导读5： 如何阅读莎士比亚

5 - How to Read Shakespeare

5 – 如何阅读莎士比亚

In this final episode of our introductory course, we discuss some strategies for approaching Shakespeare. Whichever of his plays you read, this episode offers ways to enhance your experience.

今天是我们先导课的最后一期。本期节目，我们将会探讨一些阅读莎士比亚作品的技巧。不论你读的是他的哪一部戏剧，今天这期节目中介绍的阅读技巧都将会增强你的阅读体验。

One of the most distinctive and difficult parts of Shakespeare’s work is the language. So the first thing to know is that his language doesn’t usually reflect how people speak--not in the 1600s and certainly not now. It’s not supposed to be like ordinary language. It’s language elevated into art.

莎士比亚作品中，最具特色就是语言，但同时，语言也是最难的部分。所以，我们首先要明确，莎士比亚所运用的语言往往没有反映人们是如何说话的，那既不是17世纪人们的语言，当然也不是现在人的。那不是普通的语言，而是升华成了艺术的语言。

Emma Smith: So my sense is one of the things people enjoyed about going to the theater in Shakespeare's time was to have. And it's that take experience, particularly a sort of heard experience, which was quite unlike what they heard around them the rest of the time.

艾玛·史密斯：所以，我觉得在莎士比亚那个年代，人们爱去剧院看戏的一个原因就是为了获得一种体验，尤其是一种听觉上的体验。他们在戏剧中听到的语言与他们在日常生活中听到的语言很不一样。

That’s Emma Smith, Professor of Shakespeare Studies at the University of Oxford.

这位是艾玛·史密斯，牛津大学莎士比亚研究院教授。

Emma Smith: So the theater isn't really realistic. It doesn't hold up a mirror to people's ordinary lives. It's something heighten. It's something exalted. It's something to aspire to, I guess. It if it always feels. Yeah. Feels to be a little bit like opera or something like that.

艾玛·史密斯：所以戏剧不是完全写实的，它不会像镜子那样如实地反映人们的日常生活，它表现的是某种被拔高、被升华了的内容。我认为，它表现的是人们向往的一些东西，感觉像是，有点儿像是歌剧之类的。

That's not, you know, so they're not naturalistic in that way. But the language that Shakespeare uses then is a language of poetry as well as a language of sometimes a language of everyday speech

所以，这样看的话，它们并不写实。莎士比亚当时运用的是诗意的语言，但同时他的语言有时又很日常。

Shakespeare wrote much of his drama in poetic verse. We have to listen to it differently than we would read a contemporary novel because Shakespeare is poetry.

莎士比亚在创作戏剧时，运用了大量诗意的韵文。我们听戏剧时的感受不同于读一本当代小说，因为莎士比亚的作品其实就是诗歌。

Emma Smith: Often it's in verse, unusually unrhythm verse, although not always, and that first we call blank verse or iambic pentameter and iambic pentameter means the pentameter part is five what we calls, five feet in a line. And the feet go unstressed-Stress: da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM da DUM. That's how the pentameter is usually discussed. And that means the stress of the language is moving along. The most important point in the line is not the first syllable because that's unstressed, but maybe the last one because that's where the energy of the mind is going.

艾玛·史密斯：有时是以韵文的形式，偶尔会使用自由诗，虽然这种情况不常见。第一种韵文我们称它为“无韵诗”或者“五步抑扬格”，五步抑扬格的意思就是这种诗每行有五个音步，每个音步的第一个音节轻读，第二个音节重读，节奏是这样的“哒哒（第一个“哒”读得轻且快，重音落在第二个“哒”上，之后的几个“哒哒”也这样），哒哒，哒哒，哒哒，哒哒”，这就是我们常说的五音步诗行。这意味着语言的重音在移动，它是会动的。诗行中最重要的并不是第一个音节，因为它不重读，最重要的应该是最后一个音节，因为思想的力量都体现在了这个音节上。

Try listening for this iambic pentameter--the pattern of unstress-stress, five times per line. For example, we can hear it in Romeo’s famous line: “But soft! What lightthrough yonder window breaks?” or, if I exaggerate it, “But soft! What lightthrough yonder window breaks?” That’s the underlying poetic structure of Shakespeare’s verse. Of course, poetry doesn’t just mean writing to a metrical pattern. It also means using words in unusual ways. Shakespeare employs lots of figurative language, conveying abstract ideas in unexpected physical images. Sometimes those images are so complex, it’s hard to fully comprehend them on first hearing. But that’s fine. You don’t need to understand every word precisely. It’s just as important to experience them: to experience their rhythm and sound.

