How then can we simply dismiss the content of the finally printed copies as “…preferences of scribes and print shop compositors…”, as stated by Craig above? Yes, they ‘corrected mistakes’ or figured out illegible penmanship. Did they change it ALL? That would have taken them far longer than it did, presupposes all of them to be singularly opinionated Draconian Grammarians, and might have raised just a little of the ire of Heminge and Condell upon their viewing the results of such horrendous cheek on the part of such assumptive hired hands.

Barton, in sync with the many instructors and directors of the RSC, would also insist upon paying close attention to many facets of punctuation, one example being mid-line endings (caesuras) even if the ‘acting’ decision is to ultimately ignore them in certain instances. In other words, first, attend to the ’suggestion’ of the punctuation. Paying no attention at all at the outset is a killer of inspiration, even when the source of that inspiration might be instigated by contrariness; i.e.,the punctuation is a help even when we consider it ‘wrong’–at the time–FOR US. And remember that John Barton has the expertise of an inspired and free-wheeling jazz artist—after having obtained his Masters in Classical Music from Julliard.
Peter Hall insists upon the need for a copy of the Folio for the purpose of better understanding Shakespeare’s Form; his way of structuring verse that, if one looks closely enough, is patently evident in everything he wrote, and has a great deal to do with punctuation, to say the least.
________________________________________________
Craig wrote: “An alternative approach: what if we stripped out all the punctuation and all the capitals from a script, and then wrote our own–becoming, as it were, editors of our own edition of Shakespeare?”
__________________________________________________
Judging from the rest of what you wrote, you’d probably come up with a better version than many sold in the bookshops today. But it would be just as much of a knee-jerk reaction in the opposite direction from those who would ‘normalize’ aspects of the work in attempts to make it follow strict rules of poesy. Contrary to popular belief, the way Shakespeare’s text becomes more ‘like normal’ speech is by paying close attention to the structure of the verse—importantly informed by punctuation in places where you might not expect to find it and vice versa; not in anarchical attempts to make it sound more like everyday speech. Shakespeare’s ‘everyday speaking’ is heightened to such extent that to ignore what we have extant of its structure in print—even if they are approximations—is to seriously undermine our ability to completely digest what we must soon regurgitate with some sense of the faceting in his Form. Shakespeare constantly cut against the grain of the iamb and the pentameter line. But he did it while having complete control over and respect for the discipline he was simultaneously circumventing. Therein lay his genius and the at-once Promethean magnitude of Beauty and Heightened Reality he was able to create in his lines.
_____________________________________________________
A.K.Farrar wrote: Our attitude to punctuation comes from a massive and unreasonable respect for the printed page -Shakespeare (if he didn’t want his works read) didn’t want punctuation at all!
_There are no rules of grammar – grammar describes not prescribes … all those ‘rules’ were attempts to regulate the unregulatable.
_______________________________________________________
I totally agree with the first part. The academicians, unfortunately, have dictated to us all what it was Shakespeare was doing. And one of the foremost and effective ways they did it was in the re-structuring of the verse through changing the punctuation. But to insist so strongly that there is a way to speak aloud any form of the printed word without some form of structure to govern and inform how a sentence might sound is stretching it a bit too far in my opinion. Every day we speak and don’t write it down, yet there are pauses and stops, exclamations, lilts, drops of the voice, etc.–unwritten punctuation marks.

Just as in music—without the variations of rests and stops used to adhere to the time signature and to inform the rhythm, there is no tempo; there is only cacophonous droning. But even in the wildest departures of jazz, there is always the undercurrent of something completely musically ordered.

As to whether or not grammar is simply descriptive…OR possibly descriptive…and prescriptive:

Consider the play within the play in AMND. This masterpiece of badly punctuated drivel—not just the piece that follows, but the whole ‘play’ of bad acting– shows how much Shakespeare was concerned with the uses and observances of punctuation when it came to acting. The entire piece is filled with overdone emotion, forced declamation, and excessive and repetitious pauses, brought about by Shakespeare’s intentional misuse of the tools.

At the end of the speech Shakespeare clearly puts his extended commentary on punctuation into the mouths of not one, but three characters. From the First Folio:

Enter the Prologue. Quince.

Pro. If we offend, it is with our good will.
That you should thinke, we come not to offend,
But with good will. To shew our simple skill,
That is the true beginning of our end.
Consider then, we come but in despight.
We do not come, as minding to content you,
Our true intent is. All for your delight,
We are not heere. That you should here repent you,
The Actors are at hand; and by their show,
You shall know all, that you are like to know.

Thes. This fellow doth not stand vpon points

Lys. He hath rid his Prologue, like a rough Colt: he
knowes not the stop. A good morall my Lord. It is not
enough to speake, but to speake true.

Hip. Indeed hee hath plaid on his Prologue, like a
childe on a Recorder, a sound, but not in gouernment.

Thes. His speech was like a tangled chaine: nothing
impaired, but all disordered. Who is next?

Prologue spoke not very “trippingly on the tongue.” But contrary to the on stage spectators’ beliefs, Quince strictly adhered to the punctuation—badly employed by Shakespeare, the “hack dramatic poet”.
Ergo, grammar can and does indeed prescribe. Just ask Shakespeare how to “Speake the Speech”–he’ll tell you.

–“unregulatable”?–I think not. (by the way, is that a word?…’unregulatable’) I like it.

Strangely enough,editors of the various emended editions available since 1623 have found, almost without exception, a need to…’reregulate’? the Folio punctuation somewhere within this Prologue.

The punctuation is one of many issues I have with the strictly literary set.
“I pray [they] marre no moe of [his] verses with [editing] them ill-favouredly.”

While it’s probably true that he didn’t write the plays to be read, he was very much concerned with punctuation when it came to informing his actors on what he had ‘heard’ in the lines he had written, as they danced ‘trippingly in his brain’. The Folio and some of the Quartos are all we have when it comes to learning the steps of that dance. “Gold standard”?–maybe not. But whatever I’ve been called upon to do when it comes to Shakespeare—and I’ve been involved on a professional level in acting, teaching, directing, editing, dramaturgy, coaching, consulting—and even a little writing–they’re the standards worth their weight in something shiny—and I always reach for them first.
Accept no substitutes. Don’t leave home without ‘em.

On your run on sentence – do I see Question marks? Is there not a full-stop at the bottom?

Our attitude to punctuation comes from a massive and unreasonable respect for the printed page – Shakespeare (if he didn’t want his works read) didn’t want punctuation at all!

Spelin reflexted sownd – so speek as writ – ex-actly as writ

I think eecummings got that bit right.

Editing your own version is a great thing to do if it helps. It’s all about what works for each person, we all have our preferences… I’m still trying new things.

Also anything John Barton says is gold. Use it all!

Same time, I know how easy it is to “get lost” in a big block of Shakespeare, and your guidance is really valuable to an actor in controlling level, pacing, emphasis and variety. I’ve given similar advice, and used it myself. I just don’t think that the Folio is necessarily our “gold standard” for any of this stuff.

An alternative approach: what if we stripped out all the punctuation and all the capitals from a script, and then wrote our own–becoming, as it were, editors of our own edition of Shakespeare? First thing I’d do is capitalize the antithetical word pairs, agreeing with John Barton that antithesis is the key to understanding Shakespeare. Then look for strong, vivid nouns and verbs, especially ones lending themselves to onomatopoeia.

Of course, this is the system Christopher Walken says he uses with a script, so maybe we don’t want everybody acting that way!