Blots and Reticence.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18365, 24 April 1925, Page 18

Blots and Reticence.

What degree of reticence in respect of their priVate morals do tf6 owe to the famous 1 the question has been raised again at three points. .The nfew "Life" of Stevenson gives a frank account of the sowing of his wild oats, but for which; some go sd f&r as to silggest, he W6Uld Hot have died in his prime. There ate in private, hands things written by Stevenson -which it is not deemed desirable to publish. Then we have '' The Times'' Literary Supplement questioning the fairness or decency of publishing a fiuuiber of letters to a clergyman friend in -which Boswell wrote freely of things in his life of which he was ashamed. Is there, asks "The Times," <anv more reason for publishing these confessions, written to a friend, than for publishing what is said to any priest as a confessor! Thirdly, there is an interesting and even startling revelation by an American writer, that the wflman librarian of "one of the greatest pri-''rately-ownod libraries in existence" destroyed letters by George Washington becauso they were perilous to the ideal of Washington that had flourished so long. When asked if* site thought she Was right in assisting, by the destruction of evidence, in the manufacture of a purely apocryphal historical character, she said: "Yes, even if "it only Borted to keep alive in our "schools the fable of the cherry tree." The question raised is difficult and painful. The American writer "wanted "to ask rude questions" about the qualifications of this librarian "for the "post of expurgator to the father of "her country." Certainly she assumed a heavy responsibility when she destroyed evidence that conflicted with the current conception of Washington as a solemn prig and a sort of Tennysonian King Arthur. But would all of as resist such a temptation* Suppose an admirer of some shining figure in our history or literature, against whoso private morals scandal had never spoken, discovered lewd letters written by fii W, Would not the wish to destroy such besmirching testimony be very strong? The finder would ask whether

anything was to be gained by publication. It seems to us that this is not a matter on which a rigid rale can be laid down. The interests of historical truth must be balanced against those of fairness, decency, and respect for the memory of the dead. Lord Acton, we believe, said that certain evidence against the character of James I. existed abroad, but it was unprintable. Would it not be the duty of the historian who wished to deal completely with "the wisest fool in Christendom" to read this evidence? Stevenson's case seems to us to stand on a different footing from Boswell's. These letters of Boswell's were written, apparently, more or less as confessions. Besides, Boswell was not n creative artist and a moralist. Stevenson was both. Boswell lives through his wonderful portrait of another man. Stevenson won fame as a story-teller, a poet; an essayist, and a preacher. Men are more interested in Stevenson the man than in Boswell apart from his biography of Johnson, and if they arc going to be told about the private life of one who has been a moral influence as well as a source of-delight to the whole English-speaking world, they aro entitled to bo told the whole truth. It is important to know that the moralist of "Virginibus Pnorisque" had a wild youth. There are unprintable (but not unprinted) verses by Burns. No editor would think of including them in the Complete Works, but a biographer of Burns would bo expected to read them and remember them when he judged his hero. We do not know what was in the Washington letters that were destroyed; they might have been too bad to print. They might, however, have been of considerable uso to a judicially-minded biographer in correcting tho Washington legend. Is it good for a great nation to worship a representation of a national hero that is not true to life? Whatever record leaped to light, Washington would remain a great man. Why not havo him painted as Cromwell wished to be painted, warts and all?

Much, therefore, depends upon circumstances. It may not be necessary to publish unpleasant writings of the famous dead, but it may bo desirable, in tho interests of truth, to put them at the disposal of biographers and editors of discretion. Tho desire for rctieeneo is a healthy one, but eo is the passion for historical truth. What men and wOmcn in whom this responsibility is placed have to ask themselves is whether publication is really worth while. It is one thing to issue or place at tho disposal of editors and biographers unpleasant matter solely out of regard for truth, and another thing to do this with the idea of shocking the world, pandering to its baser appetites, or satisfying a personal prejudice. Different persons will intorpret differently the interests of truth, but what can bo emphasised here is that such interests exist, and should at times be allowed W override regard for reputations.