Lightly rests his fame

Sir Frank Kermode, one of the most respected figures in the literary sphere, has left an indelible impression as a critic, says KAUSALYA SANTHANAM.

"WOULD you like to meet Sir Frank Kermode at lunch on Thursday?" asks John Naughton, the director of the Press fellowship programme at Wolfson College, Cambridge University. I nod eagerly, thrilled to have a chance of meeting perhaps the finest literary critic in the world today, a man knighted for his service to English literature. Sir Frank's latest book, Shakespeare's Language is an outstanding success with copies being swept off the shelves of giant bookstore chains as soon as they come in.

I weave all the activities of the coming week around the luncheon meeting.

A couple of days later, I see John at the dining hall of the college with visitors. Having no inkling who they are, I continue my meal. The meal over, I decide to confirm the luncheon meeting for the following week. "Does the appointment with Sir Frank stand for next Thursday?" I ask anxiously.

"Thursday is today and this is Sir Frank," replies John. Never so mortified in my life, I blurt out, "Today? I was sure it was next Thursday. I am terribly sorry."

"Never mind, you can join us now for coffee," says John. A few minutes later, when I request Sir Frank for an interview, he smilingly agrees. And I learn at first hand how lightly he carries his fame.

An e-mail confirms the date and the following week, I make my way though the beautiful grounds where the exclusive apartment block is located. Sir Frank guides me to the living room of his spacious flat. He looks much less than his years and is one of the most unassuming persons one has met. Though he is so courteous you are awed by his presence and are reminded of the comment in the collection of essays "There are Kermodians", in tribute to him on his 80th birthday, that his great erudition is carried modestly, even meekly. His lucid style and his acumen as a critic are evident in the numerous books he has written dealing with an extremely wide range of the literary field - from the writers of the English Rennaisance to the moderns and from the Bible to the Bard. Among them are the Romantic Image which looks at the Romantic writer as isolated from the world around him and The Sense of an Ending which examines the relationship of fiction to concepts of apocalyptic chaos.

His autobiography Not Entitled is an endearing portrait of a man who, from what is generally referred to as humble circumstances, has risen to be one of the most respected figures in the literary sphere. Born in the Isle of Manx to a shopkeeper, Kermode joined the Navy during the war. It is this period in his life which is described with wit and style in the book.

After the war he went into teaching, leaving an indelible impression as professor and head of the Department at the Universities of Reading, Bristol, Manchester, University College, London and Cambridge. His term at the Columbia University, U.S., was no less memorable. All the while he was writing extensively. Shakespeare, Donne, Milton, Yeats, Eliot, Conrad, Stevens and a galaxy of literary figures and their work have been covered by his criticism, and testifies to his conviction that "one should be interested in all of literature and in many subjects". Considered one of the best English reviewers, Kermode has been praised for being "the most generous of critics not because he says flattering things about books but because he listens to what they have to say".

Shakespeare's Language is a brilliant analysis of the language of the Bard and its evolution from the rhetorical style of the early plays to the more obscure but effective language of the later plays reaching its apogee in the great tragedies - "Hamlet", "King Lear", "Macbeth", "Othello" and "Coriolanus". The change from balanced, more conventional diction to the ellipses and silences and the attempts to simulate the processes of a mind at work make the later plays much more challenging to read and stage.

Shakespeare's Language is such an inspired work. The book seems to flow so easily and effortlessly. Is that how it came to him, I ask.

"I should have written that book 20 years ago when I had more energy," he replies. "I was angry because most writers take no notice of the language. That is why I did it. I wanted to take it up for a long time and no, it did not come as easily as it seems. I dedicated a whole year to the book; it was hard work. I have written many short pieces on his plays, edited the 'Tempest' in 1954, and written a number of long and short articles on Shakespeare. It was in my head. Shakespeare must be thought of to be the peak of English poets."

Would he do a similar book on Shakespeare's sonnets and poetry?

"That's about enough. If I were younger, I would do one on his comedies but not now."

Is "Hamlet" the finest of English dramas according to him?

"'Hamlet' is certainly the most remarkable English play. What benefit we will have in comparing it to Goethe, Racine or the Sanskrit plays, it is difficult to say because they are so different. But certainly it is the most important English play. All the great plays were written at the beginning of the 17th Century - 1600 to 1650. It was a period when theatres had not long to go. Hamlet made possible the different things that had not been tried before. All the great tragedies were written one after another, five great tragedies in a period of eight or nine years was remarkable. In his soliloquies, Hamlet talks not just about himself but of the human predicament and death. 'Hamlet' is about a person thinking and feeling with great intensity and character arising from that. It is about the inside of a person's mind and about his emotions rather than telling a story. 'Macbeth' is about people caught in an existential trap, about mental tumult. This development occurs only after 'Hamlet' and does not happen for long. After Shakespeare, it does not happen much at all. These plays needed a more flexible kind of verse to express emotions like anxiety and despair. The language was different unlike in poems such as 'Venus and Adonis' where it is very artificial."

