Actors and directors often say that when performing Shakespeare, all the clues they need are in the text. Here, Emma Fielding (who plays Isabella in the current production) talks to Roz Symon about Isabella's character and language as they look at Isabella's soliloquy from II.ii.171-187.

Everything here is subjective - it is not a book of rules of what to do with a monologue. Rather, it is one actor's response to a character through Isabella's only soliloquy, which begins "To whom should I complain?"


Shakespeare's characters don't think then speak. Their speeches are not premeditated - they're all in the moment. The first question I would ask is, "what provokes Isabella to speak 17 lines of unbroken text?" The answer lies in the preceding speech. Angelo has just told Isabella that his reputation is such that he can do as he pleases and no one will believe her accusations against him. Isabella's soliloquy arises out of heat. Heat is what drives her along and gives her energy as she tries to find a solution to an impossible situation. Speaking to the audience is the only way she can let the steam out of the kettle. If she didn't have this soliloquy, I think she might lose her mind. Instead she talks to the audience and lets the audience in.


Speeches in Shakespeare's plays are almost like the sonnets, in that they're divided into three parts:

an opening statement

an exposition

a conclusion


From 'To whom should I complain' to 'Who would believe me?' [lines 171-172] Isabella is thinking out loud and she asks a question to which she does not know the answer: "To whom should I complain?" Her mind is racing. Isabella has completely trusted Angelo and pinned all her hopes on him. She has believed stories of "the austereness of his life" and suddenly everything she believes (that Angelo is good and honest and merciful) is blasted away. The energy for the speech comes out of what Angelo has just said to her and it drives the speech along.


At the beginning of the speech Isabella doesn't know what to do, a fact born out by the rhythm: "who would believe me?" In Shakespeare's plays (as in other plays), questions are always questions - they're never rhetorical. The director Declan Donnellan taught me to imagine that every question or statement is a conversation with the audience. It's as though at the beginning of this speech the audience has said "COMPLAIN TO SOMEONE!!" and Isabella responds. It immediately becomes a debate. It's interesting to note that the first two sentences of this speech are questions.


Measure for Measure is a play about the abuse of power. Isabella finds herself in a situation many children find themselves in when someone does something terrible to them. They're told: "Don't tell anyone - don't tell tales". Because she's a woman and because of his reputation, Angelo convinces her that no one will believe her if she complains. It's horrendous that people can say one thing and be seen to be pure and yet be something completely different and make the law do what they want it to do. That's what Isabella's up against.


From 'O perilous mouths…' to '…To such abhorred pollution' [lines 172-183] Isabella's opening statements were questions. In the exposition, she reflects on what she has just witnessed and decides on a course of action - "I'll to my brother".


I found it helpful to ask also "What heckle would make you say that?" It is as though the audience has been heckling her and asking "Well, what are you going to do?" and Isabella answers "I'll to my brother". She's trying to find a solution to an impossible situation. The only option she has is to go and see her brother. He's the only person who can help her, the only person she can talk to. She is sure that he will prevent her from having to do the thing she 'abhorrs', the thing she can't even bear to name. And although he is in prison for doing precisely what Angelo's suggesting, Isabella says: "Though he hath fall'n by prompture of the blood, Yet hath he in him such a mind of honour…" She believes that Claudio will act honourably.


From 'Then, Isabel, live chaste…' to '…for his soul's rest' [lines 184-187] Shakespeare's characters are never in the same place at the end of a soliloquy as they were when they began speaking. At the beginning of this speech, Isabella just doesn't know what to do. She has, in a sense, been 'raped' by Angelo - in a sense, it's a mental rape, which is terrifying. Angelo wants total control over her and to absolve himself of any guilt or blame by insisting that she come willing to him rather than he force himself on her. But by the end of the soliloquy, I think Isabella is very calm. She has resolved on a course of action. So the conclusion is that she convinces herself that Claudio has "such a mind of honour" that he will do anything for her - he will agree to die and allow her to live chaste. There's a sense of calm, of peace at the end.


