Clinch 1
Journal
Sarah Clinch
ENG 400
Dr. Lewis
15 May, 2009
Fool’s Gold: The Use of the Fool in As You Like It
The Dramatis Personae of As You Like It lists Touchstone as “the clown”
(Shakespeare 611), a connotatively foolish and silly archetype commonly utilized by
Shakespeare and other contemporaries of his time, as well as throughout history within
the theatre and other genres of literature. Touchstone in particular as a clownish character
transcends the established boundaries of the role and instead creates a new archetypal
character: the Pun-ny Debunker. His character’s dialogue explores and delineates many
situations, both humorous and serious, with a demandingly opinionated, and oftentimes
falsified, logic. In three instances in particular (IIIii 13-33, IIIii 40-70, and IIIiii 43-59),
Touchstone interacts with his environment and the characters within, to force his own
hand on arguments both significant and frustratingly menial. The audience’s delight or
converse dislike of his handlings of such topics exposes the innate paradox of his being:
the logical, verbose and non-physical “clown.”
I.
IIIii 12-33
TOUCHSTONE:
Truly, shepherd, in respect of itself, it is a good
life; but in respect that it is a shepherd’s life, it is
naught. In respect that it is solitary, I like it very
well; but in respect that it is private, it is a very
vile life. Now, in respect that it is in the fields, it
pleaseth me well; but in respect it is not in the
Clinch 2
Journal
court, it is tedious. As it is a spare life, look you,
it fits my humour well; but as there is no more
plenty in it, it goes much against my stomach.
Hast any philosophy in thee, shepherd?
CORIN:
No more but that I know the more one sickens the
Worse at ease he is; and that he that wants money,
Means, and content, is without three good friends;
That the property of rain is to wet, and fire to
Burn; that good pasture makes fat sheep; and that
A great cause of the night is lack of the sun; that
He that hath learn’d no wit by nature nor art may
Complain of good breeding, or comes of a very
Dull kindred.
TOUCHSTONE:
Such a one is a natural philosopher. Wast ever in
Court, shepherd?
Touchstone’s dialogue with the shepherd Corin in Act III, Scene ii highlights
Touchstone’s love of the language, and the love of twisting this language into sensical
nonsense, or nonsensical sense (dependable upon the actor’s portrayal of the character as
well as the audience’s comprehension of the logic put forth by the character). He
dichotomizes several aspects of the country life in respect of aspects within the aspects.
For instance, when dealing with the country life in terms of its publicity, Touchstone
attends that, “in respect that it is solitary, I like it very well; but in respect that it is
private, it is a very vile life” (As You Like It IIIii 14-6). Touchstone acknowledges two
opposing (in his mind) ideals of the ‘publicity’ of the country life: solitary versus private.
On one hand, the country man exists on his own, independent of anyone else; Touchstone
finds this detail favorable. On another hand, however, the country man exists on his own,
without any public display or attention (whether favorable or not); Touchstone finds this
detail extremely negative. And so, the Fool has turned into a Debunker of life in the
Clinch 3
Journal
country (at least, an attempted Debunker) in his efforts to dichotomize the aspects of an
aspect of country life. Such logic is boggling and almost pains the mind to follow.
The ‘attempted debunker’ Touchstone alludes toward a defense of his logic
through his own experiences in Court: he bases the relative fervor or pessimism of his
feelings for country life on Court life. This method, while logical and substantial to him,
crumbles into nonsense when scrutinized closely. Comparing country life to Court life
provides a basis for understanding; however, the juxtaposition of country life with court
life indicates the logical fallacies inherent in Touchstone’s argument. In Court,
Touchstone no doubt wished for a more solitary life; surrounded by lords and ladies and
other members of the ‘high society,’ he never was allowed a moment alone to himself.
However, no matter how ardently someone smothered by society wishes to escape for a
while, he never hopes for complete privacy: celebrities secretly in love with the spotlight
will always crave attention from the paparazzi (even in extreme private moments).
Therefore, Touchstone bases his judgments on the country life on his personal
experiences and feelings within the Court life, a dangerous misplacement of
circumstance.
