Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida

1. Barbieri, Richard.  “The Classics in Wartime.” Independant School 63:4 (2003): 100-102. (Anh Tran)

      Richard Barbieri discusses the treatment of war in a number of great works literature such as Greek classics and Shakespeare.  He also discusses more about what and who are warriors and/or heroes in these stories that we read and analyze.  About 12 paragraphs down Barbieri writes “Troilus and Cressida carries anti-war sentiment perhaps as far as it ever went before the 19th century…”  He then continues for a little more about other Greek classics and Shakespeare literature that contain characters that are considered heroes and why they deserve that title.
      This article does not reflect much on Troilus and Cressida but I found the article interesting because Barbieri touch on many Greek characters and some of Shakespeare’s works as well and from other scholarly works he has gathered, discusses why these characters are significant and how they are relevant for us to study and analyze.

2. Bjelland, Karen T. “Variants as epistemological shifts: a proposed methodology for recovering the two texts of Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida” The Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America 88 (1994): 53-78. (Anh Tran)

     Karen Bjelland states that most editors debated that the Quarto and Folio formulations of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida were created for their own version.  However, as Bjelland states out “…a review of the scholarship pertaining to these formulations reveals that authorial ‘authority’ has been variously accorded to each one…the need to have a way of articulating the relationship between Quarto-Folio variants that does not presuppose that one variant is "authorial" and that the other must therefore be nonauthorial… analysis of variant passages of Troilus and Cressida that choosing one variant over another is not an appropriate editorial strategy in two-text plays; that, in every case, the variants tap into different epistemological categories and so point to each text having been written in its own cultural time and space.”

3. Bowen, Barbara E.  Gender in the Theater of War: Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida.  New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1993. (Sam Suver)

     Bowen’s critique is unabashedly and self-consciously feminist.  Her purpose is to uproot and uncover the current naturalized patriarchal reading of Shakespeare.  In so doing, she hopes to effect a disruption of politics as we know it, and change the way academics mechanically use Shakespeare to justify war and inequitable gender relations.  Bowen makes several distinctions about gender and how it is constructed in Troilus and Cressida.  For example, she describes how gender is created in the act of performance (in the play itself, and in the feminizing performance of Patroclus for Achilles).  The very act of performance is the “process of making the absent present, a process contemporary theory usually calls ‘representation’”— Troilus and Cressida especially calls attention to this idea with its self-reflexive focus on performance itself.  Not only is gender constructed through representation, but each element of performance is allowed to be recognized as a signifier and signified.  One example of signification is in “displacing the cause of war between men onto a woman’s body”— Helen and Cressida, or women in general, signify the cause of the world’s troubles.
     This is a gutsy book with extreme liberal leanings.  It at times reads as male bashing rather than the expected quiet academic critique—but maybe this is what it takes to upend patriarchal hegemony and the penchant for war mongering.  In the last chapter, Bowen mocks Bush Sr. and company and stands up for women’s liberation in the face of the Gulf War with a title that speaks for itself, “Read my Labia: U.S. out of Saudi Arabia”.  If only more labias were talking now… -sam s.

4. Dusinberre, Juliet.  “The Arden Shakespeare Troilus and Cressida.” Shakespeare Quarterly 51:1 (2000): 90-93. (Anh Tran)

      This was a review on the Shakespeare play edited by David Bevington.  I like this article because Juliet Dusinberre recognizes that Troilus and Cressida was not one of Shakespeare’s best plays yet she documents points that Bevington makes which are important and relevant about the characters in the play.  As opposed to Chaucer’s version of the story, Bevington “depicts an affair doomed to failure in a fragmented world, just as its dramatic representation is marked by the disintegration of a tragic heroic genre” (par 1). 
      Dusinberre also notes towards the end of the article that Bevington’s notes are “succinct, clear, unpretentious, and wonderfully geared to students' needs” (par 11).  She gives him credibility as an editor because Bevington is generous with his acknowledgments and recognition for other scholars’ works.  Dusinberre states that readers need more guidance on reading Shakespeare for the language and for theoretical discussions of his works.
      I have to agree with Dusinberre because every time I read Chaucer, I was completely confused and lost.  However, when I picked up Shakespeare’s version of the story, I was jumping with joy because I understood the plot and who the characters were and what they were saying.  It also helped that we discussed Chaucer in class but reading Shakespeare was a lot easier to comprehend than Chaucer. 