让我们来试着听一听五步抑扬格，感受一下它的“先轻读再重读”的这种表现节奏，这种轻重节奏每行会重复五次。比如，罗密欧有一句著名的台词，就运用了五步抑扬格，让我们来听一听这句台词：“但是，轻一点/是什么光/从那远方的/窗户中照进来？”用汉语表达出来可能稍微有些奇怪，所以我再夸张一点读出来这句台词就是：“但是，轻一点/是什么光/从那远方的/窗户中照进来？”莎士比亚的韵文中都带着诗歌的结构。当然，诗歌不仅仅意味着要运用格律，也意味着要用不同寻常的方式来遣词造句。莎士比亚运用了大量的比喻性语言，用人们意想不到的具体意象来传递抽象概念。有时，那些意象过于复杂，人们在第一次听见的时候，甚至都无法完全理解它们。但没关系，大家不需要精准理解每一个单词。重点是去要感受它们，去感受这些单词的节奏和声音。

Emma Smith: Sometimes I feel as if the experience of going to a Shakespeare play in performance is more like going to a concert of whatever music you like, really, than it is like going to a lecture. That's to say the words themselves are not the only form of meaning, and that sometimes we need them to sort of wash over us and to think this is really beautiful or this is really harsh or this is really abstract or this is really romantic or something we don't need to understand every single bit so far.

艾玛·史密斯：我有时候觉得，看一场莎剧演出，更像听了一场喜欢的音乐会，真的，不大会觉得是听了一场演讲。也就是说，意思、内涵不是单词的唯一形式，我们要沉浸到单词中，感受它们的美、它们的残酷、它们的抽象以及它们的浪漫，我们目前真的不需要理解每一个单词的意思。

Emma Smith: Nobody ever understood all of Shakespeare. Some of what's difficult about Shakespeare's language is difficult because we don't have the same words for things or we don't have the same language, doesn't work in quite the same way.

艾玛·史密斯：也没有人能完全理解莎士比亚。理解莎士比亚所使用的文风的难点在于，我们不会用莎士比亚所使用的那些词汇来描述同一件事情，或者说我们的语言和莎士比亚的不同，它们起作用的方式不一样。

But some of the language is difficult because Shakespeare seems to have invented a word or he's picked out quite a specialized word because he likes the sound of it and he's brought it in or he's on some quite abstract flight of fancy that none of us can really follow. And nobody who went to the theater in the 1590s would have been able to follow every single word. So I think people who get into Shakespeare for the first time need to be easy on themselves and about their expectations.

莎士比亚语言之所以这么难，另一个原因在于他似乎还会造新的词，他甚至还会因为喜欢一些特殊单词的发音而去运用这些词，他会在写作中引入这样的单词，有时我们完全跟不上他那种极其抽象的异想天开。16世纪90年代那会儿，去剧院看莎剧的那些人，也没有谁是能够完全理解剧中的每一个单词。所以，我认为，第一次接触莎剧的人应该，应该放轻松，不要给自己定太高的预期。

Another thing to keep in mind is that if sometimes you feel like the language is really hard to understand, that may be exactly the point.

大家还需要记住的一点就是，有时你可能会觉得剧中的语言真的很难理解，别担心，这也许就是莎士比亚想要追求的效果呢。

Emma Smith: I think is it fair to say that Shakespeare's language sometimes is difficult, but not always. And that means that sometimes the difficulty is a way that Shakespeare kind of encodes the fact that his characters are not being straightforward. They're choosing to talk in a difficult or convoluted way because they can't be honest about what it is this that is happening or what it is that they're doing.

