{"id":203368,"date":"2026-04-12T09:00:25","date_gmt":"2026-04-12T13:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=203368"},"modified":"2026-05-03T17:04:18","modified_gmt":"2026-05-03T21:04:18","slug":"2026-shakespeare-reading-project-the-merry-wives-of-windsor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/?p=203368","title":{"rendered":"2026 Shakespeare Reading Project: The Merry Wives of Windsor"},"content":{"rendered":"

My progress:
\nShakespeare Reading Project<\/strong>
\nHenry VI<\/em>, parts 1, 2, 3 and Richard III<\/em><\/a>
\nTwo Gentlemen of Verona<\/a><\/em>
\nThe Taming of the Shrew<\/a><\/em>
\nTitus Andronicus<\/a><\/em>
\nThe Comedy of Errors<\/a><\/em>
\nLove\u2019s Labour\u2019s Lost<\/a><\/em>
\nRomeo & Juliet<\/a><\/em>
\nA Midsummer Night\u2019s Dream<\/a><\/em>
\nRichard II<\/a><\/em>
\nKing John<\/a><\/em>
\nThe Merchant of Venice<\/a><\/em>
\nHenry IV, Part 1<\/a><\/em>
\nHenry IV, Part 2<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/i><\/h1>\n

People get so so mad about this one, particularly the Falstaff fanboys. They refuse to accept its existence as a play, they are irritated that Merry Wives<\/em> is one of the most regularly performed of the plays. they refuse to accept this Falstaff is THEIR Falstaff. Honestly, I get it. Falstaff means a lot. Falstaff is a towering figure in the Western canon. Yes. But … he wasn’t at the time Shakespeare wrote the play. Falstaff was (is) a crowd-pleaser. His “role” was done after Henry IV Part 2<\/em>, even though Shakespeare wasn’t “done” with him. His absence haunts Henry V<\/em>. I still remember how Branagh handled Falstaff in his Henry V<\/em>, establishing his presence even in his absence. <\/p>\n

Harold Bloom, in the quotes below, splutters in outrage at what has been done to his Falstaff in Merry Wives<\/em>. Auden dismisses the play so completely he didn’t even do a complete lecture on the play (all the Auden quotes are from his celebrated 1946\/47 lectures on Shakespeare, published in book form). The general critical consensus is: How could Shakespeare do this to Falstaff!! WHERE is Falstaff? THIS isn’t Falstaff.<\/p>\n

Totally fair. The Falstaff in Merry Wives<\/em> is not the Falstaff of the two Henrys<\/em>. (Neither is Mistress Quickly herself and the other holdouts from Henry IV Part 2<\/em>.) Falstaff here is a buffoon, a creature of fun, used and abused, mocked … thrown into a laundry basket with dirty linen, etc. He’s Falstaff with all the wit and self-awareness taken out.<\/p>\n

So. If you can just accept that this<\/em> Falstaff is not the other<\/em> Falstaff, maybe you can just enjoy the play for what it is? Maybe not? Okay!<\/p>\n

The speculation is that Merry Wives<\/em> came about because Queen Elizabeth so loved Falstaff in the Henriad she asked Shakespeare personally to write a play where Falstaff was in love. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/p>\n

\nThere’s also an interesting theory that the play was commissioned for a Knight of the Garter ceremony – and since John Falstaff was a knight, albeit a “fallen” and disreputable knight, the subject matter would be appropriate for such an event, at least as a cautionary tale. I mean, we’re just writing fanfic at this point. <\/p>\n

I just don’t think these plays were looked at as precious objects then, not by Shakespeare or anyone. Nothing is sacred. They were entertainers, their theatres were constantly burning down or closing down because of the plague, they were living in an absolute monarchy after centuries of basically civil war, the Puritans were always trying to get them shut down, and so … being ALLOWED to practice their trade – at the whim of a monarch – was just the reality of the world then. Falstaff is great, but that’s even more reason to put him in another play, right? Everyone loved him, it might draw people to come see him in something else. It just seems to me like not that big a deal – or a huge betrayal of something – to “do this” to Falstaff. These plays were here today, gone tomorrow. Of course people wanted to be a success, wanted to secure their legacy. The author of the Sonnets mentions this all the time. But … I just can’t believe anyone involved in these theatrical ventures were thinking, “Ah, four and a half centuries from now some academic at a place called Yale University will be FUMING at what you have done to Falstaff.” Publishing was different then, archiving was different, it’s a miracle we have these documents at all. <\/p>\n

