"To Liberty, and Not to Banishment": Society and Nature in Shakespeare's "As You Like It"
Bringing the contractualist philosophy into Shakespeare's theatre, to the delight of my fellow nerds.
Sometimes, life in our post-modern society can be exhausting. I don't even live in a cosmopolitan city, but I have fantasized more than once about leaving everything behind and moving to a cottage in the woods - waking up at sunrise, growing food in my garden, reading under the shadow of a big old tree while I listen to the birds sing, just my cats and me without the interruptions, the noise, the petty social obligations, the hurry, the capitalism (!) - a simple and honest life in harmony with nature like Circe in her island.
The romanticization of the countryside is an idea that has permeated everyone's mind ever since the invention of the first cities in ancient Greece. However, since it’s an idealized scenario, practical obstacles are overlooked, such as the dangers of living alone in the middle of nowhere, how exhausting it is to provide all the essential items for your survival, and how lonely it would be after a while, with nothing and no one around to give the slightest social or intellectual stimulation. We may not have pondered all this in our fantasies, but Shakespeare did.
As much as I wish it were true, abandoning life in society is no solution to our personal frustrations and crises, and Shakespeare agrees with me (or I agree with him). Almost five centuries ago, the Bard mocked this idea that “society” is the root of all our problems (and are we not part of society?) through a play named “As You Like It”. In it, he presented a scenario where people are suffering from a social environment that is hostile to them, and once they escape to the Forest of Arden, they think all will be blissful - problems solved. We know it as cottagecore, but in Shakespeare’s days, this genre of idyllic life in nature was known as "pastoral".
My intent with this essay is to analyze Shakespeare’s argument on society vs. nature through the ideas of Hobbes and Rousseau, since not only the play presents an interesting metaphor for this dichotomy, but also suggests topical sociopolitical views that were around at the end of the Elizabethan era, and may still be around today. Finally, I don’t wish to limit his work by a strict reading through historical context, particularly since this is only one aspect out of hundreds - for as we know, Shakespeare's plays are inexhaustible.
Influences on the Play
Katherine Little defines Pastoral Literature as “any representation of the countryside or life in the countryside that emphasises its beautiful and pleasurable aspects”. In her research, she says that poems about shepherds and cowherds first appeared in the Idylls of Theocritus (3rd century BCE), inspiring the Roman poet Virgil to write a collection of poems called the Eclogues (c. 42–37 BCE), which have been immensely influential in Western literature. In the Renaissance, the pastoral genre flourished from merging Virgilian and Christian traditions, along with contemporary concerns about court politics and rural controversies, such as enclosure, creating a new kind of poetry (LITTLE, 2020).
Considering the historical context of London in 1599-1600 (when the play was written), not only was the pastoral genre en vogue but there was a conflict between Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Essex, which may have inspired Shakespeare. During an Irish rebellion in September 1599, the Earl abandoned his military post, and his public disgrace added to the Queen’s wrath had an immediate impact on literature since the Earl was a great patron of the arts.
It seems that the artists sided with the Earl, as there was a noticeable preference for the Essex circle to the detriment of the court after the scandal. Therefore, a comedy celebrating the pleasures of a greenwood life away from the presence of the governmental nobility must have seemed, to many playgoers, both attractive and pertinent. According to Katherine Duncan-Jones:
The pleasures of retired contemplation in remote woodlands were a commonplace in Elizabethan courtly literature. This was a period during which all kinds of pastoral writing flourished, and in the prose and verse romance ‘Arcadia’ by Phillip Sidney (1554-86), he praises the woods, especially for the absence from them of ‘treason’, ‘envy’ and ‘flatters’. In the play, Duke Senior does something similar, taking pleasure in ‘the remote greenwood, exempt from ‘public hunt’.
