Contrary Notions of Identity in As You like It - Yavanika

Rice University 

Contrary Notions of Identity in As You like It 

Author(s): Mark Bracher 

Reviewed work(s): 

Source: Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 24, No. 2, Elizabethan and Jacobean 

Drama (Spring, 1984), pp. 225-240 

Published by: Rice University 

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/450525 . 

Accessed: 07/03/2013 13:10 

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . 

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp 

. 

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of 

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms 

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. 

. 

Rice University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in English 

Literature, 1500-1900. 

http://www.jstor.org 

This content downloaded on Thu, 7 Mar 2013 13:10:36 PM 

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

SEL 24 (1984) 

ISSN 0039-3657 

Contrary Notions of Identity in 

As You Like It 

MARK BRACHER 

In her chapter on comedy in Feeling and Form, Susanne Langer 

observes that comedy "sets up in the audience a sense of general exhilaration, 

because it presents the very image of 'livingness.'' This 

"immediate sense of life" which is "the essence of comedy"2 derives 

from the essential comic action, which, "whatever the story may be, 

. . . takes the form of a temporary triumph over the surrounding 

world."3 The experience of comedy is thus an experience "of human 

vitality holding its own in the world,"4 an experience of"organic unity, 

growth, and self-preservation."5 Life can triumph over the otherness 

of the world, however, in basically two ways, as Langer herself notes 

in passing:6 it can either negate this obstacle of otherness, excluding it 

from the world of the organism, or it can accommodate itself to this 

otherness, changing its own identity so as to include the other as other. 

Now, if comic action consists in a triumph of life over the world, and 

if this triumph of life can occur in two fundamentally different ways, 

we might expect that there would be two fundamentally different 

types of comedy corresponding to the two modes of triumph.7 Such is 

in fact the case, as Northrop Frye has observed. Noting in his Anatomy 

of Criticism that "comedy blends into irony and satire at one end and 

Mark Bracher teachers English at Iowa State University. His book, Being Form'd: 

Thinking Through Blake's Milton (Station Hill Press, 1984), elaborates on many of the 

issues concerning identity that are discussed in the present article. 

'Susanne K. Langer, Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art (New York: Charles Scribner's 

Sons, 1953), p. 348. 

Ibid., p. 331. 

Ibid., p. 348. 

'Ibid., p. 331. 

'Ibid., p. 350. 

Ibid. p. 328. 

7Langer notes that this triumph can occur in various different ways-"by wit, 

luck, personal power, or even humorous, or ironical, or philosophical acceptance of 

mischance" (p. 331), but she does not connect these different modes of triumph in 

comedy with the two basic modes by which life itself triumphs. 



226 

IDENTITY IN AS YOU LIKE I T 

into romance at the other,"8 Frye declares that "there are two ways of 

developing the form of comedy: one is to throw the main emphasis on 

the blocking characters; the other is to throw it forward on the scenes 

of discovery and reconciliation. One is the general tendency of comic 

irony, satire, realism, and studies of manners; the other is the tendency 

of Shakespearean and other types of romantic comedy."9 We can 

identify ironic or satiric comedy, which emphasizes the blocking 

agent, with triumph through exclusion; and we can detect a similar 

kinship between Shakespearean or romantic comedy and fulfillment 

through inclusion of otherness. For while the denouement of satiric 

comedy consists in the exclusion, through defeat (and in the purest 

form of this comedy, through expulsion as well) of the blocking agent, 

the denouement of Shakespeare's romantic comedy tends more 

toward the inclusion of this agent. 

In thus portraying fulfillment in such fundamentally different 

ways, these two basic modes of comedy embody two fundamentally 

different perspectives on the nature of life itself: while satiric comedy 

focuses on life or the self as exclusive of otherness, Shakespearean 

comedy emphasizes that one's being is inclusive of otherness. The 

former evokes the "immediate sense of life" through opposition to and 

the defeat of otherness, while the latter produces this "sense of general 

exhilaration" through relation to and acceptance of otherness. 

But in thus evoking different experiences of life itself, these two 

types of comedy, one could argue, may well predispose their audiences 

to two fundamentally different strategies of existence: for if we 

are made to apprehend the self as primarily exclusive, we will be more 

likely to seek fulfillment by being exclusive, whereas if we are made to 

grasp the self as for the most part inclusive, we will tend to seek fulfillment 

through inclusion-through relation and participation with 

others. 

Such, at least, are the assumptions which seem to inform As You 

Like It. For in this play Shakespeare presents us with two groups of 

characters embodying opposite types of self-one exclusive and the 

other inclusive. These actual selves, moreover, can be seen to result 

from the characters' tacit and largely unconscious assumptions about 

the fundamental nature of the self-about what constitutes one's 

identity. Thus one group of characters tacitly assumes that human 

selves are primarily closed entities opposed to other selves, and this 

largely unconscious assumption is manifested by the envious, antagonistic, 

and even violent behavior of those who hold it. The other 

8Northrop Frye, Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays (Princeton: Princeton Univ. 

Press, 1957), p. 177. 

9Ibid., pp. 166-67. 



MARK BRAC HER 

227 

group of characters experiences the self as intrinsically open to and 

inclusive of other selves, a perspective which results in actions of love 

and sacrifice for others. 