It's good to remember that the plays were written to be heard, rather than read and dissected. So I always start by saying the words out loud. I read a speech over and over and form the words in my mouth. I use a Cicely Berry exercise: I go through a speech, taking out all the consonants and I listen to what I'm left with. The placement of the vowels can give you an emotional lead in to both the speech and character. I read the speech again and again, listening out for vowel sounds and the length of the vowels and asking "are they choppy? short? long? expansive?" and so forth. There are lots of 'o's and expansive vowel sounds in the first two lines of this speech. You need to ask what effect that has on the listener. I also try to hear the rhythms and listen out for any hard or explosive consonants - for example ''That, had he twenty heads to tender down/ On twenty bloody blocks." Again, ask what effect does this have?


There are so many ways in to a speech. I always try to find an emotional line through a speech and then I check to see if it is confirmed when I apply a set of rules to it. For example, I might check to see if the verse is regular or not. All the rules denote some kind of shift - a change of mood or thought or emotional temperature, for example. It's up to you to decide what each change signifies.


The only punctuation that I try to take notice of are full stops and question marks. Commas are to a great extent an editor's choice.


The director and academic John Barton taught me that any exclamations - "O", "alas", "ha" etc. - are emotional expressions, an intake of breath or an exhalation driven by emotion. They are not words so much as sounds or noises.


Antithesis means the contrasting of two ideas by using words of opposite meaning in consecutive clauses or phrases. An exercise I've done with John Barton is to read a speech from one of Shakespeare's plays without any emotion, just hitting the antitheses. It really helps to illuminate the speech and helps to clarify the main thrust of the speech - where the thought is and where the emphasis should go.


Antitheses help you to understand what you're saying. They drive the speech along. This play as a whole is full of antitheses and so is Isabella's speech. She talks of Condemnation/approof; Right/wrong; Live/die; Mind/soul; prompture of the blood/mind of honour; tender down/yield up; yield up/stoop. Isabella at the start of the play is torn - she is between two worlds. She hasn't yet taken her vows. Indeed, she isn't even a novice, a fact we reflect in this production in the way I dress.


In rehearsal, the director Sean Holmes talked a lot about what he calls "Capital Letter Words" - key words in the play. Shame, honour and reputation are key words in this play. Isabella uses 'abhorrs/abhorred' so many times, which to a contemporary audience more attuned to listening to plays would have resonated and echoed the word 'whore'.


There's an extraordinary passage in this speech which runs from "Though he hath fall'n…." to "abhorred pollution." It is all one sentence. Six lines, without a full stop - six lines all one breath, the words just tumbling out! Here Isabella is convincing herself and the audience of what Claudio is like. Even though he lives a life Isabella abhors, he knows about right and wrong. He's not like Angelo whom Isabella has trusted. She convinces herself that Claudio will understand and all will be well.



Actors and directors often say that when performing Shakespeare, all the clues they need are in the text. Here, Daniel Evans (who plays Angelo in the current production) explores Angelo’s character and language through his soliloquy from II.ii.162-187.


One of the first things I do is look at the structure of a speech. They say that every monologue, every soliloquy has three parts:

The opening premise or problem or statement, in which the argument is set up. This runs from 'What’s this? What’s this?' to 'Ha!' [lines 162-164]. Angelo knows that something is going on and asks himself what it is.

The exposition or exploration of the argument, here that would be from 'Not she', to 'What is’t I dream on' [lines 165-179]. Then Angelo starts working it out. He says, 'Well, it’s not her, she’s not actually tempting me.' And suddenly he realises with horror that he is the problem, that it’s him, he’s doing this.

The conclusion, which runs from 'O cunning enemy', to 'I smiled and wondered how' [lines 180-187]. Angelo’s thought process switches again and he concludes that Isabella is the devil ('O cunning enemy'), or rather, that Isabella is on the devil’s hook - she has the devil in her. He transfers his guilt and blames her. This is an unusual soliloquy in that the conclusion is not conclusive. He says that Isabella, 'this virtuous maid, / Subdues me quite'. He realises that he is completely overcome. But it doesn’t end there. He ends almost in defiance of his conclusion, in a state of bewilderment, 'Ever till now, / When men were fond, I smiled and wondered how.' Until this point, he didn’t understand how or why men doted over women or lusted after them with their tongues out. Now all that has changed and he finds he’s vulnerable.


The most amazing thing is that there are ten questions (eleven in some editions) in this speech. Angelo is asking one question after another. Where does he hope to find the answers? That begs the questions, 'What is a soliloquy?' Personally, I am asking the audience for answers. The extraordinary thing about it is that Angelo is not normally a man who asks questions - usually he holds the answers. But Angelo has never been in a situation like this before - he doesn’t know what’s happening to him. So he suddenly starts asking all these questions, which he hopes the audience can answer. He hopes the audience can help him to understand what’s going on.


