Talk:As You Like It

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 November 2019 and 15 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mejelyne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hampton-in-Arden
I removed the following. I can find no evidence at all. The play is certainly set in the Forest of Arden. But if this specific village was some kind of inspiration there would be evidence in the text. Where is this evidence?
 * The real life village of Hampton-in-Arden may have been used as the setting for the play.

Pronounciation of Jacques
Can anyone help me with this question? AndyJones 09:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * At the Royal Shakespeare Company they always pronounce it 'Jake-weez'. Of course, the correct French pronounciation is 'Jzak' (if you see what I mean there). But in Shakespeare's verse the name always has 2 syllables, and 'Jake-weez' is believed to be the way Elizabethan Englishmen pronounced the name. The Singing Badger 12:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's pretty close to what someone has already put here, so I think I'll let it stand. AndyJones 14:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that it would have been pronounced as just 'Jakes' - i thought this was an in joke - jakes was elizabethan slang for lavatory. i may be embarrassingly wrong though

You're slightly off. True, 'Jakes' was the elizabethan slag for lavatory. However, Jacques explicitly did not want other people calling him that: once Touchstone even goes as far to call Jacques "Master What-you-may-call-it" to avoid calling him 'jakes'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.60.88 (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Or two syllables: Ja - cque as in the french nursury rhyme Frere Jacques: Frair-rer Sha-Ker. Jake-weez always sounded ... strange to my ears —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.90.227 (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The British were actually poking fun at the French, hence the odd — though intentional and deliberate — "mis"-pronunciation of "Jacques". Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

removed
removed the statement that the Forest of Arden was not a real place. It is indeed a forest set outside of Stratford-upon-Avon. William's mother Mary Arden, was a direct decendent of the original owners of the woodlands.
 * The edition that emends Shakespeare's Arden to "Ardennes' should be identified, if it exists. --Wetman 11:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Homoerotic overtones?
I'm not sure I see how "Ganymede" carries "homoerotic" overtones. Twin Bird 20:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not very clear, is it? Ganymede is sometimes portrayed in a pederastic relationship with the god Jupiter, for example in the opening scene of Marlowe's Dido, Queen of Carthage. It would be good if someone who knows about this could expand upon it, though. Have we got a gay literature page, or similar, where we could post a question? Alternatively, would they know about this at the Virgil page, maybe? AndyJones 15:22, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Golly, there is a gay literature article. I've posted a question there. AndyJones 15:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also at Virgil. AndyJones 15:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Greeks and Romans didn't exactly have a word for homosexuality (I'm not even sure if the English did in Shakespeare's time) so references to the relationship between Zeus and Ganymede tend to seem quite oblique (although not to the ancients whose concepts of things were different). There are some examples that make clear the nature of the relationship as it was probably perceived consistently throughout the classical period - have a look at Theognis 1341-1350 for example (a very early author). There's something similar in the much later Achilles Tatius 2 (not on the internet, as far as I'm aware) - two characters debate about whether love of men is preferable to love of women and as support for the former opinion, the relationship between Zeus and Ganymede is cited (AT 2.36). I'm not sure if Shakespeare was aware of either these (I doubt he was somehow) but they show that the overtones were popularly realised. Virgil makes only the vaguest reference. One version of the story that Sh was certainly aware of is by Ovid in the Metamorphoses. I'd say the overtones are certainly there and the article's comment is factually correct. It didn't stop 19th century editors translating Ovid without any apparent embarrassment and denying any overtones.--Lo2u 18:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AS WE LOVE IT
All the World Cup's a stage. See Guardian Unlimited, 9 June :-) --John

spellings
The character list gives Phebe but the synopsis gives Phoebe. Only one can be correct! My memory says Phebe but I don't have an authoritative source to hand. Mooncow 18:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

It is "Phebe", I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out! 12thwxman 17:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The name of the character is Phebe, as per the First Folio. Any other spelling is incorrect.

George Bernard Shaw's criticism of the play
I've been looking for a source for George Bernard Shaw saying that the title was an indication of the lowbrow nature of the play. I can't seem to find the original source, but I did find another article where someone cited the same fact. The cite given was:
 * George Bernard Shaw, “Shakespeare and Mr. Barrie,” rprt. in Bernard Shaw: The Drama Observed, ed. Bernard F. Dukore, 4 vols. (University Park: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1993), 3:937–43, 937.

