Introduction

‘Shakespeare tells the actor when to go fast and when to go slow; when to come in on cue, and when to accent a particular word or series of words.’¹ This is Peter Hall’s opening assertion in the first section of his recent book, Shakespeare’s Advice to the Players. In the last twenty years, a number of eminent British directors and voice practitioners, including John Barton, Declan Donnellan, Peter Hall, Cicely Berry and Patsy Rodenburg, have published handbooks designed to provide actors with guidance on performing Shakespearean drama.² As practitioners within some of the country’s major theatre companies – notably the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) and National Theatre – they have been extremely influential in the establishment of principles of Shakespearean verse speaking on the modern British stage. Hall’s assertion, cited above, is typical of claims made in these theatrical handbooks about the necessity for actors to identify and follow the authorial ‘stage directions’ encoded in the structure of the text. Barton similarly begins his first chapter with the assertion that ‘in the Elizabethan theatre the actors knew how to use and interpret the hidden direction Shakespeare himself provided in his verse and his prose’,³ and his book is aimed at helping modern actors to achieve this end.

The focus on authorial clues to interpretation in the structure of the language is part of a wider concern with ‘authenticity’ in current productions of Shakespeare. A similar movement is increasingly apparent in consideration of theatrical space and the relationship between actor and audience. RSC associate designer Tom Piper notes that ‘over the last fifteen years there has been a move away from large scale, highly visually theatrical versions of Shakespeare’s plays – perhaps in part influenced by the Swan and the Globe theatres – towards an emphasis on the power of language to excite our imagination’ and an increasing emphasis on creating ‘a focused, more intimate relationship between the actor and audience’.⁴ Since the completion of the reconstructed Globe Theatre in 1997, this movement has manifested itself in the building of the new Rose Theatre in Kingston,

Attempts at creating and advertising ‘authenticity’ in Shakespearean production have been a common feature of the presentation of the plays since the Restoration. The Interregnum resulted in a break with early modern theatrical traditions, which theatre directors have sought variously to recapture. In 1977, J. L. Styan identified what he described as ‘The Shakespeare Revolution’, a significant move towards ‘authenticity’ in the texts and staging of Shakespearean productions, which occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, led by William Poel and Harley Granville-Barker.⁵ Although elements of the work of Poel and Granville-Barker continued to influence approaches to textual fidelity and verse speaking into the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the 1970s onwards saw an increasing vogue for ‘interpretative’ productions, characterised by overarching directorial concepts, and frequently employing elaborate, mechanical sets. In recent years, it has been possible to discern a reaction against this concept-led, technically complex mode of presenting Shakespeare, and a move, once again, towards seeking out styles of production that have a greater affinity to those of Shakespeare’s own period.

This book is concerned with the analysis of contemporary responses to the Shakespearean text, as evidenced in performance practice and drama training. Through examination of published accounts and interview material from leading actors and directors, it explores current approaches to Shakespearean verse speaking in rehearsal rooms, drama schools and university drama departments. By examining assertions made in the theatrical handbooks against the findings of Renaissance scholarship, I contest some of the claims made by leading theatre practitioners and reiterated by actors and students looking for guidance in speaking Shakespearean verse.

In examining theatrical practice, I consider the texts used by directors and actors in the rehearsal room, and the way in which the layout of these texts may influence their interpretation. I explore the potential impact of varying editorial principles of lineation and punctuation on theatrical delivery, with the aim of alerting editors to the way in which actors may interpret editorial emendations, and theatre practitioners to diverse editorial and compositorial methods. Modern editors vary significantly in their attitudes to lineation and punctuation as indicators of meaning in the Shakespearean text. The

I do not seek to criticise attempts to claim authorial indications about dramatic delivery in the structure of the verse, since clearly the text and its form are the main tools of the Shakespearean actor and director. My argument is, however, that if theatre practitioners are to make such claims, it is essential that they have a sound historical and textual basis from which to do so. I therefore interrogate their claims through reference to Renaissance verse, prosodic treatises and theatrical documents. Through close analysis of a number of the plays, I investigate the patterns and variations in the use of particular metrical structures across the length and genres of the Shakespeare canon, with the aim of providing a greater understanding of the relationship between verse structure and meaning in Shakespeare’s plays.