The first two questions, 'What’s this? What’s this?' could mean so many things. Isabella thought Angelo was one thing and suddenly he’s not. Suddenly he has to admit to himself that he’s like every other man. Before he thought that he was not like the rest. He thought that he was different, set apart. In his next soliloquy he talks about blood – 'Blood, thou art blood', he says (IIiv.15). He has to acknowledge that his blood is like other men’s - that he’s got blood running through him, just like any other man. Before, I think he thought that his blood was purer, that he was a super being. Now he has to admit that he’s mortal and that he has senses like other men, a fact I think he’s always denied in the past. When he meets Isabella, he is being turned on by a woman for the first time.


The speech is built on antithesis, which just means that one thing is set against another. Antitheses really help you make the speech clear to the audience by giving it a structure and driving the argument along by pointing out what opposites are. The language can seem packed and crammed and unclear. We do it all the time in life, contrast one thing with another. For example we might say 'Oh, yesterday I was feeling awful, but today I’m feeling fine', there are two antitheses: ‘yesterday’ and ‘today’; ‘awful’ and ‘fine’. Angelo asks, is this her fault, or mine? He wants to know if he is the tempter or the tempted?

The abundant antitheses in this monologue indicate, I think, what’s going on inside Angelo. There’s this pull. There is a stark contrast between good and bad – he’s asking, Is she good? Or am I? Is she bad? Or is it me? I’m playing Angelo younger than he’s usually played and I see him as someone who perceives things as absolutes – things are either black or white. Children and young fanatics see things as being very clear cut – it’s either right or wrong; like this or like that; it exists or it doesn’t exist. There’s no maybe. Throughout there are the contrasts of saints and devils, of raising up and putting down. Angelo asks himself whether he desires Isabella precisely for all the reasons that make her good. If so, he has to let her brother live because he wants to commit an act (i.e. have sex outside marriage) for which he himself has reintroduced the death penalty.


The speech is full of sexual double entendres and extraordinary imagery. The sanctuary is Isabella. The waste ground is the whores who fill Vienna. There are enough whores around, he reasons – why do I want to destroy this sanctuary? Why do I want to contaminate this, the purest of places? He talks of 'pitching his evils' there, which of course has a sexual meaning too. Angelo plays on the word ‘sense’ which also means sensuality – he says “She speaks, an ‘tis/Such sense that my sense breeds with it.” (II.ii.141-2). He allows his mind to go to extraordinary places, he uses amazing images, of violets and carrion and rotting flesh corrupted with virtuous season – and then he asks, 'What dost thou? or what art thou, Angelo?' He talks of feasting on her eyes - a repellent image of preying on something, which ties back to the carrion image and devouring things in a predatory way. I get an image of Angelo picking her eyes out and feasting on them.


I was taught by Patsy Rodenburg when I was at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama. She’s extraordinarily wonderful and helped me to make Shakespeare’s language visceral, to make it a physical activity. There’s a great exercise she has that I particularly like in which you take an image and you visualize it – for example, an image like the carrion. She encourages you to wait for imagery until you can connect to it. You lie down on the floor and you don’t speak a word until you absolutely see and know it. If you say it and it doesn’t quite sound in you, you continue to wait. While images for some words may come easily, it can take a while with other words to get a really good image. But once you’ve got it, that image stays with you and when you call up the image in the soliloquy, it comes to you.


I think the religion in Measure for Measure is definitely Catholic. Angelo is a Catholic. The language in Angelo’s second scene with Isabella, when they argue on a theoretical religious level, is full of the language of Catholicism – they talk about charity and sin and justice and mercy. In Catholicism there are three parts, if you like, to committing a mortal sin:

1. You have to have the thought

2. You have to be in your full consent, that is, in your right mind

3. You have to do the deed

Angelo has the thought, which is why he’s tempted; he is in his full consent, meaning he’s in his right mind – in his next soliloquy he talks about 'the evil of my conception' which swells in his heart (II.iv.6-7) which means he has accepted the evil of what he is going to do. Later, of course, he thinks he has actually done the deed, though in fact it is Mariana and not Isabella he sleeps with.