Since I haven't found this article in my school's library (not a very big library to be admitted), could someone with a larger library verify this as a source and then add it in? Fieari 17:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags
This is an encyclopedia. This encyclopedia article is about the Shakespeare play "As You Like It", and being an encyclopedia article it contains a fairly detailed treatment of the plot. The plot summary in this article is helpfully labelled as such: "Synopsis". There is no need for further warning. This is an encyclopedia, and we're not in the business of insulting the intelligence of the readers. --Tony Sidaway 23:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The matter is being disputed on the proper pages, the ones about the template. Go dispute it there.Goldfritha 00:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The important edits are to be performed on the article, not the discussions. --Tony Sidaway 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nevertheless, if you feel that way, you should be trying to overturn the general principle, not the specific case. --Agamemnon2 17:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pastoral Reference
Added A block quote and reference to an English theatre education website that provides supportive material to the Pastoral entry. I used the ref tag to automatically place a footnote and reference (including the URL) at the bottom of the page. Tanstaafl28 19:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice. Wrad 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Music?
Is it known that Shakespeare wrote music or had music written for the songs in the play? Since it is suggested in the article that the earliest performance may have been well after his death, he may not have had to write music for any performance. I know music that any "original" music no longer exists, but is it known whether there actually was music written by or for Shakespeare? TheHYPO (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Forest of Arden
I wonder if the article should more accurately state that the "forest of Arden" could be a sexual pun on his mother's name Mary Arden (that is, originating from her sexual organ). CoolDream (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's in, but uncited. I'm tagging it. --Old Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Forest of Arden
There is a section in this entry entitled 'setting', discussing a range of theories about what Forest of Arden means. Then in the next section the text links to Wiki's own Forest of Arden entry that confidently describes the area of England, near Stratford Upon Avon, called Forest of Arden. Either the Forest of Arden in the play is the English Midlands area, or it's one of these theories, Wikipedia can't confirm that it is both. Perhaps someone with knowledge of this topic could clarify and clean up the entry. StopItTidyUp (talk) 12:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Original Research
The OR tag is on the article, but I can see anything referring to it on the talk page. While the article needs better references, none of it seems to be original research. I am removing the tag. --Duncan (talk) 08:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

as you like it pharaphrase
the song reveals the happiness of life in the forest of arden.the first verse emphasises the peace and freedom people feel in the greenwood it assures people that the hard enemy that could be met in the quiet forest is the cold weather.

2-in the forest ,men forget their ambition ,they enjoy a simple uncomplicated life 8in the perfect contentment —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.20.200 (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dramatis personæ for "Characters"
Wikiproject Shakespeare calls for consistency in the articles dealing with the plays, and uses Characters. WP:MOS doesn't allow deprecates wikilinks in section headers; the fact that the term needs an explanatory link in itself militates against its use. I suggest a RV. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If that is the Project Policy, I was unaware of it. Nonetheless, I cannot think of a better and more appropriate place to use the term "Dramatis personæ".  Indeed, this is the exact usage for which the term was intended.  If need be, we should re-examine that Project Policy.  Why, indeed, would the Shakespeare Project members — of all people — object to the use of this term?  We don't need to "dumb everything down".  And, people interested in a Shakespeare article likely already know the term "dramatis personæ".  And those who are unfamiliar with it would likely have an appreciation for learning (and exposure to) the correct term.  This is an encyclopedia, after all ... we are not "catering" to third graders (as the term "characters" seemingly aims to do).  Also, regarding the rule about not using links within a header ... the MOS states: "Headings should not normally contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked."  That is, links are not forbidden per se.  Rather, they should be used sparingly, when warranted, as an "exception to the general rule".  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Another point – In reading the Dramatis personæ article more closely (just now), it states: "However, the term is closely associated with the works of William Shakespeare and appears in the original publication of the First Folio, published in 1623." That bolsters my points above.  Namely, that I cannot think of a better and more appropriate place to use the term "Dramatis personæ".  And that, indeed, this is the exact usage for which the term was intended.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Another point – Personally, I would prefer the term "dramatis personae" as opposed to "dramatis personæ" (since that last "Æ|æ" character is difficult / inconvenient to produce on a keyboard). But, I won't split hairs on that issue.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC))

As with any project policy, this one is always able to be reviewed by project members, but the talk page of the project is the place to initiate that. The article should conform to project policy until the policy is changed by a new consensus. For my part, I would point out that the assumption that the use of the word "characters" is a "dumbing down" is wrong. The term "character" did not come into common use until after the early modern period. Character is now the standard and most common term for what is being described in these sections. It would be anachronistic, not to mention rather pretentious, for a present-day encyclopaedia. Our overriding aim is to communicate clearly using the most common terms, not to initiate the reader in the vicissitudes of the history of the terminology employed by the editors of dramatic texts. It may be appropriate to write a section in the character article that treats the history and relationship to the term dramatis personæ. A section header in the articles treating individual plays is not an appropriate place to enlighten the encyclopaedia's readers. At most, it might warrant a footnote. That it is particularly appropriate for Shakespeare's plays is dubious. Shakespeare himself did not use the term. It was imposed by some of his earlier editors. It doesn't usually appear in Quartos. Many present-day editors do not use it. The New Cambridge Shakespeare, for example, uses "List of characters" while Oxford use "Persons of the play." Dramatis personæ has also been used to describe protagonists (as distinct from characters). Consistency is desirable not merely across the thirty-odd articles on Shakespeare's plays, but across all articles on drama and within the Theatre project as a whole. The term dramatis personæ is associated with old editions of plays (not with old plays studied or performed in the present) and is a function of the dominance of latin in early modern educational practice, something which has long since disappeared. I agree with Moonraker that the necessity for a section header link in itself indicates that the term is undesirable.  • DP •  {huh?} 08:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comprehensive reply ... much appreciated. Also, informative and insightful.  While I agree with some of your points, I disagree with others.  Nonetheless, quite frankly, I have bigger fish to fry; I have also learned to pick and choose my "battles".  This is, at the end of the day, not all that important to me.  However, I do indeed think that the term is not only important, but also quite appropriate.  As such, I have added it into the "Characters" section, as a prefatory comment.  I hope this is an acceptable "quasi"-compromise (i.e., middle ground).  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC))