5. Gil, Daniel Juan.  “At the limits of the social world: Fear and pride in Troilus and Cressida.” Shakespeare Quarterly 52:3 (2001): 336-361. (Sam Suver)

     Gil argues that sexual relations directly influence the social relationships manifest in Troilus and Cressida.  Moreover, the character’s ability to negotiate his social status (through sexual barter) explains the expression of certain emotions such as fear and pride that he may feel.  This is a dense, post-modern reading of Troilus and Cressida that assumes Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s idea of “homosociality”, where “social bonds between men are secured through the bodies of women” (1).  Women become items of commerce in creating bonds (often sexual) between men.  For example, “Pandarus thinks of the women he is related to as chips to be traded to other men, and he views setting up a liaison between the lovers as a means of securing a liaison with Troilus for himself” (6).
     I find Gil’s theory that sex is the basis for all social bonds and individual anxiety and anti-social behavior, an interesting proposal, yet an odious reduction of the complexities of human motivation.  He is right to point to Foucault in explaining that 16th century sexuality was not repressed and has nothing to do with the sexual identity politics so inherent in modern culture.  Gil explains that “sexual expression could thus inhabit a whole range of social relationships not specifically designated as sexual”.  He is mistaken to believe that this leaves him free to then specifically designate each relationship within the play as sexual.  He forces Shakespeare into the current discourse of sexual identity politics without acknowledging that a certain paradigmatic imperialism, domination, and subjugation will inevitably occur— a contrived move that strikes me as also, jarringly anachronistic. -sam s.

6. Greenfield, Mathew A. “Fragments of Nationalism of Troilus and Cressida.” Shakespeare Quarterly 51:2 (2000): 1-19.  (Kelly Seaburg)

      This article explores the origination of nationalism in England, and the ways in which the play Troilus and Cressida serves to undermine traditional conceptions of citizenship.  Greenfield asserts that while many of Shakespeare’s histories “maintain an investment in some idea of national community, ‘Troilus and Cressida’ works programmatically to reveal the nation as a collection of fictions” (2).  The concept of nationalism necessitates citizens who view the state as “an expression of the collective sovereignty of the people,” and imagine themselves not merely as humans sharing a language, religion, class, or territory but as collective members of a shared community (3).  Greenfield says that “because creation of a collective identity requires a reinvention of the past, the English nationalism of the sixteenth century set about constructing a national literature, a national language, a shared historical memory, and common ancestors” (4).  The Tudor monarchy established mythical ties with Troy as a means of creating a shared point of origin for the English nation, and the myth of Troilus and Cressida was already extremely well known in England before Shakespeare’s play was written. 
      For these reasons, Greenfield finds it significant that characters in Troilus and Cressida undermine rather than support English nationalism.  Marginalized characters, such as Thersites, are liberated by their illegitimacy from conforming to the “ideological claim of the nation, whose central trope imagines citizens as brothers” (2).  Thersites claims to be a bastard “in everything legitimate,” so he does not share, as a true citizen would, in the collective history of Englishmen (10).  He emphasizes self-preservation rather than military service for the nation, and on the battlefield he can cheer for both sides.  Greenfield asserts that this play “mounts a sustained attack on the genealogical trope at the heart of nationalism.  With its procession of bastards, cuckolds, exiles, traitors, and racial hybrids, the play persistently undermines the idea that national identity is an unambiguous aspect of self-definition” (12).  Greenfield argues that in this play even “legitimate” characters such as Hector and Achilles are torn between their “Iliadic identities” as a Greek or Trojan and their identities which stem from the play’s genre, a medieval romance and tragedy.  He argues that “Each community [tries] to produce a particular kind of person: a character manifests two different identities, depending on location or situation...Each nation works to produce its own version...” (13). Calkas and his daughter Cressida’s fluctuating loyalties which result from their Trojan heritage and Greek ties exemplify this phenomenon.  Greenfield argues that the ambiguous national identities of these characters did more to undermine than support the burgeoning concept of nationalism at the time when this play was written.
      I selected this article because I was interested to see how someone could find grounds for the accusation that this play undermined the concept of nationalism in Troilus and Cressida, but Greenfield is surprisingly convincing overall.  Only his descriptions of the multiple identities of the characters lack support beyond his own reasoning, otherwise Greenfield supports his argument with a breadth of resources.  At the very least, I thought his assertions were very original.

