When the sons of Melbourne Catholic sports promoter and businessman John Wren took communist author Frank Hardy to court in 1951 over the portrayal of their mother in the novel Power Without Glory, it set in play a sensational nexus of political and cultural issues that still captures popular and academic imagination.
Debate ranges across many disciplines from literary questions about representation and reality in fiction, to political issues such as the Cold War and the ALP split, to moral issues such as free speech and artists' rights.
The novel's merit is still hotly contested. Popular opinion is diverse and skeptical. Academics conversely betray shades of indulgent affection towards Hardy as a working class 'genius', given the longstanding de facto segue between Marxism and Australian cultural production, and bestow upon Power Without Glory a mythic credibility.
It was recently cited as 'evidence' about the ALP and Wren, rather than as fiction, in a major Australian refereed political journal.
Hardy was no victim. He coasted for the rest of his working life — later, more creatively adept novels and his commitment to land rights issues notwithstanding — upon the impetus of the 1951 trial. The only losers were Wren and his family, as Hardy's acquittal ensured his narrative stuck to Wren, despite all major archival sources refuting the charges of murder, armed robbery and so on that Hardy freely and casually attributed to Wren.
The Wrens lacked the profile and presence of the author and remain marginalised.
A 1961 letter published in Patrick Morgan's 2007 collection of B. A. Santamaria's correspondence casts new light on Power Without Glory, but has not been used by present day advocates of either Wren — James Griffin — or Hardy — Jenny Hocking, nor has it informed any academic publications so far.
The letter to Father Courtney, a priest based in New Guinea, who enquired about Church policy on the novel, explains the trial in some detail. Given that Archbishop Mannix was still alive and in close contact with Santamaria, the letter may also reflect the Archbishop's position.
Santamaria stated that the Archbishop 'or anybody else who was libelled in the course of the writing' was unable to successfully issue a writ for defamation as Hardy would be able to plead 'fair comment' and the jury would have to be convinced that Hardy acted out of malice.
Santamaria is not a neutral commentator, but certainly understood the strategic