This book challenges fixed ideas and argues the need for a more informed and open theatrical engagement with the Shakespearean text and a greater understanding amongst actors of editorial principles of lineation and punctuation, and amongst editors of the way in which elements of their work are being interpreted in performance. Drawing on the work of a large number of scholars, from a wide range of sources, I offer a new synthesis that is both scholarly viable and open to exploration in the rehearsal room.

The theatrical handbooks and work of the directors and voice practitioners whose methods form the basis of the discussion in the first chapter are admirable in their attempts to encourage actors to engage with the structure of Shakespeare’s language and its dramatic properties. However, whilst some of the approaches advocated make both dramatic and historical sense, others, particularly in claims made about the dramatic function of metre and lineation, are in direct conflict with evidence relating to Renaissance theatre practice and the context of metrical structures in the work of Shakespeare and his contemporaries.

The issue of lineation has assumed a key role in discussions of Shakespearean acting, as is evidenced by the substantial space afforded it in the theatrical handbooks. Shared lines, short verse-lines and the correlation or conflict between verse-line and phrase, are viewed as Shakespeare’s ‘stage directions’ to actors. They are claimed as indicators of pace of

Reading actress Juliet Stevenson’s account in Carol Rutter’s Clamorous Voices of preparing for her acclaimed performance as Isabella in Measure for Measure at the RSC in 1983,⁷ one might expect to find an in-depth discussion of Isabella’s character and her relationship with others. Instead, we find a detailed analysis of the metre and phrasing of Isabella’s scenes, elements on which Stevenson claims to have based her interpretation:

I am a bit of a purist about the structure of Shakespeare’s language. His metre – that basic ten-syllable iambic pentameter line – his rhythms, his pauses, his punctuation, where he breaks a line mid-way, you have to observe what he’s doing with them, not as an end in itself but because they give you so many clues. There is a beat, there is a pulse in the verse that will tell you as much about the character as anything she says. ⁸

My explorations make clear the tendency of theatre practitioners to assert ‘rules’ about the delivery and dramatic function of particular metrical structures. Frequently in the handbooks, a few specific examples are presented as indicative of a universally applicable method of delivery, and speculation, not always informed by historical and textual evidence, is presented as fact. Handbooks can quickly become ‘rule’-books, and the theories accepted without question by actors keen to receive straightforward guidance on speaking Shakespearean verse. My analysis of the structure of Shakespeare’s verse at different periods of his writing career makes a claim for the need for a more open and textually informed theatrical engagement

In chapter 1 I investigate the theories about Shakespearean verse speaking which have been advocated by leading theatre practitioners over the past twenty years, and put into practice on the British stage. I concentrate principally on the work of the RSC, National and Shakespeare’s Globe, these being the British theatres most frequently responsible for Shakespearean production and from which the most prominent handbooks on Shakespearean acting have derived. These publications and the practical work of practitioners from these institutions have had a profound influence on the wider dissemination of ideas within the theatrical profession. Examining published accounts, interviews, rehearsal diaries and anecdotal evidence for areas of similarity and conflict, I attempt to establish the basis for the theories and to explore the way in which ideas have been transmitted and transmuted as a result of their contact with other areas of theatrical and critical practice. My aim is partly to identify common theories that have arisen about the dramatic function of lineation and punctuation, but also to note the divergences in attitudes that have resulted from the various training, study and theatrical experiences of these practitioners. I examine the theatrical tendency to establish ‘rules’ about the delivery of particular metrical structures and argue that this does not take account of authorial inconsistency and prosodic development and may obscure ambiguities inherent in the verse structure.

In the second chapter, I focus on modern theatrical interaction with early printed and modern edited texts. The texts used in rehearsal rooms and in the examples cited by practitioners in their handbooks vary. In noting the texts used for particular productions and publications, I observe instances where directors and actors confer authority on editorial decisions, making assertions about Shakespeare’s dramatic intention based on lineation which may have derived from editorial perceptions of metrical precedent rather than concern for its dramatic significance, and punctuation based on a modern grammatical as opposed to an early modern rhetorical system. I examine variations in the lineation of ambiguous passages and consider the potential influence of editorial choices on acting decisions about pace, pause, mood, character motivation and interaction. An acknowledgment of the extent of editorial re-lineation and re-punctuation has led some practitioners to refer to the Folio for authorial ‘clues’ to interpretation.