Through the action of As You Like It, Shakespeare demonstrates the 

validity of both perspectives on the self, but accords a certain priority 

or privilege to the perspective of inclusiveness. Because of this perspective, 

and because Shakespeare, in addition, accords only subordinate 

or provisional status to the central attitudes and modes of 

being that characterize satiric comedy, the play works to lead the 

audience, both theoretically and affectively, away from the exclusive 

self and into an experience of identity as inclusive rather than exclusive 

of others. This inclusive self, moreover, is shown to be constituted 

by a plurality of perspectives or personalities - since one person can 

be open and loving to another only if he or she meets the other with a 

perspective or mode of being that is tailored to the uniqueness of the 

other. ' 

'?The fact that the inclusive self is a self of multiple perspectives provides the 

connection which critics have been unable to find between the two main themes of 

the play: multiple perspectives and love. Concerning the plurality of perspectives, 

C. L. Barber, for example, in Shakespeare's Festive Comedy (Princeton: Princeton Univ. 

Press, 1959), p. 234, speaks of "the constant shifting of attitude and point of view" in 

the play, while Harold Jenkins, in "As You Like It," ShS 8 (1955):49, 45, notes "the 

play's principle of countering one view with another." Other critics speak of the "gap 

between awarenesses" in the play (Bertrand Evans, Shakespeare's Comedies (Oxford: 

Clarendon Press, 1960), p. 87), the play's "multiple planes of reality" (S. L. Bethell, 

Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition (Durham, N.C.: Duke Univ. Press, 

1944), p. 38), and the "several modes of experience" embodied in the play (Thomas 

Kelly, "Shakespeare's Romantic Heroes: Orlando Reconsidered," SQ 24(Winter 

1973):22). 

Regarding the centrality of love in the play, see Barber, p. 233; John Russell 

Brown, Shakespeare and His Comedies (London: Methuen, 1957), p. 141; and Robert 

B. Bennett, "The Reform of a Malcontent: Jaques and the Meaning of As You Like 

It" ShStud. 9(1976): 188. Several other critics have also noted the larger, religious 

dimension of the love portrayed in the play. See, for example, Michael Taylor, "As 

You Like it: the Penalty of Adam," CritQ 15(Spring 1973):79; Rene E. Fortin, 

"'Tongues in Trees': Symbolic Patterns in As You Like It," TSLL 14 (Winter 

1973):577; and Richard Knowles, "Myth and Type in As You Like It,"ELH33 (March 

1966):1-22, passim. 

Regarding the connection of the two themes, it is recognized, of course, that the 

multiplicity of perspectives produces a clearer vision of love, and that the roleplaying 

and disguise somehow seem to bring the lovers together-partly by revealing 

their folly to them-but an understanding of the precise manner in which these 

devices promote love is lacking. Some critics even marvel that the ideal of love 

remains at all after the parody and irony. This failure to integrate the two primary 

thematic concerns of the play has kept us from appreciating their full significance. 

Thus Knowles, for example, is forced to conclude that despite the play's numerous 

religious references and Christian patterns, it cannot sustain an interpretation 



228 

IDENTITY IN AS YOU LIKE IT 

I 

The view of the self as a monolith opposed to other monadic selves 

can be seen to underlie the major conflicts of the play. The play 

begins, in fact, with just such a conflict, with Oliver attempting to 

stymie Orlando. The fact that Oliver apparently has no good reason 

for opposing Orlando has puzzled critics, especially since the motivation 

of Lodge's Saladyne, Shakespeare's source for Oliver, is quite 

clear (Saladyne is covetous of the ploughlands bequeathed Rosader 

by their father). Sylvan Barnet notes that "Shakespeare might have 

followed Lodge in having the eldest son envious of his younger brother's 

ample possessions, but instead Shakespeare makes Oliver's conspiracy 

against Orlando less intelligible by giving Orlando only 'a 

poor thousand crowns' (I.i.2-3)," a 'poor allotery' (I.i.71-72) that 

does not seem to interest Oliver."'2 Although the elimination of any 

tangible basis for animosity could simply reflect Oliver's minor stature 

in the play, the effect of the elimination is to force us to focus on the 

soul, the inner self, of Oliver,'13 and when we do so, his behavior can be 

seen to derive from his unconscious assumption of what constitutes 

his identity or being. This assumption is especially evident at the end 

of the scene, where Oliver soliloquizes on Orlando: 

I hope I shall see an end of him; for my soul, yet I know not 

why, hates nothing more than he. Yet he's gentle, never 

schooled and yet learned, full of noble device, of all sorts 

enchantingly beloved; and indeed so much in the heart of the 

world, and especially of my own people, who best know him, 

that I am altogether misprized. 

(I.i. 159-65) 

The final clause reveals that Oliver's hatred derives from the tacit 

assumption that individual selves are fundamentally opposed to one 

another,14 and that consequently the enhancement of one self entails a 

based upon this aspect, because the religious element is "entirely unrelated to several 

of the story lines or subplots" (p. 19). 

"All references are to The Complete Signet Classic Shakespeare, general ed. Sylvan 

Barnet (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1972). 

"Sylvan Barnet, "'Strange Events': Improbability in As You Like It," ShStud 4 

(1969): 122. 

"Alexander Leggatt, in Shakespeare's Comedy of Love (London: Methuen, 1974), p. 

187, observes that the "arbitrary actions [of Oliver and Frederick] spring from irrational, 

insecure personalities." 

