The Winter's Tale

            On Monday after midnight I did a search for bedbugs and found a baby. It didn't have my blood inside when I killed it so it might not have been healthy. It was on the floor behind my pillow and so hopefully it was suffering the effects of the powder that pest control had put down. 

            I posted my weekly Shakespeare email assignment: 

            In The Winter's Tale, 1.2.84-85 Hermione says to Polixenes, “If you first sinned with us, and that with us you did continue fault.” Since it would have been no sin to have sex in wedlock, I assume this means that Leontes and Hermione had sex before getting married. And the line, “with us you did continue fault” suggests that they did so several times. Would this have been considered provocative in Shakespeare's time? 

            I finished memorizing “Cuti–réaction” (Skin Prick Reaction) by Serge Gainsbourg and looked for the chords but no one had posted them. I worked them out for the intro and most of the first verse. 

            It was seven degrees this morning and the heat still hasn't been turned on and so I put the oven on high with the door open for the first third of song practice. 

            I weighed 90.1 kilos before breakfast. 

            Just before 9:00 I logged on for the Shakespeare lecture. 

            The first part of the lecture was for finishing “1 Henry IV” and the second part was on “The Winter's Tale.” 

            Professor Lopez commented that if we were in a classroom he'd be writing on a chalkboard. 

            Act 4 of “The Winter's Tale” is not easy. It's one of the hardest Shakespeare plays to understand because it has you wondering “what's the point?” After Act 5 it comes into focus again. It's an ambitious theatrical experiment in stage temporality and fiction temporality. There's a new kind of clock in Act 4. 

            At the end of “1 Henry IV” the king gets what he wants and more than he bargained for, or he gets what he wants but not what he hoped. His irresponsible son starts becoming Hotspur. There is the desire that he be Hotspur at the beginning but at the end, Hal kills Hotspur and does what Hotspur did when he freed Scottish prisoners without holding them for ransom. Douglas is not only a Scottish prisoner but also the warrior who came closest to killing the king in battle. Hal rescues his dad but then lets Douglas free. He's either being magnanimous or subversive, which is like Hotspur. 

           The king gets what he wants in Hal but not exactly what he hoped. This is a typical Shakespeare ending that has parallels with “The Comedy of Errors.” Antipholus of Syracuse gets his wanted reunion but has nothing to say to his twin. His brother Antipholus of Ephesus is a jerk but Antipholus of Syracuse gets a new old family instantly. He gets the baggage of family with mom and dad not talking, and he wants to marry his sister in law. It may be a delight to not be bumming around the Mediterranean and maybe that's good but he gets more than he bargained for and wanted. 

            This is a good example of Shakespeare in negativity. There are so many points of view that one is undercut by another. The idea of negativity at the conclusion of “1 Henry IV” begins with Hal drawing Hotspur and Falstaff in later. What does Hal want? He wants to redeem time. That's his goal at the beginning. He wants to reform his self when not expected to make everything make sense in the end. That is the play's goal and his. This redemption is to show dad he can be king but another view is that it is to show his friends he's worthy to be king. To accomplish both he has to succeed in battle but also make good on his promise to be king of the common people and speaking the language of the tavern. His redemption is a dynamic movement between theft and repayment. His redemption is complicated because if he satisfies dad he has to suppress loyalty to the tavern. But to be a king who speaks the language of the tavern he won't be a king like Henry IV. 

            This is dramatized when he stands on stage over the bodies of those from whom he is stealing glory. Falstaff's festive principle of wasting time is a threat to override his kingship. Hotspur is also stealing by doing great military things. Hotspur is always trying to approve glory and achievement for himself. In the second last scene Hal stands over what he thinks are two dead bodies. His moment of redemption involves stealing back from both. He steals the last words from Hotspur and promises to take Falstaff's guts. Even as Hal comes into his own he is still a kind of thief. This moment from Hotspur and Falstaff is a point of view. 