In the pastoral, there is a sense of innocence, purity and sincere love, outside the city that "corrupts". Interestingly, this genre emerges (or comes back into fashion) within a time of great development in a city/society, for instance: many poems of this type appeared during the first decades of the Roman Empire, which was rapidly rising and had a decadent court; In the 18th century it was also very popular, and at that time the fashion was dictated by Versailles (another decadent court and Marie Antoinette even had a country villa built there); During the Elizabethan era there was also a decadent court with many intrigues and this was perceived by the population - in this period the concept of "Arcadia" arose.
Shakespeare is skeptical of pastoral ideals, as he tries to show that there are advantages to a peasant lifestyle, but not everything is a bed of roses. Evidence of this is that the shepherds in the play are not models of virtue as idealised in other works of the genre. Perhaps influenced by the context I have just described, Shakespeare satirised the exaggerated idealism of pastoral literature, criticised the corruption of the court, and delved into the philosophical question of man's belonging: is it in nature or civilisation?
“We Live in a Society”
“To liberty and not to banishment”, says Celia to Rosalind, a fairly optimistic view in the face of the fact that two noblewomen and a jester are leaving the palace toward the Forest of Arden, perhaps never to return. Celia's naive remark sets the tone of the play since it’s a great indication of how the characters consider Duke Frederick's court a hostile place, so much so that, if the court is a synthesis of civilisation, nature is deemed an inherently better place.
Act I establishes the court of the usurper Duke Frederick as a thoroughly disagreeable place in which tyrants and sadists flourish, where virtue is undervalued and even punished and vice is congratulated - the jester even says " It is the first time that I ever heard breaking of ribs was sport for ladies". We are soon introduced to four of the main characters: Orlando, Rosalind, Celia and Touchstone, all of whom escape from it into the Arden Forest.
At the end of act I, Orlando and Rosalind meet and fall in love, soon afterwards the two leave for Arden separately as they were both banished by Frederick for different reasons. Afterwards, Orlando’s old loyal servant Adam joins him, and Rosalind’s loving cousin Celia leaves with her since they can’t stand separation (and the jester Touchstone goes with them too). Plotwise, that’s all you need to know.
In Act II we meet the banished Duke Senior, who has been expelled and replaced by his ruthless younger brother Duke Frederick (Celia’s father by the way), surrounded by a couple of lords dressed like foresters’, and having an enjoyable time at the Forest. Scholar Katherine Duncan-Jones says:
The banished Duke praises the special sweetness of life in the Forest of Arden, in which all the forces that normally generate pain are transformed either into sources of pleasure or occasions for laughter
At first, the sufferings of our heroes (mainly Orlando and Rosalind) are a result of a corrupt society that doesn’t hold the same set of values that they do. Yet, once they reach the Forest in act II new problems arise and expectations are not met. By doing this, Shakespeare challenges the idea that the rural man is inherently virtuous because of his simple life in nature. One cannot live like this and be fully accomplished: in the very opening monologue, Orlando says that "man is not an ox", he needs education and intellectual stimulation - the thing Orlando resents the most is his lack of access to education due to a nobleman, the greatest injustice his brother has done him.
Over time, the characters learn that leaving a bad situation behind does not magically fix it, meaning, the corruption and hostility of their microworld are still there in the figure of Duke Frederick. They have to do something to amend the situation since the pastoral life of their dreams is not real, and perpetual flight from one place to another is not a solution. This is an intriguing and above all timeless metaphor. It made me think about how sometimes we avoid conflict by choosing to daydream about the next best thing, instead of dealing with a frustrating reality.
The Restoration of the Court
According to Paul Cantor, the countryside can be a place that inspires sincerity and “natural manners”, but at the same time, it can lead to savagery by reducing the complexity of the characters' needs for mere survival.
The first time we see Orlando and Adam in the Forest, in act II, they are starving and the old servant is on the verge of death. Since they are in a state of extreme necessity, Orlando (who’s usually kind) finds himself forced to use violence against a group of men who were having lunch there. It turns out that this group is Duke Senior's entourage, and since this is a comedy, everything ends up fine and the Duke gladly offers to help them. This moment is the greatest example of the harsh reality of life in the wild: without any support system and faced with suffering and physical need, man would have to use strength to survive. This is what Hobbes called the "natural state" - perpetual war of all against all.