'4Ralph Berry, in Shakespeare's Comedies: Explorations in Form (Princeton: Princeton 

Univ. Press, 1972), p. 178, 185, declares that "Oliver hates Orlando because he 

seems an inferior version of his golden brother . . .; the other parallels self, and 

therefore subtly threatens self." 



MARK 

BRACHER 

229 

diminution of the other. Identity is a function of exclusiveness, in 

Oliver's view: each self is essentially an isolated entity, and as with 

Touchstone's cup and glass, "filling the one doth empty the other" 

(V.i.45-46). 

This assumption about the nature of identity and fulfillment is even 

more apparent in the behavior of Duke Frederick. When Charles tells 

Oliver that young gentlemen are flocking to Duke Senior every day, 

there is an intimation that ajealousy similar to Oliver's,15 based on an 

identical view of the self, might be one cause of Frederick's usurpation 

and his banishment (exclusion) of his brother. This inference is confirmed 

in the following scene when Frederick says to Orlando, "The 

world esteemed thy father honorable, / But I did find him still mine 

enemy" (I.i.221-22). Duke Frederick portrays the relation of these 

clauses as one of contrast ("but"), but it is evident that the relation is 

actually one of cause and effect: the world esteemed Orlando's father 

honorable, therefore Frederick saw him as an enemy. In the character of 

Frederick, Shakespeare is thus once again portraying a self that is 

constituted by opposition to other selves-by exclusiveness-and 

thus feels threatened by the success of another. And once again Shakespeare 

has diverged from his source in order to present such a portrait: 

Frederick's reaction is the opposite of the inclusive response of 

the king in Lodge, where we find that "when they knew him to be the 

youngest Sonne of Sir John of Bourdeaux, the King rose from his seate 

and imbraced him, and the Peeres intreated him with al favourable 

courtesie.:'6 

The exclusive view of the self is also the cause of Frederick's behavior 

toward Rosalind, which, Le Beau informs us, is "Grounded upon 

no other argument / But that the people praise her for her virtues" and 

pity her for the sake of her father (I.ii.274-75). As with Oliver's antagonism 

toward Orlando, Shakespeare has removed the motivation 

which is found in Lodge. Torismond, Frederick's counterpart in 

Lodge, banishes Rosalynd because he fears that a nobleman might 

marry her and then "in his wifes right attempt the kingdom."'7 In 

Shakespeare's version, however, there is no such obvious motive for 

the duke's action, and the only overt explanation we receive is Le 

Beau's remark, "The duke is humorous" (I.ii.262). This absence of a 

clear motive forces us once again to examine the soul of the agent. 

When we do so, we find once again the notion that identity is a func- 

'5Shakespeare invites parallels between the two relationships by making the two 

dukes brothers: Lodge's Gerismond and Torismond are unrelated. 

'6Thomas Lodge, Rosalynde, in Geoffrey Bullough, ed., Narrative and Dramatic 

Sources of Shakespeare, 8 vols., 2: The Comedies, 1597-1603 (New York: Columbia 

Univ. Press, 1958), p. 172. 

'7See Barnet, p. 124. 



230 


tion of exclusiveness, a notion which Frederick himself makes explicit 

in the following scene. When Celia protests the banishment of Rosalind, 

he tells her: "Thou art a fool. She robs thee of thy name, / And 

thou wilt show more bright and seem more virtuous / When she is 

gone" (I.iii.79-81).For Frederick, as for Oliver, selves are seen as 

ontologically competitive with each other, and the enhancement of 

one self means the diminution of another's being. 

The actions of the villains of the play can thus be seen to arise from 

a vision of identity as exclusive. In contrast, the actions of the hero 

and heroines of the play seem to derive from an opposite perspective, 

which experiences identity as a matter of inclusion and relatednessa 

notion which is expressed first by Celia, in direct contradiction of 

her father. While for Duke Frederick, Rosalind's presence means a 

diminution of Celia's being, for Celia it means the exact opposite: an 

enhancement of her existence. "I cannot live out of her company," 

she says (I.iii.85), indicating that her very being includes that of 

Rosalind. "Thou and I am one," she says to Rosalind. "Shall we be 

sund'red, shall we part sweet girl? / No, let my father seek another 

heir" (I.iii.97-98). In rejecting her father for Rosalind, Celia is showing 

that her identity, her true self, is not a product of her lineage but is 

rather constituted by her relatedness to and inclusion of another self. 

Celia's attitude embodies the realization that, to alter Touchstone's 

dictum, filling the one doth fill the other also. 

The view of self embraced by Celia and Rosalind, then, is directly 

opposed to that of Oliver and Duke Frederick. Shakespeare has 

pointed up this contrast by juxtaposing the two attitudes in the first 

two scenes of the play: immediately following Oliver's soliloquy on his 

hatred of Orlando, the scene changes and Rosalind and Celia appear 

and speak of their love for each other. While Oliver is envious of 

Orlando's status, Rosalind tells Celia, "I will forget the condition of 

my estate to rejoice in yours" (I.ii.14-15). Celia replies, "What [my 

father] hath taken away from thy father perforce, I will render thee 

again in affection" (I. ii. 18-20), thus contrasting her own attitude of 

love and inclusion with her father's action of envy and exclusion 

(usurpation). 

