father. He, too, could not understand Lenin's dictum: "Away with softness!"

"I prefer to be human," I replied, remembering the words of Hercule Poirot."^[13]

There is evil in the world that is present everywhere, in the most unsuitable places for this. According to Oden, it is advisable to depict a crime in a "Place of Great Good" ("Great Good Place"), "because the more it looks like Eden, the greater the inconsistency of murder" (our translation – Yu. P.) ^[2]. It is no coincidence that Poirot says that "there is evil everywhere in the world" ("Evil under the sun") ^[14]. Vinalbles also discusses this in the novel "Villa White Horse": "I do not accept this modern interpretation of evil – as if it does not exist at all. Exists. And has great power. Sometimes it is more powerful than good. Evil lives among us" ^[15].

But evil is rooted not in the essence of the world, but in the wrong direction of the human will, such an image of evil is quite in the spirit of the Christian understanding of the problem. The evangelical phrase "The world lies in evil" is interpreted by Christian theologians in this way. Vinables continues his sentence with the following words: "It should be recognized and dealt with. Otherwise...  He spread his hands. – Otherwise we will plunge into pitch darkness" ^[15].

"In fact, evil has never lived here. No one has made any fantastic deals with the devil, or rites of black magic. Just salon ideas. But they didn't put human life in a penny – that's where the true evil lay" ^[15], as the priest's wife says in this novel.

Agatha Christie's novels also touch upon the problem of the correlation between the existence of evil in the world and the idea of a good God. Poirot refuses to see in murder, even if it is a crime whose victim seems accidental, the idea of Providence. The detective argues with Hastings, who attributes to God the idea of the necessity of misfortunes, disasters occurring in the world.

"The will of Providence,– I replied quietly.

"Ah, my friend, why burden the Lord God with the burden of human sins? You have just said, in a heartfelt and pious way, the will of Providence, and it did not even occur to you that by doing so you accused the Lord God of murdering Miss Maggie Buckley.

–God bless you, Poirot!

"That's right, my friend. But I'm not going to sit back and repeat: The Lord God himself orders, and I won't interfere. No! I am convinced that God created Hercule Poirot precisely to interfere. This is my craft" ^{[11, p. 342]}. Poirot refuses to accept the point of view that God is responsible for the suffering, misery of people. It is unacceptable for him to shift responsibility to God for the murder committed, for the crime, the existence of evil in the world. The reasons for the crime are in "human sins". Evil is connected with the will of the murderer, not with the will of God. In the novel "Holidays in Limstock," the narrator, Jerry Burton, responding to Miss Emily's remark, "that the ways of God are inscrutable," says: "No. There is too strong a tendency in us to attribute to the Lord the evil that a person does of his own free will. I can still assume that it is the devil. God doesn't need to punish us, Miss Burton. We so often punish ourselves" ^{[4, p. 47]}.

Agatha Christie's crime usually has quite clear human causes and is never part of some providential plan, but it cannot be pleasing to God. Usually it is a thirst for power ("Trick with mirrors", "Halloween Party"), money or property ("At 16.50 from Paddington", "The Riddle of the Endhouse", "Sad Cypress", "Seeds in your pocket"), revenge ("Zero Hour", "It's easy to kill"), love passion ("Tragedy in three acts", "Vacation in Limstock") or jealousy ("Sleeping Murder"), often these reasons are combined. For example, in the novel "Five Piglets", the reason for the murder is both jealousy and revenge. In the novels "The Coast of Luck", "Evil under the Sun", "The Test of Innocence", the cause of the crime is money and love passion. There are many examples in Christie's novels. The author constantly emphasizes that one crime entails others committed in order to hide the consequences of the first. A criminal, having escaped responsibility, once having crossed moral norms, feels his impunity and is capable of new crimes. The responsibility for the evil committed does not lie with God, but with man. Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to fight evil. In the quoted passage, Poirot emphasizes that the will of Providence is not that evil should go unpunished, but that he, Hercule Poirot, should solve the crime, punish the murderer and protect the innocent. This is the will of God, Poirot's mission in the world, he seems to act as a person actively fighting evil, protecting Good and Truth.