Eden, Hercules, and ?
The list of allusions read as follows: "to Eden, to Hercules, and". I made this grammatically correct, but if whoever wrote that has a valid third item, the person should add it.

Robert 00:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Minor Characters
Should we create new pages for the minor characters of As You Like It or merge all the minor characters in a single page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZonMusicStar (talk • contribs) 03:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

the title
what do you guys think about the title of the play.. I reminds of 'What you will', the alternative title of 'Twelfth Night'.Zon (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Motifs
This section simply rehashes key plot elements, whereas motifs are expected to have symbolic significance. Maybe this play is so rudimentary in construction that there are no motifs worth discussing? if so, this section needs to be removed.Kishorekumar 62 (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * By all means feel free to expand on the section if you feel it is lacking. However removal of an entire section should never be done lightly. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism?
I have just visited this article this morning (07/03/13) and clearly something is not right with many anachronistic or impossible dates, as well as the caption on the first image.

Not a Wikipedia member so not sure how to flag this up in a more noticeable way!

I'll leave it to an actual Shakespeare expert to make corrections though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.102.168 (talk) 09:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on As You Like It. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150714153753/https://loveasyoulikeit.wordpress.com/about-us/ to https://loveasyoulikeit.wordpress.com/about-us/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

"Too much of a good thing"
This line is uttered by Rosalind, but the article is worded as if Jaques says it: "...the melancholy traveller Jaques who speaks many of Shakespeare's most famous speeches (such as "All the world's a stage", "too much of a good thing" and "A fool! A fool! I met a fool in the forest")." Muzilon (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Gender Roles?
This page has a lot of very reliable information on it, since it has such a vast amount of sources. There is a lot of "known" information about Shakespeare's works so it's not surprising that the page has a lot of detail on both the actual plot and some of the intricacies of this particular work. However, I think that the one place that it is lacking is in the gender conversation of the piece. Because many of Shakespeare's works had both strong women and ambiguity in gender, it surprises me that there is not a larger discussion on the deliberate gender swapping nature of this specific play and the implications behind it. I think that section of this article is underrepresented for its importance in the piece. Elizabeth.allen. (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There are several weak parts of the article (one of which, ironically, is its sourcing: see Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet for examples of well-sourced articles), and you're quite right that gender issues is one of them. One reason for that is that Wikipedia is systemically short of editors with an interest in (and therefore knowledge of) literary criticism in general, and feminist and gender studies approaches especially. And the few we do have are mostly not interested in the early modern era, or their interest lies in authors of special interest to those fields (like Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley). If your interests lie in those areas (or, heck, just Shakespeare in general), then WikiProject Shakespeare has desperate need of your help! And, of course, Wikipedia really is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit: Be bold! --Xover (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Elegant variation after 'although'
Although it was actually made for cinemas, it was released to theatres only in Europe, and had its U.S. premiere on HBO in 2007.

This is really asking for trouble. I pity the ESL speaker, further encumbered to sort out that HBO is neither cinema nor theatre, before the spinning Florin–Guilder penny drops. &mdash; MaxEnt 13:14, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

de Boys or de Bois
Which spelling should this article use for Sir Rowland's family name? First Folio uses "de Boys", as does Yale (1919) and the article Characters in As You Like It. Other editions use "de Bois". I suggest to restore "de Boys" here and at Orlando (As You Like It) which were recently changed, without edit summary, to "de Bois". -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, the English language Wikipedia uses modern English, not Elizabethan English. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, of course. But this article's subject is a play written in that language, and many of today's playbills use "de Boys". Without any clear overwhelming modern usage preference, I suggest to return to the article's previous spelling. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

As you like it and Gautier
Gautier's book Madomoiselle de maupin is largely based on Shakespeare's play 'as you like it' and is the basis for the cult of beauty and the aesthetic movement of the late C19. It has also major themes about gender issues yet there is no cross reference! Bartarch (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Exceled court and the Marian Persecution
Thomas Lodge's father (another Thomas Lodge) owned the manor of Soulton; he transferred it Sir Rowland Hill in 1556, and it has been suggested that the configuration of the mid sixteenth century house and landscape there indicate the performance of drama and pageantry of the exceled protestant court in a forest setting away from the Marian persecution a generation before Shakespeare was born, such that the play can be read as a monument to the Geneva Bible conspiracy, which it is established Hill was coordinating and the wider renaissance magnificence of Hill.