Reading it on the page, and seeing it, really drives home the idea that the play is really about language being lost in translation. Shakespeare writes IN the accents. Everyone misunderstands each other. There’s a Frenchman, a Welshman, Latin lessons. At one point the Welshman starts to recite Marlowe’s poem “Come with me and be my love …” an extremely current reference that everyone would recognize. It’s a Tower of Babel.<\/p>\n

A couple years ago, my sister and I went to an outdoor production of Merry Wives<\/em> at the local community theatre (we go to their plays every summer). I’d never seen Merry Wives<\/em> live before and it plays GREAT. The audience was howling with laughter for almost the whole entire thing. The fact that this slight comedy, so different from his other comedies, viewed as “lesser” by almost every critic, etc. etc. … is so popular with audiences, confounds the critics, who think audiences shouldn’t be allowed to like what they so obviously like. I see this occasionally in my own line of work, a weird resentment from critics when a film emerges from out of nowhere and becomes a huge hit with audiences, even though they all gave it bad reviews. This happened with The Greatest Showman<\/i>, in the theatre for months. It happened with Elvis<\/i> too, although Elvis<\/i> got better reviews than Showman<\/i>, with the typical “Oh God here goes BAZ again.” (spare me). Elvis<\/i> was in theatres for three months<\/em>: I went over 10 times during the summer of 2022 and the theatre was packed each time. Elvis packs them in, even in the summer of Top Gun<\/i>. I remember critics being totally SHOCKED at what was going on with Greatest Showman<\/em>, in theatres for months on end, making money. I thought, “Telling people what they should and should not like is not your job description. Your job is telling audiences what YOU like.”<\/p>\n

Merry Wives<\/em> is a hit despite the critics, even though the play has nothing elevated or nuanced and the stakes are extremely low. Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> is often called a farce, and it reads like a farce, but when I finally saw it up on its feet, performed by this riotous talented cast – I finally understood. Merry Wives of Windsor<\/i> is an episode of Three’s Company<\/em>. I could totally see John Ritter having to hide in a laundry basket underneath his roommates’ underwear, so he could be smuggled out of the apartment for whatever ridiculous reason.<\/p>\n

In my research I learned a new word: fabliau<\/i>! Originated in France in the 13th century or thereabouts. Described in Wikipedia as: “They are generally characterized by sexual and scatological obscenity, and by a set of contrary attitudes generally critical or mocking of the church and nobility.” This genre\/style would have been totally familiar to Elizabethan audiences. <\/p>\n

The two husbands are convinced their wives are being unfaithful. They are so outrageous about it they are basically going to force their wives’ hands if they’re not careful. In the production we saw, over the course of the show the husbands’ mental states – and wardrobes – visibly deteriorated. By the end, they were total wrecks. Every entrance they seemed more out of their minds, and their outfits got more and more skimpy as they shed layers, almost like” “I can’t even deal with wearing a SHIRT anymore.” When one of the husbands staggered onto the stage, wearing little beach shorts and an open Hawaiian shirt, Jean and I lost it. Where are your clothes?? The actor who played the French doctor-suitor is also the high school librarian (bestill my heart) and he was seriously out of his mind. Like Kenneth Mars out of his mind. We were DYING. Obsessed with him. He’s in all their plays and he’s basically a celebrity to us at this point. <\/p>\n

Here’s a pic I took from that production: it was a hot summer night, we were spraying ourselves with Off!, and this magical ridiculous play unfolded at the little platform by the river. Here is Falstaff wearing his horns in between the two wives. <\/p>\n

\n\"\"<\/p>\n

\nI’ve seen these people in multiple shows now, and I love that part of community theatre. <\/p>\n

Much Ado About Nothing<\/em> is up next. A major masterpiece and one of my faves. <\/p>\n

Quotes on the play<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

“Only The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> ranks lower in my judgment, since it is a throwaway, with an imposter pretending to be Sir John Falstaff. Falstaff without titanic wit and metamorphic intelligence is not Falstaff, as Shakespeare himself best knew, and the Merry Wives<\/em> is a scabrous exercise in sadomasochism, immensely popular forever on precisely that basis.”
\n— Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human<\/em><\/p>\n