In this regard, Agatha Christie largely follows G. K. Chesterton, who in his essay "In Defense of detective Literature" (1901) wrote: "By showing vigilant guards guarding the outposts of society, it (detective literature – Yu. P.) constantly reminds us that we live in an armed camp surrounded by a hostile chaotic world, and that criminals, these offspring of chaos, are nothing but traitors in our camp" ^{[16, p. 18]}.

 By solving a crime, the detective returns to the world a sense of grace, peace and order. This is the purpose of knowing the truth about who actually committed the crime. Poirot and Miss Marple repeatedly talk about their commitment to the search for truth in different novels ("The Sad Cypress", "Five Piglets"). For example, in the novel "Tragedy in Three Acts" Poirot declares as his basic principle the following: "When I, like chien de chasse, take the trail, I am seized with excitement, and I can no longer retreat. It's all true. But there is something more powerful. How should I put it? — a passionate desire to get to the truth. In the whole world there is nothing so exciting, so exciting and so beautiful as the search for truth" ^{[17, p. 528]}. It is no coincidence that Auden, in connection with the detective genre, spoke about the "search for the Holy Grail" ^[2].

The search for truth in Christie's novels is connected not only with the search for the guilty, but also with the protection of the innocent from unfair accusations. For example, this is directly declared in the novel "The Corpse in the Library". Thus, it can be argued that the search for truth in Agatha Christie's detectives is essentially equivalent to the defense of innocence.  

In a more acute form, the problem of innocence is revealed in novels in which a person is suspected of a crime who did not commit it. We are not talking about detectives in which false suspicion is used by the author to a greater extent as a device to distract the attention of readers. One way or another, false suspicions are found in almost all the texts of Agatha Christie ("The Riddle of Sittaford", "Murder on the golf course", "The Mysterious incident in Styles", etc.). We are talking about novels where the persecution of an innocent person is portrayed as a serious problem ("The Trial of innocence", "Hour Zero", "Mrs. McGinty lost her life", "Alphabetical Murders"). In these novels, the one who conducts the investigation acts not only as a defender of the innocent from the criminal, he also saves the innocent of the crime from undeserved punishment. Poirot almost directly calls himself the defender, the advocate of the innocent in the novel "The Sad Cypress". Talking to Elinor Carlisle, contrasting himself with a lawyer with a reputation for defending the guilty, Poirot says that he has "an excellent reputation for a person who knows how to prove innocence" ^{[18, p. 300]}.

Preventing the conviction of an innocent person is also an important task for the police. This is confirmed, for example, by the arguments of Inspector Spence in the novel "Mrs. McGinty lost her life", when he asks Poirot to take up the investigation of a murder for which a person has already been sentenced to death. The inspector does not want "an innocent man to be hanged for something he did not commit" ^{[19, p. 233]}. In the art world of Agatha Christie, "God will never allow the condemnation of an innocent" ("Hour Zero") ^[20]. But this does not happen by itself, it is a human task. In order to save an innocent man, it is necessary to find the real killer. Saving an innocent person in Agatha Christie's novels is much more important than punishing a criminal. This is directly stated in the novel "Death in the Clouds":

"In your opinion, what is the main task facing those who are trying to solve a crime?

"Catching the killer,– Jane said.

"Justice done,– Norman Gale said.

Poirot shook his head.

– There are more important things. Justice is, of course, a wonderful word, but sometimes it is difficult to understand what is meant by it. In my opinion, the most important thing is to remove suspicion from the innocent. –Of course,– Jane said. – What is there to talk about. If someone is falsely accused...

"Not even that. There may be no charge. But in this case, until a specific person is found guilty, everyone else connected with the murder will suffer in one way or another" ^{[21, p. 124]}.

But this approach does not imply abandoning the idea of retribution for the crime committed. With rare exceptions, in the novels of Agatha Christie, the criminal is punished. The novel "Murder on the Orient Express" looks like an exception here. It should be noted that in this novel, despite the fact that the victim of the crime is a clear villain guilty of the death of an innocent child, despite Poirot's refusal to demand punishment of criminals at all costs, there is no idea of justifying murder. Rather, Agatha Christie, with such a finale, turns to readers the question of the justification for the murder of an obvious villain. It is essential that in other novels of the writer, the idea of killing one for the benefit of others is interpreted negatively ("Murder in the vicarage", "Murder announced", "Date with death", "It's easy to kill").  

