Chapter 11

From:
Trask, Blaimire & Co.
Solicitors
1, Haymarket
Lower Newton Godfrey
20 March

To:
Holliday & String
Solicitors
7, Main Street
Chinfold Major

For the attention of Mr Lionel String

Dear Mr String,

Thank you for your letter of 15 March, which I am bound to say was couched in rather aggressive terms, not befitting our profession. Your scathing comments about the Nether Walford chess team are, I think, not only in poor taste, but also possibly libellous. I will not go so far as to say outright that the observations are defamatory, but they are certainly contentious. Do you wish to reconsider?

Regarding facilities for a possible chess match, we are not deficient here. Our home fixtures are usually held in the grounds of the vicarage, where there is a large communal room. With respect to the chessmen, we can offer a full complement, comprising four sets of the familiar Staunton pattern, the kings’ sizes ranging from three to five inches, plus two older oriental ones, which are somewhat ornate, but a joy to behold. Our boards are all of the folding variety and as such, perhaps inferior to yours. However, let me remind you of the adage that it is a poor workman who blames his tools. Are your people so temperamental that they would be discouraged by facing an illusory inconvenience? Come now, Mr String, let us not be childish.

Are you familiar with Stephan Zweig’s excellent novella on the subject of chess? If so, you will know that the imprisoned hero studied the game after stealing a book on it, then made a full set from pieces of bread, plus an improvised board – I think it was a chequered table cloth but don’t hold me to this – and that he later, in an informal game, beat the world champion. All that without having earlier pushed a competitive pawn. Quite a wood-shifter, I submit.

Notwithstanding our willingness to stage the event here, we are prepared to visit you, thus facing a match in what promises to be hostile territory. We have no qualms. Indeed, were we to smite you down on your own ground – and I have every confidence in our ability to do so – that would be a cause for increased celebration on our part. If you would be so good as to name the day, you will not find us wanting. By the way, we are armed at all points and need no training period. In that respect, as in so many others, your reasoning is questionable.

I am sorry that you see fit to invoke personal matters, especially those concerning age. Let me put your obviously disturbed mind at rest. It is true that I am no longer in the first flush of youth, but I assure you that I am spry enough, and anyway, by what kind of reasoning do you suppose – as apparently you do – that the brashness of youth must inevitably prevail over the wiles of age?

With regard to your unwarranted suggestion that I may be less than fully attentive at the board, you may well be obliged to eat your words. A similar situation will, I suspect, arise in court when our case is called and your client is weighed and found wanting.

You allude to the sharpness of my claws. Let me tell you that the said talons are in first-class condition and that our legal confrontation will not be their first experience of handling carrion. You will find our professional meeting no less painful than the sporting one. By the way, the fidgeting and bladder problems with which you are beset are not good signs. I think you should have the matter checked, and if you have no competent doctor over there – which would not surprise me – I could introduce you to a good fellow here, though why I should do so is a mystery, even to me. Alternatively, may I suggest that with regard to your boardside nervousness, you might care to try my home-made parsnip wine, which is most relaxing? Here again, I don’t know why I should make such an offer, except that I am cursed with a disease known as empathy – an affliction with which I suspect you are not acquainted.

Now, I have genuine work to do, so must close. Incidentally, I see that we have a date for Aytuzi v King.

Yours fraternally,

Henry Blaimire Partner

Memo from Aytuzi Head Office to area representative Stephen Rook 21 March

Steve,

Thank you for your memo of 18 March. Like you, I am writing hurriedly, but for a different reason. This is an early warning signal. The Big Cheese was here yesterday and I have never seen him in worse humour. As you know, A2 does not suffer fools gladly, nor is he interested in detail, but rather in results – a bottom-line man if ever I met one. He is displeased by progress in general and by the Cedric King case in particular. Steve, I ask you to understand that I tried to watch your back; so much so that I was able to distract the gaffer from looking at the file, but was obliged to give him the gist of this matter. He was unhappy about your role in the affair, and went so far as to say that he was wondering about the wisdom of having a travelling man at all. To put it bluntly, he said that he could see no point in having a battering ram which neither battered nor rammed. He really was hot under the collar.

I did my level best to convince our lord and master that you are working like a Trojan on this case. Unfortunately, he picked up on the matter of Cedric’s plying you with strong drink – sorry I failed to conceal that from him, but he set a verbal trap and I fell into it. He is firmly opposed to the consumption of alcohol, even off duty. I think this has something to do with his religion, but don’t quote me. Anyway, he was miffed and insisted that you call here on Thursday, when he will be back. He muttered something to the effect that you might have to consider your position. Pretty strong stuff, I think you will agree.

In this connection – and hoping that you will not take offence – I have hitherto tried to avoid harping on the theme of your work, but am puzzled. I had you in mind as playing a swashbuckling role in our affairs. Interesting term, that. Does one buckle a swash or swash a buckle? As I see it, both parts of the word can be considered as having either noun or verb form. On the whole, I am inclined to think that the former is correct, as one often hears of a swashbuckler, but never of a buckle-swasher. Any views? Sorry, back to your position.