Margaret Teele

            On Monday morning my sprained shoulder was more flexible when I tried to do the downward part of a push-up and could almost bring my chest to the floor. It was also stronger when I tried putting more weight on my arm. 

            I translated the third verse of "Arthur, où t'as mis le corps?" (Arthur, Where'd You Put the Corpse?) by Boris Vian: "But the antique dealer / before we had him murdered / had taken the Bigophone / We're hiding outside of town / with the cops snooping round / It feels bad in our bones." 

            I posted my email assignment. 

            I worked again on memorizing the second verse of "On n'est pas des grenouille" (We Are Not Amphibians) by Serge Gainsbourg but I was distracted by the fact that it was raining and my living room window frame was not only still leaking from the repairs my landlord insisted he did but a new leak had started. The leaks were side by side but too far apart to be caught by the bucket so I had to put a salad bowl beside it. I was also distracted by worrying about an assignment that's due on October 15 which I have yet to begin because there is so much reading to do. So with these things on my mind I still wasn't able to memorize the second verse without losing some of the first and vice versa. 

            I weighed 91.7 kilos before breakfast and that's definitely overweight for me. 

            Before 9:00 I logged on for my Shakespeare lecture and the first one on Henry IV Part 1.

            Professor Lopez says the email assignments are going well. 

            He will probably have essay topics for us by the end of this week but no later than October 13.

            Shakespeare began his career in two ways. One was with small scale plays about mistaken identity such as The Comedy of Errors. They dealt with quotidian concerns like family relationships. Other plays were romances like Two Gentlemen of Verona and The Taming of the Shrew with timelines that unfolded over a couple of days. These differed from the trend, as most of the plays of the time were geographically expansive and larger than life like those written by Christopher Marlowe and Thomas Kidd. They were either big sprawling histories on such themes as the conquest of Asia or spectacular stories from mythology. Shakespeare also wrote those. 

            In "Henry VI" Hal's son was an infant when he became king and through him his handlers ruled England. 

            Richard III had an outsize identity. 

            One of Shakespeare's large scale plays was Titus Andronicas. It was larger than life, unlike The Comedy of Errors. 

            Henry IV part 1 came in the middle of Shakespeare's career and it was a return to the kind of plays he wrote early on. He was pursuing a multi part long term historical project. Henry IV usurped Richard II. He wrote Richard II between 1596 and 1597. 

            After usurping Richard, Henry Bolingbroke became Henry IV. The play Henry IV part 1 begins with Henry trying mop up all the little rebellions after his usurpation and at the end it's almost done. Henry IV part 2 begins much the same with Hal still irresponsible. The same story is redone in a different key and with a different tonal quality. Henry IV Part 2 is a difficult, fascinating, mysterious and historically unnecessary play. It is more valuable for character development than history. In "Henry V" Hal is king and conquers France. Richard II was deposed in 1399. 

            These plays are a large sequence and a compliment to Shakespeare's earlier sequence. They are of sprawling historical and geographical scope. The stories are approached in a new way with weeds of characters. The most interesting thing in Shakespeare is detail and there is far more detail in Henry IV than in The Comedy of Errors. It's a large play in character and in variety of action consisting of large blocks complicated with interwoven texture. 

            In the movement from 2.1 to 2.4 the sheriff is looking for the thieves. Falstaff hides behind a screen and falls asleep.His clothing is searched and a list of his expenses is found consisting of food and wine but mostly wine. Even Hal is amazed at how much wine Falstaff consumes. 

            The next scene has Hotspur again and we are introduced to Mortimer who had been spoken of earlier. He had been supposedly captured but is now in league with the Welsh rebels. In a comical moment Hotspur has forgotten the map of England with which to plan the rebellion. The leader does not have it but Glyndŵr, an antagonistic newcomer has it and the comedy of the moment is more fully realized in the theatre. There is tension between the two. As strong as this rebel force is they still don't quite know what they are doing. 

           The document of Falstaff's expenses juxtaposed with the subject dividing map creates disproportionate divisions and causes tension. Shakespeare is carrying material that changes form from one scene to another. There is an echo between the two types of scenes and how they play in action. These kinds of tonal shifts happen throughout the play. 

           Hotspur and Glyndŵr are trivialized. They are not even speaking the same language, showing that the rebel force is divided. The rebels, like Falstaff and Hal can be seen as greedy thieves. There is separation and attraction between two levels. This is a classically Shakespearian structure. 

            M. H. Abrams says that literary criticism is the art of pointing out the obvious. 

            Professor Lopez says he has been modelling close reading with his observations. He has read this play 250 times. 

