What do you think?
Rate this book
Troilus and Cressida Illustrated
Troilus and Cressida is a tragedy by William Shakespeare, believed to have been written in 1602. It was described by Frederick S. Boas as one of Shakespeare's problem plays. The play ends on a very bleak note with the death of the noble Trojan Hector and destruction of the love between Troilus and Cressida. The work has in recent years "stimulated exceptionally lively critical debate".
216 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1601
324 people are currently reading
10033 people want to read
About the author
William Shakespeare
27k books46.3k followersWilliam Shakespeare was an English playwright, poet, and actor. He is widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language and the world's pre-eminent dramatist. He is often called England's national poet and the "Bard of Avon" (or simply "the Bard"). His extant works, including collaborations, consist of some 39 plays, 154 sonnets, three long narrative poems, and a few other verses, some of uncertain authorship. His plays have been translated into every major living language and are performed more often than those of any other playwright. Shakespeare remains arguably the most influential writer in the English language, and his works continue to be studied and reinterpreted.
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Shakespeare was born and raised in Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire. At the age of 18, he married Anne Hathaway, with whom he had three children: Susanna, and twins Hamnet and Judith. Sometime between 1585 and 1592, he began a successful career in London as an actor, writer, and part-owner ("sharer") of a playing company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, later known as the King's Men after the ascension of King James VI and I of Scotland to the English throne. At age 49 (around 1613), he appears to have retired to Stratford, where he died three years later. Few records of Shakespeare's private life survive; this has stimulated considerable speculation about such matters as his physical appearance, his sexuality, his religious beliefs, and even certain fringe theories as to whether the works attributed to him were written by others.
Shakespeare produced most of his known works between 1589 and 1613. His early plays were primarily comedies and histories and are regarded as some of the best works produced in these genres. He then wrote mainly tragedies until 1608, among them Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, Othello, King Lear, and Macbeth, all considered to be among the finest works in the English language. In the last phase of his life, he wrote tragicomedies (also known as romances) and collaborated with other playwrights.
Many of Shakespeare's plays were published in editions of varying quality and accuracy during his lifetime. However, in 1623, John Heminge and Henry Condell, two fellow actors and friends of Shakespeare's, published a more definitive text known as the First Folio, a posthumous collected edition of Shakespeare's dramatic works that includes 36 of his plays. Its Preface was a prescient poem by Ben Jonson, a former rival of Shakespeare, that hailed Shakespeare with the now famous epithet: "not of an age, but for all time".
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 986 reviews
July 1, 2023
When I was young and naive, I loved Troilus and Cressida for its brave cynicism, but now that I am older--and my outlook is bleaker--I appreciate it for its realism and compassion. Shakespeare shows us a world in which lovers yearn to be true and warriors strive to be brave, but both inevitably fail, betrayed by human nature and the adventitious provocations of time.
Here, as in Romeo and Juliet, passion and violence are inextricably linked. Indeed, this later play often seems to be a dark parody of the earlier, with Pandarus--a debased version of both Nurse and Friar--pimping the two young lovers, and the final "tragedy" resolving itself in the death--not of two brave lovers--but of love and bravery themselves.
June 7, 2009
It’s a timeless story, really: sensitive young guy gets carried away by the noble delirium of first love and goes all mushy over the dirty ho who punched his v-card. Complications ensue.
If you think my synopsis sounds crude, all I can say is, don’t read Troilus and Cressida, because it gets a whole lot cruder than that. For sheer nastiness, it’s right up there with that other Shakespearean shocker, Titus Andronicus (though without the multiple amputations and cannibalism). Taking over the creaking narrative machinery of the Trojan epic, Shakespeare reengineers it for a cynical contemporary audience (scholars think the play was first performed at the Inns of Court, and there’s no reason to believe that the legal profession back then was any more distinguished for its warm and fuzzy idealism than it is now). As part of his programmatic revisionism, he gives us, in place of Chaucer’s ‘flower of chivalry’, an ugly collection of losers, liars and mad-dogs. Thus, in Shakespeare’s hands, Troilus becomes a romantic idiot, Cressida a whore, Achilles a mincing prima donna, Ajax a dumb jock eaten up with vanity, and on and on. The only character not affected by the deflationary pressure of Shakespeare’s irony is poor, doomed Hector, who fights bravely and honourably in a lost cause, and ends up getting his carcass dragged around the walls of Troy by a gloating Achilles (who, in the play’s most flagrant departure from the original, had sicked his Myrmidons on the unarmed Trojan).
You could argue that this sceptical ‘reading’ of the case is already implicit in Homer, but it’s astonishing how far Shakespeare takes it, how complete the satirical inversion is. It’s as if he chose his source material only for the pleasure of hurling excrement at it, which he does with all the unseemly gusto of a troubled child flinging poo-poo around the sandbox.
And it’s not only the characters who get taken down a peg or two; Shakespeare’s satire goes much deeper than a mere lampooning of types. In Troilus and Cressida, perennial human values like love, justice and honour are shown to be grotesque shams – the smiling PR flunkies of the superego, employed to cover up appalling violence and sexual misconduct. ‘Lechery, lechery!’ says Thersites, the licensed cynic of the play: ‘Still wars and lechery! Nothing else holds fashion.’
When I first read Troilus and Cressida years ago, this vein of exuberant nihilism appealed to my teenage misanthropy. Naïve and inexperienced though I was, I nevertheless cherished a second-hand (and thoroughly ridiculous) self-image as a disillusioned man of the world, and I suspect that works like Troilus and Cressida helped me maintain this pose well beyond the stage of late adolescence to which it properly belonged.
But it’s weird: now that I’m a little older, and have actually been deprived of a few illusions, the bitter, ranting tone of Troilus and Cressida – while still amusing in its way – makes me slightly uneasy. Maybe it’s a defensive reaction on my part, but I feel that such pessimism offers only a partial, occluded view of things. The whole ‘the world is shit so please excuse me while I drink myself to death’ philosophy of life is so seductive because it’s obviously justified by the evidence. But just because it’s true doesn’t mean it’s correct, if you get the distinction.
Returning to the play, though, I’d suggest that the failure of Troilus and Cressida – both as drama and as philosophy – is ‘inscribed’ within the tragicomic mode itself. By rights, tragicomedy – of which Waiting for Godot would be a modern example – ought to be the most complete, the most realistic form of drama, because it’s able to accommodate things that pure tragedy and comedy have to keep out. In practice, however, it tends to be curiously sterile and negative, incapable of affirming anything beyond its own grandiloquent world-weariness. Tragedy says: ‘The good man is destroyed by an indifferent universe’ (true). Comedy says: ‘The good man gets married’ (also true). Tragicomedy just says, with cheerful bad faith: ‘Let’s hang ourselves immediately’ – and goes on telling jokes.
If you think my synopsis sounds crude, all I can say is, don’t read Troilus and Cressida, because it gets a whole lot cruder than that. For sheer nastiness, it’s right up there with that other Shakespearean shocker, Titus Andronicus (though without the multiple amputations and cannibalism). Taking over the creaking narrative machinery of the Trojan epic, Shakespeare reengineers it for a cynical contemporary audience (scholars think the play was first performed at the Inns of Court, and there’s no reason to believe that the legal profession back then was any more distinguished for its warm and fuzzy idealism than it is now). As part of his programmatic revisionism, he gives us, in place of Chaucer’s ‘flower of chivalry’, an ugly collection of losers, liars and mad-dogs. Thus, in Shakespeare’s hands, Troilus becomes a romantic idiot, Cressida a whore, Achilles a mincing prima donna, Ajax a dumb jock eaten up with vanity, and on and on. The only character not affected by the deflationary pressure of Shakespeare’s irony is poor, doomed Hector, who fights bravely and honourably in a lost cause, and ends up getting his carcass dragged around the walls of Troy by a gloating Achilles (who, in the play’s most flagrant departure from the original, had sicked his Myrmidons on the unarmed Trojan).
You could argue that this sceptical ‘reading’ of the case is already implicit in Homer, but it’s astonishing how far Shakespeare takes it, how complete the satirical inversion is. It’s as if he chose his source material only for the pleasure of hurling excrement at it, which he does with all the unseemly gusto of a troubled child flinging poo-poo around the sandbox.
And it’s not only the characters who get taken down a peg or two; Shakespeare’s satire goes much deeper than a mere lampooning of types. In Troilus and Cressida, perennial human values like love, justice and honour are shown to be grotesque shams – the smiling PR flunkies of the superego, employed to cover up appalling violence and sexual misconduct. ‘Lechery, lechery!’ says Thersites, the licensed cynic of the play: ‘Still wars and lechery! Nothing else holds fashion.’
When I first read Troilus and Cressida years ago, this vein of exuberant nihilism appealed to my teenage misanthropy. Naïve and inexperienced though I was, I nevertheless cherished a second-hand (and thoroughly ridiculous) self-image as a disillusioned man of the world, and I suspect that works like Troilus and Cressida helped me maintain this pose well beyond the stage of late adolescence to which it properly belonged.
But it’s weird: now that I’m a little older, and have actually been deprived of a few illusions, the bitter, ranting tone of Troilus and Cressida – while still amusing in its way – makes me slightly uneasy. Maybe it’s a defensive reaction on my part, but I feel that such pessimism offers only a partial, occluded view of things. The whole ‘the world is shit so please excuse me while I drink myself to death’ philosophy of life is so seductive because it’s obviously justified by the evidence. But just because it’s true doesn’t mean it’s correct, if you get the distinction.
Returning to the play, though, I’d suggest that the failure of Troilus and Cressida – both as drama and as philosophy – is ‘inscribed’ within the tragicomic mode itself. By rights, tragicomedy – of which Waiting for Godot would be a modern example – ought to be the most complete, the most realistic form of drama, because it’s able to accommodate things that pure tragedy and comedy have to keep out. In practice, however, it tends to be curiously sterile and negative, incapable of affirming anything beyond its own grandiloquent world-weariness. Tragedy says: ‘The good man is destroyed by an indifferent universe’ (true). Comedy says: ‘The good man gets married’ (also true). Tragicomedy just says, with cheerful bad faith: ‘Let’s hang ourselves immediately’ – and goes on telling jokes.
July 31, 2019
I was so glad to select "I'm Finished"
I'm no scholar, but I go to a Pop Up Shakespeare production every year in Auckland.
If they offer this one, I won't be attending.
Much declaiming & Troilus & Cressida aren't the main focus.
Just shows that even the greatest writer in the English language can have an off day.
Moving on.
https://wordpress.com/view/carolshess...
I'm no scholar, but I go to a Pop Up Shakespeare production every year in Auckland.
If they offer this one, I won't be attending.
Much declaiming & Troilus & Cressida aren't the main focus.
Just shows that even the greatest writer in the English language can have an off day.
Moving on.
https://wordpress.com/view/carolshess...
August 30, 2017
“Those wounds heal ill that men do give themselves.”
― William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida
Troilus and Cressida is one of those Shakespeare plays that seems to have slipped through the cracks for me during my first 40 years. It was a distant, dark planet. I knew it existed, but couldn't give you a useful quote or discuss the plot or structure. A minor Shakespeare play, perhaps? Now that I've read it, I'm still a bit in the dark. I've got the basics (I've read The Iliad several times and am familiar with most of the characters), but still need some more time banging around the text. My eyes have adjusted, but I probably need to read it again (or see it on stage) a couple times before I could feel super comfortable with it.