           Hotspur wants honour and achieves it through worthy conflict for a rightful cause against a wrong one. He mocks Hal but when he hears Hal is ready to fight like Mars he thinks that will be fun because it is honourable to win or die against a noble adversary. Hotspur gets to die at the hands of a noble adversary and so it is honourable in a conventional way. But Falstaff says honour is no good when one is dead. Hotspur is surprised when he dies. He says he is robbed of his youth and this is unusually pathetic of him. He saw himself surviving and assumed Hal was soft. Hotspur's speech is unexpected to frame actions. It is not so bad losing one's life but the winner doesn't deserve victory. Hotspur doesn't begrudge this because he is honourable but feels it is a waste to lose to a loser. In the generic sense Hotspur gets what he wants in terms of climactic conflict but is defeated by a thief.

            Hotspur would not be happy if he were alive to see Hal go on to claim stewardship of his reputation. Hal says when I talk about you I'll say how great you were and I'll thank myself for helping you live on as great. Hotspur would be irritated at Hal making his self great by giving Falstaff credit for killing him. Hotspur then becomes less honourable and it is a wasted death. Hal's redemption is an evisceration of Hotspur's glory. 

            Falstaff wants to be assured of Hal's friendship. Not just for sentiment but also for material reasons because he will prosper. There is an affective side because Falstaff loves Hal. They have a strong bond as friends but also like dad and son. Joy is represented from Falstaff's language and persuasive ability to pull Hal out of orbit. Hal is reticent and cagey. He participates but is still separate. Falstaff needs to know what Hal thinks. Does he get what he wants? Not really, since Hal is talking about disembowelling him and Falstaff must be listening because he is not dead. He is maybe unconscious but probably pretending and listening to Hal. Falstaff gets confirmation of how Hal feels. Hal says Falstaff's greatness is merely physical. If that's a proper read Falstaff gets more than he bargains for. Overhearing gives unpleasant info sometimes. 

            We are listening with Falstaff's ears and we are disappointed. This friendship would have made Hal more than a politician We are relieved when Falstaff is alive. He claims he killed Hotspur. Hal says okay, if I can help your reputation then I'll lie. Thievery becomes generosity as he gives the glory he stole to Falstaff. Maybe Falstaff's coming to life shows redemption of compromising thievery with kingship. Hal is just as calculating as his dad but more generous. Shakespeare is acknowledging the difference between the two kings. But it is also possible that when Hal comes in and sees Falstaff alive he realizes he had been listening so he has got to give him something, so who cares, give him credit. Maybe he's ungenerous. Or maybe Hal knows Falstaff is not dead and his eulogy is deliberately meant to playfully bug Falstaff while he's listening. That might invite the response and so maybe Falstaff just says he killed Hotspur when he knows Hal knows he didn't, thereby reaffirming their friendship. Each proposal undercuts the other. Each turn can open out onto new a perspective that negates the previous one and all simultaneously. 

            The first part of Henry IV ends with a family reunion. A theatrical resurrection is the reestablishment of the family bond but potential subversion of parental authority. This is also how The Comedy of Errors ends. 

            Resurrection: Falstaff's and that of Aegeon and Aemilia. 

            Family reunion: Hal and Henry IV; Aegeon and Aemilia's family. 

            Political authority established /subverted: Hal the heir and Hal the thief; the duke presides then the duke discards the law. Hal comes to his own as heir when he rescues dad but also steals Hotspur's glory before giving that glory away. Disrespecting authority he frees the warrior who tried kill his dad. He does not kill the man who attacked his dad like Hamlet did. It is wrong to say royal authority is subverted but potentially so. 

            The Winter's Tale also ends with a family reunion, a theatrical resurrection, but also subversion of authority. Othello is different. The template of Shakespeare is a set of conventions that he uses to put things in complex circulation. The above-mentioned three key incidents are common. With The Winter's Tale we'll look at that template. Another way to describe the two endings is that they dramatize moments of exposure. 

