. However, I believe that
what Shakespeare expresses by describing all the changes that occur to the most
vicious people, is his believe that being vicious is not man’s nature, and
everyone can change for the good, if he wants to. It is not the miraculous
forest, but the very human power - to be able to change. We are not born bad or
good, we become.
In his
comedy, Shakespeare reflects society, wittily emphasizing satirical moments.
Some personages of the comedy judge the viciousness of urban society. For
example, the clever “fool” Touchstone, although he himself is poisoned with the
court culture, unmasks the hypocrisy and vulgarity of the aristocracy. The old honest servant Adam laments about the
decay of the customs of Shakespeare's time:
Know you not, master, to some kind
of men
Their graces serve them but as
enemies?
No more do yours; your virtues,
gentle master,
Are sanctified and holy traitors to
you. (II, 12-15)
Orlando, in his turn, praising the
generosity of Adam’s soul, calls him an example of
The constant service of the antique
world,
When service sweat for duty, not for
meed! (II, 3)
The
usurping of the throne by the bad guy Duke Frederick, and the robbery of
Orlando by his brother are a reflection of unlawful and evil misdeeds, the
pursuit of easy money, and the callousness of urban life. Compared to that, the
life of the banished Duke Senior and his co-mates in the forest indeed is full
of moral purity and humanity. It is not surprise then, that their living in the
forest is compared to Robin Hood’s, the
hero of English ballads, who gathered around him a troop of “noble” robbers
with the purpose of the struggle against bad rich people for the good of the poor
(I, 1).
Picturing pastoral life, Shakespeare changes
the traditional pastoral genre, adding to it a certain amount of realism. In
the traditional genre, developed before Shakespeare, we had eternally sighing
shepherds and shepherdesses, who wrote each other sweet little poems, praising
each other’s petals of cheeks, gems of eyes and pearls of teeth. In this
comedy, the description of life in nature is more realistic, although
Shakespeare partially preserved the
pastoral style of old, for example the suffering shepherd Silvius, desperately
in love with Phoebe. However, there is an element of parody, for Shakespeare
juxtaposes sweet-scented Silvius with the simple-minded goatherd Audrey, whose words and behavior, as
opposed to Silvius’, are full of common sense. Also, the breaking of the pastoral
ideal here is achieved with the presentation of the realistic dirty-handed
shepherd Corin, complaining about the severe nature of his “boss” - a rich
shepherd. Thus Shakespeare adds realistic moments to the dream-like picture of
life in nature.It is very important that Shakespeare, paying homage to the
realistic version of the pastoral genre, overcomes the pastoral ideal through
stressing that the life of the banished in the forest is forced. It is
delightful only until the moment when the triumph over evil forces permits the
banished to come back to real and active urban life. Only the peevish dreamer
Jaques, full of misanthropy, who prefers loneliness to society, remains in the
forest.
In his
comedy Shakespeare creates the world of benevolence, which enriches and
decorates human life. Manifestations of this humanity are love and friendship.
The glorifying of love and friendship in this comedy, as well as in others, is
connected with a dream about a better life, where money serves people without
making them its slaves. It is a dream about a world where people are free,
where they don’t have to be afraid of usurpers and churches, where they love
each other, where good triumphs over evil. Therefore, I would suggest, the
voice of Rosalind in this comedy is the voice of Shakespeare: her common sense
invites people to forget about hatred, envy, and pride. She pleads with people
to love each other:
...I charge
you, O women, for the love you bear
to men, to like as much
of this play as please you: and I
charge you, O, men, for the love
you bear to women; - as I perceive
by your simpering, none of you
hates them .....(Epilogue)
Although
Shakespeare did not struggle directly against the evil laws existent in modern
society, he demonstrated his ideas and ideals in his works. As You Like It,
I would suggest, is one of his attempts to show people what the world might
be, without pursuits of money, ecclesiastical obscurantism, feudal
relations etc. Nevertheless, the play is not a guide to action, like hey, guys,
let’s all go to forests. It’s rather an invitation to temporarily retire from
reality to an imaginary world.
So how is
this comedy connected with the emergence of the individual? I would suggest
that Shakespeare criticizes individualism rather than applauds it, very much
like Marlowe. The representatives of individualism in this work are the vicious
Duke Frederick and Oliver, who ultimately change for the better. The
“individual” - the one who wants to bend others to his will - in Shakespeare’s
world is wrecked. Although, Rosalind, too, may be considered as one provided
with a Renaissance nature, for she pushes her way through to her purpose - that
of teaching people how to love. So may
Shakespeare and Marlowe be considered Renaissance intellectuals? I guess, under
the “individualism” of the Renaissance, we should understand its
critique as well as its glorifying.
No comments:
Post a Comment