7. Guha, P.K. “The Problem of Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida.” Dacca University Bulletin 9 (1926): 23-41. (Gracielle Loree)

     It seemed as though the most frustrating task to literary critics when assessing Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida was classifying it into a specific genre.  The play appeared to have elements of the three main classifications of drama: tragedy, comedy, and history.  Guha argued that this difficulty would prove inconsequential as long as a sense of unity could be seen within the piece.  However, it’s “double-plot,” consisting of the Trojan War conflict and the love between Troilus and Cressida, caused some literary critics to believe that Troilus and Cressida lacked this imperative unity.  Guha asserted that there was “nothing un-Shakespearean” about the text and that it did, indeed, have unity contrary to popular arguments.  To begin with, Guha refuted theories that attempted to explain why this piece lacked unity.  He noted the “double-authorship” theory that suggested sections of Shakespeare’s play were written by fellow playwright Marston.  An argument put forth by Boyle asserted that “Hector [was] made too ridiculous, Achilles too contemptible, [and] Ajax to blustering” to be true Shakespearean characters.  I agree with Guha when he noted that this argument is a weak, almost silly assertion.  Who’s to say that Shakespeare cannot alter his characterization when he feels it fits what he intends to accomplish? 
     The bulk of Guha’s argument consisted of conveying how this double-plot “knitted” together.  Helen’s character, running parallel in many regards to Cressida, emphasized the central theme of the “unworthy woman” causing grief to men.  Helen, Cressida, and even Polyxena had overwhelming power over what action the males chose or chose not to take.  A more tangible unification of the double-plot took place when the warriors called for the exchange of Cressida for Antenor.  This is the only action that takes place when the love story is directly affected by the war story.
     Although Guha made some strong assertions about the unity of Troilus and Cressida, I find his arguments about the themes of this piece to be noncommittal.  He states that “the central theme is love, and the play is either a tragedy or a comedy; and our decisions would rest upon the impression which the play as a whole produces on us.”  I have a couple problems with this statement.  The phrase seems wishy-washy in and of itself, lacking the ability to make and defend an argument by leaving it up to the audience. Also, asserting that the play’s central theme is “love” seems like a gross oversimplification of the plot, almost disregarding the other half of the plot that he emphasized earlier.

8. Honigmann, E.A.J.  “The Date and Revision of Troilus and Cressida.” Textual Criticism and Literary Interpretation. Ed. Jerome J. McGann. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985. 38-54. (Gracielle Loree)

     Focusing mainly on the problem of genre and “[explaining] the relationship of the quarto and folio texts with their alternative words and passages,” Honigmann offered historical and interpretative solutions based upon preexisting ideas established in literary circles. He first addressed the debated issue of genre, asserting that Troilus and Cressida  was intended to be a tragedy.  This assertion resulted from the fact that Hector was warned of his inevitable death (as were Hamlet, Caesar, and King Richard III in their tragedies.)  Honigmann also argued that if Antony and Cleopatra could be classified as a tragedy, so could Troilus and Cressida as the plays had similarly “[gave] a surprising emphasis on comedy…[and divided] equally into a political and love story.” 
     Honigmann provided a brief political history of the time when Troilus and Cressida was written to diffuse some confusion within literary circles. Shakespeare’s characterization of Achilles- “the impulsive hero, who excelled on the battlefield, [and] was opposed by goose-quilled gentleman, politicians, plotters, [and] foxes who outmaneuvered him at court” greatly resembled the position of the real-life earl of Essex. In order to avoid friction from this troubled political power, Shakespeare and his company thought it best to put off the release of Troilus and Cressida on stage or in print.  This delay of time amounted to a span of eight years and could account for the emergence of two versions: the folio and quarto.  Honigmann favored the idea that the folio was Shakespeare’s “first thought,” the original manuscript of the play intended for the stage.  The revised folio, or quarto, edition was created because admirers of Shakespeare were anxious to read this long-awaited text.  The quarto edition called for more concise language as the reader’s eye was less forgiving of repetition than the play-goer’s ear.
     So what can be extrapolated from Honigmann’s argument?  If this essay is ingested as a whole, the history of Troilus and Cressida’s multiple revisions, political complications, and two versions written to serve different audiences allowed much of the confusion about it’s genre to take place.  He provided a reasonable historical background to explain the root of this problem. 