It is messier and less lyrical than his most famous tragic love story (Romeo and Juliet), but still has much to commend it. It is a very modern play. Its characters are challenging many of the big ideas and virtues: love, rank, bravery, nobility, etc. It is also a tad moralizing and homophobic (and yes, I NEVER try to judge a 400+ year old play by modern standards, but like The Merchant of Venice those attitudes and bigotries are still important to discuss). I had never even heard of the terms brach and varlet* before. But like in many of Shakespeare's plays, the ugliest character is often the best. I absolutely adored Thersites. He outshines Cassandra. His rants, rages, and insults are some of Shakespeare's sharpest. His venom is epic. His tongue is a hot razor.
One additional note of affection for this play. The warriors, gathered at Troy, are an interesting group. In Act 4, Scene 5, there is a fantastic dialogue between Hector and Achilles that could easily (and if I was to set up this scene, this is how I'd do it) have been written and promoted by Don King. I imagine Hector and Achilles at a table, cameras and press facing them as they peacock and throw verbal jabs and insults to the other. Those lines are better trash talk than I've seen in boxing. Floyd Mayweather, Conor McGregor, and the lot needed to take a lesson from Shakespeare's trash talk factory.
Favorite lines:
― "Upon my back to defend my belly; upon my
wit, to defend my wiles; upon my secrecy, to defend
mine honesty; my mask, to defend my beauty; and you
to defend all these; and at all these wards I lie, at a
thousand watches." (Act 1, Scene 2).
― "Men price the thing ungained more than it is;" (Act 1, Scene 2).
― “The raven chides blackness.” (Act 2, Scene 3).
― “For to be wise and love exceeds man's might.” (Act 3, Scene 2).
― "Both merits poised, each weighs not less nor more;
But he as he, the heavier for a whore." (Act 4, Scene 2)
― "What's past and what's to come is strewed with husks
And formless ruin of oblivion." (Act 4, Scene 5).
― "But still sweet love is food for fortune's tooth." (Act 5, Scene 1).
― "Why are thou then exasperate, thou idle
immaterial skein of sleave silk, thou green sarcent flap
for a sore eye, though tassel of a prodigal's purse, thou?
Ah, how the poor world is pestered with such water
flies, diminutives of nature." (Act 5 Scene 1)
― "Lechery, lechery, still
wars and lechery; nothing else holds fashion." (Act 5, Scene 2).
― "I think they have swallowed
one another. I would laugh at that miracle - yet, I
in a sort, lechery eats itself." (Act 5, Scene 4)
― “I am a bastard, too. I love bastards! I am bastard
begot, bastard instructed, bastard in mind, bastard
in valor, in everything illegitimate.” (Act 5, Scene 7).
― “Farewell, bastard.” (Act 5, Scene 7).
* varlet as a homosexual insult also appears in Measure for Measure & King Lear. Both plays were written around the time of T&C.
― William Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida
Troilus and Cressida is one of those Shakespeare plays that seems to have slipped through the cracks for me during my first 40 years. It was a distant, dark planet. I knew it existed, but couldn't give you a useful quote or discuss the plot or structure. A minor Shakespeare play, perhaps? Now that I've read it, I'm still a bit in the dark. I've got the basics (I've read The Iliad several times and am familiar with most of the characters), but still need some more time banging around the text. My eyes have adjusted, but I probably need to read it again (or see it on stage) a couple times before I could feel super comfortable with it.
It is messier and less lyrical than his most famous tragic love story (Romeo and Juliet), but still has much to commend it. It is a very modern play. Its characters are challenging many of the big ideas and virtues: love, rank, bravery, nobility, etc. It is also a tad moralizing and homophobic (and yes, I NEVER try to judge a 400+ year old play by modern standards, but like The Merchant of Venice those attitudes and bigotries are still important to discuss). I had never even heard of the terms brach and varlet* before. But like in many of Shakespeare's plays, the ugliest character is often the best. I absolutely adored Thersites. He outshines Cassandra. His rants, rages, and insults are some of Shakespeare's sharpest. His venom is epic. His tongue is a hot razor.
One additional note of affection for this play. The warriors, gathered at Troy, are an interesting group. In Act 4, Scene 5, there is a fantastic dialogue between Hector and Achilles that could easily (and if I was to set up this scene, this is how I'd do it) have been written and promoted by Don King. I imagine Hector and Achilles at a table, cameras and press facing them as they peacock and throw verbal jabs and insults to the other. Those lines are better trash talk than I've seen in boxing. Floyd Mayweather, Conor McGregor, and the lot needed to take a lesson from Shakespeare's trash talk factory.
Favorite lines:
― "Upon my back to defend my belly; upon my
wit, to defend my wiles; upon my secrecy, to defend
mine honesty; my mask, to defend my beauty; and you
to defend all these; and at all these wards I lie, at a
thousand watches." (Act 1, Scene 2).
― "Men price the thing ungained more than it is;" (Act 1, Scene 2).
― “The raven chides blackness.” (Act 2, Scene 3).
― “For to be wise and love exceeds man's might.” (Act 3, Scene 2).
― "Both merits poised, each weighs not less nor more;
But he as he, the heavier for a whore." (Act 4, Scene 2)
― "What's past and what's to come is strewed with husks
And formless ruin of oblivion." (Act 4, Scene 5).
― "But still sweet love is food for fortune's tooth." (Act 5, Scene 1).
― "Why are thou then exasperate, thou idle
immaterial skein of sleave silk, thou green sarcent flap
for a sore eye, though tassel of a prodigal's purse, thou?
Ah, how the poor world is pestered with such water
flies, diminutives of nature." (Act 5 Scene 1)
― "Lechery, lechery, still
wars and lechery; nothing else holds fashion." (Act 5, Scene 2).
― "I think they have swallowed
one another. I would laugh at that miracle - yet, I
in a sort, lechery eats itself." (Act 5, Scene 4)
― “I am a bastard, too. I love bastards! I am bastard
begot, bastard instructed, bastard in mind, bastard
in valor, in everything illegitimate.” (Act 5, Scene 7).
― “Farewell, bastard.” (Act 5, Scene 7).
* varlet as a homosexual insult also appears in Measure for Measure & King Lear. Both plays were written around the time of T&C.
July 25, 2019
One of Shakespeare's problem plays because, well, for one, it's really difficult, but mainly because it's comedy but not really. Actually it's a very cynical comedy. Troilus and Cressida is long, generates a lot of confusion and frustration and has a limited stage history, but it's complicated in interesting ways, and, in the right mindset, very rewarding. I read this over five weekends with a group on Litsy, our 5th Shakespeare of 2019, not bad. I had force through it a little, but ultimately I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Shakespeare pulls from the Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, which pulled off the medieval tradition when Homer's texts were lost, and other literary traditions evolved from it. The Iliad's Briseis, the captive Achilles had to give up to Agamemnon, setting up the Iliad's main story, has been transformed into a Trojan princess, Cressida, who is traded to the Greeks for a warrior...but only after falling in love with one of sons of Trojan king Priam, Troilus. Shakespeare also would have pulled off of George Chapman's translation of the Iliad in 1598. Familiarity with the The Iliad helped me pick up a lot of the humor.
This is a comedy with a hard cynical perspective on Homer, and also on power, war and romance. Every famous Homeric character from the Iliad is here dressed down and often exposed as fraud. Achilles, for example, doesn't leave off in isolation, but hides in his tent, on stage, leaving Patroclus at the entrance to say he isn't there when the embassy (Iliad Chapter 9) shows up. He also has others take down Hector while he watches and then takes credit.
There are many things that make this play work. The most brilliant, by the bard, was maybe the conversion of Thersites. Homer's version of Thersites is only in one brief scene where he complains to his fellow Greeks about the ridiculous war, then nine years old, and is put in his place by Odysseus. He became the standard of the bad soldier throughout the classical tradition. Here Thersites is converted into a Shakespearean fool, mocking every other character in clever and often hilarious ways, and providing a signpost to the audience (or reader) of the cynical perspective intended. "Lechery, lechery, still wars and lechery, nothing else holds fashion," he sums for us. Then there's Troilus, with a youthful romantic idealism and a devout love of Cressida, and many beautiful lines, and Panderus, the uncle of Cressida, who views himself as a woe-begotten pimp, and provides the origin of our word pander. But the best character, for me, is Cressida, who plays a different role in every scene. Here mocking Troilus's romantic notions while giving advice for women to hold out on the sex, because for men "Achievement is command, ungained, beseech". Then, next she is wooing Troilus, then, once in the Greek camp, she quickly adjusts, smartly handling all the main Greeks in one scene, and working over the Greek she's been given to, Troilus's opposite, the crude, unromantic and sexually explicit Diomedes. A lot of the readers in our group (all women, I am the only male) found the treatment of Cressida and other women horrendous. They're treated as property, and suffer with no control or value as human. But, it's the setting that allows Cressida to evolve into a character worth some reflection and admiration. Pitiful me, I dwelt on the latter.
This was supposed to be a brief review, but got a little out of hand. Apologies for the length. I gave this five stars, recommended for the brave.
-----------------------------------------------
33. The History of Troilus and Cressida by William Shakespeare
editor: Jonathan V. Crewe
published: Dated 1601/2, registered 1603, this edition from 2000
format: 156 page Pelican Shakespeare paperback.
acquired: Library
read: Jun 22 - Jul 20m
time reading: 8 hr 36 min, 3.3 min/page
rating: 5
August 14, 2017
So a lot of people seem to think this is really boring and difficult. I'll give them the second one, but boring? This tale of a tangential "romance" (if you can call it that) to the Trojan War is rife with all kinds of awesome feats du language (oh yeah, I wrote that) and lots of tiny but cool moments, as various celebrated heroes find themselves unable to escape the narratives we know them for, despite their (and Shakespeare's) best efforts. From the rather peaceful, almost wistful beginning to the end, which is basically a huge "fuck you" to the audience, this is a master study of how things--love, war, society--fall apart. Maddening and incredible.
March 12, 2022
Originally, I rated this play 3 stars. But then I watched a fantastic adaption and liked the play a lot more. Upon rereading it I kind of loved it. Which just goes to show how important it is to also watch adaptations of plays when reading them and critiquing them as they are first and foremostly meant to been seen over read.
I now loved Hector in the play, and hot-headed Ajax. The ending felt tragic to me, and emotionally charged. I still find Cressida and Troilus to be wishy-washy characters, but it worked because I just focused on the secondary characters that I cared a lot more for instead. The humour is A+ and the creepy Uncle is simultaneously creepy and hilarious.
Initial thoughts first time I read it before seeing an adaption: I really don’t have much to say about this one. Even though I study all the depth to them: themes, symbolism and relevancy to the modern day, nothing really intrigued me about this one. There were a lot of male characters, and a lot of talking about things with a lack of action. The ending wasn’t even too tragic, if we are excluding Cressida’s situation. Even then, it’s hard to discern her intentions with her actions, or whether she was suffering or willing when it came to what she did. So yeah, overall it was quite a long play, but not one that made me care for the characters or the plot. I also found it the hardest Shakespeare I’ve read yet. Mostly due to the highly philosophical language and trying to discern what we being said as well as what was happening and how their speech was or wasn’t relevant…
I now loved Hector in the play, and hot-headed Ajax. The ending felt tragic to me, and emotionally charged. I still find Cressida and Troilus to be wishy-washy characters, but it worked because I just focused on the secondary characters that I cared a lot more for instead. The humour is A+ and the creepy Uncle is simultaneously creepy and hilarious.