           We place exposure as a fourth term on the template: Exposure of Hal before Falstaff and of Henry IV before John. Antipholus of Ephesus before his family, his wife, the duke and all Ephesus is exposed as a violent, entitled, cheating, angry husband and citizen. This is not fully defining him but possibly. Antipholus of Ephesus is exposed but also Adriana is exposed. Aemilia says nag him but not too much. Adriana is not sure she is not to blame. Aemilia humiliates her. There are other exposures, so reread with those in mind. At the end of 1 Henry IV Hal is exposed as ungenerous. He takes away the greatness of Falstaff and Hotspur. Falstaff's bigness embodies something about time. Hotspur is committed to honour and could be king but he is always quixotic and doomed to fail but real and denied by Hal. Hal's indifference to these two greatnesses makes him smaller than he should be. Falstaff is resurrected but then stabs Hotspur in the thigh. He and Hal are reduced to the same level. Falstaff is small after all. The exposure of Falstaff. Hal is exposed with Falstaff listening. As in The Comedy of Errors Shakespeare is laconic. In Hal's reaction to exposure he seems to pretend he knew Falstaff was not dead. He takes it in stride. He performs generosity. He extends it to freeing Douglas. Another character exposed might be Henry IV. Hal turns his authority against him. Henry IV may see himself as having miscalculated Hal's loyalty. The end presents a series of exposures as to how they wanted to be seen. Professor Lopez is trying to endorse the tensions. These are potential exposures. We must view them subtly. The Winter's Tale also ends with exposures. 

            We took a break.

            “A winter's tale” was a phrase that referred to a story told on a winter's night, usually scary and full of improbable incidents, not quite a fairy tale. It is hard to find a modern analogy. “A sad tale's best for winter.” In Richard II or Edward II people sit around the fire to tell a story of dead kings. A winter's tale is somewhat scary, melancholy, and fantastical. 

            It is significant that it is “The Winter's Tale ” and not “A Winter's Tale.” Titles of Shakespeare plays are worth thinking of. In The Comedy of Errors “errors” does double duty in meaning both “wandering” and “mistakes”. One twin wanders the Mediterranean while the other wanders away from his wife. It is brought to a close by solving mistakes. Henry IV's title could have been the first part of Henry V. Shakespeare wrote three Henry VI plays with different titles. The title of Henry IV is expressive that his name unifies while he is marginalized. Think about the title of The Winter's Tale and All's Well That End's Well. Titles are obvious and we tend to discard them but Shakespeare worked in a complicated way with always the potential for expressive resonance in any of his plays' parts. Who is the merchant of Venice? It's not Shylock but Antonio. Shakespeare is playing games with titles. 

            The most important part of the beginning of The Winter's Tale is Hermione's pregnancy. She gives birth in prison. Emilia says the delivery was premature. In 2.1 Hermione is sitting with other women and her son. They say “Your mother rounds apace. We shall present our services to a fine new prince.” On the same day as 1.2 Polixenes flees for his life. Shakespeare connects the time of the two scenes with 2.1 on the heels of 1.2. Hermione's rounding is a visible detail of the first scene. 

            Her pregnancy is important because in all of 1.2 and 2.1 it is not mentioned but only hinted at mischievously like when a composer evokes a remote key with a chord progression that is out of sync with the key he's in because he is thinking of the other key. 

            Language might come up in a discussion of pregnancy without explicitly mentioning it. It allows us to appreciate how Shakespeare is laconic. He leaves a lacuna, a gap, a silence when we expect something. He is laconic when a response is demanded. In Measure For Measure the end is a powerful example of this. The king asks a woman to marry him but there is silence. So Hermione is pregnant with a big belly but no one mentions it. There are other details and lacunas when Camillo and Artimus talk of the promise of a young prince as a hope of the future and good for Mamillius. This prepares for what happens to Mamillius in Act 3. The king's only kid. No one says won't the new kid have a great older brother? Nothing prepares us. 

