Shakespeare Day 2021#worldshakespeareday

I can't believe a year has gone by. Most of it spent in lockdown. Not that I've particularly noticed because I've been doing things I love. In that sense, it's been a good year for me. Indeed, I haven't come out of lockdown yet because I haven't finished everything I'd like to do before I re-emerge. But maybe that's a tall order! There are things I should have done but I haven't. But they were the less nice things to do.

So, to Shakespeare. Last year, I recorded a soliloquy from Troilus and Cressida. It's the first post on here. This year, I want to turn to Shakespeare's Sonnets. Sonnet 116 to be exact. It's my favourite sonnet. Its about the power of love. There are various theories about who these sonnets were written for, and whether they were for a man or woman. 

The first large group of sonnets, 1-126 were written to a young, well- heeled man. Or various men? 🤔 Interestingly enough, it's the young man who holds the powerful position in the relationship. Not as many usually assume, the older one. Shakespeare has immortalized the young man by writing these sonnets which we are still reading today. Only two Elizabethan poets wrote gay sonnets. Shakespeare and Barnfield, the latter who was more forthright and explicit in his poems. Indeed, Richard Barnfield wrote in the style of Ancient Greek poets which, like his, could be homoerotic. 🌈 

Sonnets are an art form which require skill which is why I haven't written one. The unique aspect of his sonnets compared with his plays, is that Shakespeare is speaking as himself, not through characters. Nevertheless, this doesn't mean that a sonnet doesn't have the same dramatic quality as a soliloquy. We get a sense of a plot running throughout the sonnets 1-126. There's a development from the first sonnet which starts off adoringly seeing the youth as an Adonis who he wishes to keep for eternity but then in later sonnets it goes a bit pear-shaped once people interfere with their relationship, and, one in particular, is trying to make Shakespeare jealous that he's the one the youth loves and favours. This upsets Shakespeare who then has an affair with a woman and then wishes he hadn't. He yearns for the youth. The last sonnet in the series to this young man, 126, is 2 lines short of a sonnet which could be symbolic. Why is this sonnet 12 lines long instead of the usual 14? Did Shakespeare leave out the last 2 lines because it was too painful to continue, or did he want the youth to work things out for himself, or did he want the reader/listener to use their imagination and finish the plot themselves or were the last 2 lines censored? 🤔 I feel that there has never been a satisfactory thesis about the missing 2 lines.

Be that as it may, my interest doesn't lie in the plot itself but merely in Sonnet 116 which speaks of the strength of love. The sonnet starts with a reference to marriage in line 1. First reference ever to gay marriage? Quite possibly. In line 2 the word 'impediments' refers to words uttered in the marriage ceremony. (I've never understood that. There's been plenty of time beforehand to speak up. This only occurs in the Christian Common Prayer Book.) The sonnet continues with the idea that love doesn't change with time. It remains eternal irrespective of situation or circumstance 'it is an ever-fixed mark'. It goes through 'tempests' but despite difficult times it stays constant 'and is never shaken'. Love is like a guiding star 🌟that helps you navigate through life. It stays faithful, not tempted by 'rosy lips and cheeks'. No matter how dark the times, love stays true to The One, the soulmate, forever. The last 2 lines confirm all he has said in the previous 12 lines. 'If this be error......' then I haven't written anything and I've never loved a man. And since we know Shakespeare did write and did love, we know what he says in this sonnet about love is true. 

I think this sonnet would make a great wedding poem today. 

Conflict in Plays: When Theatre Meets Science

Following on from World Theatre Day yesterday, I found this article while rummaging through my stack of old newspapers today to use as a background for my Picasso meets Street Art creation for #sothebyssundaysketch. You can read the online version here:

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/jul/26/mosquitoes-review-lucy-kirkwood-olivia-colman-olivia-williams

Lucy Kirkwood's play 'Mosquitoes' is about theatre meets science. I find science endlessly fascinating and having studied Marlowe's Dr Faustus, it's right up my street. Each character represents a main idea in the play. This relates back to my previous post where I mention that most plays are about conflict. In this play, the conflict is mainly between two sisters : Alice, who is a scientist (physicist) and Jenny, who becomes anti-science after her daughter dies. Ironically, Jenny works as a saleswoman for medical insurance. In addition, Alice's son (Luke) is an environmentalist, which creates conflict with his mother because he thinks her job is detrimental to the environment. Jenny looks after their mother, who, like Alice, was a talented scientist, but now suffers from dementia. The sisters also experience inner conflict. 