The two perspectives on identity are contrasted again later in the 

scene, when Duke Frederick is speaking to Orlando. Frederick's 

lines - "The world esteemed thy father honorable, / But I did find him 

still mine enemy"-are echoed by Rosalind's declaration eight lines 

later of the exactly opposite attitude: "My father loved Sir Roland as 

his soul, / And all the world was of my father's mind" (I.ii.231-32, my 

emphasis). While Frederick sets himself in opposition to the world 

and in enmity with Roland, Duke Senior is presented as virtually 

consubstantial with Roland, and with "the world." His identity, like 



MARK BRAC HER 

231 

that of Rosalind and Celia, is constituted by relationship with and 

participation in the being of another, as he himself later implies when 

he defines his identity in terms of relationship, declaring to Orlando: 

"I am the Duke / That loved your father" (I.vii. 194-95). 

The most important juxtaposition of these opposing attitudes is 

found in the wrestling match. A number of the play's commentators 

have realized the symbolic importance of this event as a prefiguration 

to the rest of the play.'8 Charles, as Thomas Kelly notes,' is an agent 

of Oliver and is also aligned with the court of Duke Frederick; he thus 

functions as the champion of the exclusive, monadic self which Oliver 

and Frederick have embraced. Indeed, Charles's own words reveal 

that he, too, has this perspective on the self. When he tells Oliver, "I 

wrestle for my credit" (I.i. 124), he indicates, as Kelly observes, that 

"he regards his footing atop Fortune's wheel as a precarious station 

. which cannot be shared."20 His being is enhanced, in his view, only by 

diminution of other selves. 

Orlando seems to embody the contrary view, and Shakespeare 

points to this contrast by having both Charles and Orlando refer to 

the wrestler as a "foil" to the youth. Charles says to Oliver, "For your 

love, I would be loath to foil him, as I must for my own honor if he 

come in" (I.i. 127-28). "Foil" here, of course, means to defeat or stymie, 

but the other meaning is present to the audience as well. Orlando 

uses the word in the same way as Charles, when he says to Rosalind 

and Celia, "Let your fair eyes and gentle wishes go with me to my 

trial; wherein if I be foil'd, there is but one sham'd that was never 

gracious" (I.ii.180-83). But unlike Charles, and indeed unlike 

Lodge's Rosader at the identical moment, Orlando appears relatively 

unconcerned about self-about either losing "honor" or gaining 

"shame." For Charles, in contrast, fights for honor and station, and so 

does Rosader, whose victory is immediately preceded by his "calling 

to minde . . . the fame of his Fathers honours, and the disgrace that 

should fall to his house by his misfortune."2' Again Shakespeare's 

alteration serves to focus attention on apparent lack of motivation and 

thus to direct our view toward the nature of the self-here toward 

Orlando's relative lack of self-interest. 

Orlando's attitude is further revealed by the fact that Celia's appeal 

to his self-interest- "We pray you for your own sake to embrace your 

"See, for example, Thomas Kelly, p. 15. John Doebler, in "Orlando: Athlete of 

Virtue," ShS 26 (1972): 115, believes that "we should at least consider the possibility 

of Shakespeare wanting to place a special emphasis upon the wrestling match, making 

it a thematic introduction to the role he had outlined for Orlando." 

9Kelly, p. 15. 

20Ibid. My emphasis. 

'Bullough, p. 171. 



232 


own safety and give over this attempt" (I.ii. 173-74)- falls on deaf 

ears. Orlando's lack of egoism and self-interest even in the act of 

fighting - that action which we might normally consider to epitomize 

egoistic self-assertion- contrasts sharply with the heroic selfassertion 

of Charles, who indulges in the typical boasting of the martial 

champion. Orlando's victory over Charles thus represents the triumph 

of unself-centeredness, or openness and inclusiveness. 

That Orlando's victory is a triumph of the forces of love, or inclusion, 

over those of self-love, or exclusion, is further emphasized22 by 

the events immediately following the match. Here we see that Orlando's 

overthrow of the exclusive, heroic ego23 embodied by Charles also 

overthrows what there is of his own heroic ego and that of Rosalind, 

and makes love victorious: Orlando's conduct has evoked Rosalind's 

love,and her ensuing gift to him (the chain from her neck) elicits his 

love. The thematic equivalence of their love with the defeat of the 

heroic ego, or exclusive self, is indicated by the fact that their love is 

referred to in terms of Charles's (the heroic ego's) defeat. "My better 

parts / Are all thrown down" Orlando says after receiving Rosalind's 

gift. Rosalind responds, "Sir, you have wrestled well, and overthrown I 

More than your enemies" (I.ii.245-46, 250-51; my emphasis), and a 

few lines later Orlando exclaims to himself: "0 poor Orlando, thou 

art overthrown! I Or Charles or something weaker masters thee" 

(I.ii.255-56, my emphasis). Thus the literal battle constitutes a conflict 

between the exclusive and inclusive notions of identity, and serves 

as a figure for what happens within the souls of Orlando and Rosalind, 

and, as we shall see, the rest of the characters as well. 

