100
PARTI SAN REVI EW
some firm conclusio ns a bo ut them. H e deni es tha t he is impos ing a mbi –
guity, fo r "where there's ambi guity in the play a bo ut what ha ppened , it's
beca use there is in the reco ll ecti o ns of the pa rti cipants."
In
a n interview Stegner o nce defended hi s extensive use of the letters
o f a n actua l Eastern woma n (Ma ry H a ll ock Foote) who had gone West
w ith he r husband as the bas is fo r ma king a novel a bo ut such a tra nsiti on
(Angle of Repose,
1971) .
But he a lso has ca uti oned tha t " if you a re w rit–
ing a bo ut wha t mi ght be ca ll ed public events, hi sto ri ca l events tha t are
almost eve rybody's pro perty-conspiracy o f Ponti ac, Montca lm and
Wo lfe-then I think you had better be very, ve ry ca reful a bout cha nging
anything or inse rting anything whi ch is too persona l o r specul a ti ve."
Frayn faced thi s d iffi culty a t o nce, beca use a ll three of hi s cha racte rs
in the play are hi storica l persons, two of them we ll -k nown intern a ti on–
a ll y as grea t ph ys icists.
In
hi s postsc ript Frayn acknowledges th a t
"where a wo rk of fi cti on fea tures hi sto ri ca l cha racters a nd hi sto ri ca l
events, it's reasonable to wa nt to kn ow how much o f it is ficti on a nd
how much of it is hi sto ry." Whil e he has in vented th e speeches o f his
cha racters, he has done so acco rding to the Thucydidea n principle of
fo ll owing " in so far as poss ibl e the ori gin a l protagoni sts' tra in of
th o ught. " Like Stegner, Frayn beli eves tha t the hi sto ri a n a nd th e fic–
ti o na l sto rytell er occupy some common gro und beca use " th e grea t cha l–
lenge" fac ing both o f th em is "to get in to peopl e's hea ds, to sta nd where
they stood a nd see the wo rld as they saw it, to ma ke some info rmed esti–
ma te of their moti ves and intenti o ns."
Frayn asse rts, howeve r, th a t reco rda bl e hi sto ry ca nn o t reach mo ti ves
a nd intenti ons, so " the o nl y way into the p rotagoni sts' heads is th rough
the imagin a ti o n." This di stincti on is mea nt to justi fy hi s depa rtu res
from the hi sto ri ca l reco rd , but it igno res th e fac t th a t hi sto ri ans often do
dea l w ith moti ves a nd intenti o ns: Did Linco ln intend to have the So uth
fire upo n Fo rt Sumter when he reinfo rced it ? Did Fra nk lin Rooseve lt
plo t to bring Ameri ca in to the war by provoking the Ja panese to bomb
Pea rl H ar bo r ?
In
bo th cases hi sto ri a ns have used ev idence a nd reason–
ing to dea l with such controve rs ies, di stinguis hing, fo r exa mpl e,
between a n agent's willingness to r isk a n enemy's milita ry res ponse,
whil e ho ping a nd expecting to avoid it, and a n agent's intenti on to bring
a bout tha t res ult. Frayn himself di scusses a nd assesses th e hi sto ri ca l ev i–
dence about Heisenberg'S mo ti ves a nd purposes just as hi sto ri ans have
had to do .
Questi o ns have a ri sen beca use of the cla im made by some Ge rma n
scienti sts after the wa r th a t th ey ha d delibera tely slowed wo rk o n the
a tomi c bomb beca use o f th eir fear o f wha t Hitl er mi ght do w ith it. The