艾玛·史密斯：我觉得莎士比亚的语言有时的确有难度，不过这种情况也不会特别多见。这种“难”在某种程度上是因为莎士比亚做了加密处理，他不希望笔下的角色一眼就被看穿。这些角色说的话晦涩难懂，因为他们无法坦诚说出正在发生的事情或他们当下正在做的事情。

It's not a deficiency in you. So it's not because you're too stupid to understand what this means. It's that for various reasons. This is quite difficult. And some of those difficulties are often quite useful in understanding what's happening in the play.

这不是你的问题，不是你不够聪明，无法理解这些话。导致这种情况的原因很多。而且，一些不好理解的地方相反会帮助你理解剧情的发展。

Just as Shakespeare’s language is different from real life conversation, it’s important to remember that his characters are different from real life people.

莎士比亚不仅使用的语言不同于日常对话，我们还要注意，他笔下的角色也和现实中的人们不一样。

Emma Smith: So a lot of our reading habits and our expectations about how stories told are based on our experience of novels and novels have tended to the 19^th century to deliver us a.. And to be the way of exploring so psychologically deep or complicated characters. Characters in interaction. So I think the novel is the great sort of stage. If you like for character, sometimes bringing those assumptions to drama of Shakespeare's is a little bit unhelpful.

艾玛·史密斯：所以，我们的许多阅读习惯，我们关于故事叙述方式的预期主要源自我们阅读小说的经验，19世纪之后的小说倾向于进行深入的心理探索，探索复杂的人物角色，这些角色互相影响。所以，我认为小说也是一个很了不起的舞台。但是，如果你很关注人物角色，有时在看莎剧时，代入这样的假设，却会不利于你理解戏剧。

Many of Shakespeare’s characters do have the lifelike complexity and psychological depth of characters in novels. But others don’t--and they’re not meant to.

莎士比亚笔下不少角色也有着小说角色那样真切的复杂性和心理深度。但是，其他的角色却不是这样的，作者也无意于这样描写他们。

Emma Smith: I think then there are lots of characters in Shakespeare who are actually stereotypes, and we tend to think of stereotype as a negative word. But I think Shakespeare or Shakespeare's audience are quite interested in those kinds of figures

艾玛·史密斯：我觉得，实际上，莎士比亚笔下很多人物角色都是有固定模式的，我们一听到“固定模式”这个词，就很容易就觉得它是一个消极词汇。但我认为，莎士比亚本人，或者莎士比亚的受众们却对这类人物相当感兴趣。

Some characters don’t portray a unique personality, but instead represent some larger universal idea. The merry, fat knight Falstaff is a memorable character precisely because he’s a symbol for comic mirth and appetite. And some characters aren’t important for their character, or personality, at all, but rather for how they help change and drive the story.

一些角色并没有鲜明的性格特点，相反，他们代表的是一些更加广泛的概念。快乐的胖骑士福斯塔夫就是这样一个角色，他的形象令读者印象深刻，恰恰就是因为他身上表现出的喜感和胃口好这些特征。一些角色的重要性不在角色本身，也不在他们的性格特点，而是在于他们帮助改变并推进了故事的情节发展。

Emma Smith: It would be interesting to think not so much how would this character behave if they were a real person in my world? But what would the play be like without this character or if this character were different? Why does the play need the character to be this way? And sometimes that produces an interesting turnaround in how we see Shakespeare as being a little bit more plot driven than character driven.

艾玛·史密斯：我们不需要过多地猜测如果把这些角色放到现实世界，他们会怎么行事。不过，倒是可以假想一下，如果没有这个角色或者这个角色的性格特点和原来不一样的话，故事情节又会怎么发展。这样我们就可以知道为什么这个角色在剧中是这个样子。想想这些问题，会很有意思。有时，这些思考还会改变我们对莎剧的看法，我们会去思考莎剧真的是剧情推动大于角色推动吗？这些都太有趣了。

So some of Shakespeare’s characters are close to “real life” people. But some are more like symbols or stereotypes. And others have a structural function: they echo or amplify or bring out different aspects of an idea or another character’s personality.