II 

The two perspectives on identity which Shakespeare contrasts in 

the opening scenes may be seen to correspond, as we noted earlier, to 

22The symbolic significance of the event is also emphasized by parallels with Hercules' 

fight with Anteus. Shakespeare deliberately evokes a parallel between 

Orlando and Hercules, it seems, by having Rosalind say to Orlando, "Now Hercules 

be thy speed, young man!" (I.ii.205). In Lodge the parallel is between Charles 

and Hercules. Knowles notes several additional allusions to the Hercules myth and 

observes that "Renaissance mythographers . . . moralized the wrestling match 

[between Hercules and Anteus] as the victory of the rational soul over earthly or 

sensual appetite" (p. 4)-of the true self over the perverted self. In Shakespeare's 

treatment of the match, the opposition of true self and perverted self is expressed not 

in terms of rationality versus appetite, but rather as inclusiveness and love versus 

exclusiveness and envy. 

23The term "heroic ego," as I am using it here, is taken from James Hillman, 

Re- Visioning Psychology (New York: Harper & Row, 1975), who sees the true self as a 

multiplicity of personalities rather than a monistic "heroic ego," as he terms it. 



MARK 

BRAC HER23 

233 

two types of comedy: the romantic and the satiric. As Nevill Coghill 

has pointed out, while Jonson's satiric comedy preaches " a morality 

that fundamentally presupposes . . . a world of discordant selfinterest, 

Shakespeare's romantic comedy is based on the view that life 

is a union in love, not a battle of self-interest."24 The conflict between 

the two notions of identity thus also manifests itself as a debate 

between romantic and satiric comedy. A primary means by which 

Shakespeare prosecutes this debate in As You Like It is to transform the 

various exclusive elements typical of satiric comedy into agents or 

ancillaries of inclusiveness. 

One of the most obvious satiric elements is Touchstone. His wit is 

typical of satiric comedy, and most importantly, "he has a natural 

tendency," as Alexander Leggatt notes, "to react against the person he 

is speaking with,"25 manifesting that fundamental contentiousness 

which is the prevalent mode of being in satiric comedy. In Shakespeare's 

hands, however, the wit and opposition of Touchstone function 

not as ends in themselves but as means to a greater relatedness 

among selves. For as a self of relatedness, the inclusive self necessarily 

embraces, as we noted earlier, a certain pluralism and incohesiveness: 

if the self is fundamentally an openness, a relatedness to what is other, 

it will necessarily exist in a plurality of modes, for in its relation to one 

thing, it will be significantly different than it is in relation to another 

thing. The inclusive self, that is, alters itself to accommodate the 

uniqueness of everything it encounters, while the exclusive self, in 

contrast, attempts to assimilate or subordinate everything to one single 

mode of a monistic ego. And since a truly inclusive self necessarily 

embraces a plurality of perspectives, it also necessarily embodies a 

fundamental incohesion. 

But if inclusive selves are thus by nature incohesive in a certain 

sense, then it follows that a major means of promoting an inclusive, 

loving self would be to draw it out of a limited mode of being or a 

single perspective and into the inclusiveness and plurality of incohesion. 

Leading other characters, and also the audience, into such incohesion 

is a primary function of the fool Touchstone, a "motley minded 

gentleman" (to useJaques's words, V.iv.41), whose motley coat serves 

as an apt emblem of the fundamental incohesion, or plurality of perspectives, 

which is a prerequisite for an inclusive self. 

The fool functions in several ways to produce plurality in those he 

encounters. The most obvious way is through direct contradiction of 

whatever view he meets. We have already noted Touchstone's ten- 

24Nevill Coghill, "The Basis of Shakespearean Comedy: A Study in Medieval 

Affinities[" E&S 3 (1950):27, 13. My emphasis. 

25P. 196. 



234 


dency to oppose his interlocutors, and critics have long realized that 

the fool's use of wit, irony, and satire serves to pave the way to love by 

producing humility. But although humility is necessary for love, it is 

not totally sufficient, for in order to love, one must not only reduce 

one's own self-interest, but must actually embrace the self-interest of 

the other. In love, one adopts the perspective of the other: when the 

other is injured, one hurts; when the other is happy, one is joyful. 

Thus, in addition to engendering humility through verbal abuse, 

Shakespeare's fool elicits an alteration of perspective by employing 

particular types of verbal structures: it is significant, after all, that the 

fool is not merely insulting, but also witty.26 

Hence the fool's use of paradoxes and puns, which, in order to be 

comprehended, must be perceived simultaneously from two mutually 

exclusive perspectives. When Corin asks, "And how like you this 

shepherd's life, Master Touchstone?" the fool replies, "Truly shepherd, 

in respect of itself, it is a good life; but in respect that it is a 

shepherd's life, it is naught" (III.ii. 11-15). Touchstone is apparently 

saying that his life is a good life, but that it is also worth nothing-an 

assertion which seems self-contradictory. In order to understand 

Touchstone's statement, we must see him simultaneously as a shepherd 

and not a shepherd: insofar as he is playing the role of shepherd 

in Arden, he has the good life of a shepherd, but inasmuch as he is not 

really a shepherd at all, but a fool, his life as a shepherd is nothing. 

Puns elicit a similar plurality of perspectives. When Celia declares 

to Rosalind, "I pray you, bear with me; I cannot go no further," 

Touchstone announces, "For my part I had rather bear with you than 

bear you. Yet I should bear no cross if I did bear you, for I think you 

have no money in your purse" (II.iv.9-13). This complex pun causes 

us to see "bear" in a plurality of contexts, meaning simultaneously to 

put up with, to endure, to carry, and perhaps to give birth to. In 

addition, we are forced out of our original perspective on "cross" as 

engine of execution to a view of "cross" as coin. 