The conflict between science and morality is also brought out through the sisters' attitudes: Alice the scientist is portrayed as feeling superior  to her sister because she is carried away with her own self-importance as a top scientist working on an important project (Hadron Collider experiment). The contrasts between the sister's lives is also depicted through their locations: Alice lives in Geneva in Switzerland while Jenny lives in Luton, UK. Although they are siblings who grew up together, their lives have become disparate economically, class-wise, status-wise, as well as in their lifestyle. Alice has a high power career, Jenny's life is taken up with being a carer for their mother. This exacerbates the conflict between them. Yet they are not as disparate as it appears on the surface. As Billington puts it, they are "complementary emotionally" even though they are "uncomplimentary verbally". 

The bottom line of this play is to explore the moral obligations of the scientist who can, like Alice, live in an ivory tower of science and become too disconnected with society and people in general. This is a common worry where scientists are concerned. If you read some science articles, you can very quickly lose the thread because they can be so over-specialised and technical, that they become un-understandable. This is why I was  motivated to become a science writer. I undertook a course run by Leeds University on  'science writing' which explained the need for non-science specialists to write science articles and blog posts which make complex science papers and concepts accessible for the general public to read and understand. 

There are other complex issues within this play, all revolving around various ethical aspects of science, as well as the problem of discrimination against women scientists. Although Kirkwood deals with a broad amount of issues, they all have a narrow focus on the ethical obligations of scientists towards the general public. 

Plays are not just about the playwriting and the acting but also about all the other people who work in the theatre who help to make the production come alive and have a key role in creating the live theatre experience for an audience. Billington mentions the way the producer (Rufus Norris) makes everything hang together and who praises the visual effects, lighting and sound technicians for engaging the audience's emotions. It's easy to take these technical effects for granted but without them, a script and plot could fall flat, no matter how brilliant the acting. For instance, Billington highlights how "Paule Constable's lighting and Paul Arditti's sound design" create a sense of "momentousness of the Geneva experiments". He also found Katrina Lindsey's circular discs "visually impressive". This shows the importance of the teamwork that goes into any theatre production. Although seen as technical jobs, they are, nevertheless, more creative than they are perceived to be. 

So when going to the theatre, one needs to appreciate how every part of the whole production is individually and collectively equally important, from stage setting to costume design to technical work to acting (including understudy actors) to directing, and, of course. not forgetting the playwright, without whom we wouldn't have a play to stage! 🎭💖

The audience too are essential to any stage performance. They play their part in the energy, ambience and emotional journey of the play 👏👏👏👏. Just as tennis players spark off from the responses of the spectators, so actors spark off from the responses of their audience, which is why no two performances are the same. As I mentioned in my previous post, actors stick to scripts more than they did in the Elizabethan times when actors interacted with audiences directly and improvised. However, a live audience these days also interacts with the actors with their emotional responses to the events unfolding on stage and the characters' progression; how they deal with their problems; their dilemmas; the way the characters express themselves; their mannerisms; their interaction with others; and their general outlook on life. 

Once the theatres are open again, I recommend you forego your pint or two at the pub and go and see a play and just soak up the atmosphere! 🙂😍 🎭😂😥😯😱😭😟🙂💖💗

#worldtheatreday

World Theatre Day is about the value of theatre in our lives and culture. I was very surprised to hear that some people, over the past year, thought that going to the theatre was a luxury we can live without. It may be a costly activity (unlike during Elizabethan times) but it is, nonetheless, an experience that cannot be replaced by anything else. Watching a DVD on Shakespeare's The Tempest pales in comparison to a stage production seen live. In the theatre, you are mesmerized by what is happening on stage. When watching a DVD, you can find your concentration wandering about as you think of those crisps you've been meaning to snack on or remembering you meant to take the dog for a walk and now he's become a nuisance you'll have to hit pause and go to the park. 

At the theatre, you're in the moment, experiencing what's going on. You learn about life's problems and issues and how these characters have dealt with them. Theatre makes you think. You are not just a passive onlooker. You interact with the actors on stage even if only internally. Although, at an earlier stage in the history of theatre, the audience participated more vocally and the actors responded. There was less emphasis on sticking to the text. Actors were also heavily involved in writing scripts for a play by adapting it during rehearsals or live performances which included audience participation. The actors would respond to the audience's comments and thereby change the script. However, it's more common these days to stay with the script written down. That makes sense to me. I see it as a piece of music. If Elgar took the time and effort to write his Cello Concerto in a particular way then I should play it the way he wrote it. The right notes in the right order. Not change the notes as my mood takes me!