Initial thoughts first time I read it before seeing an adaption: I really don’t have much to say about this one. Even though I study all the depth to them: themes, symbolism and relevancy to the modern day, nothing really intrigued me about this one. There were a lot of male characters, and a lot of talking about things with a lack of action. The ending wasn’t even too tragic, if we are excluding Cressida’s situation. Even then, it’s hard to discern her intentions with her actions, or whether she was suffering or willing when it came to what she did. So yeah, overall it was quite a long play, but not one that made me care for the characters or the plot. I also found it the hardest Shakespeare I’ve read yet. Mostly due to the highly philosophical language and trying to discern what we being said as well as what was happening and how their speech was or wasn’t relevant…
February 15, 2019
Being a devoted fan of the Bard, it really pains me to rate this play so low. Yet let me elaborate a bit.
This play was never really on my to-be-read list. However, I stumbled across a reference to it while reading Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own—you know, in the serendipitous kind of way in which you go to your favourite Korean restaurant and for a serving of bibimbap you get a delicious bowl of miso soup for free as well.
Well, after reading Troilus and Cressida, let’s just say it is indeed a “problem play”. (link)
There can never be a work of the Bard though without a memorable aphorism. And credits to Patroclus for this one:
“These wounds heal ill that men do give themselves.”
This play was never really on my to-be-read list. However, I stumbled across a reference to it while reading Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own—you know, in the serendipitous kind of way in which you go to your favourite Korean restaurant and for a serving of bibimbap you get a delicious bowl of miso soup for free as well.
Well, after reading Troilus and Cressida, let’s just say it is indeed a “problem play”. (link)
There can never be a work of the Bard though without a memorable aphorism. And credits to Patroclus for this one:
“These wounds heal ill that men do give themselves.”
September 23, 2019
This is a rather difficult Shakespeare play to evaluate. Its genre is a problem: neither a comedy, nor a tragedy, nor even a tragicomedy—it leaves an ambiguous emotional aftertaste on the palate. Shakespeare himself seems to have felt ambivalent about the work, since he never staged it. Harold Bloom speculates that this was because the play is simply too openly nihilistic.
Shakespeare makes sport of all of the illusions of his day (and ours). Achilles, the glorious soldier, is a coward; Hector, the honorable leader, is a vain fool; Troilus, the ardent lover, is merely lustful; Cressida, the lovesick heroine, is inconstant; Ulysses, the quintessential politician, is completely without scruple. The only sane person in the play is the “fool” Thersites, who is full of intense bitterness towards everyone around him.
Shakespeare, perhaps in an attempt to emulate the mood of antique literature, is very sparring of his immense talent for creating deep characters. None of the characters in the play is particularly interesting or memorable; they wear their personalities on the surface, like their armor. The dialogue, too, is not scrupulously “in character,” but rather a kind of elevated poetry that everybody speaks. Consequently, as Bloom points out, there are many excellent lines scattered about, but it is difficult to see any of them as the emanation of a fictional personality.
The fifth act strikes me as having been written in a kind of deflated haste, perhaps after Shakespeare realized that the play would not “work” on the stage. It is rushed off in a flash of combat, none of which has much emotional import. As it stands, then, this play is primarily interesting for being evidence of Shakespeare’s own nihilism regarding love, glory, and power.
Shakespeare makes sport of all of the illusions of his day (and ours). Achilles, the glorious soldier, is a coward; Hector, the honorable leader, is a vain fool; Troilus, the ardent lover, is merely lustful; Cressida, the lovesick heroine, is inconstant; Ulysses, the quintessential politician, is completely without scruple. The only sane person in the play is the “fool” Thersites, who is full of intense bitterness towards everyone around him.
Shakespeare, perhaps in an attempt to emulate the mood of antique literature, is very sparring of his immense talent for creating deep characters. None of the characters in the play is particularly interesting or memorable; they wear their personalities on the surface, like their armor. The dialogue, too, is not scrupulously “in character,” but rather a kind of elevated poetry that everybody speaks. Consequently, as Bloom points out, there are many excellent lines scattered about, but it is difficult to see any of them as the emanation of a fictional personality.
The fifth act strikes me as having been written in a kind of deflated haste, perhaps after Shakespeare realized that the play would not “work” on the stage. It is rushed off in a flash of combat, none of which has much emotional import. As it stands, then, this play is primarily interesting for being evidence of Shakespeare’s own nihilism regarding love, glory, and power.
October 30, 2020
"Lechery, lechery; still, wars and lechery; nothing
else holds fashion: a burning devil take them!"
-act v, scene ii
I was actually pretty keen to read Troilus and Cressida, in large part because it's one of Shakespeare's most obscure and divisive plays.
For one thing, I was intrigued by the fact that no one can figure out if it's supposed to be comedy or tragedy. Shakespeare was no stranger to genre-bending, of course—critics have invented whole terms like "problem play" and "tragicomedy" and "Shakespearean romance" just to get his trickier work into some kind of box—but here it's hard even to tell what the tone of a given scene is supposed to be, let alone the whole play. Secondly, more than one thing I read in preparation mentioned that T&C has a distinctly "modern" sensibility; Joyce Carol Oates wrote that it "strikes the modern reader as a contemporary document," owing to "its investigation of numerous infidelities, its criticism of tragic pretensions, [and] above all, its implicit debate between what is essential in human life and what is only existential." And finally I'd heard it was very gay, even by Shakespeare standards. Cool, what's not to like?
Well, the Achilles and Patroclus stuff is gay, I'll give it that, though I don't advise turning to T&C if you want a heartwarming supplement to The Song of Achilles . (Who knew you could publish phrases like "his masculine whore" in 1602?) Absolutely everyone in this play is a bitter, back-biting coward, or at the very least an idiot, so in that respect—the general shittiness of the characters—I suppose JCO and co. are on the money about T&C's "modernness." Don't get me wrong, Shakespeare's got a cynical streak at the best of times, but this thing is just plain vitriolic, a parade of hateable people doing execrable things. All's fair in love and war is the general theme, but that's only because love and war themselves are—per Shakespeare—inherently immoral, honorless affairs that any self-respecting person would do well to avoid completely. Romeo's a fool, Juliet's a cheater, and the pointless turf war will keep raging long after both of them are dead and buried.
But despite T&C's 21st-century bleakness, the style and pacing actually feel like a step backward in time for Will. By this point in his career he'd already penned the snappy, propulsive Julius Caesar and the proto-existentialist, pre-postmodern Hamlet , so I was surprised to find myself once again struggling through near-impenetrable blocks of archaic adjectives and tortuous rhetoric. Of all the characters Ulysses is the biggest offender—in his quest to undermine the admirable qualities of all the Trojan War's mythic heroes, Shakespeare turns the smooth-talking Greek into a pompous windbag—but only Pandarus (Cressida's uncle, evidently more attracted to Troilus than she is) and Thersites (Ajax's wise-cracking slave) have anything approaching "naturalistic" dialogue. For most of the first half I could barely follow the action without a Spark Notes summary, and I found myself wishing I had the Iliad already under my belt for background. (It was only after finishing the play that I learned Shakespeare himself may never have read Homer in full—Cressida isn't even in the original—and that he based this mostly on other medieval and Renaissance sources, including Chaucer's almost identically-titled poem.)
But the main problem is that, well, it's just not a very good play. As cool as the genre-flaunting sounds on paper, T&C comes off less as a knowing deconstruction than as a jumbled mess by an author who, in his ambition or his frustration, has let the work get away from him. Shakespeare's company apparently never staged this one—the original publisher's forward spun this as a selling point for book snobs, claiming that the text was "never staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar"—and I tend to think that's less because Will's pessimism was so ahead of its time (as Harold Bloom proposes) and more because someone along the way recognized that the thing is tonally incoherent and narratively unsatisfying, spending four interminable acts building up the core conflicts only to crash to an abrupt halt in act five. It's one of Shakespeare's longest plays, yet after 26,000 words it still doesn't manage to reach a real resolution before the curtains mercifully come down.
I respect modern critics' attempts to rehabilitate T&C's reputation, to convince audiences that for the last four centuries we've been overlooking a hidden gem, but—hard as it may be to believe these days—sometimes the public knows best after all.
else holds fashion: a burning devil take them!"
-act v, scene ii
I was actually pretty keen to read Troilus and Cressida, in large part because it's one of Shakespeare's most obscure and divisive plays.
For one thing, I was intrigued by the fact that no one can figure out if it's supposed to be comedy or tragedy. Shakespeare was no stranger to genre-bending, of course—critics have invented whole terms like "problem play" and "tragicomedy" and "Shakespearean romance" just to get his trickier work into some kind of box—but here it's hard even to tell what the tone of a given scene is supposed to be, let alone the whole play. Secondly, more than one thing I read in preparation mentioned that T&C has a distinctly "modern" sensibility; Joyce Carol Oates wrote that it "strikes the modern reader as a contemporary document," owing to "its investigation of numerous infidelities, its criticism of tragic pretensions, [and] above all, its implicit debate between what is essential in human life and what is only existential." And finally I'd heard it was very gay, even by Shakespeare standards. Cool, what's not to like?
Well, the Achilles and Patroclus stuff is gay, I'll give it that, though I don't advise turning to T&C if you want a heartwarming supplement to The Song of Achilles . (Who knew you could publish phrases like "his masculine whore" in 1602?) Absolutely everyone in this play is a bitter, back-biting coward, or at the very least an idiot, so in that respect—the general shittiness of the characters—I suppose JCO and co. are on the money about T&C's "modernness." Don't get me wrong, Shakespeare's got a cynical streak at the best of times, but this thing is just plain vitriolic, a parade of hateable people doing execrable things. All's fair in love and war is the general theme, but that's only because love and war themselves are—per Shakespeare—inherently immoral, honorless affairs that any self-respecting person would do well to avoid completely. Romeo's a fool, Juliet's a cheater, and the pointless turf war will keep raging long after both of them are dead and buried.
But despite T&C's 21st-century bleakness, the style and pacing actually feel like a step backward in time for Will. By this point in his career he'd already penned the snappy, propulsive Julius Caesar and the proto-existentialist, pre-postmodern Hamlet , so I was surprised to find myself once again struggling through near-impenetrable blocks of archaic adjectives and tortuous rhetoric. Of all the characters Ulysses is the biggest offender—in his quest to undermine the admirable qualities of all the Trojan War's mythic heroes, Shakespeare turns the smooth-talking Greek into a pompous windbag—but only Pandarus (Cressida's uncle, evidently more attracted to Troilus than she is) and Thersites (Ajax's wise-cracking slave) have anything approaching "naturalistic" dialogue. For most of the first half I could barely follow the action without a Spark Notes summary, and I found myself wishing I had the Iliad already under my belt for background. (It was only after finishing the play that I learned Shakespeare himself may never have read Homer in full—Cressida isn't even in the original—and that he based this mostly on other medieval and Renaissance sources, including Chaucer's almost identically-titled poem.)
