As You Like It: Study Questions

1) What are the two main settings of the play? What symbolic functions do they h
ave? Where are most characters happiest? Why do the inhabitants of the forest go
back to the city at the end of the play? Is "reality" affected by the character
s' sojourn in the idealized "Green World" of the forest?
2) Definition: a dramatic foil is a minor character who resembles or is in paral
lel circumstances to a central figure in the play. Foils are similar enough to t
he main character(s) to provide a useful basis of comparison, but different enou
gh that the comparison is meaningful: they enhance our understanding of the main
character's personality traits or actions. Which characters in As You Like It f
unction as foils to which other characters? What does the comparison of these pa
rallel characters (or sets of characters) bring to our understanding of the play
as a whole?
3) In I.i. we learn that two sets of brothers are in a state of contention. What
causes their quarrels and hatred? Why is Rosalind banished? Why does Celia go w
ith her? Is their behavior "natural"? Note use of the words "nature," "natural"
and "unnatural" (and instances of "unnatural" behavior) throughout the play. Lik
e A Midsummer Night's Dream, As You Like It ends with multiple weddings. Conside
r the symbolic function of the final celebration. What initial conflicts are ha
rmoniously resolved by the marriages? What breaches are healed? Is love the "nat
ural" antidote to "unnatural" hatred?
4) Consider the various depiction(s) of love represented by Rosalind and Orlando
(the central couple) and their foils, Phebe and Silvius, Touchstone and Audrey,
and Celia and Oliver. How does Orlando show he is in love? What kind of lover i
s he? (realistic, idealistic, sad, silly, etc.?) How does Rosalind react to his
behavior? Why does "Ganymede" tell Orlando he needs a "love-cure"? What traits d
oes Orlando share with Silvius? Why does Phebe reject Silvius? Why (other than t
he obvious reason!) does Rosalind reject Phebe? What kind of love is Touchstone
most interested in? Why does he choose Audrey? Are they well matched? And what a
bout Celia and Oliver? Keep in mind that women's parts were played by men in Sha
kespeare's time. What humor is derived from the sexual ambiguity of Rosalind/Gan
ymede's interaction with Orlando and Phebe? (For a similar case of gender-bendin
g, compare Viola/Cesario in Twelfth Night.)
5) Until the multiple weddings with which it ends, As You Like It does not follo
w the conventional plotline of a romantic comedy, which typically involves the u
ps and down of a couple working toward a mutual acknowledgement of affection whi
le tormented by uncertainty concerning the other's affections. By contrast, in
As You Like It, Rosalind learns that Orlando loves her early in the play. So why
doesn't the story end there? (Since it is likely that her father would approve
their marriage, why doesn't she reveal herself to Orlando and to Duke Senior imm
ediately?) What is the purpose of her continued testing of Orlando? How does Ros
alind differ from a conventional romantic heroine? Who is in control of the love
story between Orlando and Rosalind? Why might Shakespeare have given Rosalind t
he play's epilogue? Compare/contrast Rosalind with Puck, who delivers the Epilog
ue of A Midsummer Night's Dream. To what extend are they analogous? How do the
y differ?
6) Jaques is a conventional stereotype of the melancholic in Renaissance literat
ure, a thoughtful, moral, serious type with a satiric wit and a tendency to moro
seness (Hamlet is another famous melancholic figure). How does Jaques relate to
Duke Senior, to Orlando, and to Rosalind? Touchstone represents another Shakespe
arean convention: the court jester as wise Fool, who speaks truth through appare
ntly nonsensical utterances (like Feste in Twelfth Night or the Fool in King Lea
r). Why is Touchstone's role so attractive to Jaques?

7) Note the way in which Shakespeare plays with pastoral conventions. Is the pas
toral life meant to seem ideal? Why or why not? While clearly a pastoral comedy,
As You Like It still has much in common with Shakespeare's "romantic comedies"
-- not just the prominent role played by love and love relationships, but the pr
esence of fantastic, magical or improbable elements. What magical or fantastic e
vents occur in the play (although the fantastical elements are less pronounced t
han in A Midsummer Night's Dream)?
8) As You Like It is a very talky play. After Act I, not much actually happens (
a violation of conventional plot structure), but the characters talk incessantly
. To what extent is As You Like It a play aboutlanguage? Note in particular conv
ersations or statements concerning language: how ideas are, can or should be ex
pressed; a given character's difficulty in understanding language (or in being u
nderstood); the tension between literal and figurative speech; the importance of
saying what one means. Note also the presence of several poetic debates (anothe
r conventional feature of pastoral poetry). What does Shakespeare seem to be say
ing by this emphasis on language? Is there a connection with what Rosalind wants
to teach Orlando?