“Shakespeare does appear to have ‘tossed off’ this sparkling farce-comedy, his one play of purely contemporary life and of almost pure prose, and, along with The Comedy of Errors<\/em>, his most inconsequential and merely theatrical one.”
\n— Harold Goddard, The Meaning of Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> is a lively ‘citizen comedy’ that anticipates, in its spirit, both Restoration drama and the screwball comedy of early-twentieth-century film, combining as it does elements of farce, comic violence, and sophisticated and witty dialogue. The typical characters of citizen comedy are middle-class tradesmen and merchants rather than the kings, nobles, and aristocrats who dominate in most of Shakespeare’s more familiar plays.”
\n— Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All<\/em><\/p>\n

“…dense with local color, references to food, flora, and fauna, law and medical practice in the period, exploration and discovery, and more — they generate a compelling dramatic energy as well as a lively portrait of late-sixteenth-century England.”
\n— Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All<\/em><\/p>\n

“Both Slender and Aguecheek are rich and witless, neither has a clue as to how to court, or even speak to, a woman. Their names bespeak their natures, in a way that is not uncommon for Shakespearean ‘low’ characters in comedies … This is a version of the comedy of ‘humors’ .. personality traits were governed by predominant bodily substances.”
\n— Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All<\/em><\/p>\n

“All the Henry<\/em> plays are very much concerned with language-learning, with the different patois<\/i> and dialects of ‘high’ and ‘low,’ and with the tensions that attend upon trying to unify a nation where Welsh and Scots, Irish and English all speak different varieties of the ‘same’ language. The English lessons of Catherine, the French princess, and the gentlewoman Alice in Henry V<\/em> quickly disclose, as does the comic Latin lesson in The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em>, that translation is itself a very tricky and dangerous business.”
\n— Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All<\/em><\/p>\n

“Not only was the economic and commercial structure of England undergoing changes (from aristocratic to mercantile, from country to town, from landed estates to commerce and trade), but so, too, was the language (or languages) spoken and written in the court, the towns, the streets — and on the stage. We might say that ‘translation’ in the widest sense is at the heart of this play, whether it is Falstaff’s translation from knight to buck and from man to ‘woman,’ Ford’s translation from jealous man to wiser husband, or Evans’s, Caius’s, and William Page’s earnest efforts to speak and be understood.”
\n— Marjorie Garber, Shakespeare After All<\/em><\/p>\n

“[Falstaff] does not lose his belief until the last act, though to every other person in the play has been a fool from the first. The old man who once had missed nothing now misses everything; he has toppled from his balance, he is unintelligent.”
\n— Mark Van Doren, Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“His dignity was never touched in Henry IV<\/em>; rather it increased with every exposure, for what exposed itself was his understanding. In The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> he has none to lose, being no longer a man of mind but a tub of meat …”
\n— Mark Van Doren, Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“‘I do begin to perceive.’ His perception had once been without beginning or end.”
\n— Mark Van Doren, Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“‘I am dejected.’ So will any audience be which remembers the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow.”
\n— Mark Van Doren, Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“[Pistol, Bardolph, and Nym’s] betrayal of the fat jester whom once they feared and adored is doubtless the clearest sign of their degradation — not in moral character, for they had none, but in that dramatic character which preserved them in their prime from the indignity of a descent to conventional comic devices. In their prime they lived for no other reason than that they were alive.”
\n— Mark Van Doren, Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“After The Comedy of Errors<\/i>, it is Shakespeare’s most heartless farce.”
\n— Mark Van Doren, Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“I begin with the firm declaration that the hero-villain of The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> is a nameless imposter masquerading as the great Sir John Falstaff. Rather than yield to such usurpation, I shall call him pseudo-Falstaff throughout the brief discussion.”
\n— Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human<\/em><\/p>\n

“You can cram any fat man into a basket and get a laugh. He does not have to be Falstaff, nor need his creator be Shakespeare.”
\n— Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human<\/em><\/p>\n

See what I mean?<\/em><\/p>\n

“As a lifelong playwright, always quick to yield to subtle patrons, statist censors, and royal performances, Shakespeare in his deepest inwardness harbored anxieties and resentments that he rarely allowed expression. He knew that Walsingham’s shadowy Secret Service murdered Christopher Marlowe, and tortured Thomas Kyd into an early death. Hamlet dies upward, as it were, into a transcendence not available to Shakespeare, certainly not as a man, and the true Falstaff dies in bed, playing with flowers, smiling upon his fingertips, and evidently singing of a table prepared for him in the midst of his enemies. We do not know the mode or manner of Shakespeare’s own death. Yet something in him, which he perhaps identified with the authentic Falstaff, rejected where he most loved, and solitary, like the poet of the Sonnets, may have feared further humiliations. I have to conclude that Shakespeare himself is warding off personal horror by scapegoating the false Falstaff in this weak play.”
\n— Harold Bloom, Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human<\/em><\/p>\n