Even in the case when there is no exposure of the criminal and literal punishment, the author states that evil will not go unpunished. The world does not look chaotic in Agatha Christie's novels, and events are not a set of accidents. No wonder so often in her novels there is a detailed analysis of the reasons why the crime occurred ("Evil under the sun", "Trial by innocence", "Five Piglets", "Coast of Luck", "Sparkling cyanide", "Sleeping Murder", "Hollow", etc.).  "Evil never goes unpunished, monsieur. But the punishment is not always obvious," Poirot tells the parents of the murdered girl in "The Riddle of the Endhouse" ^{[11, p. 370]}.

Those who conduct the investigation are not ready to refuse to punish the criminal, they are merciful to the victim, to the innocent. Agatha Christie's killer is almost always a ruthless person who cannot be pitied precisely because he himself does not feel mercy for anyone. The criminal reaps the fruits of what he himself sowed. Although in some novels, detectives show sympathy for criminals, which does not encourage them, however, to refuse to demand punishment in accordance with the law ("Five Piglets", "After the funeral"). "You can see for yourself how cute he is." Tears welled up in Miss Marple's eyes. But they dried up right there – after all, this is a murderer, a heartless murderer"! ^{[22, p. 338]}. ("Seeds in the pocket").

In some novels, great attention is paid to the depiction of the suffering of a person who is accused of a crime that he did not commit. In this regard, an unfairly accused person is another victim of the criminal, he is portrayed as a person who is being persecuted, hounded, he is cornered ("Hour zero"). In several novels, an innocent man accused of someone else's crime considers himself guilty, because at one time or another he wished death to the deceased ("The Third", "Evil under the Sun", "Sad Cypress", "The Test of innocence"). Or an innocent hero tries to take the blame of another, considering himself guilty in front of him ("Five piglets"). In the novel Alphabetical Murders, Poirot is outraged not only by the brutal murders committed by Franklin Clark, but also by the fact that he tried to shift his guilt to another, to a man who cannot stand up for himself.

"I'm laughing because you called his crime unsportsmanlike," I gasped. "But that's the way it is. His crime is monstrous – not even because he killed his brother, but because he condemned the unfortunate Sist to be buried alive. "We will catch a fox, put it in prison, we will not let it loose!" What kind of sport is this" ^{[23, pp. 393-394]}.  A similar situation, when Lawrence Redding tries to frame an unhealthy Hawes, causes outrage from the doctor in the novel "Murder in the Vicarage".

Sometimes doubts about the guilt of a suspect arise on the basis of professional knowledge based on an understanding of the psychology of the criminal. In Agatha Christie's novels, such doubt is always virtually equivalent to the ultimate innocence of the accused, which is proved as a result of a thorough investigation. For example, this happens in the novel "Mrs. McGinty lost her life."

Important in the novels of Agatha Christie is the following collision, repeated several times. The innocence of a hero or heroine wrongly accused of murder is believed by those who love them. Love in the detective genre is portrayed as the opposite of murder. This fully applies not only to the texts of Agatha Christie, but also to other works by other authors. For example, the works of G. K. Chesterton, N. Marsh, M. Allingham, D. Sayers. The detective formula of some writers, to use the terminology of D. Cavelty ^[8], even includes the impossibility of committing murder by young lovers (for example, the novels of P. Wentworth). This is analogous to D. Sayers' remark that in R. Knox's novels the Catholic hero will always be falsely accused ^{[24, p. 75]}. If murder acts as a manifestation of evil, a force that destroys the harmony of the world, then love, on the contrary, restores it. The triumph of love in the detective story is connected with the idea of an earthly paradise. It is not surprising, therefore, that the possibility of love happiness is associated with the establishment of the innocence of the characters. Many novels of Agatha Christie, in which there is a motive of innocence, end with a successful outcome of a love collision ("The Riddle of Sittaford", "Sparkling cyanide", "Cards on the table", "Hour zero", "Five piglets", "A date with death", "It's easy to kill", "The Clock" and others).