Duke Senior praises the Forest for being ‘more free from peril than the envious court’ in act II and later changes his mind upon his return as the rightful ruler in act V. The court is not an inanimate object that can have characteristics of its own, but a live organism formed by people. Whether its members are virtuous or envious, then so is the court. In the end, Duke Frederick undergoes a spiritual transformation after meeting a religious man on the road to Arden and gives the dukedom back to his brother. Hence, by establishing a group of good people around him and having his power back, Duke Senior returns to his palace and is able to reform the court - or his micro-society.
In the course of the narrative, there’s a general breach of expectations since the visitors to the Forest of Arden contemplate it without enthusiasm. Upon the Duke Senior's restoration, they will return to the court with satisfaction. As Orlando insinuates, reform must begin with each individual amending his own faults, and this point is consistently made in the play.
One of the dramatic and philosophical subjects of the play is, in other words, how to recover a better world. The Forest of Arden in itself cannot be the better world, though it may of course become a part of it. With the restoration at the end of the play, providently arranged through the ministry of an old religious man, all the major characters return to their divinely appointed places and callings from what has been an unnatural banishment from their seats.
Wolves and Chains: What is the state of nature in Arden?
I must warn you, reader, that I’m at risk of committing academic blasphemy here, since I believe my idol Harold Bloom would not approve my attempt to bring danger and philosophy into Arden, “the best place to live, anywhere in Shakespeare”, according to him. I just hope he doesn’t come back to haunt me.
There are two ways of interpreting the state of nature in relation to the Forest of Arden: as a detestable exile or as an idyllic retreat. The first is closer to Hobbes’ ideas about the natural state of man, and the second is more on Rousseau’s point of view. I will briefly explain both visions and their examples in the play, so I can show you where I think Shakespeare’s philosophy lies. Important to clarify that I don’t think Shakespeare was a Contractualist or an influence on them, I’m just playing with concepts.
In Leviathan (1651), Hobbes goes against Aristotle’s conviction that man is a “political animal” and that building a polis in harmony would be something naturally human - as if man gravitated toward a social organisation. However, for Hobbes, man's nature is essentially violent and individualistic. He is attributed with the famous maxim: “man is a wolf to man”.
Men, Hobbes says, are continually in competition for honour and dignity. As a consequence, they constantly live with envy and hatred for each other and therefore in a constant condition of war - this is his version of a “state of nature”. Faced with this chaotic and fearful situation, it would be necessary to create an Estate in order to obtain a minimum of social welfare and harmony. In this way, the subjects would give up certain harmful liberties to obey the “Leviathan”. As I will demonstrate below, there are several scenes where the Hobbesian version of nature appears in the play.
The arrival of Orlando and Adam in the Forest, as mentioned before, is no picnic: they are tired, starving, and afraid. If they want to survive they will have to resort to violence, but thankfully it doesn’t go further than a threat. Such imagery does not paint a picture of Arcadia.
The dialogue in the country scenes devotes abundant imagery to the perils and hardships experienced in Arden. Caroline F. E. Spurgeon has shown that the images of sickness, disease, and medicine in As You Like It are equalled or exceeded in number only by those in Henry IV, Hamlet, Troilus and Cressida, and Coriolanus. There’s a notorious web of repetitive allusions to cold, hunger, hunting and wounds, and the corollary fight and pursuit. Again, all these elements are in the rescue scene of Adam and Orlando by Duke Senior.
Another dangerous episode involves Orlando and his evil brother Oliver: after entering the Forest on Duke Frederick's orders, Oliver is attacked by a lion, but Orlando saves him. It should not be overlooked that the images of sickness, hunger, hunting, and wounding combine and mostly end in the account of Orlando's climactic rescue of his brother, in IV.ii. Through this deed of selfless courage, Oliver changes into a decent man and all is forgiven.
