Monday,11,2019
Prof. Amlan Das Gupta
Jadavpur University
Dates and institutions concerned for your B.A. and M.A.
I completed my B.A. from Presidency College, Kolkata in 1977 and my M.A. from Jadavpur University in 1979.
When did your first encounter with Shakespeare take place?
In school. I read a lot of Shakespeare when I was in the upper classes.Of course I had read a bit of Shakespeare earlier as well. We used to have records of Shakespeare recitations at home. We also had recorded versions of plays including the Old Vic performance of Hamlet with Giel Gud in the role of Hamlet. I must also have read adaptations at some time. But my first formal experience of reading a Shakespeare play in class was sometime around class IX.
Who were the people who taught Shakespeare?
Well, we had many teachers. In school we were taught by our principal Indranath Guha. He taught us Julius Caesar. In college, we were taught Shakespeare by Professor Sailendra Kumar Sen, who was a great Shakespeare scholar and bibliographer. We were also taught by Professor Arun Kumar Dasgupta. Even in Jadavpur University there were Professor Biswas and Professor Jagannath Chakrabarty. I think Professor Ashok Ghosh also taught us a Shakespeare play. When I went to read for an M. Phil.at Oxford there were Emrys Jones and Barbara Everett. I used to go to John Wilders for tutorials on Shakespeare.
Were the teachers concerned about pronunciation and accent?
Well, bearing in mind that the language was pronounced in many ways, I think nearly all my teachers were very particular with the text. At least I had no sense that there were problems in this respect.
Were the sexual references and the expletives omitted in the classroom?
No, I don’t think so. I don’t think any special fuss was made and we read what was there in the text.
How far was the socio-historical component discussed?
It depended upon the teacher to some extent. Each had their own approach to Shakespeare. Some were very strong in social history and we were advised to read widely in the history of the time. People had their approach to Shakespeare. Some were very strong in social history. I learnt the most from Arun Kumar Dasgupta. Even though it is probably right to say that he was concerned more with the philosophical interpretation of literature, it is not to say that he was not interested in history. I remember that he made us read Holinshed very carefully. In those days we did a lot of things because our teachers wanted us to do them. We were far more scared of them than our students are of us.We did whatever they told us to do without asking. What good it did to us we did not stop to ask. We read a lot. That was the only way that we could make any progress.
Were Shakespeare’s contemporary dramatists given the same amount of importance in the classroom?
When relevant, I would say, yes. But, say, when we were studying Lear or Macbeth, there was very little apart from making a linguistic point or are mark about a specific aspect of the dramaturgy of contemporary dramatists that would be mentioned by way of comparison with Shakespeare. It is difficult to say whether I was at the time as familiar with the other dramatists as I was with Shakespeare. With Marlowe perhaps.Possibly Webster. But we were categorically told that the history of literature was extremely important,and that was the pedagogic emphasis of the time. I read an enormous amount of other renaissance English plays. We were fairly well-up on the other dramatists and it’s not that we were given the sense that we should only read Shakespeare and nothing else.
Were students encouraged to think independently?
We all had to read a lot. That was the only way to keep up with the class. There were comparatively fewer forms of entertainment and that is why reading was a major occupation.Reading habits were very strong in my generation. I think all my teachers gave credit to attempts at thinking independently.
Which editions did you follow as a student?
I seem to remember that we were advised to get hold of the Arden editions of Shakespeare’s plays, but we knew a lot about earlier editions too. That was mainly because of Professor Sailen Sen’s teaching. We got a sense of the importance of textual history in the class. The Arden series had a good textual apparatus, so we followed that.But I would say that the teacher did not compel us to follow particular editions. Sometimes they would link what they said with particular editions, but not often. I often went to Arun-babu’s class with the complete works of Shakespeare. I now realise that from fairly early on we were aware of the problems of textual scholarship and we understood the necessity of having reliable texts.We also learnt that texts in general were not as stable as they looked.
Tell us about the exam and question pattern.
There were all kinds. Arun-babu used to set questions in our tutorials which were about ten lines long. They were really difficult to understand, particularly for me. One suffered from a sense of inferiority and it was good to find later that everybody suffered from it. The university examination patterns were very predictable. Both at Calcutta and at Jadavpur. Nearly every student mastered the pattern easily. We knew that there were a few questions that could be set and all other questions were the variations of those same questions.So, we would read the text carefully and whatever little material we were able to gather would be utilised.
When I read Shakespeare on my own I thought I knew how to read Shakespeare. But in college we understood that there was far more to it. There was a period of uncertainty, a period of confusion. We struggled with the texts and often found the instructions difficult to follow.But somewhere down the line most of us learnt how to read Shakespeare. This is what I depend on as a teacher while teaching now. My results were not particularly good. But somehow, while in college, I must have learnt something not only about Shakespeare but about the Renaissance in general.
Did the teachers refer to stage and film productions?
Oh yes. I remember we were taken to watch Kozintsev’s Hamlet while in school. Arun-babu was also interested in contemporary film. This was the time of the film society movement. I remember that we were asked to see a film by Bergman just to understand the imagery of hands in Macbeth.
Was the text related to performance conventions?