But the main problem is that, well, it's just not a very good play. As cool as the genre-flaunting sounds on paper, T&C comes off less as a knowing deconstruction than as a jumbled mess by an author who, in his ambition or his frustration, has let the work get away from him. Shakespeare's company apparently never staged this one—the original publisher's forward spun this as a selling point for book snobs, claiming that the text was "never staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar"—and I tend to think that's less because Will's pessimism was so ahead of its time (as Harold Bloom proposes) and more because someone along the way recognized that the thing is tonally incoherent and narratively unsatisfying, spending four interminable acts building up the core conflicts only to crash to an abrupt halt in act five. It's one of Shakespeare's longest plays, yet after 26,000 words it still doesn't manage to reach a real resolution before the curtains mercifully come down.
I respect modern critics' attempts to rehabilitate T&C's reputation, to convince audiences that for the last four centuries we've been overlooking a hidden gem, but—hard as it may be to believe these days—sometimes the public knows best after all.
July 25, 2018
In Shakespeare's fancy, the Trojan War is a whore's war. All started by the infidel and coquettish Helen. Troilus willingly wooed by the calculating bitch Cressida. Hector killed because of Achilles' masculine whore Patroclus. Without whores, war should be tedious, and that's why warriors chase after whores. And isn't war nothing but lust expressing itself through violence? Isn't love nothing but lust with a tinge of coquettishness?
"Is this the generation of love--hot blood, hot thoughts, and hot deeds? Is love a generation of vipers?"
"My half-supped sword that frankly would have fed, pleased with this dainty bait, thus goes to bed."
"Is this the generation of love--hot blood, hot thoughts, and hot deeds? Is love a generation of vipers?"
"My half-supped sword that frankly would have fed, pleased with this dainty bait, thus goes to bed."
April 6, 2022
This one was interesting in that it was a view of the Trojan War with some ultimately disappointed romance between Troilus and Cressida, lamented loss of love by Achilles for Patroclus, and unjustified murder of Hector by grieving Achilles and his mob. There were few lines that I found particularly fanciful. Ulysses' speech about proposing the Ajax fight Hector in order to shame Achilles into action was interesting, but we never fully understood the reason for Achilles lethargy, his ambiguity between Patroclus and the Trojan princess that Ulysses noticed that he was smitten with. Cressida's betrayal of Troilus was hard to believe as well, or she was just a tremendous liar - I have a hard time comparing this primary female character with, apparently, no integrity to the amazing Shakespearean heroines like Rosalind and Olivia. I guess you don't have to like all of Shakespeare.
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
Fino's Reviews of Shakespeare and Shakespearean Criticism
Comedies
The Comedy of Errors (1592-1593
The Taming of the Shrew (1593-1594)
The Two Gentlemen of Verona (1594-1595)
Love's Labour's Lost (1594-1595)
A Midsummer Night's Dream (1595-1596)
The Merchant of Venice (1596-1597)
Much Ado About Nothing (1598-1599)
As You Like It (1599-1600)
Twelfth Night (1599-1600)
The Merry Wives of Windsor (1600-1601)
All's Well That Ends Well (1602-1603)
Measure for Measure (1604-1605)
Cymbeline (1609-1610)
A Winter's Tale (1610-1611)
The Tempest (1611-1612)
Two Noble Kinsmen (1612-1613)
Histories
Henry VI Part I (1589-1590)
Henry VI Part II (1590-1591)
Henry VI Part III (1590-1591)
Richard III (1593-1594)
Richard II (1595-1596)
King John (1596-1597)
Edward III (1596-1597)
Henry IV Part I (1597-1598)
Henry IV Part II (1597-1598)
Henry V (1598-1599)
Henry VIII (1612-1612)
Tragedies
Titus Andronicus (1592-1593)
Romeo and Juliet (1594-1595)
Julius Caesar (1599-1600)
Hamlet (1600-1601)
Troilus and Cressida (1601-1602)
Othello (1604-1605)
King Lear (1605-1606)
Macbeth (1605-1606)
Anthony and Cleopatra (1606-1607)
Coriolanus (1607-1608)
Timon of Athens (1607-1608)
Pericles (1608-1609)
Shakespearean Criticism
The Wheel of Fire by Wilson Knight
A Natural Perspective by Northrop Frye
Shakespeare After All by Marjorie Garber
Shakespeare's Roman Plays and Their Background by M W MacCallum
Shakespearean Criticism 1919-1935 compiled by Anne Ridler
Shakespearean Tragedy by A.C. Bradley
Shakespeare's Sexual Comedy by Hugh M. Richmond
Shakespeare: The Comedies by R.P. Draper
Tyrant: Shakespeare on Politics by Stephen Greenblatt
1599: A Year in the Life of William Shakespeare by James Shapiro
Collections of Shakespeare
Venus and Adonis, the Rape of Lucrece and Other Poems
Shakespeare's Sonnets and a Lover's Complaint
The Complete Oxford Shakespeare
April 21, 2023
Shakespeare foca o olhar na guerra de Tróia, com destaque para os acontecimentos da Ilíada, e deixa bem claro algo com que eu concordo cada vez mais. Quanto fiz as primeiras leituras da lenda Troiana ía com um olhar romântico em relação a Páris e Helena. Passadas que são muitas páginas sobre o tema encontro cada vez menos romantismo no casal. O dramaturgo vai mais longe; a guerra que envolveu dois países, milhares de guerreiros e outras tantas mortes, deveu-se a uma mulher adúltera e ao orgulho ferido de um cornudo. Não terá sido só por isso, mas não serei eu a contestar a afirmação.
Tratando-se de Shakespeare, nada é gratuito e linear, esta peça tão focada em valores hierárquicos, honra e covardia, amores e traições, pode bem ser uma sátira que tinha como alvo a boa e velha Inglaterra e a sua história acidentada e tantas vezes ambígua.
Tratando-se de Shakespeare, nada é gratuito e linear, esta peça tão focada em valores hierárquicos, honra e covardia, amores e traições, pode bem ser uma sátira que tinha como alvo a boa e velha Inglaterra e a sua história acidentada e tantas vezes ambígua.
September 16, 2017
A landmark for me. In this “Year of Reading All the Shakespeare,” this play, the twenty-first in the list, is the first one that I'd never read before and really enjoyed. To me, Titus Andronicus was a pointless gorefest, The Two Gentlemen of Verona was just dumb, and King Edward III was simply incoherent, but this – well, it's not great – not a Hamlet or Macbeth or Richard II – but it's very good.
While I'm quite familiar with The Iliad, the story of Troilus and Cressida was new to me. Aside from knowing that they were famous “sundered lovers,” I came to their story pretty much cold. So now I'm curious about Chaucer's take on their tale.
Shakespeare keeps to tradition with some characters – Hector is noble, Ulysses is crafty, Nestor is … verbose – but several “regulars” lose the sheen they generally have and are merely (if fairly plausibly) thugs (or, in Helen's case, a “floozy”). Achilles in particular, comes off dreadfully. Thersites, though, who I didn't even remember from the Iliad, is transformed from “nonentity” in Homer to a vividly realized dynamo of evil in Shakespeare's play. His equal opportunity hatred for everyone and everything – Greek or Trojan, male or female – is almost overwhelming in its intensity. Pandarus, another character from the Iliad I'd completely forgotten about, is also memorable in Shakespeare's telling, though in his case it is his sheer creepiness that makes him stand out. Marjorie Garber, in her brilliant Shakespeare After All, points out Pandarus's similarities to Juliet's nurse (in Romeo and Juliet), but, while the nurse is certainly foolish and shows an unwholesome enthusiasm for her young charge's deflowering, her prurience is nothing next to that of Cressida's uncle. Pandarus's eagerness to put his niece and the Trojan prince in bed together and his salacious comments in regard to their activities there are impressively icky. Cressida, unattractive though she is (except physically, I suppose) is at least interesting. A practical girl, with no illusions about her status as an object to be sold. The frequent comparisons between Helen and Cressida, so similar in appearance that the only difference is said to be that Cressida's hair is a shade darker, highlight the hypocrisies of their varying treatments. As Troilus says in the meeting over whether to return Helen and thus end the war...
Cressida, however, is traded to the Greeks in return for a captured Trojan leader without a second thought (we are spared the scene where Paris prances around Priam's palace teasing Troilus with a rousing rendition of “Mom and Dad and everyone love me best!). Poor Troilus. He gets marquee status, but his character is distinctly lacking in pizazz. The play's “Ken doll,” he gets the girl, only to immediately lose her to a more powerful, more interesting man. Oh well. Their long term prospects weren't promising anyway.
Along with reading the Folger Shakespeare Library edition, which has reasonable size print and fine notes, I listened to the Arkangel recording of this play, which is very well done. Recommended.
While I'm quite familiar with The Iliad, the story of Troilus and Cressida was new to me. Aside from knowing that they were famous “sundered lovers,” I came to their story pretty much cold. So now I'm curious about Chaucer's take on their tale.
Shakespeare keeps to tradition with some characters – Hector is noble, Ulysses is crafty, Nestor is … verbose – but several “regulars” lose the sheen they generally have and are merely (if fairly plausibly) thugs (or, in Helen's case, a “floozy”). Achilles in particular, comes off dreadfully. Thersites, though, who I didn't even remember from the Iliad, is transformed from “nonentity” in Homer to a vividly realized dynamo of evil in Shakespeare's play. His equal opportunity hatred for everyone and everything – Greek or Trojan, male or female – is almost overwhelming in its intensity. Pandarus, another character from the Iliad I'd completely forgotten about, is also memorable in Shakespeare's telling, though in his case it is his sheer creepiness that makes him stand out. Marjorie Garber, in her brilliant Shakespeare After All, points out Pandarus's similarities to Juliet's nurse (in Romeo and Juliet), but, while the nurse is certainly foolish and shows an unwholesome enthusiasm for her young charge's deflowering, her prurience is nothing next to that of Cressida's uncle. Pandarus's eagerness to put his niece and the Trojan prince in bed together and his salacious comments in regard to their activities there are impressively icky. Cressida, unattractive though she is (except physically, I suppose) is at least interesting. A practical girl, with no illusions about her status as an object to be sold. The frequent comparisons between Helen and Cressida, so similar in appearance that the only difference is said to be that Cressida's hair is a shade darker, highlight the hypocrisies of their varying treatments. As Troilus says in the meeting over whether to return Helen and thus end the war...
”Were it not glory that we more affected
Than the performance of our heaving spleens,
I would not wish a drop of Trojan blood
Spent more in her defense. But, worthy Hector,
She is a theme of honor and renown,
A spur to valiant and magnanimous deeds,
Whose present courage may beat down our foes,
And fame in time to come canonize us”
Cressida, however, is traded to the Greeks in return for a captured Trojan leader without a second thought (we are spared the scene where Paris prances around Priam's palace teasing Troilus with a rousing rendition of “Mom and Dad and everyone love me best!). Poor Troilus. He gets marquee status, but his character is distinctly lacking in pizazz. The play's “Ken doll,” he gets the girl, only to immediately lose her to a more powerful, more interesting man. Oh well. Their long term prospects weren't promising anyway.
Along with reading the Folger Shakespeare Library edition, which has reasonable size print and fine notes, I listened to the Arkangel recording of this play, which is very well done. Recommended.
April 16, 2020
"beware: Those wounds heal ill that men do give themselves....
Minds sway'd by eyes are full of turpitude.. .
Why should a man be proud? How doth pride grow?
