Troilus and Cressida

I have spent most of this week working on the text and history of Troilus and Cressida in preparation for a couple of classes I had to teach on Wednesday and Friday.  Although this is one of the first of Shakespeare’s plays that I saw on stage and one that subsequently I must have seen at least half a dozen times, I’ve never had reason to study it before.  It’s a stinker.

Its stage and publication history during Shakespeare’s life time is, to put it mildly, a bit of a mystery.  In fact, there is no real evidence that it ever was acted, although I have to say that I can’t see Shakespeare spending three or four months writing a play that was never going to see the stage – he needed the money.  Granted, the first title page for the 1609 Quarto states that this is a play performed at the Globe by the Kings’ Men, but that was almost immediately pulled and a second title page prepared that claimed it had never been acted by anyone and was all the better a play for it.  Was there some reason why Shakespeare’s Company preferred not to be associated with this most enigmatic of texts?  I think there probably was.

One of the aspects of the play that makes it such a difficult study is the language.  At times it can seem almost impenetrable.  Shakespeare uses more neologisms in this text than in any other as well as frequently employing words that he never uses again.  Many of these words start with the prefix un which means that to understand them in context the reader/listener has to first compute the positive meaning of the root vocabulary and then negate it.  By the time you’ve done that, especially if you’re listening, the argument has moved on and you’ve missed the next section of what is being said.  Add to this the tortuous syntax which can stretch over as many as a dozen lines and the likelihood of your remembering what the beginning of a sentence was about by the time you get to the end of it is pretty remote. This is further complicated by the fact that the characters so often talk in abstractions rather than getting straight to the point.  Take the beginning of Act 1 Scene 3.  Agamemnon and Nestor between them take fifty-five lines to say nothing more than that adversity is often a test of character.  That’s all.  I didn’t need even fifty-five letters, let alone fifty-five lines. Language isn’t being used to reveal, but to conceal – oh and to make the speaker sound cleverer than he (and in this play it almost invariably is ‘he’) really is.  Does that remind you of any one?

My own feeling as I work my way deeper into the text and context of this play is that Shakespeare was having a go at the politicians of the time.    One of the major source texts, George Chapman’s translation of several of the books of the Iliad,  was dedicated to the Earl of Essex who, as you will know if you’ve studied the history of the period, was a controversial figure.  Despite having been the country’s darling in the late 1590s, he eventually overstepped the mark, attempting to overthrow Elizabeth in February 1601 and as a result losing his life.  Chapman, writing in 1598, likens Essex to Achilles, whom he sees as the hero of the Iliad.  By late 1601, when this play was most probably written, it was almost certainly politic to make Achilles the far less attractive figure that we see in Shakespeare’s interpretation, especially as the Company had been lucky to escape severe censure after staging Ricard II with its deposition scene, the night before Essex’s rebellion.  However, it isn’t Achilles who has the worst of these mind-bending speeches; it is the other members of the Greek camp, Agamemnon, Nestor and of course, Ulysses.

Ulysses in particular is set in opposition to Achilles and if we translate that in terms of the Elizabethan Court then we have to see Ulysses as representative of the chief opponents of Essex, namely the father and son, William and Robert Cecil. By the time that this play was written William Cecil had died, but his place as Elizabeth’s chief minister had been taken by his son, who would go on to serve James I in a similar role, continuing in that office well past the 1609 date of the Quarto with the two title pages.  And if we look at the portrait that Shakespeare draws of Ulysses then we can see why the Company might have felt that being so publicly associated with the play in print was not a particularly good idea.

If people know anything about the Ulysses of Troilus and Cressida then it is the speech he makes in Act 1 Scene 3 about degree, about hierarchy, and about the way in which the world only functions if people know their place and behave according to it.  It sounds so good that for years critics treated it as if this was Shakespeare himself offering us his view of the way in which the world should be ordered.  The problem with this is that the next thing we see Ulysses doing is rigging a vote so that Ajax, definitely a couple of rungs below Achilles, who don’t forget has a goddess for a mother, is promoted above him as the greatest warrior the Greeks can put forward to fight Hector.  In other words, like politicians down the ages, he says one thing and then does another.  Pointing this out while Cecil was still in office was probably not the most politic thing that Shakespeare had ever done, especially not when you consider that the Court and its officers had the right to remove the Company’s license and throw them off the city’s stages.

Many of the students have complained that even after seeing a good staged version of the play they have still been unable to follow the scenes in the Greek camp.  In fact one of them even asked me if this was where the phrase it’s all Greek to me came from.  I am trying to comfort them by suggesting that Shakespeare probably didn’t intend that they should understand the half of it and that if they saw it in a modern setting with the characters spouting the same words in a recognisably political setting they would know precisely what to infer and that in this instance at least, actions speak louder than words.