1. I feel he makes some valid and interesting points.
\n2. I also feel like he is just wildly making shit up.<\/em><\/p>\n

“The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> is no doubt a very amusing play, with a great deal of humor, character, and nature in it: but we should have liked it much better, if any one else had been the hero of it, instead of Falstaff.”
\n— William Hazlitt, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays<\/em><\/p>\n

Fair.<\/em><\/p>\n

“Falstaff in The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> is not the man he was in the two parts of Henry IV<\/em>. His wit and eloquence have left him. Instead of making a butt of others, he is made a butt of by them. Neither is there a single particle of love in him to excuse his follies: he is merely a designing, bare-faced knave, and an unsuccessful one.”
\n— William Hazlitt, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays<\/em><\/p>\n

“[Slender] is a very potent piece of imbecility. In him, the pretensions of the worthy Gloucestershire family are well kept up, and immortalized. He and his friend Sackerson and his book of songs and his love of Anne Page and his having nothing to say to her can never be forgotten. It is the only first-rate character in the play, but it is in that class. Shakespeare is the only writer who was as great in describing weakness as strength.”
\n— William Hazlitt, Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays<\/em><\/p>\n

“The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> is a very dull play indeed. We can be grateful for its having been written, because it provided the occasion of Verdi’s Falstaff<\/i>, a very great operatic masterpiece. Mr. Page, Shallow, Slender, and the Host disappear. I have nothing to say about Shakespeare’s play, so let’s hear Verdi.”
\n— W.H. Auden, the entirety of his 1947 lecture on the play<\/p>\n

“Yet one link between the two Falstaffs cannot be denied: with respect to wit and resourcefulness they are exact opposites. The Falstaff we admire is an incarnation of readiness, this one of helplessness. Nothing is too much for the former. Anything is too much for the latter. They are, respectively, presence and absence of mind. Such an utter antithesis is itself a connection. Shakespeare must have meant something by it.”
\n— Harold Goddard, The Meaning of Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“Farce is the very atmosphere in which parody thrives. This Falstaff is a kind of parody of the other one.”
\n— Harold Goddard, The Meaning of Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“[Henry V<\/em>] is a play produced on the heels of Henry IV<\/em>, practically contemporary with As You Like It<\/em> and Julius Caesar<\/em>, and just preceding Twelfth Night<\/em>, Troilus and Cressida<\/em>, and Hamlet<\/em>. Judged by these titles, Shakespeare was incapable of producing anything but masterpieces at this time. (Even Merry Wives<\/em> is one in its inferior kind.)”
\n— Harold Goddard, The Meaning of Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“[The] wives may be merry but are also fiercely chaste.”
\n— Anne Barton, Riverside Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“The Merry Wives of Windsor<\/em> is a strikingly independent creation: a play which extends and, in a sense, violates the calculatedly limited form of the merry tale.”
\n— Anne Barton, Riverside Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“Although it is perhaps the lightest of Shakespearean comedies, a play which contains no threat of death, in which nothing much is at risk and no one, not even Falstaff, is left out of the feast at the end, it presents a vivid and detailed picture of small-town society which, if it does not exactly invite the team realisme<\/i>, nonetheless cannot be dismissed as farce.”
\n— Anne Barton, Riverside Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

“The citizens of Windsor … see in [Falstaff], rightly, a threat to the established order of a community which, although far from perfect, has nonetheless a wholeness and sanity lacking in the diseased and fragmented world of 1 and 2 Henry IV<\/em>.”
\n— Anne Barton, Riverside Shakespeare<\/em><\/p>\n

Quotes from the play<\/h2>\n

<\/p>\n

Thou art the Mars of malcontents.
\n— PISTOL, I.iii.104<\/p>\n

His worst fault is, that he is given to prayer, he is something peevish that way, but nobody but has his fault — but let that pass.
\n— MISTRESS QUICKLY, I.iv.12-14<\/p>\n

QUICKLY:
\nThe young man is an honest man.
\nCAIUS:
\nWhat shall de honest man do in my closet? Dere is no honest man dat shall come in my closet.
\n— I.iv.72-75<\/p>\n

lol If he is so honest why is he hiding in a closet?<\/em><\/p>\n

Why, I’ll exhibit a bill in the parliament for the putting down of men.
\n— MISTRESS PAGE, II.i.28-30<\/p>\n