I know not what it is.He that is proud eats up himself: pride is his own glass, his own trumpet, his own chronicle, and whatever
praises itself but in the deed, devours the deed in the praise...
nought that knows not this:
Men prize the thing ungained more than it is:
That she was never yet that ever knew
Love got so sweet as when desire did sue
Therefore this maxim out of love I teach:
‘Achievement is command; ungained, beseech.’
That though my heart’s contents firm love doth bear,
Nothing of that shall from mine eyes appear."
Minds sway'd by eyes are full of turpitude.. .
Why should a man be proud? How doth pride grow?
I know not what it is.He that is proud eats up himself: pride is his own glass, his own trumpet, his own chronicle, and whatever
praises itself but in the deed, devours the deed in the praise...
nought that knows not this:
Men prize the thing ungained more than it is:
That she was never yet that ever knew
Love got so sweet as when desire did sue
Therefore this maxim out of love I teach:
‘Achievement is command; ungained, beseech.’
That though my heart’s contents firm love doth bear,
Nothing of that shall from mine eyes appear."
September 13, 2018
Shakespeare, the Trojan War, biting black humor, heaps of moral ambiguity, and bold defiance of genre make this one of my favorite plays from the period.
July 29, 2009
My roommate in college was film noir's #1 fan, and we went through a long period of time trying to get caught up on every noir ever made. It was in that mood that said roommate and I took one of my favorite college classes, which we affectionately called Shakespeare Boot Camp. The two-week long class consisted of a week of studying plays and a week of living in Ashland, Oregon while going to see those plays on stage at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. Brilliant! I was really psyched up to see the stage performance of Troilus and Cressida, because I had decided that it was film noir from start to finish.
Unfortunately, the director of the production we saw decided that Cressida was pretty much the Greek equivalent of a misunderstood vapid cheerleader. Sucks how Shakespeare is so open to interpretation like that. In my mind she was the ultimate femme fatale - the mastermind behind the betrayals that are the essence of this story. To the director of that production, she was the pawn of the big, strong (gay) men. In all fairness, that production focused on the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles, and the actual story of Troilus and Cressida was almost incidental. When Cressida was on stage, however, she pranced around in her golden locks until blood was practically pouring out of my ears. I took it personally. If we're going to write a female stereotype, I prefer the villain to the idiot. At least the villain has some power.
When we returned from Shakespeare Camp I decided to adopt a black cat and name her "Cressida as Ava Gardner's Character Kitty Collins in The Killers", so that when people met her they would know that Cressida is e-vil. That's exactly what I did. Ironically, Cat Cressida is kind of cuddly and sweet it turns out, and she makes friends with all the neighbors. But I think deep down she has betrayal in her heart. She's just waiting for the right moment to spring it on us. Anyway, spread the word people. Cressida may be a bitch, but she ain't nobody else's bitch, ya know?
Unfortunately, the director of the production we saw decided that Cressida was pretty much the Greek equivalent of a misunderstood vapid cheerleader. Sucks how Shakespeare is so open to interpretation like that. In my mind she was the ultimate femme fatale - the mastermind behind the betrayals that are the essence of this story. To the director of that production, she was the pawn of the big, strong (gay) men. In all fairness, that production focused on the relationship between Patroclus and Achilles, and the actual story of Troilus and Cressida was almost incidental. When Cressida was on stage, however, she pranced around in her golden locks until blood was practically pouring out of my ears. I took it personally. If we're going to write a female stereotype, I prefer the villain to the idiot. At least the villain has some power.
When we returned from Shakespeare Camp I decided to adopt a black cat and name her "Cressida as Ava Gardner's Character Kitty Collins in The Killers", so that when people met her they would know that Cressida is e-vil. That's exactly what I did. Ironically, Cat Cressida is kind of cuddly and sweet it turns out, and she makes friends with all the neighbors. But I think deep down she has betrayal in her heart. She's just waiting for the right moment to spring it on us. Anyway, spread the word people. Cressida may be a bitch, but she ain't nobody else's bitch, ya know?
March 8, 2015
Shakespeare's farcical take on the Iliad
22 May 2012
This is one of Shakespeare's stranger plays, and though the characters of the title do play a role in the play albeit it is a quite minor one. The play is set during the Trojan War and basically follows the plot of the Iliad, though Shakespeare adds some quite comic twists to the main characters.
Troilus and Cressida are two Trojans who are in love, but Cressida is given over to the Greeks in exchange for a prisoner. Troilus then sneaks into the Greek camp to discover that his beloved is flirting with a Greek and his heart is broken. However, this, as mentioned, is only a minor part of the play as the major part is focused not so much on the wrath of Achillies, but rather on the sulking of Achillies.
Achillies spends most of the time in the play sulking over the fact that Agamemnon took a woman that he wanted and as such refuses to fight. Hector, the Trojan hero, taunts the Greeks seeking a one on one combat, but Achillies, the Greek hero, refuses to fight. Ajax is then chosen, however he does not get the opportunity to actually fight as Achilles' lover, Patroclus, steals Achilles' armour and goes to fight in his place. Hector kills Patroclus which snaps Achilles out of his misery and brings him back onto battlefield. However, Achillies does not actually lay the killing blow but rather orders his troops to surround Hector and kill him.
While in many cases this play is a tragedy, it is quite farcical. The character of Achillies is actually quite pathetic. He spends most of the play in his tent sulking (as he does in The Iliad), and when he finally emerges to show the Trojans that he is actually a great warrior, he doesn't actually do anything: rather gets his men to do his dirty work. Thus Achillies is not portrayed in all that great a light.
It is quite possible that this was the thought that went through Shakespeare's head when he considered the original text, though the source is most likely Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde as opposed to the Iliad (which Shakespeare could not read as he could not read Greek). Further, to me, Achillies does not seem to be a truly heroic character because in the epic poem he spends most of his time sulking over a slave girl and having a spat with Agamemnon. Still, the Greek idea of heroism is quite different from ours because Odysseus does not come out as a very admirable character in the Odyssey. In fact, for a man who was married to a very loyal wife, he is not the most faithful of people. I guess that is the nature of a male dominated society: the woman is praised for her chastity while the male is praised for his virility.
I was probably a bit hasty in suggesting that Shakespeare did not read the Iliad simply because it is one of those foundational works of Western Literature. As such, I would be surprised if there were not a Latin, or even an English translation to which Shakespeare had access. If you look at the characters in the play you will note that the Latin spellings are used (Ulysses instead of Odysseus and Hecube instead of Hecabe). I also have noticed that pretty much every character that appears in the Iliad makes an appearance in this play, and some, such as Aeneas, seem to play a larger role.
Now that I have read Chaucer's poem, I have to say that my feelings are that there are some significant differences. Okay, Chaucer divides his poem into five sections in the same way that Shakespeare divides his plays into five acts, but Shakespeare had always been doing this (and if you look at other plays of the period, such as those by Marlowe, you will notice a similar structure). The Chaucer poem seems to revolve around the love affair between Troilus and Cressida, where as this play jumps between the love affair and a re-enactment of the Iliad.
While my knowledge of literary history back in those days is limited, I suspect that the audience would have been familiar with the Iliad, or at least the story. The reason I suggest this is because theatre was one of the main forms of entertainment in those days. Even in the late 19th century the masses were still visiting the theatre, and if you have been to London, you will know that there are quite a lot of theatres dotting the West End. There was no television and there was no sport and as such this was the only form of mass entertainment available. In a way, a play at the Globe in the 16th Century would be like going to the cinema, and a play by Shakespeare would be similar to a movie by Spielburg.
In many ways the plays were not targeted at the intellectual aristocrats but rather to the common people and as such one can expect a lot of vulgarity. As a friend said to me today people have actively cleaned up Shakespearian plays for the purpose of allowing children to read them, though these days much of the vulgarity in these plays would be lost to us. As an example, I will finish off by quoting my favourite lines from this play. However, before I do that, I want to say a few things about the character of Thersities.
Apparently Thersities does appear in the Iliad, and is a not a minor character in Greek mythology. As suggested in Wikipedia, Thersities does not have a last name in the Iliad suggesting that he is a commoner, however in other epics he does. He is a strange character: very crude, rude, and abusive. Some have suggested that he is the Shakespearian fool in this play, but a part of me feels that he is so much more than a fool. Yes, he appears as a means of light comic relief, but remember Troilus and Cresida is not a tragedy, if anything it is a tragi-comedy, or we could use the more modern term black comedy. However I do not actually think it is as such because in Troilus and Cressida, we are not laughing at death, we are laughing at the stupidity of the characters on stage, which is broken up by the romance of the Troilus and Cressida, and then are heartbroken when we see Cressida discard Troilus for the Greeks (and we have a very strange scene in this play where Cressida is passed around the Greek generals where they all get the opportunity to 'kiss' her). I seem to have wondered off topic, but as I promised, here is the quote:
22 May 2012
This is one of Shakespeare's stranger plays, and though the characters of the title do play a role in the play albeit it is a quite minor one. The play is set during the Trojan War and basically follows the plot of the Iliad, though Shakespeare adds some quite comic twists to the main characters.
Troilus and Cressida are two Trojans who are in love, but Cressida is given over to the Greeks in exchange for a prisoner. Troilus then sneaks into the Greek camp to discover that his beloved is flirting with a Greek and his heart is broken. However, this, as mentioned, is only a minor part of the play as the major part is focused not so much on the wrath of Achillies, but rather on the sulking of Achillies.
Achillies spends most of the time in the play sulking over the fact that Agamemnon took a woman that he wanted and as such refuses to fight. Hector, the Trojan hero, taunts the Greeks seeking a one on one combat, but Achillies, the Greek hero, refuses to fight. Ajax is then chosen, however he does not get the opportunity to actually fight as Achilles' lover, Patroclus, steals Achilles' armour and goes to fight in his place. Hector kills Patroclus which snaps Achilles out of his misery and brings him back onto battlefield. However, Achillies does not actually lay the killing blow but rather orders his troops to surround Hector and kill him.
While in many cases this play is a tragedy, it is quite farcical. The character of Achillies is actually quite pathetic. He spends most of the play in his tent sulking (as he does in The Iliad), and when he finally emerges to show the Trojans that he is actually a great warrior, he doesn't actually do anything: rather gets his men to do his dirty work. Thus Achillies is not portrayed in all that great a light.
It is quite possible that this was the thought that went through Shakespeare's head when he considered the original text, though the source is most likely Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde as opposed to the Iliad (which Shakespeare could not read as he could not read Greek). Further, to me, Achillies does not seem to be a truly heroic character because in the epic poem he spends most of his time sulking over a slave girl and having a spat with Agamemnon. Still, the Greek idea of heroism is quite different from ours because Odysseus does not come out as a very admirable character in the Odyssey. In fact, for a man who was married to a very loyal wife, he is not the most faithful of people. I guess that is the nature of a male dominated society: the woman is praised for her chastity while the male is praised for his virility.
I was probably a bit hasty in suggesting that Shakespeare did not read the Iliad simply because it is one of those foundational works of Western Literature. As such, I would be surprised if there were not a Latin, or even an English translation to which Shakespeare had access. If you look at the characters in the play you will note that the Latin spellings are used (Ulysses instead of Odysseus and Hecube instead of Hecabe). I also have noticed that pretty much every character that appears in the Iliad makes an appearance in this play, and some, such as Aeneas, seem to play a larger role.