Dorothy R. Todd
Much virtue in If : Rosalind as Conjurer of Possibility in As You Like It
As You Like It revolves around possibilities. As boy actors dress as females and
as female characters dress as males, the possibility exists within the world of
Shakespeare?s intricate comedy for men to fall in love with men, for women to f
all in love with women, for men to fall in love with women, and for women to fal
l in love with men. This topsy-turvy world of gender blurring that occurs in the
Forest of Arden manifests itself most pointedly in the character of Rosalind. I
ndeed, multiple layers of gender operate simultaneously in the character of Rosa
lind; in Elizabethan times, a boy actor would have played Rosalind, a maiden who
crossdresses as Ganymede and then poses as Rosalind in order to serve as Orland
o?s poetic muse. These multiple layers of gender at work within Rosalind?s chara
cter serve as the topic of endless debate as critics argue the potential for Ros
alind?s multifaceted gender to challenge Elizabethan conceptions of women, gende
r, and sexuality. A cursory reading of As You Like It suggests that the play sol
idifies Elizabethan conceptions of gender. As Rosalind sheds her Ganymede costum
e, explains Celia?s and her manipulations in the Forest of Arden, and once again
reverses the power dynamics, she gives up her dominant position as Ganymede in
favor of the subservient position of married female. Indeed, the four concluding
marriages serve to solidify the play?s resolution via the creation of patriarch
al households in which women are viewed as nothing more than property and man?s
subordinate. However, I argue that Rosalind?s crossdressing scenes and the epilo
gue do not cloture the debate concerning the role of women in Elizabethan societ
y. Instead, the epilogue of As You Like It opens the door to a proliferation of
transgressive possibilities where gender lines are blurred, societal constraints
are challenged, and women such as Rosalind can act as agents of change and conj
urers of possibilities. A brief examination of sixteenth century conceptions of
gender and sexuality will undergird our analysis of Rosalind as a challenge to t

he narrowly-perceived role of women in Elizabethan society. Valerie Traub, one o

f the leading experts in the field of Renaissance gender and sexuality, argues t
hat the key to making sense of the prevailing views of women and men in the sixt
eenth century lies in studying the structure of the household in Elizabethan Eng
land. According to Traub, the beginning of an understanding of gender and sexuali
ty during Shakespeare?s life is the patriarchal household (Traub 129). In the lat
e sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, the father?s rule over his househol
d was likened to the prince?s rule over his dominion. The father looked over all
members of his household, including his wife, his children, and his servants. A
well-run household resembled a well-ordered state (Traub 129). Because the home
stood as the locus of society during the Renaissance, the structure of the home
manifested itself in a highly-structured hierarchical society outside the home.
Accordingly, nearly all aspects of an Elizabethan woman?s life revealed this hi
erarchical structure. Traub continues to explain that the ideology of chastity, c
onstraints against female speech, and women?s confinement within the domestic ho
usehold are summed up by the phrase the body enclosed?, which refers simultaneous
ly to a woman?s closed genitals, closed mouth, and her enclosure within the home
(Traub 131). Amidst this atmosphere of female suppression and marginalization in
which women were expected to enclose themselves within the confines of the patr
iarchal society, Rosalind?s decisions to abandon the life of the court, to visit
the Forest of Arden, and to dress in a man?s attire undoubtedly challenge the n
ormative conceptions of the Renaissance woman.
The Debate Surrounding Rosalind Todd 3
In traveling without male companions, donning the attire of a man, and assuming
the power and agency usually assigned only to the male population, Rosalind most
certainly demonstrates her lack of regard for the constraints that society plac
es on Elizabethan women. In other words, few critics would argue that Rosalind f
ails to challenge the prevailing views of women in the sixteenth century. The re
al debate concerning Rosalind revolves not around her actions in the play?s marr
iage scene but around both her relation to the other characters and her actions
in the play?s conclusion. Does Rosalind assume the identity and power of a man t
o serve as the architect of the play?s resolution, in this case marriage, only t
o return to a position in which she must submit to rather than dictate the actio
ns of men? Or does Rosalind, despite her abandonment of Ganymede?s garb and her
marriage to Orlando, continue to stand as the embodiment of social progressivism
? Despite her marriage to Orlando, which appears to return her to the classical
sphere of the woman, I argue that Rosalind ultimately stands as a character that
chafes against the repressive restraints of society. For it is only when Rosali
nd takes charge that the play?s unwieldy relationships, familial rifts, and poli
tical unrest find resolutions. Furthermore, the epilogue, in which Rosalind reve
als herself to be a man, serves to solidify my argument that Rosalind, whether i
n male or female form, represents an agent of change as she explodes commonly-he
ld beliefs about gender and sexuality. Indeed, to examine only Rosalind?s choice
of marriage and to ignore the power of her performance in the epilogue is both
a short-sighted and incomplete analysis of As You Like It.
Peter Erickson and Carol Thomas Neely?s criticism represent just two of the prev
ailing analyses of the character of Rosalind in As You Like It. Erickson?s analy
sis of Rosalind revolves around the marriage scene; he spends little time examin
ing the epilogue. Erickson concludes that Rosalind, despite her antics in the Fo
rest of Arden, ultimately represents an affirmation of the hierarchical society
of the sixteenth century. He bases this assertion on the marriage scene, in whic
h Rosalind chooses to join in union with Orlando. In his brief analysis of the e
pilogue that Rosalind performs, Erickson argues that as the boy player reveals h
is true identity, he further reinforces the hierarchical structure because young
boys were most certainly subordinate to men in Elizabethan society. Neely diffe
rs from Erickson in her analysis of Rosalind in that she examines Rosalind?s act
ions throughout the play as well as the marriage scene rather than devoting her
attention almost solely to the marriage scene. Recognizing Rosalind?s challengin
g of gender roles in the body of the play, Neely concludes that the marriage sce
ne does not end the debate about the roles of women and men in Elizabethan Engla

