"BLUCHER, OR NIGHT!"

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 76, 30 March 1935, Page 1 (Supplement)

"BLUCHER, OR NIGHT!"

TRUTH IN HISTORY.

RESPONSIBILITY OF ART.

(By CYRAXO.)

So the controversy about Waterloo has broken out again. I wonder if , the 100,000 volumes that are said to have been written about Napoleon include those on that battle; certainly Waterloo has quite a respectable library of its own. The latest development is that the British film, "The Iron Duke," lias been refused admission to Germany, because it assigns Blucher only "'a minor part," which, in the opinion of the Nazi Minister of Propaganda, "does not agree with the German historical view." This is interesting for more than one reason. It not only revives the controversy about the Waterloo campaign, but it raises highly important questions relating to art in its treatment of history. The average Briton's conception of Waterloo is that Wellington won, with some help from Blucher. Now, this is true of Waterloo itself, but it is not true of the campaign. The fac;t is that it was a jointly planned campaign. Wellington did not give battle at Waterloo independently. He was in close touch with Blucher throughout, lie rode over to Ligny before the battle, criticised Blueher's dispositions, and said to his staff that the Prussians would be "damnably mauled." He was about right.

But Blucher, though technically defeated, retired in good order, and wa3 ready to come to Wellington's assistance at Waterloo. The two commanders communicated with each other between the battles, and there was a clear understanding that Blucher should attackNapoleon on the flank at Waterloo while Wellington engaged his front. Blucher was late, and as Wellington said, it was "a close run thing"; but for Wellington's generalship and the magnificent qualities of the British troops Blucher might have been too late. As it was the battle was pretty well won by the time Blucher made effective contact. Still, the whole affair was a partnership. Liberties With History. Blueher's part in the campaign therefore was no "minor" one. but this docs not justify the German ban. It may have been impossible for the producer to fit in scenes that would do justice to the Prussian effort. He was producing a picture about Wellington. Would Mussolini be justified in objecting to Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" because Caesar is allotted a minor part? The larger question, of course, is the right of the State to censor art because it does not conform to current ideas. If all historical films that are considered to contain inaccuracies or lack of ideas are to be barred for these reasons, a good many will be cast out. There is the film of a famous European Empress in which the lady swoons with delight on seeing her betrothed. In fact the Prince! was so repulsive that she swooned with horror. "The Private Life of Henry VI11." pleased the public but riot the historians. "The Big Parade" drew some caustic comment from Englishmen because of the small part it allotted to the British war effort, but it was received with enthusiasm throughout the British Empire. Was it this film or another that showed the United States fleet taking part in the Battle of Jutland? The battle happened to be fought months before America entered the war. The British do not

seriously mind the taking of such liberties, and they would certainly object to censorship on the ground o£ historical inaccuracy. The Vastness of History. Complete historical veracity can be only an ideal. No one can reconstruct the past completely. For some periods there arc the scantiest of records, and over the interpretation of records experts differ. On the other hand the material on a subject may be so vast that it Is impossible for the average reader to cover it all. Mr. Lloyd George's war memoirs are a case in point. Voluminous in themselves, they have been replied to by books, articles and letters, making a volume almost equally large. How many persons with a real interest in such things have been able to read, both sides? Numbers of people probably think Mr. Lloyd George has said the last word. The controversy over responsibility for the war is interminable and ■ever-widening. How long would it take a man to read all the books 011 the subject—months or years? Yet if a student passes a book over he cannot be sure that he is not missing something important. "The German historical view," says -Dr. Goebbels. What is the German historical view? Who fixed it? . The verdicts of history arc modified or reversed with the passage of time.

History is so vast that the limited national view fills the eyes of most men—the view that moved Mr. H. G. Wells to write his "History of the World." And, of course, national prejudice comes into play. 1 have never forgotten being told by a master at school that if we looked at a French map of the Low Countries we would be surprised at the number of places where the French claimed victory over the British. It would have been better for us if we had known something of the significance of Fontenov, with its charge of the Irish Brigade in the service of France —"for faith and hope and honour, and the ruined hearths of Clare!" There have been some rather chilling reports of the failure of the French to appreciate the magnitude of the British effort in the Great War. Mr. Lloyd George said he could not get Foch to realise what the British Navy was doing. The Novelist as Historian. We are beginning to realise how difficult it is to teach history, and we are calling the cinema to our aid. This helps us in some difficulties, but raises others. In the past many persons have learnt more history from historical novels than from histories. Possibly Scott has taught more history than Macaulay and Gibboii combined. Fortunately, Scott was a great artist with a conscience. On the debit side of the historical novel is the fact that the novelist does not work under the same pressure of moral obligation to seek the truth as weighs upon the historian. When charged with ; inaccuracy, he can plead that he is writing fiction, but the reading public is disposed to take what he writes as fact. On the credit side is this enormous consideration, that historical novels are exciting, and a great deal of written history is not. "Scientific" historians may protest p.s much as they like, but the public insists on being entertained, and it finds entertainment in the historical novel, from Scott to Marjorie Bowen. The cinema is going to supply more and more of this entertainment. In Britain especially they have only just begun to exploit the infinite possibilities of the screen as a purveyor of the nation's history. All such presentations should be as accurate as scholarship can make them, but it is better that they should occasionally convey false impressions than that their facts and proportions should be subject to a State censorship. Ultimately we are thrown back, as in all other paths of life, on the capacity and integrity of the individual.