221 CHRONICLESnany ammunition to the skeptical opposition. I can recall thatnonce upon a time we laughed at science under Stalin, neverndreaming that most of its practices, if not all of its excesses,nwould come to pass here.nIn literature there are such inhibitions as the prevalentncritical notion that even for the sake of verisimilitude,nfictional characters must not be allowed to maintain views,nprejudices, or, indeed, use words which offered stereotypicalncontemporary standards. Or if they do so, they must benknown to be unredeemably wicked and must be punishednfor their sins. . . .nEven the exalted arena of Shakespearean criticism is notnsafe from this kind of agitprop scrutiny.nIf I may be so bold as to second Solzhenitsyn’s proposition,nI would have to tell you that I have only recentlynreturned to the 20th century from a couple of decades spentnliving as an expatriate, an alien, in the 16th century. And itnis my best and considered judgment that then and there, innTudor England, when the consequences — and legalnconsequences — of asking certain questions, voiced opinions,neven (at times) thoughts and intentions, were deadlynserious, there was probably more honest, deep-digging, andnfar-reaching debate and dissent than we have experienced innthis free society for more than a quarter of a century.nEven under the rigors of almost absolute monarchy theynwere not afraid to debate not only current issues but also,nmaybe more important, first principles.nOf course, they had at least some of the same problemsnand concerns. Here, for example, is Sir Walter Raleghnwriting in his History of the World: “How shall the uprightnGEORGE GARRETT TALKSnto Madison Smartt BellnThis interview took place on September 18 and 19,n1985, at Garrett’s house in Charlottesville, not farnfrom the University of Virginia. It is a sizable stone house,nrented, with most of the available wall space covered withnhastily erected brick-and-board bookcases. Not quite settlednyet, Garrett and his wife, Susan, joked about how they werenstill living like graduate students, after 30-odd years of annextremely peripatetic career.nBell: Why did Death of the Fox take so long to write?nGarrett: Partly because I was doing all these other thingsnat the same time. I worked in Hollywood. All kind ofnteaching and publishing, and other stuff. And I just nevernknew enough to be able to do it. I didn’t know what I wasnlooking for. And there was the great explosion of Elizabethannscholarship: As fast as I would think I was readingneverything I should know, 50 more books would come out.nTrying to know enough to do it, handling truckloads ofnMadison Smartt Bell’s most recent novel is The Year ofnSilence.nnnand impartial judgment of man give a sentence, wherenopposition and examination are not admitted to give innevidence?” He then quotes from Lactantius. “They neglectntheir own wisdom who, without any judgment, approve theninvention of those that forewent them; and suffer themselves,nafter the manner of beasts, to be led by them.”nTo which Ralegh adds his own observation, comingnamazingly close to the words and views of Jefferson: “By thenadvantage of which sloth, dullness and ignorance is nownbecome so powerful a tyrant, that it hath set true philosophy,npsychic, and divinity in a pillory.”nWe are gathered to honor not the voice, but the variousnand sundry voices of Chronicles. Which, as it happens, isnone of the very few and very precious forces activelynengaged in the war against lethargy.nIt is with words, with ideas, with facts, with questions,nand, God willing, with passion that the good fight is beingnfought.nWe are much beleaguered, more so than we would like tonadmit, if only for the sake of sanity. We need each other.nAnd I am proud to be here and to be a part of all this and allnthat.nJohn Towne’s cynical laughter echoes in my inner ear likena car horn in a tunneln”You’ll be sorry. You and your big mouth!” he says.n”One thing about the American Establishment, regardlessnof race, creed, color, country of origin, gender, or sexualnpreference, they will never forget and forgive.”n”So what?” I say. “I never wanted to be on the SupremenCourt, anyway.”nnotes got in my way. It may have been that they were sondisorganized. So I changed the model of my book from termnpaper to test. Which are the only two models we have whennwe come out of college: you write a paper or a test. So Inchanged it over to test and then I just closed the trunk andnwrote it off the top of my head.nThe down side is, two weeks after Death of the Fox wasnpublished I couldn’t remember Ralegh’s middle name if henhad one, let alone any details. So when I came to do ThenSuccession, which had been planned, I thought it would benreal easy because I knew everything. I opened up the blanknsheet of paper and I didn’t know anythingl I had to startnover and do the same thing, exactly, back to square one.nBell: The Ralegh in Death of the Fox, is that a portrait ofnthe real Ralegh, do you think, or an invention, or both?nGarrett: It has to be a little of both and it has to bensomewhat distorted. Even unintentionally distorted. Thingsnare in there because I remembered them at a particularntime. Right? In other words, it partakes of the peculiarnurgency of memory.nBell: You never cheated at all?n