Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
One of the distinguishing features of The Winter’s Tale is that among Shakespeare’s plays, it
is perhaps the one most strongly identified with a work of art—a work of art belonging to the
theatrical world of the play itself. ‘The statue scene’ in which Hermione appears to change
scene in the play, yielding both the climactic point and fruition of the narrative trajectory.
Although no aspect of the play affirms that Hermione was actually transformed into stone,
the impact of this scene depends on the audience’s temporary investment in the statue as a
compelling and unsettling aesthetic object. The spectacular nature of the scene is sparked
from the moment that people refer to Hermione’s statue as an established work of art, and
intensifies when Paulina prepares Leontes for the unveiling, and leads him to the site of
action. The moment of metamorphosis is hailed by music and Paulina’s command, “be stone
no more.” (5.3.99) Here, the materiality of the motionless Hermione reaches a high point of
ambiguity.
In this paper, I wish to explore some of the tensions pertaining to the aesthetic object that
concentrate around the statue and its transformation. I argue that some of aesthetic theory’s
crucial concerns play out in the very uncertainty of the statue’s substance. One overarching
question is where the work of art begins and ends—in this case, art seems to be caught
between containment and dynamism, passivity (in being revealed as a statue) and agency (in
stepping off the pedestal as human), the respective attractions of inanimate and living matter.
Jerome Cohen’s discussion of stone and other nonhuman elements. However, before that, I
wish to explore how an aesthetic register permeates the language of the entire play, and in a
“How sometimes nature will betray its folly, / Its tenderness, and make itself a pastime /
To harder bosoms”
A curious feature of the artistic process is its association with two apparently contradictory
sets of qualities that are both fundamental to it. On the one hand, the transformative and
generative aspect of art depends on fluidity, flexibility and dynamism. On the other hand, the
components, and on the stability of a well-defined structure. While suppleness is easily drawn
into an equation with creativity and fertility, hardness is frequently imagined as cold and
the artistic process necessitates the fixing and putting together of aesthetic elements in their
proper place, and this solidification can also create a sense of security, and further, of a rich
density or texture. Moreover, the quality of flexibility can also be excessive when it threatens
to diffuse the work’s preoccupations, or throw them into disarray. These ambivalences of the
The language of the play is permeated with the rhetoric of softness and hardness, of yielding
and unyielding. This section of the paper will take a closer look at relevant examples to
demonstrate the constantly shifting associations of hardness and softness with different
aesthetic and ethical values. Not only does this irregular network of values feed into the
tension between stone and flesh set up by the statue, it also provides direction for
investigating the boundaries of the work of art. Given the complex range of material values
associated with art, at what point does the ongoing, indeterminate process of artistic
endeavour switch over into the work of art? Moreover, how far is the complete work of art (if
a definition can be settled on) sealed off from its environment? If the artwork is responsive to
external stimulus, does it return to process, or is there room for conceiving of the artwork as
open to fluctuation? This paper’s analysis of the statue scene would suggest that it is not
entirely feasible or even meaningful to separate process from product. Although the play does
expose an anxiety produced by the unstable limits of art, it would appear that the affective
power of the statue’s transformation—both on the characters of the play and (more
speculatively) on the reader or audience—derives from its ability to straddle these various
In discussing the nature of the work of art, I wish to bring in Heidegger’s concepts of
concealment and unconcealment to talk of the aesthetic as not creation ex nihilo, but an
exploring Heidegger’s concept of disinhibitors that Agamben takes up in The Open. The
work of art as something that modifies itself in response to its environment cannot be
notion, animals respond to a predetermined stimulus with a specific function. The same
cannot be said for a work of art. However, the idea of the nonhuman bearing vital,
transformative connections with its environment remains significant and might be worth
exploring specifically in the case of the artwork. [Scope for discussing Bruno Latour here?]
In connection to that, one might ask if the change in the work occurs through use or not, also
raising the question of equipmentality. [Is it possible to discuss Kant’s idea of potentiality in
this context?]
In Stone, Cohen turns his attention mostly to medieval texts, in which a stratified,
confronted with the vitality and layered histories of stone, found themselves unable to
classify it as lifeless. It is interesting that despite referring to Shakespeare thrice, Cohen does
not for once mention A Winter’s Tale. There are many possible reasons for this—for one,
Cohen explicitly states that he is not interested in stone as “as a malleable substance that can
be shaped into desirable forms so much as stone as active partner in the shaping of worlds.”
(Cohen 14) Cohen is attracted to stone in its uncut state, as it belongs to geological churnings
and imprints, free from the anthropocentric ends of sculpture. Yet, it is probable that
Hermione was never actually stone, and hence her performance as a statue does not rest upon
the sculptor’s drive to manipulate a difficult substance for the purpose of showcasing human
skill and form. At the same time, the statue also lacks the actual opacity and obstinacy of
stone. What theory of the nonhuman could then account for the space of ambiguity opened up
in the moment where the statue appears to be real, but hasn’t yet come to life?
Other Directions
If the statue forms a primary pole of the play’s aesthetic compass, another is the floral world
culled and ordered by Perdita at the shepherd’s hut in Bohemia. While Bohemia also presents
flowers seems to present another distinct element comparable to stone. Is it worthwhile taking
up this aspect in comparison to the statue? An idea suggested by Prof. Linton, which links the
warmth of Perdita’s world to the frosty edge of Leontes’ tyranny, is to explore how Perdita,
after being severed from Leontes’ world on his own command, gains access to a larger
ecology. Can this be used without straying too far from the framework of the paper?