De Bernieres describes History as 'Hearsay tempered with myth and hazy memory.' How does the author present historical fact within the novel?

De Bernieres describes History as 'Hearsay tempered with myth and hazy memory.' How does the author
present historical fact within the novel?

An interpretation of a person or event is an opinion based on evidence. The same evidence can be used to support many different interpretations, which often results in diversity and conflicting views between historians. In the novel 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', de Bernières offers his interpretation of the events in Cephallonia during World War Two. As Dr Iannis quickly discovers when writing his ‘New History of Cephallonia’, “it seemed to be impossible to write it without the intrusion of his own feelings and prejudices”. De Bernières faced a similar challenge when writing 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin', yet this is unsurprising as no historian can claim to be objective; they are all a product of their times and their beliefs will be shaped by their education, social background, political sympathies and current world events.

Historiography is the study of the changes and developments of historical interpretations over time. The Victorians had a fascination with ‘Great men’ and many interpretations around at the time focused on figures such as Napoleon, but were more akin to adventure stories than historical criticism. As Historians became a profession, many critics managed to escape propaganda such as the Napoleonic Legend for the first time. This did not, however, stop contemporary issues from influencing their views. During the 1960s, as technology developed, and the computer age brought greater widespread access to information, Historians tended to focus more on the ‘worm’s eye view’ of events and the rise of social history. With this more objective and inclusive trend, the significance and interest in Napoleon and other ‘great men’ was greatly reduced. It is de Bernières’ opinion that “the ultimate truth is that history ought to consist only of the anecdotes of the little people who are caught up in it”. This view is reflected in de Bernières use of polyphony. The diverse spectrum of narrative perspectives reinforces the novel’s underlying argument as proposed by Carlo that history should be based on the experiences of “little people” rather than the “propaganda of the victors”.

The polyphonic form of the novel also constitutes a deductive challenge for many readers and proves a barrier for the less experienced. Through the use of multiple viewpoints, de Bernières places the reader in a creative pursuit of clarity and truth, equivalent to Dr Iannis’ history of Cephallonia. This is a common feature in contemporary post-modernist novels where the omniscient Victorian narrator is not present, and also helps to recognise the relative and subjective nature of truth and reality. Because the reader is left to follow the own personal path through the novel, the idea is introduced that there are no absolute truths.

The quote in the title raises the issue that history is not the same as truth. During chapter 5, Metaxas is pondering how history will remember him. The different interpretations that he gives, shows he recognises that history is only a version of the path. All evidence can be manipulated, edited and presented in such as way as to support a historian’s opinion, thereby making it an interpretation. Throughout history, official records have been altered and deleted, expunging “historical blot[s]” as fits the bias of the powerful. As Carlo reflects in chapter 6, “history is the propaganda of the ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The picaresque structure of the opening third of the novel contributes to the hybridised nature of the story with the delicate intertwining of fiction and war history, the story “melting into history” as Pelagia experiences when watching a naked Mandras fishing. This introduces the cyclic notion of history as a revisiting, with “this same scene…enacted generation after generation since Mycenean times”. Paul Dukes welcomes the current rise in popularity of historical fiction, but says “novelists need to ground their stories in a soil of solid fact”. He explains the recent development of the genre of “faction”, where authors incorporate researched historical material into their “imaginative reconstruction of the past”.

The evidence of de Bernières’ research can be seen in his acknowledgements at the end of the novel. At first glance, these appear to be a wide range of independent sources, but on closer inspection this proves not to be the case. Alexandros Rallis of the Greek Embassy provided de Bernières with some of his historical background information. This in itself seems uncontentious, but Rallis is the son of Ionnis Rallis, the leader of Greece’s ‘puppet regime’ under the Nazis and is therefore likely to be biased. Another acknowledged source, Helen Cosmatatos is in fact British-born and married a Greek aristocrat in later life. As she married into the aristocracy, she is likely to be anti-communist and her nationality is also likely to influence her political bias, as explained before; ”history is the propaganda of the victors”. De Bernières also gathered oral information from his father, who took part in the campaign in Italy as a soldier. As it is said in the dedication of the novel, his father “fought against the Fascists and the Nazis”. This shows his motivation and justification for writing the book in the way that he did. It also puts the author and more particularly his views, in context, as it is probable that both within his upbringing and his research for this novel; his parents informed his prejudices.

As a young boy, de Bernières won a scholarship from the army, which funded his school fees and he consequently spent some time as a soldier. By the time he reached eighteen though, de Bernières had decided he was a pacifist and was against the tough discipline of the army and quit, leaving his father to repay his school fees. When considering de Bernières portrayal of life as a soldier, it is important to bear in mind the context of the author and his personal experience of the army, “no civilian can comprehend the joy of being a soldier”. While de Bernières praises the camaraderie of the army, he is particularly damming of the harsh discipline and military leadership:

“the soldiers also always has the fear that the authorities know more than he does and that he does not know what is really happening. He knows that sometimes he High Command will sacrifice him for some greater interest without informing him of the fact, and this makes him contemptuous and suspicious of authority.”