            There is huge moment at 2.4.360-465 when Falstaff is preparing Hal to meet with his father and they stage a play within a play as Falstaff poses as Hal's father so he can practice his answers. But Falstaff only wants to ask questions about Falstaff so it doesn't work. So they switch roles and Falstaff plays Hal while Hal assumes the role of the king. Two characters are acting within a play to negotiate their identities and the social relations that arise from them. The performance allows for metaphors that both illuminate and complicate the plot. Hal speaks ironically as his own father. Falstaff as Hal is speaking the truth of his personality. He knows what Hal is about. The festive principle of Falstaff is what Hal wants and he'll have to repress more than overcome it. This mutual performance is very Shakespearean. The performance act allows for the representation of different versions of one's own identity. Identity is performative as one is taken or mistaken or acting as someone else or oneself. Representations of the self through another access the truth of identity. How this little theatre within a play ends is famous. Falstaff as Hal tells Hal as Henry that he cannot get rid of Falstaff because sweet Falstaff is essential to Hal's identity. Banish anyone but Falstaff because Falstaff is all the world. Hal responds "I do and I will" banish him but is he speaking as his father or himself? Has he dropped the theatre for cruel independence? Is this a signal to Falstaff? Is it an analysis of their relationship? It is impossible to know. 

            In The Comedy of Errors the mistaken identity of Antipholus of Ephesus reveals his dark side. People are willing to believe he would cheat despite his good reputation. Maybe the town is turning on an upstart. 

            It is not a stretch for Falstaff to play Hal's father. Henry would rather his son be Hotspur. 

            Hal is always playing himself. He talks to himself and the audience about performing as the prince. Later his father tells him that he must play the role of the king. The king says he has a controlled identity. 

            The pressure of mistaken identity reveals character. 

            Falstaff keeps the focus on himself to declare that he is indispensable. He is casual towards honour but desperate to be vital to Hal. Hal insists on becoming independent from both his father and Falstaff but remains in contact. He wants to be inside but detached. A knock on the door puts the time limit on their little play, pushing the performance to end. Falstaff wants to finish it and know his fate but can't. Would it have clarified Hal's statement? As at the end of any Shakespeare play there is no resolution of the tensions that rise up independent of the story. In the relationship between performance and reality Shakespeare refuses to give a solution. He frames the events but he is indifferent to those events. 

            We took a ten minute break. 

            There is no historical basis for Hal being a lout because his youth is undocumented. But the idea was a folk tradition that was perpetuated by oral stories and plays. Shakespeare drew from the anonymously written play from the 1580s "The Famous Victories of Henry V" and turned it into three longer plays. The attraction of the myth of Hal as a rogue lies in the tension between metamorphosis and destiny. He changed because he was destined to be the hereditary king. But in this time the destiny of the heir is contingent. 

            Henry IV the usurper killed Richard II the hereditary monarch. As Richard had no children he chose Mortimer as his heir. Hotspur helped Henry come to power but did not feel appreciated afterwards. In 1.3.137 Hotspur wants to overthrow Henry IV while his kingship is still new and uncertain. 

            Hal's future is in question and the myth of Hal might be an indirect dramatization of that uncertainty. He does not act like a prince or a future king. His wild non historical behaviour might be a metaphor for the effects of usurpation. Hal has no respect for the past and embodies chaos. Hal's behaviour allows us to think in supernatural speculation of the usurpation as cursed. In 3.2.4-11 Henry asks Hal if his behaviour is his punishment. 

            Henry IV is cagey and never says what he means. He outmanoeuvres and never admits to his crime, even to Hal. He speaks of his faults as being minor. Genetic scourge. Hell. This language commensurate to greater crimes. Thinking about crimes without talking about them. His child punishing him is a genetic retribution for a genetic crime. 

            English monarchs from 1399 going back to 1133. Richard II was the grandson of Edward III, who was the son of Edward II, who was the son of Edward I, who was the son of Henry III, who was the son of John, who was the brother of Richard I, who was the son of Henry II. 

            Henry IV disrupted the line and his crime was ironic. The curse was "your children will punish you" and so in the play Hal's wildness serves the purpose of a metaphor for the curse. But Henry VII could trace his lineage back to Edward II and so this reconnecting the line leading to Henry VIII, Edward VI, half sister Mary and then Elizabeth I. Henry IV establishes legitimacy and gives rise to Shakespeare's modern England. 

            Hal's destiny is a settled question since the audience knows what will happen to him. Dramatizing Hal's metamorphosis draws a line from usurpation to stability. The undeserving ribald son of an undeserving usurper but Henry IV has hints of legitimacy. Richard II was not a great king and Henry brought stability. Hints of the deservingness of Prince Hal in 2.4.4-19 when Hal is in the tavern with Poins ordering wine. He boasts about being one of the guys. He's one of the people and knows commoners by name. He's a Corinthian or a good fellow at the bar. He's a good boy. He's acquired the language. This is an old idea that a good leader must have a common touch. He's performing but he may really be on the level of a commoner. 