We burn daylight.
\n— MISTRESS FORD, II.i.54<\/p>\n

I wondered if Shakespeare made the phrase up – still in use today – or if it was already colloquial at the time. I looked it up and I guess the first recorded use of it is in Romeo & Juliet. Mercutio says it. <\/em><\/p>\n

… I would have sworn his disposition would have gone to the truth of his words; but they do no more adhere and keep place together than the hundred Psalms to the tune of “Green-sleeves”.
\n— MISTRESS FORD, II.i.60-63<\/p>\n

How shall I be reveng’d on him? I think the best way were to entertain him with hope, till the wicked fire of lust have melted him in his own grease.
\n— MISTRESS FORD, II.i.66-68<\/p>\n

Yes, this remains an effective strategy.<\/em><\/p>\n

But what says she to me? Be brief, my good she-Mercury.
\n— FALSTAFF, II.ii.79-80<\/p>\n

Old folks, you know, have discretion, as they say, and know the world.
\n— QUICKLY, II.ii.129-130<\/p>\n

But whatsoever I have merited, either in my mind or in my means, meed I am sure I have receiv’d none, unless experience be a jewel —
\n— MR. FORD (in disguise as BROOK), II.ii.202-204<\/p>\n

FALSTAFF:
\nOf what quality was your love then?
\nFORD (as BROOKE):
\nLike a fair house built on another man’s ground, so that I have lost my edifice by mistaking the place where I erected it.<\/p>\n

I love that.<\/em><\/p>\n

Page is an ass, a secure ass; he will trust his wife, he will not be jealous. I will rather trust a Fleming with my butter, Parson Hugh the Welshman with my cheese, an Irishman with my aqua-vitae bottle, or a thief to walk my ambling gelding, than my wife with herself.
\n— MR. FORD, II.ii.299-304<\/p>\n

HOST:
\nPardon, guest-justice. A word, Monsieur Mock-water.
\nCAIUS:
\nMock-vater? vat is dat?
\nHOST:
\nMock-water, in our English tongue, is valor, bully.
\nCAIUS:
\nBy far, then I have as much mock-vater as de Englishman. Scurvy Jack-dog priest! By gar, me will cut his ears.
\nHOST:
\nHe will clapper-claw thee tightly, bully.
\nCAIUS:
\nClapper-de-claw? Vat is dat?
\n— III.i<\/p>\n

Caius stole the show when we saw it.<\/em><\/p>\n

Let them keep their limbs whole, and hack our English.
\n— HOST, III.i.77<\/p>\n

What made me love thee? Let that persuade thee there’s something extraordinary in thee. Come, I cannot cog and say thou art this and that, like many of these lisping hawthorn buds, that come like women in men’s apparel, and smell like Bucklebury in simple time — I cannot; but I love thee, none but thee; and thou deserv’st it.
\n— FALSTAFF, III.iii.68-74<\/p>\n

… to be thrown into the Thames, and cool’d, glowing-hot in that surge, like a horse-shoe; think of that — hissing-hot — think of that Master Brook.
\n— FALSTAFF, III.v.119-122<\/p>\n

EVANS:
\nI pray you have your remembrance, child. Accusativo, hung, hang, hog<\/i>.
\nQUICKLY:
\n“Hang-hog” is Latin for bacon.
\n— IV.ii.46-47<\/p>\n

lolllll<\/p>\n

Wives may be merry and yet honest too:
\nWe do not act that often jest and laugh
\n‘Tis old, but true: still swine eats all the draff.
\n— MRS PAGE, IV.ii.105-107<\/p>\n

… and set spurs and away, like three German devils, three Doctor Faustuses.
\n— BARDOLPH, IV.v.69<\/p>\n

Another Marlowe reference! So it’d be like watching a movie in the year 2026 that references an Oscar-winning movie of last year. <\/em><\/p>\n

MRS. FORD:
\nSir John? art thou there, my dear? my male deer?
\nFALSTAFF:
\nMy doe with the black scut? Let the sky rain potatoes, let it thunder to the tune of “Green-sleeves.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

My progress: Shakespeare Reading Project Henry VI, parts 1, 2, 3 and Richard III Two Gentlemen of Verona The Taming of the Shrew Titus Andronicus The Comedy of Errors Love\u2019s Labour\u2019s Lost Romeo & Juliet A Midsummer Night\u2019s Dream Richard … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[16],"tags":[2544,2606,168,1535,218],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203368"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=203368"}],"version-history":[{"count":40,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203368\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":204753,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/203368\/revisions\/204753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=203368"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=203368"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sheilaomalley.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=203368"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}