nd. However, she does claim that as the characters pair off in heterosexual coup
les, the marriage scene effectively eliminates the complicated patterns of love
and lust that emerge in the Forest of Arden. As Erickson and Neely assess the cl
osing scenes of the play, they reach similar conclusions about Rosalind?s charac
ter. Both critics argue that Rosalind represents the reinforcement of societal c
onventions; Erickson argues Rosalind represents a solidification of patriarchal
society while Neely argues that Rosalind catalyzes a series of heterosexual unio
ns. I counter that Rosalind?s character ultimately does not undergird the societ
al conventions of the period. While the marriage scene does appear to bring abou
t a resolution to the play through a return to normative conceptions of gender a
nd sexuality, the combined power of Rosalind?s actions throughout the play and h
er performance in the epilogue undoes any resolution the marriage scene suggests
and instead advances a breakdown of the societal standards of the day.
The Epilogue: The Power of the Play?s Final Words
Rosalind?s epilogue serves as my primary evidence for the claim that As You Like
It does not align itself with the predominant role of women in Elizabethan Engl
and but instead Todd 5
introduces new and exciting possibilities for women as well as men. The play, an
d most emphatically the epilogue, serves as a harbinger of change because it for
ces audience members to grapple with difficult questions about gender, sexuality
, and desire. The seemingly tidy conclusion that Hymen initiates in Act V, the m
arriage scene, serves only as a thin veneer that does not obscure the still-pres
ent series of complicated questions and propositions that the text suggests. For
as Rosalind reveals to the audience her true identity, she exposes the possibil
ity of a world far less orderly than the one in which Shakespeare writes. The wo
rld that Rosalind proposes is one in which the distinctions between men and wome
n are blurred to such an extent that men sometimes desire men, women sometimes d
esire women, and women, as well as men, are able to assume the role of agents of
change. In a twist of irony that highlights Shakespeare?s creative genius, this
blurring of gender roles at work in As You Like It becomes evident only in the
epilogue as Rosalind makes a clear distinction between her gender and the gender
of the actor who plays her.
The interweaving of the factual and the counterfactual makes the construction of
Rosalind?s epilogue particularly powerful. Rosalind begins the epilogue with a
series of claims and observations, yet just a few short lines later, she disrega
rds her proclamations. In the epilogue, Rosalind also makes other declarations t
hat are simply contradictory. These confusing and paradoxical statements serve t
o unsettle the play?s seemingly tidy conclusion and highlight Rosalind as an age
nt of change. As Rosalind repeatedly contradicts herself, the illusion that the
conclusion sufficiently resolved the conflict of the play is challenged. As it b
ecomes apparent that both the architect of the conclusion and the conclusion its
elf are not as they first appeared, the audience finds itself questioning the so
cietal conventions of the Elizabethan world. Rosalind begins her perplexing epil
ogue by acknowledging that It is not the fashion to see the lady the epilogue, yet
here stands Rosalind, the lady, presenting the epilogue (Shakespeare epilogue 1
-3). The syntax of this statement makes deduction of its meaning somewhat dubiou
s. If Rosalind?s statement is to be read the lady in the epilogue with an elliptic
al in, then Rosalind, or at least the male actor playing her, undoubtedly represen
ts the woman who makes a somewhat unfashionable appearance in the epilogue. Acco
rdingly, Rosalind?s statement could be a straightforward declaration of the fact
that the female characters in Elizabethan plays rarely made appearances in epil
ogues. However, if Rosalind?s statement reads the lady, the epilogue with the epilo
gue serving as an appositive of the lady, then the text intimately connects the lad
y of the play, Rosalind, and the epilogue. If Rosalind and the epilogue are one
and the same, then the volatile and destabilizing nature of the epilogue also ma
nifests itself in Rosalind. As Rosalind announces her true gender in the epilogu
e, she infuses the conclusion with instability as she reveals that appearances c
an be deceiving. By going on to imply that she is in fact the embodiment of the
epilogue and its instability, she reinforces the idea that she represents the po
tential for change within Elizabethan society.