所以，在莎士比亚笔下，的确有一些很贴近“现实生活”中的人物的角色，但有些角色则更像是符号或固定模式。此外，还有一些角色，他们在剧中发挥着结构性作用，呼应、阐明甚至引出某个观点或另一个角色性格的不同侧面。

Emma Smith: So it can be quite interesting to think where the characters on the stage might be sort of Externalisation exterior versions of the voice in your own head that you might be arguing with somebody, which is really an internal document. But one of the ways to show it on the stage is to put it out onto someone else.

艾玛·史密斯：所以，试想一下，舞台上的角色也许在某种程度上，以一种迷人的方式外化了你内心与别人的争论，说出了你内心的话语。这真的很有意思。然而，在舞台上，作者却是通过另外的某个角色展露出你的这种心声。

In Hamlet, for example, other characters reflect different aspects of Hamlet’s personality, different paths he considers following. One of these characters is Prince Fortinbras. Like Hamlet, he has a father who’s been killed; and like Hamlet, he’s seeking revenge for his father’s death. But he uses armies and decisive actions of war, while Hamlet strikes indirectly at his enemy with a play. When Hamlet sees Fortinbras’s army, it’s an occasion for him to wonder whether he’s pursuing the right course--should he be behaving more like Fortinbras? It’s almost as if Fortinbras is Hamlet in an imagined parallel life--not a character who is given a lot of personality in his own right, but who gives Hamlet the chance to see a part of himself in action that he hasn’t allowed himself to live out. So it’s useful to ask yourself how your understanding of some other character would be different without this one.

例如，在《哈姆雷特》这部剧中，其他角色反映出了哈姆雷特性格的不同侧面，反映出了他所思考的另一种行事方式。福丁布拉王子就是这样一个角色。同哈姆雷特一样，福丁布拉的父亲也是被谋杀的，他也在筹划为父亲复仇。但是，福丁布拉的复仇方式很直接，他动用军队、果断向敌人开战，而哈姆雷特则选择通过表演一出戏剧的方式来间接克敌。当哈姆雷特看见福丁布拉的军队时，他也一度怀疑自己的做法是否正确，他是否要像福丁布拉一样呢？此时，在想象的平行世界里，哈姆雷特变成了福丁布拉，而福丁布拉不再是一个被赋予了独特个性的角色，他的存在是为了让哈姆雷特有机会看到他曾经一度压抑着的内心。所以，大家很有必要问一问自己，如果没有这个角色的衬托，你对于某一个角色的理解是否会不一样。

That brings us to a larger question about the plays’ structure: well, how all the elements of the play are put together. One element is plot. Shakespeare's plays often deploy not just one plot but two.

于是，我们可以提出有关戏剧结构的一个更宏大的问题，那就是，戏剧的所有元素是被如何组合在一起的？其中有一个元素就是情节。很多时候，莎剧情节的发展不是单线的，而是由双线的。

Emma Smith: So lots of Shakespeare plays have what's called a double plot that I have a plot and a subplot. And that's one really basic way to look. How do those interact? What usually happens is that they're being alternated at the beginning and then they become intertwined.

艾玛·史密斯：所以，莎士比亚创作的很多戏剧是双线发展的，一条主线，一条副线。这是我们要关注的一个基本点，我们要关注这两条线是如何互相影响的。这两条线一般都是在一开始的时候，交替着出现，之后随着剧情的发展慢慢互相纠缠互相影响。

In King Lear, for example, both King Lear and Gloucester struggle to see the truth about their children. Thinking about their two stories together might help you see new things about each character. Similarly, you might see new things in a scene if you think about other scenes that it is contrasted with.