The function of the wit in Shakespeare is thus not simply to exhibit 

in the verbal sphere the pervasive will to dominate others characteristic 

of exclusive selves, but, rather, to break up the absolutist perspective 

of the exclusive self, creating that incohesion which is a 

prerequisite for inclusiveness and love. Wit is used to open and 

enlighten others-to create a "new tolerance" and a "more inclusive 

consciousness"27 in other characters and in the audience-and not to 

consolidate one's own position by injuring or destroying the other. 

26Leggatt notes that in As You Like It "wit is not simply an aggressive weapon . . . 

but a liberation of the mind," p. 195. 

27The phrases are from David Young, The Hearts Forest: A Study of Shakespeare's 

Pastoral Plays (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1976), p. 71, and Barber, p. 239. 



MARK 

BRACG HER 

235 

The fool should be a Touchstone who causes the true self to appear, 

not a Jaques who rails against imperfection. Jaques's statement - "I 

will through and through / Cleanse the foul body of th' infected world, 

/ If they wil patiently receive my medicine" (II.vii.59-61)-sounds 

like the manifesto of a satiric playwright and issues from the very self 

of exclusion which it is the fool's role in Shakespeare to open: Jaques 

the satirist is able to view human action only from the single perspective 

of absolute righteousness, and Duke Senior speaks for the Shakespearean 

vision, and against the satiric perspective, when he chastises 

Jaques: "Most mischievous foul sin, in chiding sin" (II.vii.64). Relativism, 

or the achievement of a plurality of perspectives, leads, in the 

Shakespearean vision, not to skepticism and cynicism, but to love. 

The satiric vision is thus contrary to Shakespeare's not only in that 

it denies the ultimate value of love,28 but also because it encourages 

and reinforces the attitude of the exclusive self, which is always 

attempting a put-down or expulsion of the other, be it physical, 

social, or verbal. In satiric comedy, the breaking apart of an exclusive 

self is done in order to destroy that self and thus increase the cohesion 

and power of another exclusive self. This is the ultimate goal not only 

of the antagonists but also of the protagonists, and even of the playwright 

himself, a fact which is manifested by the observation that the 

triumph of the protagonist is embodied as an overthrow rather than a 

conversion and inclusion of the antagonist. In Shakespearean comedy, 

on the other hand, the main purpose in attacking an exclusive self 

is to open it up and allow it to achieve the fullness of its being in 

relatedness with other selves, a goal which finds expression in a 

denouement of conversion and inclusion rather than dominance. 

The greater inclusiveness promoted by As You Like It is enhanced 

not only by the jarring of the fool but also by the disguise or roleplaying 

the characters engage in. Like puns and wit, disguise in 

Shakespeare's comedy fosters greater inclusiveness in the audience as 

well as in the characters. While in satiric comedy we the audience gain 

pleasure primarily at the expense of the victim of disguise or as a 

result of the abandonment of the disguise-both of which play to the 

self of exclusion - in Shakespearean comedy a greater measure of our 

delight in disguise derives from the energy produced by the plurality 

of perspectives which disguise inaugurates. A consummate instance 

of such an experience occurs when Rosalind disguised as Ganymede 

plays1 Rosalind, while Orlando plays himself. The multiple perspectives 

constellated by this encounter force us to see every word uttered 

by the characters in several ways at once, and as a result, we are 

28See Peter G. Phialas. "Comic Truth in Shakespeare andJonson," SAQ62 (Winter 

1963):78-91, for a discussion ofJonson's treatment of love. 



236 

IDENTI TY IN AS YOU LIKE IT 

unable to rest for long in the inertia of any single attitude or emotion. 

This experience of greater inclusiveness which disguise inaugurates 

in the audience is mirrored and reinforced by the greater inclusiveness 

which the characters themselves achieve through disguise. In 

satiric comedy disguise is used to deceive and triumph over someone. 

Although this motive is not altogether absent in Shakespeare, the end 

result of disguise is here not the intensified exclusiveness of self but 

rather a greater inclusiveness. This result is apparent when Rosalind 

appears in disguise with Celia and Touchstone. She complains of weariness 

and would like to cry, but because of the role she is playing, she 

is able to take another perspective on her situation and resist the inertia 

of her immediate emotion: "I could find in my heart to disgrace my 

man's apparel and to cry like a woman," she declares, "but I must 

comfort the weaker vessel, as doublet and hose ought to show itself 

courageous to petticoat. Therefore, courage, good Aliena!" 

(II.iv.4-8). By embracing her role as Ganymede, Rosalind is thus 

able to get outside her monistic, habitual self and achieve a more 

inclusive, incohesive self that realizes the folly of romantic ideals even 

while loving Orlando. As a result, her love becomes more authentic, 

for in the end she self-consciously and deliberately gives herself to 

love instead of being overthrown by it as she was at first. 