Yes. On the whole, yes. By the time we were in college we were certainly talking about the text in two ways, as something to be read, and as something to be acted. There was also a debate about acting; whether all the texts could be acted or not. These concerns were there.
Were there any performances at the institution?
At Jadavpur, yes. As you know very well that there were a number of performances. At Presidency College, I do not think there was much theatre production. One or two Shakespeare companies came to Kolkata and we all went to watch them. We also went to watch films. You must understand that there weren’t too many opportunities of watching Shakespearian films, however.
Have any of your classmates distinguished themselves as Shakespeare performers or scholars?
Scholars, yes. Most of my classmates from Presidency are teachers in college or university. Some of them have specialised in Shakespeare. Many of my contemporaries with whom I was on friendly terms – later distinguished themselves on the stage.
Have you noticed any changes in the pedagogy and student reaction over the decades?
Yes, pedagogy has definitely changed. The concerns are very different now, but that always happens. What was taught in the 50’s was different from what was taught in the 70’s. There are new names, as it were, new intellectual currents. Sometime in the 80’s or the 90’s we started becoming aware, for instance,of New Historicism. A great influence when I was a student was Marxism. You must understand that it was areal influence, not just something you read about in books. So these are the things that you encounter and assimilate. So I am sure that a lot of these things have affected pedagogy. At least, they should. New ways of looking at texts should be encouraged, but that is not to give up old competences. The exclusive obsession with the text is something that I have tried to resist. I think that the period, the time, the historical understanding of the text are crucial elements that students must know.
Some things have changed and some things I have tried to hang onto in the face of change. Perhaps I expect less compliance from my students as compared to what my teacher did from me. I make fewer demands of my students. During my M. Phil.,in my first vacation, I was asked to read the twenty two volumes of Milton. The person asking was John Carey. So at the end of the vacation he would assume that it had been read. Such things rarely happen these days. When I had just started teaching, I asked one of my students to read the 10 volumes of Donne’s sermons 3 months she came to me with her notes. So, that happens, but it is very rare. I think my expectations are low in terms of reading. We were given a standard that we had to strive to live up to in terms of work and effort. The style of teaching and the level of expectation were slightly tougher.
Do you think Shakespeare is an overrated author?
No, I do not think that he is overrated, not at all. The cult of Shakespeare is gradually dwindling but even in Kolkata there is a lingering presence.I expect that Shakespeare is read less in some other universities. I have heard people say that Shakespeare should not be taught as a compulsory course in college or university, and that’s a point of view worth thinking about.
What do you think of the present trend of de-glamorising and de-canonising Shakespeare?
I don’t understand this very well. A writer is what she or he is. We read with the aid of whatever tools we have and these tools lead us to some kind of understanding. I don’t think there is a reason to glamorise anybody at all. In my case, it is more of a sense of wonder, a sense of the miraculous,that hits me over and over again.
What do you feel was the difference in the manner Shakespeare was taught to you in college and the way it was taught to you at university?
Not especially.
Were scenes enacted in class?
No.
What is your reaction to the fact that many students in Anglophone countries are reading Shakespeare in paraphrase even at tertiary level?
I don’t see the point of reading if it is not thought to be relevant. If the time has come to junk Shakespeare for certain purposes then there is little point in hanging on to those texts. If it is not important for cultural purposes then why would you want to teach Shakespeare? But on the other hand I expect that textual adaptations of Shakespeare, like those in Graphic novels, have relevance even in pedagogic contexts. My own discomfort with them comes from old habit, but I don’t think I should object to other people using them. Shakespeare in films or other adaptations also make sense to me. But that is a different kind of thing altogether.
Currently the English syllabi in universities all over India are changing very rapidly to include various aspects like Indian writing in English, literatures from other countries, new literatures. So, what should be the relevance of Shakespeare amidst this rapidly changing arena of English studies?
I would think that the need of pulling at both ends is a problem. At Jadavpur we face this problem quite acutely. We have tried to hold on classical European studies and medieval literature, while at the same time accommodating emerging subjects. My own instinct is that an acquaintance with Shakespeare is important for all who study English literature formally. I don’t know whether all my colleagues feel the same way, and I wouldn’t like to say that they should.
Is there anything else you want to say on Shakespeare pedagogy?
I started teaching Shakespeare as a college teacher and then in university I was asked to teach a course on Shakespeare’s life and times for about ten years. I found that very interesting because again it was linked to social history and textual history. However, I think most students found it very boring. In Jadavpur I taught Lear and Macbeth. I don’t think I have any specific models for teaching. In any case I cannot teach the way someone else taught. I can teach only within my own competence. I have always thought my competence lay in giving students a comprehensive understanding of the text and its background. I still remember those moments of wonder when I came out of the classes of Arun Kumar Dasgupta when I was a student. I try to make up with hard work. When I started teaching in the 80’s, information was difficult to access. One would have to go to the National Library and other places to find a book and yet there was no guarantee that one would find it. Therefore providing accurate critical information was an important part of my teaching.In these days of easy access I must have become less particular about trying to do that. I hope that I am still able to convey some sense of the importance of scholarship. Whether one becomes a scholar or not, to understand the importance of scholarship is something which I think is a teacher’s job. Whether I have been able to do that I do not know. During our days as students, we felt ourselves face to face with something extraordinary. I do not think I can match that.