In this regard, it seems important that in the finales of a number of novels, in connection with the end of the investigation and the happy love denouement, the motive of the returned Eden is directly actualized ("Holidays in Limstock", etc.). In the finale of the novel "The Christmas of Hercule Poirot" there is the following dialogue: "– Are you making a new kindergarten?

– Yes, I want to make a garden of Eden. Your own version: without the serpent, and Adam and Eve are no longer young.

"Dear Lydia," Alfred said softly, "You have been so patient and have been so kind to me all these years.

"I love you.".. Alfred" ^[25]!

Agatha Christie's novels are characterized by an idyllic ending, which emphasizes that evil is impossible in the world. It is significant that the novel with the title "Evil under the Sun" ends with the following remark of the heroine: "My dear, she replied quietly, "all my life I have dreamed of living with you in the village. And now my dream will finally come true ^[14].

In some novels of Agatha Christie, the love line is not only closely intertwined with the detective, but also becomes more significant. For example, in the novel "At 16.50 from Paddington", the more intriguing question is not who committed the murder, but the question of which of the men Lucy Icebarrow will choose. If the first question in the detective gets an unambiguous solution, then the second remains open. In "The Riddle of Sittaford" the same situation is repeated with the difference that the reader will know the answer. In the novel "Mrs. McGinty lost her life", the final intrigue is which of the two girls the hero will choose. The reader will find out the answer in the novel "Halloween Party" Poirot and Miss Marple sometimes act not only as detectives who create an opportunity for happiness by discovering the true culprit of the crime, but also as love intermediaries actively involved in the union of lovers or in arranging a potentially possible marriage ("Death in the Clouds", "In 16.50 from Paddington", "The Third", "Mrs. McGinty broke up with life", "Sad cypress").

Despite the seemingly irrefutable evidence, and the accusation, which looks natural and justified, the loving heroes continue to believe in the innocence of a loved one. Either based only on the innocent person's statement that he is innocent ("Five Piglets", "The Riddle of Sittaford"), or acting contrary to this when the innocent person admits his guilt without being a criminal ("Third", "Hour Zero"). There are other cases. Dr. Lord in "The Sad Cypress" believes in Eleanor's innocence, although he saw the expression on her face at the moment when she wished for the death of the murdered woman, and understood her thoughts. The intuition of a loving person, the belief in his innocence in the artistic world of Agatha Christie always turns out to be true. It can be argued that this refusal to believe in a crime committed by a loved one is similar in her novels to love, which, as they say in the biblical Song of Songs, is as strong as death, which denies death. For Agatha Christie, this is a manifestation of the truth, the authenticity of love, when a person incredibly penetrates into the soul of another person and sees him for real, as he is. If we allow this possibility, it becomes obvious that the loving hero in the novels under consideration seems to know for sure about the innocence of a loved one. Believing in the innocence of loved ones, the heroes are even ready to go against their principles and perjure themselves, like McWhirter in the novel "Hour Zero" or forge evidence, like Peter Lord. Justice, the principle of evidence is lower than love. In the novel "Hour Zero" there is a dialogue directly confirming this.

"And would you swear?

- yes.

– And it's you!  Audrey exclaimed. – You, a man who lost his job and got to the point where he decided to throw himself off a cliff, and all because he could not agree with a lie?

– I appreciate the truth, but I discovered for myself that there are things that matter more.

– For example?

–You,– McWhirter simply replied."^[20]

          The motive of innocence is revealed most vividly in Agatha Christie's novel "The Trial of Innocence", which is actualized by the author already in the title.

Dr. Arthur Colgary believes in Esther's innocence based on her words: "It is not so important whether he is guilty. It is important that we are all innocent" ^{[26, p. 409]}. For him, her words, although they are not supported by any facts, are a sufficient justification for her innocence.

"Oh, no," Kolgari replied. "Not at all. I know you're innocent.

"You sound as if you are absolutely convinced of it."

– Absolutely convinced.

"But how do you know?" What gives you a reason?

– Your words that you said to me when I left your house that evening. Remember? About innocence. Only a person who is innocent could feel and express such a thing.

