PASSING NOTES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24403, 14 September 1940, Page 6

PASSING NOTES

Into two great parties is the world of the British Commonwealth of Nations now divided—the Reprisalists and the non-Reprisalists. Mainly it is a conflict between the heart and the head —if these be respectively regarded as the seat of the indignant emotions and the organ of a cooler intelligence. Natural is it, as the sum-total of London air-raid casualties mounts up, and the slaughter of the innocent calls more and more loudly for punishment, that we should long to see a Nazi death-roll of like dimensions, and like also in age and sex. This is the Deuteronomical doctrine of " eye for eve, tooth for tooth, hand for hand and foot for foot." Its Levitical form is more detailed: "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again." Not for revenge alone do we desire- this application of the old " lex talionis," but in the expectation that a timely retribution might save some further innocent victims. These are the arguments of the anguished. heart, backed by the conviction that a people which knows onlv one language should in that language be addressed. To Germany it is the tongue natural to man! a tongue as natural to the gangsters of Nazidom as their cradle song.

But this natural conflict of heart and head in the matter of reprisals is merely a matter of timing—a short view of retribution against a long view The world of the head should be called in to redress the balance of the heart. The slaughter of German civilians merely robs the Nazi raiders of what they hold most cheaply. To the last drop of civilian blood they are prepared to fight for ever. But every Dornier or Ileinkel bomber dropping bombs on London spares some English aerodrome or aircraft factory. Every night-bomb ing of non-military objectives by night proves the failure of their attempts to reach military objectives by day In fact it seems evident that in this slaying of women and children the Nazi junto have for the moment overborne the professional military chiefs of Germany, fanatics on military technique, to whom this diversion of war effort to nonmilitary sidelines must be contrary to all their professional teaching. And this will be their grievance when they have lost the war by it. In the words of a German poet: Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small; Though with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He all Should Herr Hitler be treated as a comic figure? Reviewed in a London Spectator of July last is a skit on him by Peter Fleming. The author in his postscript anticipates some criticism on the score of taste! "Several people," he says, "have lately questioned the good taste of publishing, in so grave a situation as to-day's, a story in which the Arch-Enemy is treated as a comic figure." Details mentioned by the reviewer raises a ravenous appetite for more. The book is entitled " The Flying Visit," the flying visitor being Hitler himself: The Fuhrer is on a prestige visit over England when, a timebomb exploding in his thermos flask, the aeroplane and .all its occupants but himself are destroyed.- In full, field-marshal's.; uniform he descends by parachute ,{■ in Oxfordshire, falls into a horsepond, eats turnips, is chased by a chow, attempts to make contact with one of his high-placed sympathisers. Lord Magnus Scunner, fails, attempts suicide, fails again, turns up at a fancy dress ball, where he wins first prize for his lifelike representation of Hitler, and so on. Now, neither Hitler nor Mussolini is a nonentity. From certain points of view they are great men. But both of them, have had the signal misfortune of being born without humour into an environment of grand opera. Only in a land of Wagnerian grand opera idolaters could Hitler have gone down with his people—or could have gone down with himself. And Mussolini is worse. Dictators are not necessarily comic. If they give rise to laughter, they are themselves to blame. Not comic are Stalin of Russia or Dr Salazar of Portugal, and far from comic were Bismarck or Napoleon, or Attila or" Augustus.

Truly the lot of kings at the present time is not a happy one. Most of them that are still alive have now to sleep in foreign beds and lay their heads on foreign pillows. Carol of Rumania would not be doing his Odyssey were he making his way home instead of leaving it for good. And King Haakon of Norway has been " deposed." As schoolboys we thought we had caught Shakesoeare napping when he said, " Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown." And we said, "No wonder the head is uneasy—as well' might a head lie comfortably on the pillow wrapped in an aluminium saucepan." Triumphantly we pointed to the fact that his own Henry IV, into whose mouth he put the words, did not lie on his crown, but regularly doffed it and laid it on the pillow beside him. there to be found by Prince Hal. When we grew to manhood more substantial objections to the statement occurred to us. For modern history had quite undermined the applicability of the statement, and. had awarded the palm for " uneasiness " rather to the President's silk-hat. In the dozen years following the Great War four republican presidents met their death by assassination: President Paes of Portugal, President Eisner of Bavaria, President Narutowiez of Poland and President Doumer of France. Kings have now come back into their own—their own uneasiness. When both Hitler and Mussolini fall, the Shakespearian " crown " may be changed to whatever these customarily wear in bed. According to all accounts, this totalitarian headgear, for day and for night, seems to be a bee-filled bonnet.

Excellent as democracy is to poli-tically-developed peoples, there is no doubt Rumania is too immature for it. The grafting on a Balkan State of a British political system presents Horace's ideal incongruity: " Humano capiti cervicem jungere equinam" —joining to the head of *i man the neck of a horse." Which seems borne out by the nature of the Rumanian Constitution when King Carol first came on the stage and made his coup d'e'tat. Says an authority of the time: The Rumanian Constitution is conceived on broad democratic lines. . . The Constitution is unworkable in practice because of the illiteracy of the peasants and the lack of political horse sense among the educated (lasses. The incongruity did not stop here. Continued the i-hority in question: "The present Regency is tricephalous, therefore acephalous." That is its three heads—King, Rumanian Patriarch, and Premier—had not among them all a single head capable of ruling. This Carol of Rumania well knew, and he chose his

time well. His coup d'e'tat—he dropped upon Bucharest one evening from the air,—promised at first to be a mere after-dinner anecdote. It turned out to be a fact of history. As King Carol he invented a new situation, worthy of adding a new word to the languages of Europe, or a new meaning to the amusement of " going a-carolling."

The Rumanian situation unfortunately came too late for the Savoy operas. But a truly Gilbertian situation it is. A distinguished and scapegrace father, after many wild oats and such inordinate and low desires, Such poor, such base, such lewd. such mean attempts, So common-hackney'd in the eyes of man, So stale and cheap to vulgar comoany rebels against his kingly son his liege lord and filches away his crown. No rebellious coup d'etat was ever easier—it was too easy Lightly come, lightly go English statesmen have been more far-sighted At one time Queen Victoria expressed a strong desire to see Prince Consort receive the title of king. The Cabinet was disquieted, and was at a loss how to deal with the embarrassing situation Lord Melbourne volunteered to put things right. " Ma'am," said he to the Queen "if the making of kings pe made too easy you will show the people how easy it is to unmake them." Nothing more was heard of the matter.

The New Philosophy—as we were authoritatively told in a recent 4YA broadcast—is turning to the study of words and their relation to precision' of thought. The time is fullripe. In no department of life is the modern world anarchy raging more furiously. "Peace" in the mouths of dictators reeks with the ill odour of war. A "Pact of Mutual Nonaggression " sets the smaller nation quivering in its shoes. What is Socialism? A National Socialist is a Socialist. So also is his enemy the Social Democrat. Communists are Socialists. Am I a Socialist? I don't know—it all depends. A referendum to the people asking "Are you in favour of the millenium—yes or no?" would be unanswerable. Interesting is the subject of questions impossible to answer by simple affirmative or negative. In a recent famous London trial, counsel forthe prosecution asked the accused, "On that date had you ceased bribing the police? " There is also the question addressed to a very High Church curate: "Have you begun to wash again now that Lent is over? " And the question put to the respondent in a divorce case by the cross-exam-ining lawyer: "And do you suggest that you have been almost faithful to your wife? " A wife might be asked by her next-door neighbour, "Have you ceased throwing the kitchen saucepan at your husband's head? " Such obscurities in the use of English certainly should not be. Civis.