Now that I have read Chaucer's poem, I have to say that my feelings are that there are some significant differences. Okay, Chaucer divides his poem into five sections in the same way that Shakespeare divides his plays into five acts, but Shakespeare had always been doing this (and if you look at other plays of the period, such as those by Marlowe, you will notice a similar structure). The Chaucer poem seems to revolve around the love affair between Troilus and Cressida, where as this play jumps between the love affair and a re-enactment of the Iliad.
While my knowledge of literary history back in those days is limited, I suspect that the audience would have been familiar with the Iliad, or at least the story. The reason I suggest this is because theatre was one of the main forms of entertainment in those days. Even in the late 19th century the masses were still visiting the theatre, and if you have been to London, you will know that there are quite a lot of theatres dotting the West End. There was no television and there was no sport and as such this was the only form of mass entertainment available. In a way, a play at the Globe in the 16th Century would be like going to the cinema, and a play by Shakespeare would be similar to a movie by Spielburg.
In many ways the plays were not targeted at the intellectual aristocrats but rather to the common people and as such one can expect a lot of vulgarity. As a friend said to me today people have actively cleaned up Shakespearian plays for the purpose of allowing children to read them, though these days much of the vulgarity in these plays would be lost to us. As an example, I will finish off by quoting my favourite lines from this play. However, before I do that, I want to say a few things about the character of Thersities.
Apparently Thersities does appear in the Iliad, and is a not a minor character in Greek mythology. As suggested in Wikipedia, Thersities does not have a last name in the Iliad suggesting that he is a commoner, however in other epics he does. He is a strange character: very crude, rude, and abusive. Some have suggested that he is the Shakespearian fool in this play, but a part of me feels that he is so much more than a fool. Yes, he appears as a means of light comic relief, but remember Troilus and Cresida is not a tragedy, if anything it is a tragi-comedy, or we could use the more modern term black comedy. However I do not actually think it is as such because in Troilus and Cressida, we are not laughing at death, we are laughing at the stupidity of the characters on stage, which is broken up by the romance of the Troilus and Cressida, and then are heartbroken when we see Cressida discard Troilus for the Greeks (and we have a very strange scene in this play where Cressida is passed around the Greek generals where they all get the opportunity to 'kiss' her). I seem to have wondered off topic, but as I promised, here is the quote:
Thersites: Prithee, be silent, boy; I profit not by thy talk. Thou art said to be Achille's male varlet.
Patroclus: Male varlet, you rogue. What's that?
Thersites: Why, his masculine whore.
September 28, 2017
Troilus and Cressida is an underrated Shakespeare play based on the Iliad. It's not really a tragedy and not quite a comedy, but it seems to me that Shakespeare strikes a good blend. Troilus and Cressida are minor characters in the saga but Shakespeare draws their characters well and the reader becomes more invested in their story more than the multitude of other characters drawn from the Iliad. Many of these characters are intentionally drawn superficially because there is little time in the span of a two hour play to do justice to some two dozen characters.
The two tragedies are where Cressida is ransomed away to the Grecians after consummating her relationship with Troilus and in a plot where Hector is killed by Achilles. There are some schemers involved in ransoming away Cressida and in baiting Achilles into killing Hector but they play a minor role.
It was refreshing, after reading many other Shakespeare plays, that these two tragic subplots and this play in general unfolded with muted drama.
There are many good lines in the play. Shakespeare used much more direct language here than in other plays. I especially enjoyed this exchange when an angry Ajax, the Grecian warrior with legendary strength, is beating his sharp-tongued and sharp-witted servant Thersites
THERSITES
The plague of Greece upon thee, thou mongrel beef-witted lord!
AJAX.
Speak then, thou whinid’st leaven, speak; I will beat thee into handsomeness.
THERSITES
I shall sooner rail thee into wit and holiness, but I think thy horse will sooner con an oration without book than thou learn a prayer without book. Thou canst strike, canst thou? A red murrain a’ thy jade’s tricks!
AJAX
Toadstool! Learn me the proclamation.
THER.
Dost thou think I have no sense, thou strikest me thus?
AJAX.
The proclamation!
THER.
Thou art proclaim’d fool, I think.
AJAX.
Do not, porpentine, do not, my fingers itch.
THER.
I would thou didst itch from head to foot; and I had the scratching of thee, I would make thee the loathsomest scab in Greece. When thou art forth in the incursions, thou strikest as slow as another.
AJAX.
I say, the proclamation!
THER.
Thou grumblest and railest every hour on Achilles, and thou art as full of envy at his greatness as Cerberus is at Proserpina’s beauty, ay, that thou bark’st at him.
AJAX.
Mistress Thersites!
THER.
Thou shouldst strike him.
AJAX.
Cobloaf!
THER.
He would pun thee into shivers with his fist, as a sailor breaks a biscuit.
And so on.
These lines best encapsulate why this play is hard to categorize.
Anyway Troilus and Cressida is a good read if you have some background on the Iliad.
The two tragedies are where Cressida is ransomed away to the Grecians after consummating her relationship with Troilus and in a plot where Hector is killed by Achilles. There are some schemers involved in ransoming away Cressida and in baiting Achilles into killing Hector but they play a minor role.
It was refreshing, after reading many other Shakespeare plays, that these two tragic subplots and this play in general unfolded with muted drama.
There are many good lines in the play. Shakespeare used much more direct language here than in other plays. I especially enjoyed this exchange when an angry Ajax, the Grecian warrior with legendary strength, is beating his sharp-tongued and sharp-witted servant Thersites
THERSITES
The plague of Greece upon thee, thou mongrel beef-witted lord!
AJAX.
Speak then, thou whinid’st leaven, speak; I will beat thee into handsomeness.
THERSITES
I shall sooner rail thee into wit and holiness, but I think thy horse will sooner con an oration without book than thou learn a prayer without book. Thou canst strike, canst thou? A red murrain a’ thy jade’s tricks!
AJAX
Toadstool! Learn me the proclamation.
THER.
Dost thou think I have no sense, thou strikest me thus?
AJAX.
The proclamation!
THER.
Thou art proclaim’d fool, I think.
AJAX.
Do not, porpentine, do not, my fingers itch.
THER.
I would thou didst itch from head to foot; and I had the scratching of thee, I would make thee the loathsomest scab in Greece. When thou art forth in the incursions, thou strikest as slow as another.
AJAX.
I say, the proclamation!
THER.
Thou grumblest and railest every hour on Achilles, and thou art as full of envy at his greatness as Cerberus is at Proserpina’s beauty, ay, that thou bark’st at him.
AJAX.
Mistress Thersites!
THER.
Thou shouldst strike him.
AJAX.
Cobloaf!
THER.
He would pun thee into shivers with his fist, as a sailor breaks a biscuit.
And so on.
These lines best encapsulate why this play is hard to categorize.
Anyway Troilus and Cressida is a good read if you have some background on the Iliad.
August 12, 2020
Uneven Trojan Tale.
Well, so I was originally reading Chaucer's version of Troilus and Criseyde and the Middle English got the better of me, I had doubts and figured reading Shakespeare's version first would be like Cliffnoting it. What do I think? Uneven in pace and tone.
The romance burns hot for a bit and then gets thrown on the floor like half-eaten turkey leg at Medieval Manor. Also, this is a tragicomedy, which is as weird as it sounds and I'm honestly not a fan. It's like Titanic the musical--no. There's this whole scene where Ajax comes off sounding like Dogberry from Much Ado About Nothing. There's bits where Ulysses sounds like Iago, which to be fair, isn't much of a stretch, but then add in the ill-fated romance of star-crossed lovers; or in this case, where women get treated like trading cards--Trade you a prince for a traitor's daughter?
There are some great quotes though:
Well, so I was originally reading Chaucer's version of Troilus and Criseyde and the Middle English got the better of me, I had doubts and figured reading Shakespeare's version first would be like Cliffnoting it. What do I think? Uneven in pace and tone.
The romance burns hot for a bit and then gets thrown on the floor like half-eaten turkey leg at Medieval Manor. Also, this is a tragicomedy, which is as weird as it sounds and I'm honestly not a fan. It's like Titanic the musical--no. There's this whole scene where Ajax comes off sounding like Dogberry from Much Ado About Nothing. There's bits where Ulysses sounds like Iago, which to be fair, isn't much of a stretch, but then add in the ill-fated romance of star-crossed lovers; or in this case, where women get treated like trading cards--Trade you a prince for a traitor's daughter?
There are some great quotes though:
The present eye praises the present object.
Then marvel not, thou great and complete man,
That all the Greeks begin to worship Ajax,
Since things in motion sooner catch the eye
Than what stirs not.
CRESSIDA. In kissing, do you render or receive?
PATROCLUS. Both take and give.
CRESSIDA. I'll make my match to live,
The kiss you take is better than you give;
Therefore no kiss.
MARGARELON. Turn, slave, and fight.
THERSITES. What art thou?
MARGARELON. A bastard son of Priam's.
THERSITES. I am a bastard too; I love bastards. I am a bastard
begot, bastard instructed, bastard in mind, bastard in valour, in
everything illegitimate. One bear will not bite another, and
wherefore should one bastard? Take heed, the quarrel's most
ominous to us: if the son of a whore fight for a whore, he tempts
judgment. Farewell, bastard.
Exit
MARGARELON. The devil take thee, coward!
April 11, 2025
as someone who knows what a good shakespeare play feels like, i'm not sure this is "good," per se. but as someone who loves the iliad, it makes me want to pace like a zoo animal
---
2025 reread: this play sucks so bad and i fucking love it. play that hates you and stomps on the iliad and spits in your face and then ends. but even ends is too dramatic it kind of just stops happening. cressida you are my babygirl you matter to me
---
2025 reread: this play sucks so bad and i fucking love it. play that hates you and stomps on the iliad and spits in your face and then ends. but even ends is too dramatic it kind of just stops happening. cressida you are my babygirl you matter to me
July 11, 2019
I'm not quite sure how this went from a "It's going to be a slog!!" to a "I understand nothing but I love it!!" kind of play, even though I don't exactly love it, because there's lots to hate about how Cressida is used and misused and how these great men pontificate about utter rubbish like honour being more important than life, the kind of stuff that makes one wonder if masculinity really is anti-life? and the play definitely belongs to Thersites, who is foul of mouth and steady of mind, because everything is really rotten to the core, "war and lechery confound all", and finally, at the end, the audience is addressed—and by addressed I mean cursed with venereal disease.
So I would have to say, in big 2019, that this a very topical play.
So I would have to say, in big 2019, that this a very topical play.
September 21, 2022
YouTube kanalımda Shakespeare'in hayatı, mutlaka okunması gereken kitapları ve kronolojik okuma sırası hakkında bilgi edinebilirsiniz: https://youtu.be/rGxh2RVjmNU
Neden Helen ve Paris değil, Troilus ve Cressida?
Neden Akhilleus ve Hektor değil, Troilus ve Cressida?
Neden Odysseus ve Aeneas değil, Troilus ve Cressida?
İlyada'nın İngiltere şubesi işte budur ama tek farkla... Sadece büyük kahramanlar değil, küçük insanlar da önemlidir. Napolyon ile Wellington savaşırken birileri aşk yaşamak zorundadır. Türkiye ile Yunanistan savaşırken birileri aşk yaşamak zorundadır. Hektor ile Akhilleus savaşırken birileri aşk yaşamak zorundadır. Çünkü aşk, dünyanın her boşluğundadır.