A production involves many people from manager/artistic director, designer, lighting and sound technicians to those who construct the set, costume designers and prop-makers. The type of theatre the play is going to take place in also makes a difference as to how the play will be performed, and how sound and light technicians will adapt to the challenges of a given auditorium. For instance, a small, local theatre will have different in-built problems compared with a West-End theatre. And, of course, the actors/actresses also have to adapt to the various theatres, their size and shape as well as acoustics. 

The majority of plays have a purpose to them. They revolve around what it means to be human and trying to understand the society and world we live in. Conflict often takes centre stage in most plays. Conflict within ourselves, with others and the world around us. We all want to understand what is happening in our lives and how to deal with the problems and conflicts we encounter. Theatre can teach us about people in the past and their cultures. We can gain insight into how people lived and how their relationships and society functioned. It may seem irrelevant to us now. But we haven't changed that much down the ages. Our problems are sadly not that different even if the language and customs appear so. 

Playwrights write plays. And plays are meant to be heard and seen in a theatre. They are an important genre that cannot be presented successfully in any other way. The playwright is writing a play with the view to it taking place with a live audience in a theatre. Plays are not like novels, to be read silently. Neither are they a film you watch in the cinema or at home. It's a thought provoking yet entertaining art form which has to be seen live within a theatre setting surrounded by people watching the same play but maybe experiencing it differently. Each performance is different because the audience is different. I know how an audience can influence the experience. A receptive audience that is in the zone and focused on the play understanding when to laugh or feel sad enhances the experience for all!

I love going to the theatre! The buzz before the curtain goes up, the excitement as the play begins. We are introduced to the characters as we follow them in the events as they unfold, go through a rollercoaster of emotions and come out the other end with a happy ending, feeling invigorated from the experience unique to live theatre. 🎭💖

My Approach to the Role of Cressida

I use the classical method of acting. This means that I think about how I use the whole of myself: personality, imagination, facial expressions, gestures, movement and voice to convey the character. In this instance, the character is Cressida. How I move and the gestures I make try to communicate the message and meaning of the text in my lines, as well as highlight certain emotions and the character's personality. 

I was in a confined space for the video, hence, my movement is somewhat restricted and I have to stay on the same spot. It's made me wonder if I may need to rethink where I record future videos. 

I attempt to use the tone of my voice in such a way as to make it clear when Cressida is trying to sound chilled and when she becomes more passionate and doesn't hold back and just says it like it is. I also emphasise certain words by expressing them differently to draw attention to thoughts and feelings I think are important for the character of Cressida. To express this further, I support this with accompanying gestures to add emphasis to the content of Cressida's speech. For example, raising my hand and looking up is a gesture I use in the video to signify oration and rhetoric. It's a way of Cressida showing how it can be used to command the floor.

Ideally, if I have ample time to learn my lines, I engage in a very involved acting method, a process which includes various techniques. While learning my lines off by heart, I write out the text and mark it up using symbols in the margin and underlining words in various colours as a way of analysing the text and thinking through how I want to say/express the lines, which emotions I want to project and where I want to include gestures. I also mark out any rhyming, the metre, the rhythm/beat/pace, alliteration, as well as show what the character's train of thought is and where she is constructing an argument. This helps me communicate clearly with an audience. Then I include memory techniques and triggers to recall all of this information and accelerate how fast I memorise the lines. 

During this process, I also learn a great deal about the storyline and the character's personality, desires, situation and needs at various stages throughout the play (not just at the point at which the set monologue takes place). I write out and say the lines repeatedly to completely internalize them so that I am free to focus on projecting and expressing the emotions, inner thoughts and state of the character, as if I were the character herself and as if I were speaking naturally, not reciting lines. Hence I try to embody the character, say the lines as if I were speaking somewhat off the cuff as they occur to me. I want to create a realistic feel to the character and plot, to bring out the timeless social, ethical, political and feminist themes as well as draw an audience into understanding the plot and the character I'm portraying and empathise with her when the text calls for it. In so doing, I attempt to iron out any potential self-consciousness that I am acting a part because that can produce an artificial, stilted, unexpressive, empty, over-performative, going-through-the-motions style of acting. 