Substantial discussion has been devoted to editorial approaches to line-division and linking or retention of short lines, in articles such as Fredson Bowers’ ‘Establishing Shakespeare’s Text: Notes on Short Lines and the Problem of Verse Division’⁹ and Paul Werstine’s ‘Line Division in Shakespeare’s Verse: An Editorial Problem’,¹⁰ accounts of editorial principles such as those of the Oxford Complete Works, published in William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion,¹¹ and in the prefatory and appended material to individual editions. However, these accounts do not engage with the implications of editorial decisions on theatrical interpretation. Editorial decisions about lineation and punctuation are frequently made for the convenience of the reader: assisting cross-referencing between editions and critical works, and aiding understanding through the application of modern grammatical principles. However, given the fact that these editions are frequently used in the theatre, it seems vital to alert editors to the way in which their decisions may be interpreted by actors. I suggest that there is scope for a ‘theatrical’ text, for use in the rehearsal room, which makes apparent the unambiguous metrical connection between certain lines, emends obvious errors, and modernises spelling for ease of use, whilst not obscuring ambiguities inherent in the lineation and punctuation.

In order to place Shakespeare’s use of lineation and punctuation within a wider context, I explore, in chapter 3, Renaissance pedagogical treatises and prosodic criticism and classical and vernacular dramatic and non-dramatic verse. My exploration encompasses wider theories of prosody and possible direct influences on Shakespeare’s writing. I consider the factors which may have influenced Shakespeare and his contemporaries’ attitudes to verse – its structure, expressive potential and demands of delivery. I explore what Renaissance actors and writers might have been taught about the composition and delivery of verse in the schoolroom, and examine classical and Renaissance works of literature and literary criticism, which may have had an impact on Shakespeare’s prosody. Particular attention is given to the relationship between the verse-line and grammatical phrase and use of shared and short lines and consideration of their employment as an expressive tool or as a method of directing actors in their delivery. In assessing whether elements of the lineation and punctuation might have been designed as a form of ‘stage direction’ for the actor, I examine what can be ascertained about the working practices of the Renaissance theatre, in particular the distribution of individual parts and limited rehearsal time. Renaissance actors’ parts provide an instructive means with which to explore the extent to which

In chapter 4, I move to an examination of the internal evidence for Shakespeare’s perception and use of lineation and punctuation – the plays themselves. My aim is to explore and, in some cases, challenge assertions and assumptions made by theatre practitioners and editors. In order to establish generic patterns and chart the development in Shakespeare’s use of shared and short lines and end-stopping and enjambment, I look at plays spanning the duration and genres of Shakespeare’s career: Richard II, Romeo and Juliet and The Merchant of Venice as examples of Shakespeare’s early work; Measure for Measure, Hamlet and Troilus and Cressida as examples of early seventeenth-century plays; and The Winter’s Tale, Coriolanus and The Tempest as examples of his later work. I look both at the incidence of various types of metrical structure, and the way in which these relate to the subject matter of scenes, in particular the possible dramatic functions of metrical irregularity and its potential to reflect a character’s emotional or mental state. I work from the versions of the text considered to be closest to Shakespeare’s authorial manuscript since these provide the most authoritative witnesses to authorial punctuation and lineation. As an authority for the provenance of the various texts, I refer to Stanley Wells and Gary Taylor’s William Shakespeare: A Textual Companion, which provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the early printed texts.¹³

In chapter 5, I draw on the discussion about the use of particular texts in the modern rehearsal room, and the tendency for theatre practitioners to confer authority on modern edited or early printed texts, to suggest ways in which the ideas presented in this book might be applied practically. I discuss a possible layout for a ‘theatrical’ text, which could assist actors in their perception of the metrical structure whilst not obscuring textual ambiguities. An edited version of Measure for Measure 2.2 in the Appendix illustrates my suggestions, alongside which I note the variations in lineation of this scene in modern editions and the possible effect of editorial decisions on dramatic interpretation of the scene.