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “Troilus and Cressida

  1. I find it strangely comforting to think that Shakespeare could turn out a dud play. It sort of gives us all hope, you know! And in a way this makes me think of the dreadful years when the first years’ introduction to literature course had Nerval’s impenetrable book of poetry, Les Chimeres, on it. Exactly the same problem with an avalanche of obscure references to Greek and Roman mythology. In our day and age, the problem will be replicated with product placement, with future generations scratching their heads over what Nikes and M & M’s and bluetooth all were. I think it says a lot about our society, alas, that we have replaced mythology with commercialism….

    1. That is a very interesting comment because one of the central sets of images in the play is linked to the rising commercial midde class and is centred round commodity. In particular, it links value and women. Both Cressida and Helen are spoken of constantly in terms of what they are worth, especially when weighed against the ‘honour’ of men.

  2. Alex, I really enjoyed your post and would like to go and reread the play – for which I’ve always had a fondness, but then I’ve never seen it staged, maybe that would make a difference. I vaguely remember being surprised at its cynicism – but then Measure for Measure is also pretty cynical, in its different way. The political background you explain is fascinating, and I wonder why Shakespeare – and the company – chose to take that political risk.

    1. Helen, I’m simply speculating about the political context, but I can’t see any other explanation for what’s going on. It’s interesting that you mention ‘Measure for Measure’ because we are infant going on to study that and ‘All’s Well That Ends Well’ because of the change in the heroines at that point in Shakespeare’s career. I haven’t written here about his attitude towards Cressida because our deliberations last week didn’t get that far, but when you compare the women in these three plays and also in ‘Hamlet’ with those of the earlier comedies there is such a different that something has to have been going on in his mind.

  3. This is one of Shakespeare’s plays I’ve never read or seen acted. My first thought when you said it took so many lines to say so little was that he must have been getting paid by the word. But what you say about the context and how he could be making fun of politicians, totally makes sense to me especially since today is election day in the US and we are coming to the end of a too long campaign season filled with lots of words that actually said very little. Your student’s question about the origin of the phrase “it’s all Greek to me” cracked me up! 🙂

    1. Stefanie, there is some speculation that he was paid by the play in as much as it is hard to see where he got the money to buy his share in the company and it’s been speculated that he had to produce two plays a year as his contribution. There’s no direct evidence but it is certainly a possibility and this might explain whey they went ahead with a play that was clearly going to cause them problems. I’m not surprised you feel you’ve had too many words over the last few months. It’s been bad enough over here and we have five thousand miles between us and the worst of it. You should have our system and only allow campaigning for the three weeks before the election. Even that can seem an eternity. Having said that, I may well stay up tonight and listen to the results coming through. The Bears have been watching re-runs of the relevant episodes of ‘The West Wing’ to get them in the mood.

    1. Yes, I think we have, Karen. All I can say is that it’s a good job you didn’t see the one they offered this season because that wasn’t simply baffling it was also an insult to the audience, many of whom walked out.

  4. Thanks for that interesting piece on Troilus and Cressida. I’m currently working on a project to read through Shakespeare’s plays, but I think this one will be one of the last. I’ve seen almost all of the plays acted on film before (my library used to have a nice collection of them in VHS), but I don’t recall seeing this one. This might be one of the few they didn’t have. It’s interesting to think that he might have meant it as a political satire. That would probably make it completely unintelligible to me.

    My dad is always telling me to “unsay” things–I think he got it from one of the histories. 🙂

    1. Nice to meet you Rachel. I haven’t read the canon right through them since I did my undergraduate dissertation. It’s a really interesting thing to do, especially if you read them in chronological order. As far as I’m aware the only recording of Troilus and Cressida available is the BBC one. It isn’t bad but it’s still hard going. I’m not exactly a Shakespeare scholar; my area of expertise is narrative organisation, especially as it applies to stories written by and for children. However, I have taught Shakespeare at undergraduate level and I can help you with your Hamlet problem so I’m going to leave a response over on your own blog.

  5. Hi Alex! Thanks for your help on my blog! I was mixing up Mary Queen of Scots and Mary I of England. I was told when I was a good little Catholic school-girl that it is RUDE to call Mary “Bloody Mary” because Elizabeth killed just as many Catholics as Mary killed Protestants. I should call her “Mary Queen of Scots.” I never questioned that. Funny how things like that stick with you. 🙂 But it IS confusing with everyone having the same name, you have to admit! I’d be happy to read your notes on Hamlet, thankyou for offering. You can send them to roachcutie at gmail dot com.

  6. I find the language with Shakespeare such a barrier to reading for pleasure. However I studied Troilus and Cressida at uni and really enjoyed it. Your post has bought back a few fond memories!

    1. I’m glad it brought back good memories, Nicola. I’ve always loved this play but a terrible performance during the summer has left me with slightly less happy memories that I’m trying to get rid of.

Your thoughts are welcome

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s