Bedenimizde sayısızca gözeneğe sahibiz. Bunlar da aşk gibi işte. Vücudumuzda da her gün akıl ile kalp arasında belki de bütün dünya savaşlarından daha kanlı geçen çeşitli savaşlar oluyor. Gözenekler ise bu savaşların arasından nefes almaya çalışıyor, aşkı arıyor, kurtuluşu istiyor, karşı cinsle kendi cinsini anlamlı kılmayı arzuluyor. Hem cinsellik dürtüsü de bir erkek ile bir kadının duygu ordularının saldırı ve savunma mekanizmalarından oluşmaz mı?
Troilus ve Cressida'nın Troya Savaşı içerisinde pek de önemli bir yeri yok. Yani onlar olmasa da muhtemelen Yunanlılar Troya'yı işgal ederdi. Ama zaten bunun için aşk güzeldir ya. Aşk, başkalarının anlayamadığı nedenlerdir. Çünkü daima başkalarının anlayamadığı nedenlerden dolayı severiz. Aşk için ölmek, yaşamaktır. Aşk, eşitsizlikleri eşit hale getirendir. Aşk, bir şelalenin akımından bir elektrik enerjisi üretmektir. Aşk, sinir hücrelerinin sinir olmamasıdır. Aşk, gözenek kabının şeklini almaktır. Aşk, aynı yörüngede dolaşan bir gezegenin uydusu olmaktır. Aşk, Paris'te geceyarısıdır. Aşk, en son günümüzde sadece 1 gün yaşadığımızı hissedeceğimiz bu dünyada sevgilinin gözlerine bakarken onlarca gün yaşamaktır. Aşk, bir video izlerken gözlerinizle ekran arasındaki hava moleküllerinin bilgiye dönüşmesi gibi bir çift gözden edinilen ansiklopedidir. Aşk, kütüphanendeki kitapları düzenli bir sıraya koymaktır. Aşk, sadece bir insandan dünyanın diğer bütün insanlarına tümevarım yapmayı öğrenmektir. Aşk, zamanın çabuk geçmesidir. Aşk bazen de zamanın hiç geçmemesidir. O, zaman adlı çocuğun oyuncağıdır. İsmini söylemeye çekindiğimiz şeyleri zamirleştiririz, işte biz de aşktan çekiniriz.
Troilus ve Cressida çekinmiyor. Her ne kadar Cressida, Troilus'a biraz ayıp ediyor olsa da süren bir savaşın içerisinde bir aşkın yaşanma ihtimali bile insanın kulağına hoş gelmeye yetiyor. Sonuçta aşkın da bir savaş olduğunu ve cinsler arasındaki saldırı-savunma taktiklerinin dünyanın bütün komutanlarını kıskandırırcasına şekil alabildiğini siz de çok iyi biliyorsunuz.
Neden Helen ve Paris değil, Troilus ve Cressida?
Neden Akhilleus ve Hektor değil, Troilus ve Cressida?
Neden Odysseus ve Aeneas değil, Troilus ve Cressida?
İlyada'nın İngiltere şubesi işte budur ama tek farkla... Sadece büyük kahramanlar değil, küçük insanlar da önemlidir. Napolyon ile Wellington savaşırken birileri aşk yaşamak zorundadır. Türkiye ile Yunanistan savaşırken birileri aşk yaşamak zorundadır. Hektor ile Akhilleus savaşırken birileri aşk yaşamak zorundadır. Çünkü aşk, dünyanın her boşluğundadır.
Bedenimizde sayısızca gözeneğe sahibiz. Bunlar da aşk gibi işte. Vücudumuzda da her gün akıl ile kalp arasında belki de bütün dünya savaşlarından daha kanlı geçen çeşitli savaşlar oluyor. Gözenekler ise bu savaşların arasından nefes almaya çalışıyor, aşkı arıyor, kurtuluşu istiyor, karşı cinsle kendi cinsini anlamlı kılmayı arzuluyor. Hem cinsellik dürtüsü de bir erkek ile bir kadının duygu ordularının saldırı ve savunma mekanizmalarından oluşmaz mı?
Troilus ve Cressida'nın Troya Savaşı içerisinde pek de önemli bir yeri yok. Yani onlar olmasa da muhtemelen Yunanlılar Troya'yı işgal ederdi. Ama zaten bunun için aşk güzeldir ya. Aşk, başkalarının anlayamadığı nedenlerdir. Çünkü daima başkalarının anlayamadığı nedenlerden dolayı severiz. Aşk için ölmek, yaşamaktır. Aşk, eşitsizlikleri eşit hale getirendir. Aşk, bir şelalenin akımından bir elektrik enerjisi üretmektir. Aşk, sinir hücrelerinin sinir olmamasıdır. Aşk, gözenek kabının şeklini almaktır. Aşk, aynı yörüngede dolaşan bir gezegenin uydusu olmaktır. Aşk, Paris'te geceyarısıdır. Aşk, en son günümüzde sadece 1 gün yaşadığımızı hissedeceğimiz bu dünyada sevgilinin gözlerine bakarken onlarca gün yaşamaktır. Aşk, bir video izlerken gözlerinizle ekran arasındaki hava moleküllerinin bilgiye dönüşmesi gibi bir çift gözden edinilen ansiklopedidir. Aşk, kütüphanendeki kitapları düzenli bir sıraya koymaktır. Aşk, sadece bir insandan dünyanın diğer bütün insanlarına tümevarım yapmayı öğrenmektir. Aşk, zamanın çabuk geçmesidir. Aşk bazen de zamanın hiç geçmemesidir. O, zaman adlı çocuğun oyuncağıdır. İsmini söylemeye çekindiğimiz şeyleri zamirleştiririz, işte biz de aşktan çekiniriz.
Troilus ve Cressida çekinmiyor. Her ne kadar Cressida, Troilus'a biraz ayıp ediyor olsa da süren bir savaşın içerisinde bir aşkın yaşanma ihtimali bile insanın kulağına hoş gelmeye yetiyor. Sonuçta aşkın da bir savaş olduğunu ve cinsler arasındaki saldırı-savunma taktiklerinin dünyanın bütün komutanlarını kıskandırırcasına şekil alabildiğini siz de çok iyi biliyorsunuz.
May 28, 2020
I love-hate this play that in part describes the struggle between love and war. I got through this play because I watched a lecture on by Professor Marjorie Garber link to lecture. I ratemthis play 4 stars because
* The play has entered my imagination.
* I feel the need to reread Romeo and Juliet and Anthony and Cleopatra so I can better remember some of the connections Professor Garber makes.
* I feel the need to reread all the comedies and tragedies to better compare those plays with this Troilus and Cressida play.
This play is a taskmaster. I will heed part of its demands and enjoy most of the rereads.
* Sometime this year, I will buy a copy of Professor Garber's book Shakespeare After All.
I am hooked.
* The play has entered my imagination.
* I feel the need to reread Romeo and Juliet and Anthony and Cleopatra so I can better remember some of the connections Professor Garber makes.
* I feel the need to reread all the comedies and tragedies to better compare those plays with this Troilus and Cressida play.
This play is a taskmaster. I will heed part of its demands and enjoy most of the rereads.
* Sometime this year, I will buy a copy of Professor Garber's book Shakespeare After All.
I am hooked.
March 29, 2020
Even though Troilus and Cressida isn’t one of the most beloved Shakespeare plays, it piqued my interest for several reasons. First and foremost, it’s a problem play, which means that different publishers have marked it either as a comedy, a tragedy or even a history play. The play ends on a very bleak note but on the other hand it is marked by bawdy comedy in between.
Secondly, I like plays dealing with a classical theme, and Troilus and Cressida concerns itself with the Trojan War, most notably the consequences of the abduction of Helen and the destruction of the love between Troilus and Cressida. Nonetheless, the play has the reputation of being extremely “modern”, especially due to its exploration of timely themes such as its constant questioning of intrinsic values such as hierarchy, honour and love. Its implicit debate between what is essential in human life and what is only existential are themes of our day and age.
Troilus and Cressida is set during the later years of the Trojan War, faithfully following the plotline of the Iliad from Achilles' refusal to participate in battle, to Hector's death. Essentially, two plots are followed in the play. In one, Troilus, son of Priam, woos Cressida, another Trojan. They profess their undying love, before Cressida is exchanged for a Trojan prisoner of war. As he attempts to visit her in the Greek camp, Troilus glimpses Diomedes flirting with his beloved Cressida, and decides to avenge her perfidy.
For us readers it quickly becomes clear that Troilus is in love with love, turning Cressida into an impossible ideal of beauty. Therefore, it is very frustrating to witness his jealousy and ultimately his condemnation of Cressida’s character. Troilus and Cressida ranks among Shakespeare's great plays about a pair of lovers (i.a. Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra …) where outer circumstances make love impossible. However, in the play at hand, one cannot shake the feeling that Cressida is simply a pawn, displaced by the men in her life who wield power over her.
While the romance plot gives the play its name, it accounts for only a small part of the play's run time. The majority of the play revolves around the leaders of the Greek and Trojan forces, Agamemnon and Priam, respectively. Agamemnon and his cohorts attempt to get the proud Achilles to return to battle and face Hector, who sends the Greeks a letter telling them of his willingness to engage in one-on-one combat with a Greek soldier. Ajax is originally chosen as this combatant, but makes peace with Hector before they are able to fight. Achilles is prompted to return to battle only after his protege Patroclus is killed by Hector before the Trojan walls. A series of skirmishes conclude the play, during which Achilles catches Hector and has the Myrmidons kill him. The conquest of Troy is left unfinished, as the Trojans learn of the death of their hero.
Furthermore, Troilus and Cressida is concerned with the breakdown of order, the hierarchical idea which had served for centuries. Ulysses concludes his description of “This chaos, when degree is suffocate” with a prediction concerning its consequences for language: “right and wrong / … Should lose their names, and so should justice too” – a statement implying not only that the ethical concepts become meaningless, but that their names, detached from meaningful references, cease to provide adequate designations. His prediction is fulfilled in the hallucinatory vision of universal dissolution Troilus experiences, the moment the play builds to, when Cressida’s perjury deprives words of meaning: sounds do not guide vows, vows are not sanctimony; “the bonds of heaven are slipp’d, dissolv’d, and loss’d” and words have become “words, words, mere words.”
So, at the end, like many before me, this play has left me confused and somewhat bitter. The heroes don’t seem like heroes. The women are treated like objects, which can be used at will. The ending is brutal and quite depressing. On a more positive note, the play has an excellent prologue that set the scene perfectly, and Thersites is one of my new chaotic faves (“thou thing of no bowels, thou!”). Furthermore, the play offers many different discussion topics that will be up for debate for centuries to come.
Secondly, I like plays dealing with a classical theme, and Troilus and Cressida concerns itself with the Trojan War, most notably the consequences of the abduction of Helen and the destruction of the love between Troilus and Cressida. Nonetheless, the play has the reputation of being extremely “modern”, especially due to its exploration of timely themes such as its constant questioning of intrinsic values such as hierarchy, honour and love. Its implicit debate between what is essential in human life and what is only existential are themes of our day and age.
Troilus and Cressida is set during the later years of the Trojan War, faithfully following the plotline of the Iliad from Achilles' refusal to participate in battle, to Hector's death. Essentially, two plots are followed in the play. In one, Troilus, son of Priam, woos Cressida, another Trojan. They profess their undying love, before Cressida is exchanged for a Trojan prisoner of war. As he attempts to visit her in the Greek camp, Troilus glimpses Diomedes flirting with his beloved Cressida, and decides to avenge her perfidy.