The indignity of communal living is perfectly described in chapter 42, where Carlo tells of his first encounter of the La Scala boys in the latrines of the camp and how their singing means that the “indignity of communal defecation was minimised. We see a very different picture of life in the army during the scenes with Carlo and Francesco in Albania

From the outset, de Bernières presents a biased view of the communists and more particularly the Greek partisans. The opening chapter with the pea in Stamatis’ ear is perhaps symbolic of the one-sided nature of the novel and the “facts” that it relates. The introduction of ELAS in the novel gives a picture of unintelligence, where “intelligent people realised immediately that any group with such credentials must be Communist, and that the purpose of having such attenuated chains of control was to disguise from ordinary citizens that they were a Communist organisation”, with the ‘ordinary people’ being “duped” into joining. From this less than favourable introduction, we go on to see how de Bernières portrays them as a “gang of torturers, ignorant demagogues and cowards, who spent the war doing “absolutely nothing””. This view contrasts with the view of their role in resisting the Nazis, held by local people in Cephallonia, where the island is littered with monuments and memorials to the resistance fighters who died during the civil war. This view of the lack of activity from ELAS is most controversial in reference to their involvement with the Italians when their former allies turned on them during 1943. According to de Bernières, it is “certain” that the “communist andartes of ELAS took no part, seeing no reason to shake themselves out of their parasitic lethargy”. This view is challenged by the two ‘Greek Myth’ articles published in ‘The Guardian’ during July 2000 and also by the feature film version of the novel.

Of all the ‘alterations’ to the novel made by Shawn Slovo when writing the screenplay for the film, the most noticeable change is the way the film “corrects the book’s controversial anti-communist bias by depicting wartime Greek partisans as heroes rather than sadistic ideologues”. When offered the film role of Drosoula, Greek actress Irene Pappas first ensured that the film script would not follow the line of the novel regarding the role of the Greek partisans. She has since said that; “knowing the historical truth, I could not have accepted the part if de Bernières version of the partisans’ actions was in the film…you just cannot take part in a lie”. This represents the strength of feelings felt by many Greeks about de Bernières “crude and unremittingly hostile portrayal of the communist Greeks in particular”. Seumas Milne in his article ‘Greek Myth’ from ‘The Guardian’ newspaper described de Bernières version of events as “a slur on the record of the Greek resistance to the Nazis and a mish-mash of distortions and untruths about [Cephallonia’s] wartime history”. The opposition was so strong, that de Bernières made changes to the Greek edition of the novel. De Bernières has been quoted as saying;

“After the writing of Corelli, it became clear to me that many people were offended by the portrayal of the communist resistance, or though that it was inaccurate...I haven’t changed my mind about what I think is the truth, but I had to bear in mind the possibility that I might be wrong”.

It is not only ELAS that is misrepresented by de Bernières in his novel; the pre-war Greek dictator, Ioannis Metaxas receives a “notably sympathetic portrait”. Through the eyes of ‘Grazzi’ in chapter 14, we see Metaxas as “quite small and pathetic”. The description of him as “wearing a night-gown that was covered in a pattern of white flowers”, is highly opposed to the usually “dignified” portrayal of fascist dictators. The white flowers symbolise purity and innocence and show Metaxas’ vulnerability. The picture we are presented with is one of an old, ill, pathetic “little man”. The reminder that he was, at this time, dying, increases the pathos and aurora of sympathy surrounding him. In de Bernières opinion, with his refusal to concede to the Italian ultimatum, despite his faults and background, he “had just spoken to [Grazzi] with the voice of the entire people of Greece”. This interpretation also gives him the respect, admiration and support of the Greek people; an usual and not accurate picture. The British Communist paper, ‘The Morning Star’ accused de Bernières of being “an apologist for the excesses of the right in Greece”. In chapter 5, through his persona of Metaxas himself, de Bernières ponders, “Whether history would show him any charity”. This is ironic, because it is exactly what de Bernières is doing in 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin'; he is saying “the truth on [Metaxas’] behalf”. He also recognises that it is possible for history to give an uncharitable reading, depending on your point of view. In this chapter, de Bernières is showing us that history is not the same as truth; it is only a reading of the truth. The polyphony used throughout the novel is most evident in chapter 52 where the contradictory voices and orders suggest different versions and interpretations of history, almost a confusion of events. In this chapter, Corelli mentions a wad of papers of Carlo’s that had been left with the Doctor and Pelagia. Through the ‘L’Omousessuale’ chapters, we as the reader, have been privy to these writings, or “scribblings” as Corelli describes them. The use of this particular adjective belittles the writings, suggesting that they are unimportant; roughly and quickly executed rather than what they are in reality; Carlo pouring out his soul, revealing his inner-most thoughts and feelings; finally removing “the mask decreed by misfortune”. The polyphonic structure of the novel allows an element of dramatic irony to be created for the reader.

Despite the distortion of the historical truth, the events in the novel are presented as ‘facts’ and certainties. The use of facts and figures, as in Chapter 51, “Paralysis” provides a mask of credibility and authenticity;

“On the 28th, Badoglio abolished the Fascist Party. On the 29th, he released political prisoners who had been rotting in jail without charge.”

This disguises the author’s view and passes it off as ‘fact’. Iannis, from the start had the problem that “Objectivity seemed to be quite unattainable”. This is a problem faced similarly by de Bernières. Eventually, Iannis and presumably de Bernières also, come to the conclusion that “it was not that it was impossible for him to write a history, but that History Itself Was Impossible”. On the invasion in 1941, Iannis is possibly surprisingly, excited to be involved. He says to Pelagia, “all this time I have been writing history, and now history is happening before my very eyes. This shows de Bernières view that history is something to be experienced rather than written and supports the title quote that history is “Myth tempered with myth and hazy memory”.

Word Count: 2237