Orlando goes through a similar exercise in achieving a more inclusive 

self. It might appear that in his encounters with Ganymede's 

Rosalind, Orlando is simply being himself. In actuality, however, he 

is playing Orlando, and there is an important difference in the two 

perspectives. In playing himself, Orlando, at the same time that he is 

himself, is forced to step outside himself and view this self as a mere 

role he is playing rather than as his absolute identity. His roleplaying, 

like Rosalind's, thus works to lead him to new perspectives 

and hence creates of him a self of greater inclusiveness, a self more 

willing to accommodate the other. Orlando must move beyond that 

self which, in the words of Kent Talbot van den Berg, "first desires his 

beloved as a physical object, and subsequently . . . re-creates her as a 

mental image."29 He must attain that inclusiveness which views the 

other "as another subject who transcends both the object and the 

image . . . , [so that] the beloved's existence as a person independent 

of the lover's will is no longer threatened by the unmastered importunity 

of desire or ignored in the solipsism of fancy, but is cherished by a 

respectful love."30 A truly inclusive self, a self of love, is a self of multiple 

perspectives that recognizes the profound truth beneath Orlando's 

29Kent Talbot van den Berg, "Theatrical Fiction and the Reality of Love in As You 

Like It, PMLA 90 (October 1975):891. 

'0lbid. 



MARK 

BRACHER 

237 

conceit that "Rosalind of many parts / By heavenly synod was 

devised; / Of many faces, eyes, and hearts" (III.ii. 149-51). That the 

multiplicity of the self "by heavenly synod was devised" would indicate 

that the essence, the ultimate nature of the self, is a plurality and 

not a monistic unity. If a self exists as a closed monadic unit, it lives in 

perversion of its true nature, for such a mode of being is not what 

heaven has devised.31 Here once again Shakespeare has taken a common 

motif of satiric comedy-disguise-and transformed it so that it 

supports a vision of human being that is contradictory to that of 

satiric comedy. 

III 

In addition to appropriating elements of satiric comedy and transforming 

them into ancillaries ofinclusiveness, As You Like It also promotes 

the self of inclusion by portraying its victory over the self of 

exclusion. The greatest triumph of the inclusive self occurs at the end 

of Act IV, with the rescue and conversion of Oliver. Knowles observes 

that "Orlando's deed symbolizes his victory over the savage egotism 

and jealousy that his brother embodies in the play and with which he 

himself is tempted."32 Knowles also sees this action as "a victory over 

Satan" for both men,33 and Rene Fortin declares that in his rescue of 

Oliver, Orlando is like Christ.34 Whether or not one reads the rescue 

scene symbolically (or allegorically) - and there are justifications for 

such a reading35-the religious dimensions of the event are significant, 

and serve to connect the inclusive self with the self of Christian 

love. The utterly selfless act of Orlando shatters the closed self of 

Oliver and transforms him into an inclusive self, a transformation of 

identity indicated by Oliver's declaration, "'Twas I. But 'tis not I" 

(IV.iii.136). Oliver is no longer the same person he was when, as an 

exclusive self, he declared, "I never loved my brother in my life" 

(III.i. 14). This exclusive self of envy and hatred has been converted 

into an inclusive self of love and fellowship, which, Oliver now realizes, 

constitutes the true, natural identity of a person: his former self 

of envy and hatred he now sees as "unnatural" (line 123), a perversion 

of his true being. 

By having Oliver, the primary exponent of self-interest, transformed 

into a proponent of love, Shakespeare undercuts the satiric 

3This plurality of the inclusive self, which is a means of accommodating the other, 

is to be sharply distinguished from that opportunistic self which adopts a multitude 

of facades simply in order to prey on other selves. 

32Knowles, p. 6. 

3Ibid., p. 13. 

34Fortin, p. 580. 

35See Fortin, pp. 572-79, and Knowles. pp. 5-6. 



238 

I D E N T I TY IN AS YOU LIKE IT 

view of human being. However, in the spirit of inclusiveness, Shakespeare 

does not simply dismiss the cynical satiric view as error. 

Rather, he presents incontrovertible evidence that this view of the self 

has a certain validity. In the confrontation of Touchstone and William 

in the opening scene of Act V, we are shown that from a certain perspective, 

the self is indeed constituted through exclusion of and opposition 

to other selves. The enhancement of one self often does, in fact, 

entail the diminution of another: Touchstone gets Audrey by taking 

her away from William. Thus, as Touchstone tells William, "To have 

is to have; for it is a figure in rhetoric that drink, being poured of a cup 

into a glass, by filling the one doth empty the other. For all your writers 

do consent that ipse is he. Now, you are not ipse, for I am he" 

(V.i.43-47). Ipseity, or personal identity, is by definition the consequence 

of difference or distinction from others: "ipse is he," and as 

Touchstone rightly notes, you cannot be ipse if I am he. For Touchstone, 

moreover, the being which one identity contains is like drink 

(ipse, the Latin pronoun meaning himself, is also a slang name for a 

kind of ale36): it cannot be included in another identity. The ensuing 

action demonstrates this exclusiveness of identity, for Touchstone gets 

Audrey, while William loses her: Touchstone the glass (to adopt the 

fool's "figure in rhetoric") is filled through emptying William the cup. 

But the fact that persons often - or even usually - exist in exclusion 

of and opposition to one another does not prove that such opposition 

constitutes the self, as the satiric view tacitly assumes. Hence the triumph 

of the closed, exclusive self is not ultimate in the play. In the 

final scene the fool's wit is seen to be an ancillary to love, and the 

satiric vision, in the figures of Jaques and Touchstone, is partially 

dismissed and partially absorbed into the Shakespearean comedy of 

love. 