Corin’s conjectures contrasted to Touchstone’s directly preceding presumptions
consider several logical and obvious observations which even Touchstone accepts, and
accordingly deems the shepherd a “natural philosopher” (As You Like It IIIii 32). Through
his remarks, including such gems as “that the property of rain is to wet, and fire to
burn” (As You Like It IIIii 26-7), Corin proves more rational than his Fool-ish
counterpart. Whereas Touchstone’s arguments stem from his experiences in the Court,
applied toward the country life in a logical fallacy, Corin’s thoughts extend from his life
Clinch 4
Journal
and living in the country: a much more applicable train of thought than Touchstone’s.
Through pairing the Court Clown with the Country Shepherd (or simpleton, as many of
the Court would view him), Shakespeare invites audiences to question the value of the
Court and its principles when critically viewing the country. The use of the Fool to
convey this concept eases the audience into this line of reasoning, and offers a humorous
look at a true clash of worlds as Touchstone attempts to debunk the country in terms of
his experience in Court.
II.
IIIii 39-70
TOUCHSTONE:
Why, if thou never wast at court, thou never
Saw’st good manners; if thou never saw’st good
Manners, then thy manners must be wicked; and
Wickedness is sin, and sin is damnation. Thou art
In a parlous state, shepherd.
CORIN:
Not a whit, Touchstone: those that are good
Manners at the court, are as ridiculous in the
Country as the behaviour of the country is most
Mockable at the court. You told me you salute not
At the court, but you kiss your hands: that courTesy would be uncleanly, if courtiers were
Shepherds.
TOUCHSTONE:
Instance, briefly; come, instance.
CORIN:
Why, we are still handling our ewes; and their
Fells, you know, are greasy.
TOUCHSTONE:
Why, do not your courtier’s hands sweat? And is
Not the grease of a mutton as wholesome as the
Sweat of a man? Shallow, shallow. A better inStance, I say; come.
Clinch 5
Journal
CORIN:
Besides, our hands are hard.
TOUCHSTONE:
Your lips will feel them the sooner. Shallow
Again. A more sounder instance, come.
CORIN:
And they are often tarr’d over with the surgery of
Our sheep; and would you have us kiss tar? The
Courtier’s hands are perfumed with civet.
TOUCHSTONE:
Most shallow man! Thou worms – meat, in respect
Of a good piece of flesh, indeed! – Learn of the
Wise, and perpend: civet is of a baser birth than
Tar, - the very uncleanly flux of a cat. Mend the
Instance, shepherd.
CORIN:
You have too courtly a wit for me: I’ll rest.
Touchstone’s logic again foils him in the subsequent dialogue; his seemingly
well-thought-through reason follows a thread of Courtly wisdom which, when
scrutinized, fails to make sense (due to a fault at the beginning of the snowball-effect of
logic). Touchstone decrees that because Corin never lived at Court, he “never saw’st
good manners” (III.ii. 39-40), and because of his lack of manners his “manners must be
wicked” (III.ii. 41). Touchstone remarks that “wickedness is sin, and sin is damnation”
(III.ii. 42), thereby condemning the Country Shepherd for his existence in the Forest of
Arden. Touchstone’s logic seems to follow a correct path from point A to point B;
however, deducing damnation from roots in the country (roots dictated by destiny and
therefore from God himself) wanes foolishly under closer logical cupellation (to sort the
gold and silver pieces of wisdom from the lumps of coal and worthless pieces of rhetoric
Touchstone presents). The argument disintegrates once the first step is crushed under the
Clinch 6
Journal
rhetorical pressure to present a correct line of reasoning. Clearly, manners cannot come
from a life at Court only – good conduct stems from the situation one hails from, and
Country life serves as well as the Court for teaching Godly courtesy. Because Touchstone
assumes the Country life cannot nurture etiquette and that the Court only can preserve
good behavior, he makes a logical misstep which completely defeats the rest of his
argument against Corin. Touchstone, in his attempts to logically deduce that Country
bumpkins are simpler and damned due to their life in Arden, fails even at his job as the
Pun-ny Debunker, because his logic is not sound enough to create a failsafe argument.