9. Hyland, Peter.  “Legitimacy in interpretation: the bastard voice in Troilus and Cressida.”  Mosaic 26:1 (1993): 1-11. (Kelly Seaburg)

      I thought that this article was very interesting because Hyland focuses on the character Thersites, a bastard who makes crude and critical comments about most all of the other characters in the play.  Using support from the play and drawing on other scholarly discussion, Hyland argues against the general trend in contemporary literary interpretation which condemns this character’s assertions as “filth” or denies the legitimacy of his assertions (3).  Hyland believes that this contemporary suppression echoes the societal condemnation of bastards in 17th century British society.  He says that “Within the play there are attempts to silence his voice, and in the critical history of the play the general tendency has also been to silence him” (2).  The hierarchical control of court ideology under the Tudor dynasty would have limited Shakespeare’s creative freedoms in expressing minority opinions, but “in a play that throws a harsh light on military and political idealism on the one hand and romantic idealism on the other, Thersites provides the most corrosive and anti-authoritarian condemnation of ‘wars and lechery’” (2).  Thersites represents the voice of opposition, the minority perspective in regards to issues of gender, race and class in Troilus and Cressida. 
      Thersites does not identify himself as a bastard until near the end of Troilus and Cressida, and Hyland believes this is significant because it sets him apart from bastard “villains” in other Shakespearean plays (6).  Thersites’ character is important because as a bastard he serves as the “voice representing all those who are deprived of social identity, who are excluded and abused by the established hierarchy” in a play where all the main characters are Greek kings and members of the Trojan royal family (2).  Hyland argues that “The ubiquity and insistence of his commentary on the action and other characters make it difficult to deny his voice a central place in the play, and his undiluted nastiness does not undercut its truth” (3).  Thersites is powerless to change his status, and is left with only words as his weapons.  Hyland says that though Thersites’ voice “is not authoritative...to deny interpretive legitimacy to it...is to perpetuate the kind of repression that created the voice in the first place.  Today this kind of repression comes in the name of ‘political correctness’ ” (8).  What lends Thersites’ character significance is therefore not just what he says, but the way in which what he says is continually dismissed.  Hyland believes that the greater lesson to be learned is the acceptance and tolerance of “illegitimate” opinions (9). 
      I liked this article because the author had an interesting perspective and he argued his point well.  He reversed my perspective in regards to this character.  I liked this article so much I considered using Thersites as my final essay topic.

10. Lenz, Joseph.  “Base trade: theater as prostitution.” ELH 60:4 (1993): 1-27. (Kelly Seaburg)

      I selected this article because I enjoyed the way Lenz explores the association of theatre and prostitution in 16th century Britain, and found his examples of this connection in Troilus and Cressida to be very interesting.  Some of the connections he draws with the play are obvious, but others are not if you do not have the historical information he provides.  Using other scholars’ perspectives and support from the play, Lenz initially examines the historical connection between theatre and prostitution.  Though this association was initially the result of Puritan complaints, other citizens who began to look at the theatre through “prostitution-seeking eyes,” could immediately find parallels.  The theatre, like a brothel, was outside the city and linked with diseases like leprosy and the plague as well as moral corruption.  Most importantly, “the audience is seeking prostitutes.  Without a doubt, the London theatre and the plays performed in them were populated by whores and their bawds, in fiction and fact” (5).  Lenz says that “like a brothel, the theater houses ‘some lewd intrigue of Fornification’; like a bawd, it advertises its product with effeminate gesture and costly apparel; like a prostitute, the motive is the same—money.  Thus, the theatre is a brothel, a pander, a whore, a way toward debauchery and a site for it” (2).  Theater was not only seen as a brothel, but the act of acting was most literally perceived as prostitution (7). 
       Lenz declares that the play Troilus and Cressida was a representation of the theaters’ problematic connection to prostitution, “a play which seems intent both on bitterly confirming that the theater is prostitution and on implicating its critics, its audience, and itself as the grounds for that proof” (14).  The play embodies many of the elements of this “theater-as-prostitution metaphor [which] coalesce into a bitter recognition of the promiscuity of spectacle and speculation,” and also flaunts the moral and sexual suspicions of theater (15).  Insignificant objects like Cressida’s sleeve become focuses of chivalric action; Greek armor, the subject of Hector’s infatuation, once stripped reveals a putrefied core” (19).  Lenz believes the armor “is thus a fit image for the process of devaluation in the play.  The armor represents all the chivalric traditions [but] at the same time, the armor is revealed to be nothing” (20).  Pandarus’ soliloquy at the end of the play in particular acknowledges these connections by voicing the contemporary anxieties of theater while spitefully performing the role assigned to it.  Of this final speech, Lenz says that “Damned as a pandar, his final protest against that name serves to trap him forever in that role” (15). 