Although I have planned my vocal and gestural expressions in advance, I leave room for improvisation when I record it so each performance feels fresh and natural. Although I want to create a realism about the character and plot, I choose certain key gestures in advance while marking up my lines which symbolise her desires, thoughts and internal state of mind. I feel that this combination of pre-planning, together with an openness to an element of improvised spontaneity, helps me convey the character and lines convincingly, with heightened, strong, yet real and genuinely felt emotion. At least, that's my aim. 

I rely on my imagination to help me portray the character and dilemma that Cressida finds herself in. However, I try not to overact, not just due to my acting method, but also because I'm aware that it doesn't fit the role of Cressida. She is an upper class lady, so she's unlikely to be overdramatic. She is more likely to undercook her feelings so perhaps appearing disinterested when she's not. I tried, therefore, to show this tension in my voice, body language and gestures. I have used rather modern gestures of expression, such as, putting my hair behind my ear, and lowering my head while my eyes look upwards to convey coyness and emotional vulnerability. This is because a modern audience will immediately recognize the meaning of that gesture. Upper class people tend not to express emotion unless in a private setting.  That doesn't mean they are not feeling anything but rather that they think they should appear dignified at all times. Therefore, to be too overtly spontaneous in the role wouldn't fit. It might fit other roles in other plays but not this role or play. 

The classical method's emphasis on analysing the text, I think, is enormously valuable and rather crucial. Rather like a piece of classical music, I feel the playwright has written down his vision for the play and its characters and, therefore, it's up to me to try to reveal this vision as far as possible. I don't have relevant, personal experience of the Bronze Age so the best I can do is use my imagination and empathy to both cognitively and emotionally understand Cressida and her predicament. This method of acting is not just relevant when enacting Shakespeare. It is a method that can be used for all plays/scripts.  

Troilus and Cressida: Backdrop to the play and role of Cressida

The backdrop to The tragedy of Troilus and Cressida is the Trojan war. Calchas, the father of Cressida, predicts the fall of Troy and has to escape. He joins the opposing side, the Greeks. Cressida, the niece of Lord Pandarus stays with the Trojans. So, Cressida is a member of the aristocracy, therefore, social norms of her class are even more restrictive than women of a lower class. Thus, when studying the role of Cressida this needs factoring in as does her situation. Her father has joined the enemy so she is treated less well than she would otherwise have been had her father remained with the Trojans. This insecure position makes her more dependent on her uncle who is determined that she and Troilus get together as a couple. His interference causes further complications for the two since Pandarus insists on helping Troilus court Cressida.

This is a story of courtly love since Troilus is one of the sons of Priam, the king of Troy. Meanwhile, Calchas is missing his daughter, Cressida, and wants to exchange her for a Trojan prisoner of war. Thus, Cressida has no choice but to leave the Trojans, leave Troilus, the man she fell in love with, and join her father in the Greek camp. She doesn't want to go, even strongly resists going, but with no support from anyone, even Troilus, she leaves promising to meet Troilus in 10 days. Once in the camp she realizes she can't keep her promise. Despite her father being in the camp, she again is mistreated and ends up with the determined Diomedes. Troilus goes on to see her as just Diomedes's mistress rather than a woman who he was in love with but who was placed in an impossible situation which he himself had allowed her to end up in. My question is: Did Troilus really love Cressida? To me, that should be the main question not whether Cressida loved Troilus because it's obvious she did. I think she wasn't unfaithful to Troilus because, as far as she could reason, there was no hope of being with Troilus now she had been forced into the opposing camp. The situation being rather like Romeo and Juliet except worse because the Trojans and the Greeks were at war. The tragic element is the impact of war on people's lives, not some cynical stance that romantic love inevitably ends in tragedy. 

For me, Cressida's monologue in Act 3 scene 2 is pivotal but it is also a standard audition piece which is why I also chose it. What drew me to this monologue was the pace of it, the angsting of Cressida which reflects women today and the need for the actress playing her to be able to switch from shy, coy to strong and bold. I really gave the monologue and the character of Cressida, and the play as a whole, a great deal of thought before recording it.