            The play traces the metamorphosis of Hal to see the beginning of the new dynasty. The play dramatizes destiny and metamorphosis. Henry IV part 1 traces Hal's plot. Dad is facing a rebellion. It ends with the rebels on the run and Hal and his father go after Mortimer the Earl of March. Hal and the king are separate until the end when together they wipe out the threat. It's a generic arc of destiny. Hal will become a real king in the conventions of comedy. The resolution is no less complicated than that of The Comedy of Errors. There is unfinished business. In 4.1.91-110 Vernon reports to the rebels that Hal has joined the king. Hotspur is not worried about Hal but Hal is described as appearing like a princely warrior on his horse. Hal, like a butterfly metamorphoses because he had it in him all along. He expresses this on his horse. The rebellion ends in stability. The separation of father and son ends in togetherness. 

            On the blank page the professor tries to type something but something additional pops up. He says there is nothing more obnoxious than a computer that tries to anticipate what one wants. 

            The rebellion interferes with Henry IV's crusade in the holy land to atone for usurpation. He fantasizes about Hotspur being his real son switched at birth. The rebels infight. In a tragic family drama Worcester is treacherous and sacrifices his nephew Hotspur. Henry IV gives Worcester terms but does not trust him. 

            Two marriages: Hotspur and Kate. She refuses to speak his language of war but he insists; Mortimer and Glyndŵr's daughter. She is Welsh and does not speak English while he speaks no Welsh. A linguistic idiomatic survey of England. Rebels and aristocrats. Political language. The tavern people. Falstaff and his friends. There are specific modes of speech. In 4.2 Falstaff's conscripts are the lowest of the low. He sees them as powder fodder. In 2.1 the carriers at the inn are tangential to the plot. They are all integral. Henry IV is amazing in how it coordinates all of these elements. 

            After the lecture I posted my 1990s blog but when I tried to go onto Facebook it seemed to be down. I checked online and saw that Facebook was down all over the place. 

            I weighed 90.9 kilos before lunch. When I had canned peaches with yogourt I didn't add honey. I think maybe I can get used to that and it might help get my weight down. 

            Facebook was still down at 16:00 so I took an early bike ride. On my way out I tried to check my mail and the key broke in the mailbox. I was able to get the piece out but I don't know if I can get it copied at the Hardware store when it's in two pieces. If I go to a locksmith I probably can. It was drizzling very slightly but steadily and by the time I got to Dovercourt and Bloor I decided that if I went any further even that mist was going to start getting me wet so I headed home. 

            I weighed 90.1 kilos at 16:45 and felt less alarmed about my weight. 

            I posted my blog at around 17:00 but Facebook was still down. 

            Facebook came back up at 18:30 and so I posted my blogs. 

            I continued to type my lecture notes. 

            I had a potato with gravy and a chicken breast while watching an episode of Gomer Pyle. 

            This story sees the return of Friendly Freddy who sells Gomer a friendship ring for $12 which he gives to Lou Ann for their first anniversary of knowing one another. But then Freddy's boss tells Freddy that he accidentally sold Gomer the real sample ring that's worth $500. Freddy is afraid of being bumped off because he can't repay the $500. He tells Gomer the ring he sold him is only worth $2 and so he wants to give him the real one in exchange but Gomer says it doesn't matter what it's worth and that it's bad luck to remove a friendship ring. Freddy tries to get Sergeant Carter to help him but Carter just gets him to give him five $2 rings to make up for the difference in worth. Freddy takes his girl Stella out to the Jade Club on what he thinks may be his last night alive. He sees Gomer there with Lou Ann and tries a desperate plan. He dances with Lou Ann and hints that Gomer has other girlfriends. Then he gets Stella to come up to Gomer in front of Lou Ann and thank him with a kiss for a ring that's identical to Lou Ann's. Stella pays the cigarette girl to pass by Gomer and say, "See you tomorrow night Gomer." Lou Ann is angry and trying to take off the ring as Freddy anticipates getting it back. Suddenly a tough looking man in a suit grabs Freddy and says "Let's go." Freddy thinks it's the end but Freddy sees his boss in handcuffs in the back of a police car. The man who grabbed Freddy is a cop telling Freddy he's coming to testify against his boss. Just then Gomer is leaving the club and still trying to convince Lou Ann he is innocent. He gets Freddy to confess the truth and then everything is fine again.

            Stella was played by Margaret Teele, who had many supporting guest parts on various TV shows. She played one of the Slaymates in Matt Helm and the Silencers. She retired from acting to raise her family. She's the mother of songwriter Jenna Drey. 

            The cigarette girl was played by Timothy Blake who directed "Life Happens." She is a former Screen Actors Guild vice president, SAG Foundation recording secretary, she co-chaired the SAG AFTRA Film Society and was the executive officer of SAG pension and health plans for thirty years.