For us readers it quickly becomes clear that Troilus is in love with love, turning Cressida into an impossible ideal of beauty. Therefore, it is very frustrating to witness his jealousy and ultimately his condemnation of Cressida’s character. Troilus and Cressida ranks among Shakespeare's great plays about a pair of lovers (i.a. Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra …) where outer circumstances make love impossible. However, in the play at hand, one cannot shake the feeling that Cressida is simply a pawn, displaced by the men in her life who wield power over her.
Cressida: I wished myself a man, / Or that we women had men's privilege / Of speaking first.Cressida has no agency. She doesn’t have the right to shape her own future. When her father demands her exchange for a Trojan prisoner of war, Cressida has to leave. She has no choice. When she is then forced to marry Diomedes, she again has no say in the matter. Is awfully depressing when you then realise that Troilus didn’t even really love her. He loved the idea of her, he was madly in love with it – not with her. It’s frustrating that her “betrayal” causes Troilus to mark her as a “whore” and as unworthy. Cressida, just like Helen, is seen and treated as a prize by the men in her life. Nothing more.
While the romance plot gives the play its name, it accounts for only a small part of the play's run time. The majority of the play revolves around the leaders of the Greek and Trojan forces, Agamemnon and Priam, respectively. Agamemnon and his cohorts attempt to get the proud Achilles to return to battle and face Hector, who sends the Greeks a letter telling them of his willingness to engage in one-on-one combat with a Greek soldier. Ajax is originally chosen as this combatant, but makes peace with Hector before they are able to fight. Achilles is prompted to return to battle only after his protege Patroclus is killed by Hector before the Trojan walls. A series of skirmishes conclude the play, during which Achilles catches Hector and has the Myrmidons kill him. The conquest of Troy is left unfinished, as the Trojans learn of the death of their hero.
Paris: Then I say, / Well may we fight for whom, we know well, / The world's large spaces cannot parallel.In Troilus and Cressida, debates about value centre initially on Helen, whose questionable worth serves as the pretext for the war. Hector maintains a traditionalist belief in Helen’s intrinsic value, but the doubts that this value is as great as has been reputed, claiming that “Every tithe soul, ‘mongst many thousand dismes, / Has been as dear as Helen”. To Hector, Helen is “not worth what she doth cost the holding”, because her worth is less than that of each of the soldiers who has died in her name. By contrast, Troilus defends the war not by praising Helen’s intrinsic value but by suggesting that all value is extrinsically determined. “What’s aught but as ’tis valued?”, he asks, suggesting that value is constituted by those who rate it, and he argues that it is politically expedient to honour such constructed value as true. Troilus depicts Helen as a purchase that cannot be returned because her value has been debased with use. Like meat that has been eaten and clothes that have been worn, Helen’s chastity has been sullied and depleted, making her unsuitable for other buyers. Whereas Paris hopes that winning the war may truly elevate Helen’s value, vowing that he “would have the soil of her fair rape / Wiped off in honourable keeping her”.
Furthermore, Troilus and Cressida is concerned with the breakdown of order, the hierarchical idea which had served for centuries. Ulysses concludes his description of “This chaos, when degree is suffocate” with a prediction concerning its consequences for language: “right and wrong / … Should lose their names, and so should justice too” – a statement implying not only that the ethical concepts become meaningless, but that their names, detached from meaningful references, cease to provide adequate designations. His prediction is fulfilled in the hallucinatory vision of universal dissolution Troilus experiences, the moment the play builds to, when Cressida’s perjury deprives words of meaning: sounds do not guide vows, vows are not sanctimony; “the bonds of heaven are slipp’d, dissolv’d, and loss’d” and words have become “words, words, mere words.”
So, at the end, like many before me, this play has left me confused and somewhat bitter. The heroes don’t seem like heroes. The women are treated like objects, which can be used at will. The ending is brutal and quite depressing. On a more positive note, the play has an excellent prologue that set the scene perfectly, and Thersites is one of my new chaotic faves (“thou thing of no bowels, thou!”). Furthermore, the play offers many different discussion topics that will be up for debate for centuries to come.
July 3, 2020
Onestamente ho trovato questa opera, dovrebbe essere una tragedia (?), mancante in molti punti. Sullo sfondo ci dovrebbe essere la guerra di Troia, dico dovrebbe perché, alla fine, tre atti e mezzo su cinque hanno scene della guerra. Il titolo trae, quindi, in inganno? Ci prospetta una storia d’amore e poi non ce la dà? No, la storia d’amore ci sarebbe, è che i protagonisti compaiono tre volte e basta. Nel mezzo ci sono, in ordine sparso:
- Menelao che scassa
- Elena che rompe
- Achille che si lamenta
- Ulisse che filosofeggia
- Diomede che se la tira
- Calcante che chiede
- Paride che sbava
- Patroclo che boh, bacia
- Ettore che muore.
In tutto questo casino la storia di Troilo, figlio di Priamo, e Cressida si perde. Si perde troppo. Tanto che non si capisce come si concluda.
- Menelao che scassa
- Elena che rompe
- Achille che si lamenta
- Ulisse che filosofeggia
- Diomede che se la tira
- Calcante che chiede
- Paride che sbava
- Patroclo che boh, bacia
- Ettore che muore.
In tutto questo casino la storia di Troilo, figlio di Priamo, e Cressida si perde. Si perde troppo. Tanto che non si capisce come si concluda.
June 9, 2018
This is Shakespeare's look at the Trojan War and a play I will probably do more research on. It is a very odd play. Perhaps it is a farce. It is a bit cynical. The main characters are not really the thing and in the end it seems that Cressida is unworthy of Troilus's love. Besides the obvious source of the Iliad it appears this story of Troilus and Cressida comes from Chaucer. I can only wonder how many inside jokes I missed by not being an Elizabethan.
February 19, 2024
Unfortunately, I couldn't make it all the way through this one. I usually enjoy reading Shakespeare, but after a few scenes in which Panderus has lines, I was done.
July 31, 2025
A cynical, plague-ridden take on love and war... proving Shakespeare could be a real downer when he wanted to:(
Troy's falling... and honour's as stable as a house of cards in a hurricane.
Cressida(I hate her!) is unfaithful! and my dear Troilus... learns that true love sometimes just means getting ghosted by a goddess.
Troy's falling... and honour's as stable as a house of cards in a hurricane.
🥀“Time hath, my lord, a wallet at his back,
Wherein he puts alms for oblivion,
A great-sized monster of ingratitudes:
Those scraps are good deeds past; which are devour'd
As fast as they are made, forgot as soon
As done: perseverance, dear my lord,
Keeps honour bright: to have done is to hang
Quite out of fashion, like a rusty mail
In monumental mockery. Take the instant way;
For honour travels in a strait so narrow,
Where one but goes abreast: keep then the path;
For emulation hath a thousand sons
That one by one pursue: if you give way,
Or hedge aside from the direct forthright,
Like to an enter'd tide, they all rush by
And leave you hindmost;
Or like a gallant horse fall'n in first rank,
Lie there for pavement to the abject rear,
O'er-run and trampled on: then what they do in present,
Though less than yours in past, must o'ertop yours;
For time is like a fashionable host
That slightly shakes his parting guest by the hand,
And with his arms outstretch'd, as he would fly,
Grasps in the comer: welcome ever smiles,
And farewell goes out sighing. O, let not virtue seek
Remuneration for the thing it was;
For beauty, wit,
High birth, vigour of bone, desert in service,
Love, friendship, charity, are subjects all
To envious and calumniating time.”🥀
Cressida(I hate her!) is unfaithful! and my dear Troilus... learns that true love sometimes just means getting ghosted by a goddess.
🥀Her bed is India: there she lies, a pearl.🥀
December 29, 2014
Ovo je prvi i verovatno poslednji review za neki Šekspirov komad koji ću ikad napisati, jer ne smatram sebe nekim stručnjakom za Bardove drame, ali osećam se obaveznom da pojasnim zašto mi se dopao više nego što sam očekivala - naročito u poređenju sa generalnom ocenom drugih čitalaca.
Ova drama odiše cinizmom i zajedljivošću. Ne znam u kakvom je raspoloženju bio pisac dok je stvarao ovo delo, ali uspeo je da izvrne ruglu sve - čast, poštenje, vernost, ljubav. Dotadašnje romantične predstave srednjevekovnih ljudi o Trojanskom ratu je ismejao portretima svadljivih i pohotnih grčkih junaka, a kroz lik roba Tersita i njegove gunđave, zlobne primedbe i monologe, narugao se pojmu viteštva, kao i glorifikovanju rata i nasilja kao načinu za sticanje časti muškarca. Junakinju Kresidu je predstavio kao najobičniju namigušu i drocu, iako je šteta što je propušteno da se njen lik možda razvije u nekom drugačijem pravcu - kao žene koja oportunistički koristi svoju lepotu kako bi dobila ono što želi (Kresidina sudbina do kraja komada ostaje nejasna, što daje utisak nedovršenosti).
Drama svakako ima svojih manjkavosti, povremenih logorejičnih naleta, ali neka globalna mračna ironičnost, sarkazam, mizantropija kojima odiše čine je, po mom skromnom mišljenju, donekle drugačijom od ostalih Šekspirovih tragedija koje sam čitala.
Long story short: meni se dopalo! Definitivno nije u rangu mojih omiljenih, "Julija Cezara", "Koriolana", "Hamleta" ili "Simbelina", ali ovoliku gorčinu je nemoguće prenebregnuti i ne nagraditi lepom ocenom na GR (kao da je pokojnom Šekspiru stalo do moje ocene, al' 'ajde :D).
p.s. E, da, psovke u drami su urnebes :D
Ova drama odiše cinizmom i zajedljivošću. Ne znam u kakvom je raspoloženju bio pisac dok je stvarao ovo delo, ali uspeo je da izvrne ruglu sve - čast, poštenje, vernost, ljubav. Dotadašnje romantične predstave srednjevekovnih ljudi o Trojanskom ratu je ismejao portretima svadljivih i pohotnih grčkih junaka, a kroz lik roba Tersita i njegove gunđave, zlobne primedbe i monologe, narugao se pojmu viteštva, kao i glorifikovanju rata i nasilja kao načinu za sticanje časti muškarca. Junakinju Kresidu je predstavio kao najobičniju namigušu i drocu, iako je šteta što je propušteno da se njen lik možda razvije u nekom drugačijem pravcu - kao žene koja oportunistički koristi svoju lepotu kako bi dobila ono što želi (Kresidina sudbina do kraja komada ostaje nejasna, što daje utisak nedovršenosti).
Drama svakako ima svojih manjkavosti, povremenih logorejičnih naleta, ali neka globalna mračna ironičnost, sarkazam, mizantropija kojima odiše čine je, po mom skromnom mišljenju, donekle drugačijom od ostalih Šekspirovih tragedija koje sam čitala.
Long story short: meni se dopalo! Definitivno nije u rangu mojih omiljenih, "Julija Cezara", "Koriolana", "Hamleta" ili "Simbelina", ali ovoliku gorčinu je nemoguće prenebregnuti i ne nagraditi lepom ocenom na GR (kao da je pokojnom Šekspiru stalo do moje ocene, al' 'ajde :D).
p.s. E, da, psovke u drami su urnebes :D
Displaying 1 - 30 of 986 reviews