What dictated the choice of passages he has taken up for analysis in Shakespeare's Language? The famous funeral oration by Mark Antony in "Julius Caesar" for instance is covered in just a line.

"Antony's speech is rhetorical unlike that of Brutus," replies Sir Frank. "It does not compare for subtlety with Macbeth's "if it were done ..." 'Julius Caesar' is a very interesting play. It balances the early and later plays. Consider the soliloquy of Brutus. There is no sense of excitement here. Though he has not been sleeping well and has been neglecting his wife, he is calm."

Why is "Coriolanus" not valued as much as the other tragedies?

"It is a very bleak play, very undemocratic. It is a very fine play but difficult to stage - I have not seen a satisfactory production of it. The battle scenes are very boring with people rushing in all the time covered in blood.

"Coriolanus is like a human tank, a war machine with a soft spot. Shakespeare was writing as a member of a particular company, for actors he knew and for an audience he knew. He wrote all the texts for the same actor Richard Burbage to play the central role. Shakespeare's heroes get older as Burbage gets older - he had the best roles written for him."

But were the audiences able to understand a difficult play like "Hamlet"?

"People get offended when this comes up but the audiences were better then than we are today. They went by the thousands to the Globe theatre. They were trained to listen much more than we are."

What can explain Shakespeare's magnificent vocabulary when he did not have a remarkable education? Just Grammar School.

"Grammar schools then were not like they are now. They worked in Latin. By the time Shakespeare left school, he knew as much Latin as university students now do. Why did English become so flexible? It is because of the translation of the Bible. There must have been other reasons too. English was beginning to be used in professions such as the Law and the Church. There was a flowering of the language when Latin was dispensed with. There were many great writers at that time and the language was greatly enriched by Hooker, Bacon and others. All these factors must have contributed to Shakespeare's language."

Are you unhappy that Shakespeare is being promoted as a commodity? By the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) and at Stratford-upon-Avon?

"Yes, it is deplorable. The National Heritage Trust is making money out of it and the situation at Stratford is deplorable. The Royal Shakespeare Company has not promoted Shakespeare as it should have. I had a discussion with Richard Eyre of the RSC. The first responsibility is to ensure that the actors speak their lines correctly. This does not happen unless the director is brilliant like Sir Peter Brook. I saw two productions of 'A Winter's Tale' in London last year, one by the RSC and the other by a Russian Company. I greatly appreciated the Russian version - that was a most impressive evening. The Russians have an important theatre tradition. They have an extraordinary physical presence and a great command over drama. They took historical liberties with the play but I did not mind, though I usually do, because the production was so good."

Does he know that Shakespeare's plays are great favourites with Indian audiences and they are played in translation and adaptation, especially "King Lear" and "Macbeth"?

"Yes, there are lots of books by Indian scholars on Shakespeare," smiles Kermode. And then adds with startling directness. "As for 'Macbeth' being popular, it is perhaps because Indians are familiar with the assassination of their leaders."

Is he unhappy with the state of modern criticism?

"I am. Modern criticism has learnt to ignore the play or poem for the language. Modern theorists go off into the theories of language, means of oppression, resistance to oppression, etc. When they talk about Wordsworth, they talk about the French Revolution, the repressive politics in England in 1790 and so on. That does not explain Tintern Abbey to us. There is no personal voice in modern criticism and there is far too much of it. In America, because of the tenure system, most people write at least two books before they are 30 and so there is mass production and you have a generation which imitates the tutor. This results in jargon and the idea of people with a good grasp of literature is dead."

Does he believe in freedom of interpretation?

"I like freedom of interpretation but not silliness."

Does he like the work of Indian writers in English - R. K. Narayan, Salman Rushdie, Arundhati Roy?

"I did not like Rushdie's Satanic Verses. I do not care for magic realism - it is too easy. Once you do that you can do anything - conversation as people float down from an aeroplane, almost anything. However, I enjoyed the book Rushdie wrote for children ..."

Hauron and the Sea of Stories?

"Yes, I liked that. As for modern British writers, though I do not read them enough, I find Tim Parks is brilliant, his books are so ingenous and serious. I like Malcolm Bradbury. There are no outstanding senior figures today; Martin Amis is not a grand old man yet. Anyway, I do not rush out and buy the new novel that comes out, you cannot read everything."

Does he miss teaching?

"No, I have had enough of it. I have my hands full. A book coming out soon, a collection of essays and lectures to deliver at Berkeley University. I am not looking for work. I have enough."

Does he find literary criticism rewarding?

"It is not a career you take up if you want to be famous. Essays in Criticism which was published in the 1950s had articles by many who were famous in their day. Now no one remembers them. One good poem will preserve your memory more than 100 literary articles will."

The interview over, he obligingly hunts for a photograph and tells me before I leave, "You must see the Globe theatre. There may be no plays there this season but you must visit it." A few days later, as I stand in Shakespeare's recreated Globe, his words come back to me. For all lovers of literature, Sir Frank's tribute to the greatest English dramatist through his latest book will be always remembered and will mean far more than many of the poems they have read.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : The furious grace of Afro-American poetry
Next     : For DD, it's history