例如，在《李尔王》这部戏剧中，李尔王和葛罗斯特都努力想看清自己孩子们的真面目。如果你结合着看他们俩的故事的话，你也许能在这两个角色中看到新的东西。类似地，如果你在看某一场戏的时候，脑中想着与之相对应的另外几场戏，那么你也许也会有新的发现。

Emma Smith: It could be useful, really useful to think about a step back a bit from a scene and think, what does this look like? Other a lot of people on stage all yammering away together. Or is this quite a quiet scene or a domestic scene or a solo scene? And then what happens? What happens next?

艾玛·史密斯：这很管用，真的很管用，你从一幕剧中稍稍脱离出来，想一想，这是怎么一会事儿？例如舞台上有一大群人在哭泣。你可以思考一下，这是一场很安静的戏吗？还是说这一场家庭戏？又或者说这是一场独角戏？发生了什么？接下来又会发生什么？

Romeo and Juliet opens with a fight in the streets between two feuding families. Probably every actor in the company would be onstage. But then the stage clears and that’s when Romeo enters. Romeo’s quiet, intimate first scene contrasts with the gigantic brawl, just as his love for Juliet will contrast with their families’ mutual hatred.

《罗密欧与朱丽叶》这部剧的开场就是两个敌对家庭的一次街头打斗。这场戏非常热闹，剧团的每个演员说不定都要上台演出。之后，舞台清场，罗密欧走上舞台。罗密欧的初次登场安宁又平静，和刚才喧闹的打斗形成了鲜明对比，这种对比就像是他对朱丽叶的爱和他们两个家族之间的仇恨一样，形成了巨大的反差。

Famously, Romeo’s love affair with Juliet goes awry because she takes a potion that makes her appear dead. The plan is that Juliet will wake in her family tomb and run away with Romeo. We the audience know the plan--but tragically, Romeo does not. When Romeo sees Juliet and believes that she really is dead, we get a wrenching moment of dramatic irony.

我们都知道，罗密欧与朱丽叶的爱最终是以悲剧告终的。因为，朱丽叶喝下了让她假死的药水，按照她的计划，她将在家族的墓中醒来，然后再与罗密欧私奔。作为观众，我们很清楚这个计划，但很不幸的是，罗密欧并不知道，所以，当罗密欧看到朱丽叶时，就以为她真的已经死去了，那一刻，我们深切感受到了戏剧性反讽的悲怆。

Emma Smith: Often we talk about Shakespeare using dramatic irony, and that's the technique by which audiences know no more than the characters. So , we've been talking about how Shakespeare might be difficult, but one way in which Shakespeare is really easy is it does tell us what we need to know. We don't tend to need to work it out in plot terms. So whereas some of his contemporary writers might do a big reveal, a big kind of wow kind of moment. I didn't see that coming at the end. Shakespeare almost never does that.

艾玛·史密斯：我们常说，莎士比亚运用戏剧性反讽，这是他的一种技巧，指的是关于剧情，观众们了解的情况和剧中角色一样多。所以我们会说莎剧很不好懂，但是换个角度看，莎剧真的不难，因为他告诉了我们那些我们需要知道的内容，我们不需要根据剧情来进行推测。但莎士比亚同时期的其他作家也许会在他们的戏剧里来个大揭秘，让我们突然之间恍然大悟。但在莎剧中，到结尾都不会有这样的情况，莎士比亚从不这么做。

We often think of the ending as the key to the story, the most suspenseful or dramatic moment. But in Shakespeare, that moment tends to come somewhere else.

我们总认为结尾是故事的关键，是最具悬念或最戏剧化的时刻。但在莎剧中，这样的时刻往往并不出现在戏剧的结尾处。

Emma Smith: One thing about the way play’s structure, which I found interesting, is to think about what happens in the middle. So we tend to focus quite a lot on what happens at the end. And, you know, clearly, if we're going towards weddings, we're in a comedy or for going towards death, we're in a tragedy and that seems definitive. But quite often the very middle of the plays or the middle of at three is a really important scene, a really important encounter or really important piece of plot, that sort of seesaws the play into the kind of conclusion that it's going to have.