The language of Rosalind?s epilogue, like Rosalind herself, also suggests new po
ssibilities rather than a return to the status quo. Shakespeare?s employment of
the if trope in Rosalind?s epilogue marks the play?s final scene as a harbinger of
change rather than as a path by which to return to the patriarchal milieu that
defined the Renaissance. Indeed, the construction of many of Rosalind?s statemen
ts as possibilities rather than certainties infuses Rosalind and her words with
a sense of progressivism; Rosalind stands not only for what is but for what can be .
Rosalind does not accept commonly-held conceptions as truth; rather she approach
es them with incredulity: If it be true that good wine needs no bush, ?tis true t
hat a good play need no Todd 7 epilogue (Shakespeare epilogue 3-4). By introducin
g her statement with if, Rosalind suggests that just as it is merely conjecture th
at good wine does not need advertisement, it is only speculation that a good pla
y could not benefit from a good epilogue. In fact, Rosalind turns the common con
ception on its head, deciding that to good wine they do use good bushes, and good
plays prove better by the help of good epilogues (Shakespeare epilogue 4-6). As
Rosalind challenges the status quo in the epilogue by refusing to accept society
?s beliefs concerning mundane topics such as the advertisement of alcohol, she c
hallenges the audience to question other social expectations to which they are a
dhering unquestioningly.
Rosalind stands not only for what can be but also for that which is contrary to fa
ct: If I were a woman, I would kiss as many of you as had beards that pleased me (
Shakespeare V.4.16-17). Although the character of Rosalind is female, the actor
playing her during Shakespeare?s time would have been male. In a rare move on th
e Elizabethan stage, the actor reveals himself as a man, a mere boy player prete
nding to be Rosalind. As Rosalind introduces this statement that supposes the co
unterfactual, a statement in which the audience is forced to recognize that Rosa
lind actually is male, she encourages the audience to entertain new and unexplor
ed possibilities concerning gender and gender roles. For if the male playing Ros
alind can suggest the proposition of kissing the men of the audience while he is
dressed as a woman, then what other groundbreaking relations, if any, is Rosali
nd suggesting between and amongst genders? Must society pigeonhole individuals i
nto one gender or may it, like, Rosalind attempt to transcend Elizabethan gender
lines?
As a character of many genders, Rosalind is able to conjure both men and women.
With layer after layer of gender piled upon her, Rosalind appeals to the sympath
ies of men while dressed as a man and to the sympathies of females when she is d
ressed and acting like a woman. This power that Rosalind is able to exercise ove
r both men and women because she does not clearly fit into one gender class or t
he other is evidenced by her conjuring of both the men and the women of the audi
ence:
I charge you, O women, for the love you bear to men, to like as much of this pla
y as please you; and I charge you, O men, for the love you bear to women (as I p
erceive by your simpering none of you hates them), that between you and the wome
n the play may please. (Shakespeare epilogue 11-16).
This conjuring of the audience serves as a progressive demonstration of the free
dom that follows the abandonment of strict gender classifications. Rosalind?s su
ccess as an androgen in the epilogue highlights the promise of a new and revolut
ionary social order that could exist with the abandonment of archaic conceptions
of gender and sexuality. Presenting Rosalind as a character who contradicts her
self and at times misleads both the audience and the other characters in the pla
y, the epilogues serves to weaken and unravel the conclusions that the marriage
scene has just woven.
Conclusions
As You Like It functions as a unique romantic comedy because unlike so many of t
he comedies of the Elizabethan period that served only to reinforce the status q
uo of the day, this play bravely exposes and highlights these accepted societal
conceptions so that the audience may examine and critique them. Rosalind stands
as a beacon of light in As You Like It, reminding audiences that the world can b
e changed and that societal conceptions can be overturned. In the midst of a rat
her mundane speech in the final act of the play, Touchstone offers us a jewel: Yo

ur If is the only peacemaker; much virtue in If (Shakespeare V.4.101). Indeed, if i

s a most honorable phrase because simply posing the question What if ? represents a
willingness Todd 9
to entertain the counterfactual. By questioning the confines of our society and
culture, we can begin the process of standing up for that which we believe is ri
ght, even if by doing so, we act in opposition to the constraints that society e
ncourages. Rosalind reminds us that the world is not stagnant and that its hiera
rchy is not permanently etched in stone; you must only be willing to entertain t
he possibilities and act as an agent of change in order to see the world as you
like it.