–Oh, my God," Esther said. – How wonderful it is! To know that there is someone who understands this" ^{[26, p. 534]}!

It is essential that Dr. Calgary is not even an acquaintance of Esther, in fact, he does not know her at all, but understands her intuitively, faith in her penetrates into his consciousness as if simultaneously with love that he has not yet realized.

On the contrary, the heroine's fiance, Don Craig, a doctor who is fond of psychoanalysis, doubts her innocence. He does not abandon Esther, but considers the commission of a crime by her quite likely and asks her to tell him the truth. Craig explains her hypothetical crime with psychological complexes, thereby justifying it. But the heroine does not need to justify a crime that she did not commit. This collision clearly refers to the "Book of Job", excerpts from which were chosen by the author as an epigraph to the novel. Job's friends try to help him by trying to establish his guilt, while he himself knows that he is not guilty of anything. Justification thus becomes equal to accusation. They do not believe the words of the hero, which means a lack of faith in him. Thus, friends actually act as false, their friendship does not stand the test. The same thing happens in Agatha Christie's novel. Putting forward possible justifications for Esther's act, Craig seems to cast doubt on her very essence. Assuming that she committed a crime, putting forward some justification for this, the hero thereby discovers the absence of love, in fact, for him Esther acts as a psychological object, she is a stranger to him.  The love between these heroes does not pass the test of "innocence", the heroine realizes that she did not love her fiance. Esther's final desire to marry Dr. Calgary looks completely natural in the novel. Arthur believed in her, and while Craig was trying to explain her "crime" from a psychological point of view, Calgary is trying to solve the crime to prove her innocence. Thus, Arthur acts as a knight, similar to the character of a medieval chivalric novel, who selflessly comes to the aid of a defenseless "virgin in distress". Esther in the novel will later ask him for help herself, her act is a consequence of her dream (having in the text, as in other Agatha Christie novels, with rare exceptions, primarily a psychological background), in which Arthur Calgary saves her. In this context, the hero's name quite obviously refers to the Arthurian knight cycle. In the finale, the hero receives a well–deserved, but unexpected reward for him, which is joyfully accepted by him - the heroine announces her desire to marry him.

The epigraph to the novel is two excerpts from the ninth chapter of the Book of Job: "If I justify myself, then my mouth will accuse me; "... Then I tremble with all my sufferings, Knowing that You will not declare me innocent" (v. 20 and 28) ^{[26, p. 389]}. The epigraph, like the title of the novel, focuses on the central problem – guilt and innocence. Initially, it seems that the problem of innocence is connected solely with the incorrect conviction of Jack Argyle, who, being accused of murder, at the time of which he had an alibi, died in prison. The main character of the novel, Dr. Arthur Colgary, brings his family the news of his innocence, but unexpectedly faces a negative attitude to this news. His message takes all the characters out of the feeling of imaginary well-being, thus, the destruction of the state of heavenly bliss, which Auden wrote about, occurs. But this state of innocence was not genuine, since the murderer remained among them and was not exposed. Arthur Calgary is destroying an imaginary well-being, an artificial paradise. "You lived in imaginary security. It wasn't real, it was like a cardboard theater set. Only the appearance of well–being, but in fact it is a complete deception" ^{[26, p. 532]}, says the hero himself in the novel.

The Argyle family will have to go through a trial during the novel and find a genuine sense of innocence, happiness that nothing will be able to destroy. One way or another, during the course of the novel, many of the novel's characters realize themselves guilty of Rachel Argyle's death, this happens due to the fact that they thought about her death, desired her (Esther, Leo, Mickey). But for Agatha Christie, it is very important to distinguish between when a person in his imagination wishes another death, and directly murder. The crime conceived by Jack Argyle and carried out by Kirsten Lindstrom threatens the innocence and lives of other characters (in the novel, Philip Durant is killed, an attempt is made on Tina Argyle, suspicion falls on Esther and other heroes), while crimes committed in the imagination, if they harm anyone, then only themselves characters. Agatha Christie even believed that it allows you to get rid of the desire to commit a real crime. This is explicitly stated in the novels "Evil under the Sun" and "Sad Cypress". In the interpretation of this problem, the writer somewhat diverges from the Christian understanding of sin, the sinful thought that precedes the act, becomes its source.