Corin once again proves himself more logical and presents a much better
contention than Touchstone’s in the passage directly following the clown’s. He points out
what Touchstone failed to recognize: that “those that are good / Manners at the court, are
as ridiculous in the / Country as the behaviour of the country is most / Mockable at the
court” (III.ii. 44-7). The fool cries for “instance, briefly; come instance” (III.ii. 51),
asking for examples as to why the “courtesies” (III.ii. 49-50) of the Court are uncleanly
in the Country, specifically kissing hands in greeting. Corin provides rationale several
times in the conversation, but each time Touchstone waves away the evidence like a
bothersome fly and calls for “a better instance” (III.ii. 56-7), “a more sounder instance”
(III.ii. 60), and finally silences the logic by demanding that Corin “mend the instance”
(III.ii. 67-8). Though Corin’s reasons why Courtly etiquette lacks appropriateness in the
Country sustain his argument, Touchstone cannot see past his own conjectures and the
inherent truth he somehow perceives within them. The Pun-ny Debunker once again has
failed to quail before his more logical rhetorical opponent, in one way strengthening his
Clinch 7
Journal
own character by sticking by his guns, but in another vastly lacking in skills required for
one of his profession.
III.
IIIiii 43-59
TOUCHSTONE:
Amen. A man may, if he were of a fearful heart,
Stagger in this attempt; for here we have no
Temple but the wood, no assembly but hornBeasts. But what though? Courage! As horns are
Odious, they are necessary. It is said, ‘Many a
Man knows no end of his goods:’ right; many a
Man has good horns, and knows no end of them.
Well, that is the dowry of his wife; ‘tis none of his
Own getting. Horns? Even so; poor men alone?
No, no; the noblest deer hath them as huge as the
Rascal. Is the single man therefore blessed? No:
As a wall’d town is more worthier than a village, so
Is the forehead of a married man more honourAble than the bare brow of a bachelor; and by how
Much defence is better than no skill, by so much
Is a horn more precious than to want. – Here
Comes Sir Oliver.
In another instance, Touchstone presents cuckoldry as a vastly superior option to
the life of a bachelor. His evidence, including witty statements that “the noblest deer hath
[horns] as huge as the Rascal” (IIIiii 52-3), lacks substance, sense, and the consideration
that his a priori assumptions come from fallacy. Touchstone believes that “horns are
Odious… [yet] necessary” (46-7), and clearly holds grave disdain for single men. His
own situation interestingly runs parallel to his words, as he has only just met the woman
he intends to hurriedly marry for marrying’s sake. As a lowly bachelor, he tries to escape
his own damnation by redeeming his circumstances with the first girl he finds in Arden.
Also, because of his clear contempt for the people of the forest, he feels no remorse in
admitting his hopes for an extremely temporary husbandry. A short-lived contract with a
Clinch 8
Journal
shepherdess would suit him just fine and will supposedly save him from hypocrisy as he
criticizes those men lacking luck to marry. By positing that the experience which comes
from a relationship with a cuckold wife benefits more than the isolation of a single man’s
existence, Touchstone fails to realize that the ends never justify the means. Settling for
half only results in a lack of satisfaction in the long run, and so Touchstone reveals his
character flaw by provisionally pairing with Audrey. As the Punny Debunker he creates
logic which he must then fall prey to and follow to avoid duplicity. His shortsightedness
keeps him from seeing the immorality and illogicality of accepting that a cheating wife
would be better suited for a man than no wife at all, and leads him to marrying a woman
without intention to remain hitched to her longer than he plans to stay in Arden.
Touchstone’s clownish character truly takes a darker turn with this attribute; acting for
the sake of covering his own ass, Touchstone exposes his talk first, think later
personality.
The Fool foolishly fulfills his professional duties in Shakespeare’s As You Like It.
Touchstone fails to logically infer any truths in III.ii. and III.iii., as explored above. Even
his adjusted role as the Punny Debunker falls apart, as his puns lack humor and his
debunking skills require much more thought (not to mention sense). However, as a
Shakespearean character, while he may fail at the duties prescribed by his professional
career, he succeeds at transcending his role and creating his own personality and life. The
many instances of false logic bring a sense of humanity to Touchstone; if he spoke with a
quick wit, always proving some grand point through his puns and humor, he would seem
blank and robotic and frankly uninteresting. Shakespeare’s genius with characterization
particularly shines with the Fool of As You Like It. Though he does not have the qualities
Clinch 9
Journal
of the clown he is listed as in the Dramatis Personae of the play, nor the fool the other
characters believe him to be, Touchstone is worth his weight in Fool’s Gold, because
though his appearance may reflect the function of a courtly wit, his inner humanity is true
and unique and separate from his outer clown.
Clinch 10
Journal
Works Cited
As You Like It. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1997.
403-434.