艾玛·史密斯：我觉得关于这些戏剧的结构很有趣的一点是，我们要关注在戏剧的中间部分发生了什么。我们习惯于关注戏剧的结尾。大家都知道，很清楚地，如果在结尾我们看到了婚礼场景，那这就是喜剧；如果看到的是死亡、战争这类的场景，那这就是在悲剧。这似乎已经是定律了。但很多时候，戏剧的中间，或者三部曲的中间一部才是真正重要的地方，一次关键性的冲突，或者是一个关键情节，诸如此类的内容，将最终决定故事的发展和走向。

When you’re reading a play by Shakespeare, look for a climactic scene right around the middle. This is a dramatic moment of action that serves as a point of no return. Until now, we might have been able to imagine different ways the action could unfold. But here, some significant choice is made, and the play’s future course is set.

所以，当你在读莎剧的时候，要在戏剧的中间部分去寻找故事的高潮场面。这个高潮场面最终决定了故事的走向。在读到这个场景之前，我们都还可以设想故事不同的展开方式。但是一旦读到了这里，主人公会做出一些关键性决定，故事的脉络也最终定型。

This climactic moment often helps determine another key part of the play’s structure: its genre. Genre refers to the type of story we’re watching. In Shakespeare’s plays, the basic genres are history, tragedy, and comedy.

这个高潮场面往往还决定了戏剧结构的另一个关键性因素，这个因素就是戏剧的流派。戏剧流派指的是我们所阅读的戏剧的类型。莎剧的基本流派分为历史剧、悲剧和喜剧。

Emma Smith: I think the generic labels in the Folio are actually quite simple. If things are getting better and people are getting married at the end, it's a comedy. If things are getting worse and they're dead at the end, it's a tragedy. If it's based on English Chronicle sources, it's a history

艾玛·史密斯：我觉得第一对开本中的戏剧流派分类其实是很简单的。如果事情朝着好的方向发展，剧中角色最终结婚了，那这就是一部喜剧。如果事态不断恶化，在剧末，很多角色都死了，那这就是一部悲剧。如果戏剧取材于英国历史的话，那这就是一部历史剧。

Emma Smith: Question of genre affects how we appreciate a play, I guess. It shapes what we expect and our expectations are. One of the ways we find a play enjoyable, comfortable, uncomfortable… But I don’t think the genre of Shakespeare is fixed, I think almost all the players have elements of mixed genre elements.

艾玛·史密斯：戏剧流派的划分问题，影响着我们对戏剧的欣赏。它决定了我们的期待和预期。其中一点就在于，这样的话，我们在一部戏剧中感受到的是快乐，还是舒服，又或者是不舒服，就都被固化了。但我觉得，几乎每一部戏剧，其实混合了各个流派要素。

Emma Smith: So I think looking at the ways, particularly tragedy and comedy are in tension, are really interesting … But in lots of ways, you know, we can have very similar encounters in both comedy and tragedy.

艾玛·史密斯：所以我认为关注戏剧中展现的冲突方式是很有趣的，尤其是悲剧和喜剧的冲突方式。但是，很多时候，我们会发现在喜剧和悲剧中，其实有一些十分类似的冲突。

Genre in Shakespeare is complex. His tragedies often include elements of comedy and vice versa-- we can find a marriage in a tragedy, or a death in a comedy. So as you’re watching, think about which characters and plotlines seem to be driving the play towards a comic or a tragic conclusion. At which point does the genre become clear? For how long does it seem like the story could still go either way?

莎剧的流派其实很复杂。他的悲剧会包含一些喜剧元素，喜剧也会包含一些悲剧的元素。悲剧中，会有婚姻；喜剧中，也会有死亡。所以，在看剧的时候，可以思考一下是哪些角色或线索在推动着故事的喜剧或悲剧结局。戏剧流派类型是在哪个节点变得明确的？故事流派仍未明确的情况会持续多久？

Of course, even at the play’s conclusion, there might still be elements that seem like they could go “either way”. Their meaning isn’t fully determined. These are elements we have to interpret. When a man proposes to a woman at the end of a play and she is silent, do we interpret her silence as consent or refusal? Or simply confusion? There are many important questions like that, which the plays themselves don’t answer. Where we do find answers is in performance. But what a performance gives is not the answer. It’s an answer. And there can be as many answers to the questions in Shakespeare’s plays as there are thoughtful performances.