Can we discuss what to do with this section, which was added by an anon in the last few days? AndyJones (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd summarise my concerns as follows:
 * It appears to be a good-faith addition and many of its shortcomings may arise from the person who added it simply being new to Wikipedia and not knowing what to do.
 * Spelling and grammar are bad, although obviously that could be fixed by copyediting.
 * I seriously doubt its relevance to this page. So far as I can understand it (see next point) the story seems to be that the property in the picture was owned by one of the authors of the Geneva Bible and was known to (or, at least, known to the father of) the author of Rosalynde and therefore indirectly influenced the story. (The hints that this might be so - although I'm engaging in unsourced WP:OR myself here (i.e. wild speculation) - are that "Sir Rowland" reminds us of the unseen character "Sir Rowland DeBoys" in As You Like It, and that a court in exile might resemble Duke Senior's in the play.)
 * This section tells its story very badly. It's hard to read it and know what it's trying to tell us. This is particularly reinforced by the misleading use of wikilinks. You'd expect "Marian persecution" to take you straight to the relevant background, when actually "Marian" simply links to Mary I's page and "persecution" to Counter-Reformation. You'd think that if there was a perceived protestant court-in-exile in Mary's reign - and that it was based at Soulton Hall in Wiltshire rather than in Geneva - then a link to Wikipedia's article on that historical event would exist. Similarly you'd expect "Geneva Bible conspiracy" to take you to an explanation of that phenomenon if it were real and widely known by that name, but the link is just to the page for the Geneva Bible. In short I don't know much about the real history, but to be any use this paragraph needs to explain it sufficiently for me to follow it! We also need to be able to tell what it's got to do with As You Like It.
 * Sourcing is probably the main issue: if that were fixable it might be worth considering editing this passage for inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia. If not, not.
 * Whitchurch Herald and Shropshire Star are the websites of local newspapers reporting upon the excavations at Soulton Hall. They contain some interviews which hint at the story being added here but so far as I can tell do not tell that story. Nor can an interview with a local historian be considered WP:RS, although I suppose once a book has been written about these findings, that might be different.
 * The Google Books search results are searches for the name "Rowland Hill" within a number of books. They'd all (I expect) be WP:RS, but none tells the story of this new section, they merely all confirm that Rowland Hill printed the Geneva Bible.
 * The link to the bible is just a link to a bible.
 * I don't own the Arden 3rd Series As You Like It, but the page referred to in the reference is visible on the "Look Inside" feature of Amazon. It says nothing of pertinence to this section other than mentioning Rosalynde as a source.
 * Oops, sorry, that sources a point outside this section. My mistake. AndyJones (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel sure there must be a more appropriate place on Wikipedia for this information (if it is to be included at all, which is down to whether it can be sourced properly). This information is several steps away from being relevant to As You Like It. That would require that the reliable sources writing about the play make this connection. I'm sorry to note that there isn't a page for Rosalynde. There is a page for Thomas Lodge. But Soulton Hall has a page and maybe this belongs there, if not already mentioned.
 * Sorry to have devoted far more time to this than is really necessary! My proposal in the absence of any comments is just to leave this out of Wikipedia completely, but if anyone has any proposals for fixing, I'm listening. AndyJones (talk) 10:00, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not comfortable with the being blanked removed.

Concerning sources: there are a number of public lectures in London and in Shropshire, 22 min long BBC interviews, press articles an MP joining an APG, arachnological excavations, and so on. It is perverse to say Old Sir Rowland is not a character in the play, his being dead is a different question to whether his identity is working in the play (Godit is a character in a play with his name in it). I have major concerns about one editor blanking these developments because they unlock potentially significant insights into Shakespeare's inner religious world, and it in entirely non-trivial that Sir Rowland Hill is a cousin, by marriage of his mother.

A final issue is that in privileging "proper books" over other media; this risks this platform is being deployed in a way that compounds discriminatory behaviour. Not all scholarly practitioners are happy in the privileged atmosphere that that editor has more affection for: this marginalizes contributors with disabilities -- a point underlined by simply deleting things because "spelling and grammar are bad".

Beyond this the claim that a room not built until 10 years after the play was premiered stands (and probably should) but it has far ness support than this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatsle (talk • contribs) 10:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)