            In 1.2 Leontes is so jealous that he questions if Mamillius is his own. Are you mine? He can't read Mamillius. What is driving his jealousy? At the end of the scene Camillo tells Polixenes that Leontes thinks he's been fucking his wife. No one mentions the pregnancy again. No one says that Polixenes has been in Sicily for nine months or nine changes of the watery star. “Burden” is a word for pregnancy. But he is talking about leaving. Polixenes has been in Sicily for nine months and Hermione is nine months pregnant. No one mentions it. This is an expository world. 

           Is she guilty? It is impossible to read it that way as the play unfolds. To think she is guilty would make the play nonsense. But the first scene presents it differently. Relentless perverse negativity in Shakespeare as he gives us reason to believe she is guilty. She and Polixenes are flirtatious and she persuades him. But Polixenes protests innocence while also running away rather than reasoning with his old friend. This is a deep friendship but he leaves because Camillo tells him that Leontes is crazy. Camillo has a long relationship with Leontes and says it is better to leave. But Camillo also flees and doesn't stay to help Hermione. 

           Suggesting what is implied by lacunae there are two possibilities around her pregnancy. Maybe it is not a big deal since he already has an heir and so a second child is not important. It is extra. Another possibility relating to Camillo's silence is that nothing is said because it is unspeakable as it points to what everyone suspects. Leontes's suspicion comes out of nowhere, effecting a complete break. Jealously is not so sudden. He's seen this for nine months. Around the silence about the pregnancy Shakespeare erects details of the possibility that Hermione is unfaithful. Two things at the same time he makes use of throughout the play. 

            Time and speed of unfolding in two acts. Jealousy sudden, Polixenes leaves, Hermione in prison all in one day. From pleasant chat to social ritual gone wrong. Hermione is in prison for three weeks when she gives birth. In act 2.1 182-185 Leontes says I have dispatches to the Oracle of Apollo stuffed full. They will bring all. In 2.1.182-185 Cleomenes and Dion are the postmen. In 2.3.198 it takes twenty three days. That is a precise number in an improbable play. Leontes tells Antigones to leave the baby in the wilderness. 2.2 and 2.3 take place at the same time. So Hermione has been three weeks in prison. He puts news of delivery right after her imprisonment. Shakespeare puts two scenes together. 

           No one says three weeks but it is the effect of acceleration. Contiguous sequencing. Paulina takes the baby to the king. Each scene leads to the next and the baby is sent away. The extremity of events is also part of the acceleration with each more terrible than the last. In a third effective acceleration he withholds this delivery before the time of trauma when everything is moving more quickly than expected. There are huge changes in Act 3 that abruptly happen in a short time. That's the character of the first three acts in The Winter's Tale. In The Comedy of Errors the manic combination of the compressed time frames creates a feeling of a headlong dash to resolution. Similarly to The Comedy of Errors it also happens in The Winter's Tale and he does this throughout his career. 

           In Henry IV his approach to time is the opposite. Henry IV begins with a problem that needs a solution and moving fast. But in scene two time slows down. Hal is biding his time and time is not important. In Shakespeare's drama of the civil war everything just worked through at a leisurely pace. Henry IV is so not in a hurry it is not even done in the end. How he plays against stage time. 

           Later in The Winter's Tale time slows to try to bring it to a stop. The Winter's Tale might be the best, right up there with Othello, Macbeth and The Comedy of Errors. 

            I weighed 89.3 kilos before lunch.

            I finished reading Incidents In The Life of A Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs. Comparing it to Frederick Douglas's slave narrative her life was easier than his in the beginning but it's arguable that it was tougher in adulthood because she had children to escape with. She had a rougher time in the north because her “owners” were still trying to get her back and had spies trying to find her. They were in financial difficulty and wanted her because she was a saleable “property”. 