当然，即便故事到了结尾，有些情节似乎也还是可能朝着悲剧或喜剧的“任一方向”发展。这些情节的意义依旧不明确，我们还需要对它们做一定的解读。在故事的结尾，一位男子向一位为女子求婚，但是女子却沉默没有说话，此时，我们该如何解读她的沉默呢？她是答应了还是拒绝了呢？还是说连她自己也不确定？有很多这样问题，我们在剧中找不到答案，只能通过演员的表演来寻求解答。但是一场演出给到的并不是那个唯一确定的答案，那只不过是一种可能性罢了。从这么多有着深刻思考的演出中，我们就可以看出对于莎剧中这些问题的解答真的是多种多样的。

Emma Smith: One of the things I think I love about Shakespearian performance is the way actors and directors. Can bring out things that you hadn't noticed or things you haven't thought were important or just things that hadn't registered before.

艾玛·史密斯：我觉得，我爱莎剧演出的一个原因还在于演员和导演。他们可以展现出那些你从未注意过、从未想过的重要内容，或者是那些之前从未表现过的东西。

And I think once you watch the couple, once you watch the couple, you can see that there isn't going to be a right or a perfect or a complete version of the play. There are going to be different interpretations which bring out different things and want to make different kinds of statements. It's as if the script of the play has a whole load of potential plays within it. .

我觉得，如果你去看过几次演出，或者说一旦你看过好几场演出的话，你就会发现，没有哪一次的演出会是最恰当、最完美、最完整的。不同的解读会呈现出不同的内容，会想要表达出不同的声音。就好像戏剧文本包含了一大堆潜在的戏剧内容一样。

This might seem like an unsettling thought. Do these urgent questions really have no definite answer? But this open quality of the plays--the way that each script contains lots of different potential plays--is one of the reasons why reading Shakespeare is so rewarding. There’s no single right interpretation because there’s no single easy answer to the questions the plays ask. What’s the best way to pursue political change? What makes a good ruler? What makes a good marriage? Through new readings and performances, we rehearse different answers, different versions of the story, so we can add our own insights to what the plays have to share.

这个想法也许会令人感到困扰。一些紧要问题真的就没有明确的答案了吗？但是我们要知道，每个文本都包含了许多不同的潜在剧情，正是这样一种不确定的开放性使得阅读莎士比亚能让我们获益匪浅。对于戏剧中的问题，没有唯一的正确答案，因为对这些问题的回答本来就不唯一。寻求政治变革的最佳途径是什么？优秀的君主需要具备哪些品质？好的婚姻需要什么？通过不断推陈出新的阅读文本和戏剧表演，我们给出了不同的回答和不同的故事版本，所以，我们都可以往戏剧解读中，加入我们自己的见解。

Emma Smith: The one thing I do feel is that directors are not trying to give us the Shakespeare. That's not possible. They are giving us their Shakespeare.

艾玛·史密斯：我能感受到，莎剧的导演们没有试图告诉我们什么是真正的莎士比亚，因为压根就不可能。他们只是给了我们他们理解的莎士比亚。

And when you read, and wonder, and question, and interpret, when you investigate one answer and investigate another, what you’ll find is your Shakespeare. Just as Shakespearean actors and directors create something new each time they produce a version of a play, you too can create something new each time you explore one of Shakespeare’s works. And we hope that you enjoy the exploration.

在你阅读、思考、提问和解读的过程中，在你追寻一个又一个的答案的旅途里，你所找到的将是一个属于你自己的那个莎士比亚。就像莎剧的演员和导演们每次演出时，都能呈现新的内容一样，你也可以在每一次对莎士比亚作品的探索中，发现新的内容。我们希望你们可以享受这个探索过程。​