There's been much moralizing about the character of Cressida down the ages. We still hold the same binary views played out through Troilus and Cressida. He's the injured party, his heart has been broken by the fickle, heartless Cressida. In fact, Troilus falls in love with Cressida as a result of Cupid being annoyed with him for having a light-hearted attitude towards love so he makes him fall for Cressida. As we see later at the end of the play, Troilus has been more in love with an idealized version of Cressida rather than Cressida, the woman, who is only human and so, despite being sincere in her love for Troilus, cannot live up to his impossibly high standard of her. Cressida, on the other hand, genuinely falls in love with Troilus, the man with all his imperfections. She is worried in Act 4 that Troilus doesn't truly love her and won't stay faithful to her once they are apart. The added complications in their wooing is the interference of Pandarus, uncle to Cressida, who tries to bring the two together romantically and sexually and gives Troilus advice on seducing Cressida.

It's clear Cressida never falls out of love with Troilus as we see in Act 5 scene 2 where Cressida says to (the Greek) Diomedes that the 'sleeve' he refers to belongs to 'one that loved me better than you will'. This is the sleeve that belonged to Troilus which he gave to Cressida earlier and, in return, she gave Troilus a glove to keep. It's not her fault that she has to go to the enemy camp (Greek) where her father is. She'd rather not go but Troilus says she has no choice about it. Cressida is worried that it'll damage their love and she's afraid that seeing each other again will be nigh on impossible. We need to constantly be aware that the backdrop to the love story between the two is the Trojan War not 21st century England. Therefore, we shouldn't apply some 21st century moralistic standards of behaviour to the events.  

The philosophical part of the play is precisely the question that philosophers of ethics still grapple with today, namely: Is there such a thing as absolute morality? 🤔 Those who would tend to argue in the affirmative are the ones who view Cressida negatively and see her as unfaithful, fickle and worse. Others argue that morality is not objective and absolute but rather subjective - there are no moral facts in the world. I remember writing an essay on this topic in my first year of my BA Philosophy. Possibly this is also why I was drawn to this play. It focuses on a topic I read, studied and wrote about in philosophy. This play is analysing and arguing about how moral philosophy plays out in practice. I haven't chosen the play or the monologue as a vehicle to hint at anything or anyone. I don't indulge in hints. I speak plainly which is what drew me to this particular monologue. Uni was full of people hinting at things without saying anything directly. I can't stand that. It's so tedius, confusing and misleading.  

If you have something to say, say it. And this is what Shakespeare is pointing out here. How often do women today say they can't go out with you because they are terribly busy (washing their hair💆💇) only to find they actually are just trying not to look desperately keen on you🤦🤷. In the same way, women never tell a man they love him until he says it first and neither do they propose to him🙄. We still hold to this outdated notion that women can only propose to men on Feb 29 every 4 years. How is this more enlightened than BCE? Women still play these 'coy' games today yet judge Cressida for doing the same despite the play being set in the Bronze Age. 

So social/moral norms are not that different today which is something that should concern us and is why I also thought this play and monologue relevant to society here and now. Yes, of course, women can have more independence today but they are still held back by societal expectations e.g. 2020/1 saw women doing more housework than men, having the responsibility for home educating their children, and being more vulnerable to losing their jobs than men. Domestic violence has became an even greater problem during this time. If we are honest with ourselves we can see that life for women hasn't changed nearly enough and this is something that, I think, this play brings out in a gritty way.  We are shown the less glamorous side of life beneath the glossy image of courtly love and heroism. 

Understanding the play and connecting with it is, I think, essential if an actor is to portray the character convincingly. And rather like researching a philosopher, it's important to have a theory that can be applied consistently and makes sense on all levels. Keeping the authorial intent and historical backdrop further illuminates a play for an actor. I'm not keen on modernising Shakespeare. Who are we fooling? 🤔 We all know Shakespeare wasn't born in the last century. One of the wonderful aspects of enacting Shakespeare is the language. Whether it's medieval Chaucer, (who also wrote a poem on Troilus and Criseyde which could well have been the basis for Shakespeare's version rather than the French or Italian versions which portray Cressida very negatively,) or Tudor/Jacobean Shakespeare, the English is different from the English that we speak today. And this play, is strong on rhetoric, something I'm researching with regard to the philosopher, Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle. Indeed, the sentiments within this monologue reflect some of the Orations in Cavendish's political writings. Troilus and Cressida  is also very political given its backdrop of war just as Cavendish's time has the backdrop of the English Civil War (1642-1651) and her life in exile as maid of honour to Queen Henrietta Maria. So, having studied Chaucer and Shakespeare, I feel very comfortable studying Early Modern texts in the original.

