Humanities desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 24[edit]

Why did Shakespeare not include act and scene divisions in his plays?[edit]

I never gave this much thought, but only recently did I come to learn that it was editors (and not Shakespeare himself) who "added in" the Act and Scene divisions, etc., throughout all the plays. For whatever reason, I had always simply assumed that these were part of the original work. So, my questions: (1) Does Wikipedia have any sort of article about this? And (2) Do these editorial decisions cause -- or have they caused -- any controversy? Or are they just pretty well-settled and accepted and standardized? And (3) Why did Shakespeare himself not include these notations? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:07, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Shakespeare's editors could be a good place to start. DuncanHill (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting article in The Guardian here, and some resources listed here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of editorial changes to Shakespeare's plays is a large and complex one. But regarding the OP's question regarding act and scene divisions, theoretically this is a simpler issue, in that a scene division is supposed to occur whenever the stage is empty; that is, when all actors have left the stage. However even this is not as cut and dried as it sounds; see [[1]] for example. Mnudelman (talk) 02:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the subject is far more complicated than it would have seemed! So, if Shakespeare was a playwright, why wouldn't he himself have included these divisions? Was it not the standard practice at the time? Just as stage directions are important, aren't divisions at least somewhat important? Important enough for a playwright to include, at least? Or why not? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping back a bit, it's important to remember that Shakespeare never wrote any play with the intention that it was going to be published (although this is not true of some of his poetry), nor did he in fact have any rights to the plays after he wrote them and sold them to the producing company. He wrote his plays as scripts for actors to perform. Other people published them, sometimes recreating large parts of the text from memory. I highly recommend the introduction to the Riverside Shakespeare, which has an excellent summary of the complex issues regarding Shakespeare's text. An excerpt:

:
In those days, however, merely to be recognized as a playwright was to be rather an artisan than an artist; it did not carry with it any particular standing as a man of letters.... As for the plays, they were the property of the producing company, which had commissioned and bought them outright. So long as they were popular on the stage, it would not have been in the company's interest for them to be printed. Sooner or later slightly more than half of them found their way into print, many of these pirated and garbled.
The extent of corruption or uncertain authority in Shakespeare's texts will appear strange to most present-day readers, who are accustomed to accept any book they may read as reproducing exactly what the author wrote.... But for Elizabethan-Jacobean printed drama, with rare exceptions, the line from author to reader was much more tortuous, even broken.... There is essentially no evidence that Shakespeare was himself at all concerned with preserving an authoritative text of his plays for future readers.... It seems reasonable ... to conclude that his attitude toward his plays, once the immediate excitement of creation had worn off, was more that of a practical man of the theatre, interested in performance and the box-office, than that of a man with deeply-felt literary pretensions, like Jonson, bent on preserving his works in authoritative texts for posterity.

Mnudelman (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's interesting that you mention stage directions, because Shakespeare very rarely included stage directions in his texts. Stage directions in his plays are almost all additions by later editors. Mnudelman (talk) 05:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did not realize about stage directions. Thanks. But, it still all goes back to my point. If I am a playwright -- if I am writing a play -- wouldn't I want to include stage directions and/or scene breaks, etc.? Not for "publishing purposes", but even, simply, for logistical purposes (i.e., instruction to the actors)? Why would a playwright not include this stuff? I understand that Shakespeare was not concerned with publication; he was only concerned with performance. But, still, are not these items necessary for a smooth performance, also? Why leave them out? I just don't get it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on my (small) experience in the theatre, scene changes are noted in modern play scripts because they usually involve moving scenery, whereas in Shakespeare's day very little scenery was used, and the scene was set mostly verbally (see English renaissance theatre#Performances). Most of where the actors stand and move (blocking) is worked out in rehearsal by the director and the actors, and will often change according to what venue you're performing in, so other than entrances and exits very little of it will be specified in the script. Also, Shakespeare was part of the company that performed his plays, so he may have conveyed any instructions he had for the actors orally rather than writing them down. Another thing that occurs to me is that, as pointed out, a lot of the printed texts were reconstructed from memory, in the case of the First Folio by John Heminges and Henry Condell, who were actors in Shakespeare's company. Actors who have performed a play lots of times will probably remember the lines pretty well, but might not remember things like stage directions, if they were written, so accurately. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many modern scripts have quite extensive stage directions covering actors' moves and positions as well as the set. Others leave it largely or entirely up to the production. Whether directors choose to follow the directions (even concerning the layout of the scenery) is another matter. --ColinFine (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'll modify that to "very little stage direction needs to be specified in the script", which should adequately answer Joseph's question. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]