A complete survey of six major productions is hardly possible in a short article. What therefore I shall try to do is to pick out some leading ideas and broad comparisons which these productions, when considered together, have suggested and which may have wider implications. But I ought first to establish just what is my own standpoint in viewing a production of Shakespeare and what are the criteria that I find applicable in its appreciation. Our opinions of these performances may well differ and it is as well to know in advance whether such differences arise because of the variations of individual judgement or because we start from quite different premisses.

I will, then, briefly set out my criteria under two main heads. My first axiom is, I am glad to think, a totally obvious and accepted one, though this certainly was not so even fifteen years ago. It is that Shakespeare wrote for the theatre, and except in the theatre his work cannot be fully appreciated but must remain as it were two-dimensional, lacking the visual pointing, the human resonance, and the general heightening of attention that only live performance can create. I am satisfied, moreover, that Shakespeare was a highly professional and experienced writer for the theatre, who knew just what effects he wanted to achieve in stage terms and how to achieve them. Indeed, it is salutary to remember how very closely his plays were bound up with a particular theatre and a particular company. They were expressly written for what can be described as a permanent repertory company.