Therefore, studying Old English is an important part of education, without it so much heritage and culture will disappear. It is part of appreciating British culture so we should embrace this Old English rather than modernise it. The same is true of the costumes within that era. Fashion is part of history and helps us to remember the era it's set in and  creates an  aesthetic experience. So if I was putting on a Shakespeare play I'd want to take all these factors into consideration. Going to the theatre🎭should be an experience you can't achieve in any other way!👍❤🎭 

Shakespeare Day 2020

For Shakespeare Day 2020, I recorded a speech from Troilus and Cressida. I chose Act 3 scene 2 when Cressida speaks to Troilus. You can listen to me on my YouTube channel here:

 

OK, it's not the perfect showcase video. I've got the blank wall ☑ I've got my feminine look on for the part ☑ But I've fallen down on the framing of the video - I've left my exercise equipment in view on the right hand side! ❎ 

Shakespeare Day seemed a good time to record myself in an acting role partly to celebrate Shakespeare and partly to satisfy StarNow requirements to showcase skills. Why Shakespeare? Well, I was brought up on Shakespeare. My mother taught English at secondary school and that always included teaching Shakespeare. She is also qualified to teach drama and incorporated it whenever possible in the classroom. So, when she taught me she did likewise, across many subjects including English Literature. She made sure I was made familiar with the classics so Shakespeare was a must! I loved it. We read his most famous plays together: Midsummer Nights Dream, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, Othello, As You Like It, All's Well That Ends Well, Taming of the Shrew, and King Lear. And acted them out together. We watched videos of them and other plays e.g. his historical plays and went to the theatre and Open Air Theatre to see Shakespeare productions. The highlight for me was when we travelled to Stratford upon Avon to see his birthplace. That was great! 

I started drama classes at the age of 4 and took English Literature at AS Level which included Shakespeare's Taming of the Shrew (went to see traditional productions of this play one which was in 2003 starring an all female cast), 🎭Marlowe's Doctor Faustus (went to see theatre productions of this play), 🎭Attwood's Handmaid's Tale, and Carol Ann Duffy's The World's Wife (went to an excellent poetry reading/performance of this and I have a CD of it too!).🎭

A few years back I did further official study on Shakespeare's works as well as a whole course dedicated to the play Much Ado about Nothing. These were long-distance courses. As well as a course on Jane Austen.

 I have also read his Sonnets.

However, for my video, I wanted to choose a play my mother and I had never done together and one that was philosophical and feminist. The latter influenced which part of Troilus and Cressida I wanted to learn and record. The speech I chose is what I call a feminist one. 

Although Troilus and Cressida are categorised as one of Shakespeare's problem plays, nevertheless, these plays often centre on a social or political theme of the day. Unlike most critics, I don't share the negative view of Cressida. And this speech of hers is, I think, pivotal in helping us understand her. She had tried to stay cool about confessing her love for Troilus. But in line 1 she confesses she 'was won, my Lord, With the first glance...' In other words, it was love at first sight. Cressida then goes on to pretend she didn't love Troilus 'till now'. She doesn't literally think him a tyrant she merely worries that if she admits to loving him he'll have power over her. Love makes us vulnerable and Cressida is afraid to be vulnerable. But soon confesses that she has always been passionately in love with him. Startled by this confession she appears to regret it. Owing to society's restrictions on women's behaviour she had not wanted to openly show or declare her love for him. At this point, frustrated and slightly exasperated she wishes she was a man. Why? Because as a man she could act on her feelings without having to worry about society judging her for it. Or failing that, 'that we women had men's privilege of speaking first'. I think many women today feel like this. Men seem to always take the floor as their right. They speak first, speak over women and women often just listen and rarely interject! Cressida continues 'Sweet, bid me hold my tongue,...' she's clearly afraid she has said too much and embarrassed herself. Troilus's silence has made her say more than she intended. She ends with 'Stop my mouth' which is an invitation for Troilus to kiss her although, yet again, after he does so, she protests this wasn't her purpose and must leave.

What is Shakespeare's point here? I think, it's that women need to speak up and say what they are thinking and feeling. Being shy and coy is all very well but can be misinterpreted as disinterest. It doesn't help the woman. She just becomes annoyed with herself for showing weakness in not revealing her true feelings from the start. It doesn't help the man because he becomes confused whether the woman loves him or not. In other words, plain speaking goes a long way!