In this scene the fool Touchstone assumes an inclusive identity, 

pressing in "amongst the rest of the country copulatives" (V.iv.56-57) 

and giving the assembly instructions (V.iv.69-103) on how to live as 

an inclusive self. All disagreements, Touchstone counsels, should be 

pursued with tentative, conditional assertions, never with a direct 

attack against another person. Such relativism allows differing opinions, 

multiple perspectives, to exist side by side. Thus if, as Touchstone 

says, he disliked the cut of a certain courtier's beard and said so, 

the courtier would reply not with the Lie Direct but with the Retort 

Courteous, merely stating that he was of the opinion that his beard 

was well cut. Such a response avoids the absolutist stance of the heroic 

ego, which views any difference of opinion as a threat to the self. The 

Retort Courteous is not cowardly; it rather embodies a respect for the 

360ED, Compact edn., 2 vols.,l:1482. 



MARK 

BRACHER 

239 

other and a recognition of the other's intrinsic right to be other than 

oneself. Thus the courtier will accommodate all degrees of opposing 

points of view, right up to the Lie Direct. And even the Lie Direct 

need not result in a quarrel, if both parties realize that all opinions are 

ultimately relative, and allow themselves to differ, permitting each 

other to remain other. Differences need not be resolved. Arguments can 

end in a manner other than the victory of one party and the defeat of 

the other: they can end with both parties acknowledging that they 

disagree. Even Jaques shares this realization at the end, when, 

instead of railing at the dancers, he simply declares, "I am for other 

than for dancing measures" (V.iv. 193) and withdraws. The final word 

should not be: I say this, and you are wrong to say that; but rather, as 

one of the adversaries realizes: If you say that, then I say this, and 

that's how we stand. Let's shake hands and be brothers (lines 96-102). 

Touchstone here modifies his earlier dictum on the nature of the 

self. He does not retract his assertion that "ipse is he: [and] you are not 

ipse, for I am he" - that individual selves are inherently distinct and 

thus in certain ways opposed. But he does deny that this opposition 

must of necessity dominate human existence. Mutuality and friendship 

can supersede opposition and difference if individuals will but 

acknowledge and accept that very opposition and difference. The recognition 

that every perspective is relative, and the willingness to 

admit the conditionality of one's own position, is the basis of peace, as 

Touchstone realizes: "Your If is the only peacemaker. Much virtue in 

If" (V.iv. 102-103).37 

The significance of Touchstone's disquisition is immediately 

attested to by Duke Senior, who remarks, "He uses his folly like a 

stalking horse and under the presentation of that he shoots his wit" 

(V.iv. 106-107). The value of Touchstone's insight and its relation to 

the theme of love is further indicated by Hymen, who appears and 

sanctifies - almost in response to Touchstone, it seems - the notion of 

inclusiveness: "Then is there mirth in heaven / When earthly things 

made even / Atone together" (V.iv. 108-110). Inclusiveness, or atonement, 

is seen to accord with the ultimate nature of things: it produces 

mirth in heaven. And the simple juxtaposition of Touchstone's speech 

with the appearance of Hymen indicates once again that a fundamental 

relativism is a prerequisite to love. Before one can love, one must 

be open to the loved one's otherness and allow the loved one to be 

different. 

37Maura Slattery Kuhn, in "Much Virtue in 'If," SQ 28 (Winter 1977):40-50, 

points to another indication of the play's relativism with her observation that "an 

untypically large number of If's appear in this play, more than in any other play by 

Shakespeare, both in absolute frequency and in relative frequency," p. 44. 



240 

IDENTITY IN AS YOU L IKE IT 

The company seem to have realized this fact and have taken Touchstone's 

words to heart, for they respond to Hymen's song with a litany 

of Ifs (V.iv. 118-24). Having renounced the absolute in favor of the 

relative, the exclusive self in favor of the inclusive, the lovers are prepared 

for marriage, the ultimate instance of the inclusiveness of identities. 

Hymen pairs off the couples and sings a paean to "High 

Wedlock" (V.iv.146) which reminds us that "'Tis Hymen peoples 

every town"-that without the "blessed bond of board and bed" 

(V.iv. 142-143), this union of inclusive selves (united also at the biological 

level), we would not exist. The play's final scene thus argues for 

the necessary priority of the inclusive self, without which there would 

be no society, and ultimately, no continuation of life. This argument 

is recapitulated at the end by the final dispensation of the antagonists, 

which reiterates - and, moreover, embodies -the inclusiveness of the 

play's guiding spirit. 

As the play ends, the news arrives that Duke Frederick, the play's 

highest ranking embodiment of the closed self of hatred, has been 

converted (rather than killed, as in Lodge), and Jaques, the play's 

chief exponent of the satiric vision of human being, realizes that "out 

of these convertites / There is much matter to be heard and learned" 

(V.iv. 184-85) and gracefully retires. Thus in Touchstone's speech 

and marriage, Frederick's conversion, and Jaques's humble withdrawal, 

as well as in Oliver's conversion, the play's exclusive and 

satiric elements submit to the more inclusive and magnanimous 

agents of Shakespeare's romantic comedy; and we the audience participate 

in a perspective from which life-our very being-is experienced 

as a process which, although in certain ways exclusive, is 

fundamentally a matter of openness and inclusion.

Contrary Notions of Identity in As You like It - Yavanika

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?