By contrast, the imagery painted by Duke Senior in act II.i presents nature as an inherently peaceful place and much better in comparison to the court:
Now, my co-mates and brothers in exile,
Hath not old custom made this life more sweet
Than that of painted pomp? Are not these woods
More free from peril than the envious court?
Here feel we not the penalty of Adam,
The seasons’ difference, as the icy fang
And churlish chiding of the winter’s wind,
Which when it bites and blows upon my body
Even till I shrink with cold, I smile and say
“This is no flattery. These are counselors
That feelingly persuade me what I am.”
Sweet are the uses of adversity,
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head.
And this our life, exempt from public haunt,
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in everything.
Such understanding can be found in Rousseau’s A Discourse on the Moral Effects of the Arts and Sciences (1750). Essentially, he argues that, in a pre-social state, humans were innately good and content. However, once people got out of their “natural” state and into society, they were contaminated by vice and sin. He later published A Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1755), in which he contemplates the beginning of history as an idyllic period, which he called "the state of nature".
In his theory, the “state of nature” was moral and guided by a spontaneous empathy with others and their sufferings. Rousseau contrasted the nobleness of life in the countryside with modern decadence and the fact that “man is born free but everywhere is in chains”. Nonetheless, he says that society is maintained by need since it’s easier to survive in communion than not. The problem arises when this communion is dissolved by the inevitable corruption and inequality that comes with private property.
Usually, I don't stand by his philosophy because I think men are naturally horrible and can barely contain themselves in a society with laws, let alone without. But I do like that he places the inequality caused by the establishment of private property as the cause of moral decay.
Where Do We Belong?
In the 17th century, religion has lost its power of persuasion and its centrality in man's life, thus Contractualist theories emerged. Until the Renaissance, there was no questioning about man’s place in the world, since it would be the same as questioning the divine Providence that put him there - and this is blasphemy. This concept was much explored by Shakespeare, notably in Hamlet and King Lear, but these are tragedies. In a comedic play such as this, the resolution must be hopeful, and melancholic monologues give way to farce.
If the characters had stayed in Arden happily ever after, not only the plot of the play would lose credibility, but Shakespeare would’ve failed in his mockery of the pastoral genre and his social critique. Thankfully that’s not the case. The court may be sophisticated to the point of becoming hostile and artificial, but Shakespeare makes it clear through the peasant characters - especially William - that the price of country innocence is stupidity.
The fact that the characters return to the court under their rightful ruler implies that people belong together in civilisation after all. The problem was not the court itself, but Duke Frederick and his corruption. Through the peaceful resolution in act V and the restoration of a virtuous Duke and his praiseworthy entourage, the characters may return to their rightful and natural place in society, where Orlando will probably rule at some point.
Therefore, Shakespeare shows us that abandoning civilisation for an eternal holiday in the countryside is a simpleton idea, which belongs to poetry and not reality. Shakespeare definitely wasn’t a misanthrope - his plays are overflowing with humanity and relationships, that’s why I cannot envision him approving the desertion of life in society to live, as Rousseau said, like the "good savage".
As I said earlier, Shakespeare's plays have such depth that I could spend years analysing just one of them. As You Like It has many layers, but the one that caught my attention was this idea of running away from problems instead of facing and solving them, only to realize that nothing is that good outside of our imagination. This attitude is incredibly human, and as always, Shakespeare was able to capture such behaviours beautifully and brilliantly.
I think it’s funny how we’ve had this impulse of “leaving everything behind and moving to the woods” since the dawn of time. Perhaps there is something natural in this desire. Or perhaps we envy the perfect harmony of nature’s systems since it’s the only thing in the world that was not created by man. I’m not an idealistic person, on the contrary. Yet, the idea that “one must reform oneself to reform society” is appealing to me, and it’s good for our spirits to think that maybe if everyone actually tried to be better, we could live without having to dream of escaping to another place.