Of great importance in the novel is that Dr. Calgary, seeing Esther for the first time, perceives her as the "muse of Tragedy", talks about the "tragic mask". He sees in the heroine "defenselessness, doom, the steps of Fate... approaching from the future" ^{[26, p. 394]}. The novel is constructed in such a way that the hero, actively intervening in what is happening, destroys this tragic halo around the heroine. As a result, the novel ends not tragically, but comically, as evidenced by the three upcoming weddings (Esther and Arthur, Tina and Mickey, Gwenda and Leo). Thus, the writer claims that there is no "doom" in the world, the will of a person can change a lot in his own life and in the lives of others.

The hero consciously defies circumstances, takes responsibility for himself, changes what seems destined, set in the lives of others and his own. The novel does not accidentally begin with a scene in which Arthur crosses the river at night on a boat driven by an old boatman. The hero himself compares it to the Rubicon, and saying goodbye to the old man, says that "there will be no way back" and he calls these words "ominous" ^{[26, p. 391]}. The mythological parallels in this scene are obvious, they are clearly emphasized by the author. The Argyle house, with its sterile cleanliness and the feeling of the absence of real life, resembles the realm of sleep, death. But there are also obvious Christian parallels. The estate where the Argyles live was called Snake Cape, but Rachel renamed it Sunny Cape. In the context of the novel, this is significant: Mrs. Argyle tried to build a kind of artificial paradise for her adopted children in this place. But the novel emphasizes that it is her attitude towards children, the desire to make everyone happy without taking into account their characteristics and desires, that leads to her murder. It is important that the locals do not accept the renaming of the estate and continue to call it Snake Cape. Evil has not disappeared from this place, it seems to be waiting in the wings. In this sense, the arrival of Arthur Calgary ultimately leads to liberation from evil, victory over it.

Going to the Argyls, the hero fulfills his duty, although it is difficult for him to decide on this act. This trip requires courage and determination from him. And in the manor, his appearance and the news of Jack's innocence brought by him are perceived with hostility. Dr. Kolgari, discovering the truth, by his act brought confusion, chaos, destroyed the established order. But in fact, by his actions during the novel, he restores harmony in the Argyle family, frees them from the burden of guilt and uncertainty, protects innocence, gives them the opportunity to be happy. Esther speaks directly about his courage. All this brings Dr. Kolgari closer to an epic hero, a mythological cultural hero who tames world chaos and brings order to the world.

Revealing the truth to the Argyls, Arthur seems to inextricably connect his life with this family, feels responsible for them. "Once I have started something, I am obliged to bring it to the end" ^{[26, p. 533]}. He continues to search for the truth, because he realizes his duty to bring the heroes out of a state of mutual suspicion and uncertainty, to protect Esther and other innocent, defenseless before a real criminal, to protect them from themselves, from guilt, to save their trust in each other, their love. "Innocent people will suffer," Arthur continued, "and this should not happen. That's why... That's why I can't just walk away saying to myself: "I have done a good deed –I have redeemed, as far as I could, my guilt, I have restored justice." But the whole paradox is that there can be no question of any justice at all – until the criminal is convicted, the innocent are not spared from suspicion" ^{[26, p. 425]}. "Protecting the innocent" is now the main business of his life. "There is an expression in the Book of Job: "torture of the innocent." The news I brought has doomed you all to torment. But the innocent should not suffer, this cannot be allowed. And today I came to you to put an end to the suffering of the innocent" ^{[26, p. 578]}, – says Arthur, before telling about how the crime actually happened, to expose the murderer.

Exposing the criminal, revealing the truth about the crime committed, defending innocence are shown in the novel not only as a fascinating intrigue, but also as an existential experience that changes the characters, revealing to them the world and themselves from a new, unexpected side. And in "The Trial of Innocence" and in other novels by Agatha Christie, the motive of innocence is closely connected not only with the motives of guilt, paradise, retribution, good and evil, justice, mercy, but also the motive of personality formation.