            Professor Lopez responded to my email assignment: 

            “If the lines do speak about pre-marital sex, which would not be out of the question (though they are somewhat elliptical, and stay in rather general terms, i.e. Polixenes talks about “temptation”), I don’t think it would have been provocative. If anything, Shx errs on the side of prudery when compared to most of his contemporaries. Marital infidelity, in particular, is treated with a particular seriousness in Shx that few of his contemporaries share—i.e. in other plays (e.g. of Thomas Middleton, John Fletcher, Ben Jonson), extra-marital affairs are taken for granted. Premarital sex, which even in our own enlightened, morally relativistic culture does not always escape moral opprobrium (believe me, my parents were *very happy* when I finally got married), was very much a fact of life in Shx’s time, though probably not many people would have openly admitted to/endorsed it as a common practice. In a play called The Maid’s Tragedy by Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, this really straight-laced, virginal guy is ordered by the king to marry this woman because the king wants the marriage to cover his affair with the woman. On the wedding night, the virginal guy is astonished to find out that his new bride is not a virgin, and she says something like “A virgin, at my age?” Partly this is meant to be a satirical joke about decadent manners at court, but it’s also meant to be a more general joke—uniting the knowing audience against the innocent dupe.” 

            I took a bike ride in the afternoon to Yonge and Bloor. On the Bloor bike lane I called out to the cyclist ahead of me that I was passing. I started to pass but she hadn't moved over. I called out again that I was passing and she said, “Wait until it's safe!” I said it will be safe if you move over.” She said “Exactly! You wait until it's safe!” Gee lady, if you always ride on the right side like everybody else then it will always be safe. 

            I went down Yonge to Richmond and headed west and turned right at Peter as usual so as to turn left on Queen. But the streetcar track renewal project has moved west to Spadina and so I had to walk for a while before riding again. Next time I'll continue along Richmond to Portland and then head north. If construction continues moving west I might have to start taking King Street to get home. 

            The light is getting harsh during this time of day because it's almost sitting directly in front of me as I ride west. I'm almost blind when I have to cross the streetcar tracks to change lanes. 

            I weighed 88.3 kilos at 17:30. 

            I was almost finished editing my lecture notes at dinner time. I had a small potato with gravy and a slice of roast beef while watching an episode of Gomer Pyle. 

            In this story, Sergeant Hacker is stuck with Gomer for two days of kitchen detail because he lost a best out of three game they play. They flip a coin, draw cards and finally arm wrestle. Hacker has to leave for a few minutes but tells Gomer not to touch anything. However Colonel Grey comes in while Hacker is gone and says he needs breakfast right away. None of the other men can do it and so Gomer does. Grey calls for Hacker and says he wants to see the man who made his breakfast. Hacker thinks he's in trouble and brings Gomer to him but Grey tells Gomer it was the best cheese omelette he'd ever had. Gomer explains that he learned from following Grandma Pyle around. Hacker realizes he has a gold mine with Gomer and so he wants him in his platoon permanently. But he realizes that if Carter knows the real reason he wants Gomer, Carter will refuse, and so Hacker tricks Carter. He says you've got to take him back before the two days are up but Carter refuses. Hacker pretends he's desperate and makes the best out of three bet saying that if he loses he'll have to keep Gomer forever. Hacker deliberately loses the coin flip and the arm wrestle and wins Gomer. But Gomer is depressed about being transferred, especially when Hacker tells him that Carter lost him in a bet. Gomer is so distracted that his work goes downhill and his meals are horrible. Meanwhile Carter finds out that Hacker threw the bet and he also actually misses Gomer. Hacker tries to give Gomer back but Carter plays hard to get. They do the best out of three and Carter throws the game. Gomer is glad to be back but depressed that Carter didn't really want him. Corporal Boyle tells Gomer that Carter threw the last bet to get him back and now Gomer is happy.