11. Loggins, Vernon. The Life of Our Design. [city?], MD: University Press of America, Inc., 1992. (Byron Donaldson)

      The author, Vernon P. Loggins, states that although Troilus and Cressida are not Shakespeare’s greatest play, it is considered his most difficult and intellectual work. Loggins suggested maybe one of the reasons why it was criticized in it’s time was because it was meant for people that were more intellectual. He attempts to break down and analyze the play in order for others to understand Troilus and Cressida better. Also pointing out the Shakespearean characteristics the book contains such as love and tragedy. He explains that Shakespeare has a specific type of style when it comes to his plays, a play that is systematically put together in a specific order. Loggins states that the habit and Shakespearean style can be seen in Troilus and Cressida which is supposed to explain why it is written the way it is. Throughout the book, Loggins compares Troilus and Cressida to the others works of Shakespeare in order for readers to understand the significance of every act and scene in the story. 

12. Lombardo, Agostino. “Fragments and Scraps: Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida.” The European Tragedy of Troilus. Ed. Piero Boitani. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. 199-217. (Byron Donaldson)

      Agostino Lombardo begins by analyzing how Shakespeare begins most of his plays by putting the reader or audience in the middle of the story. He also determines that the elements of Troilus and Cressida are considered a dark comedy, “a disquieting and problematic, lacerated and ambiguous work…” (Lombardo, p. 200). He then starts analyzing the play and the actions of the characters, breaking down the meaning of certain scenes. Also interpreting what possibly was the intent of Shakespeare for some scenes in order for readers to better understand certain parts of the story. In the end, he then starts to compare parts of Troilus and Cressida to Shakespeare’s other works such as “Romeo and Juliet” and “Hamlet” to once again have readers understand that Shakespearean style.

13. Tiffany, Grace. “Not Saying No: Female Self-Erasure in Troilus and Cressida.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language 35.1 (1993): 44-54. (Gracielle Loree)

     Upon first reading of Troilus and Cressida, it’s natural to associate Cressida with being a “loose woman” or a victim of the aggressive male-dominated ancient society.  I chose the former conclusion at first glance.  However, Tiffany attempted to refute these shallow interpretations. True, Cressida was immoral and oppressed by her society (although I would assume that Tiffany would avoid at all costs naming Cressida a “victim.”) Yet, Cressida’s character should be allowed to “fail morally” without justifying her “wantonness” or victimization by using her gender as a stereotypical scapegoat.  Her character should, instead, be evaluated as such: a person responsible for her own choice to be oppressed. Cressida permitted to be taken to Greece although she had prior devotion to Troilus. She chose to not speak/fight against slander and unwanted sexual advances (the infamous “kissing” scene). She decided to be Diomedes lover to avoid rejection even if she truly was in love with Troilus. Additionally, Tiffany argued that literary critics are guilty of contributing to female oppression whether they classify Cressida as a victim or as a “slut.”  She asserts that by placing these stereotypical interpretations upon the female literary character, critics unselfconsciously “reinforce [Cressida’s] erasure.”
      As the central theme to her argument, Tiffany emphasized that Cressida engaged in “self-erasure.”  This idea seemed most clear to me when put by Arnold Stein as a “reserve that prevents [Cressida] from ever saying or doing what might register the full feeling of her presence.”  Cressida allowed her oppressing, self-erasure to take place by remaining silent, rejecting herself (low-self esteem), and masking her true desires by employing the use of “wit” (“wit” being synonymous with “flirtatious banter.”)   Although dwelling in the title as a main character, Cressida’s thoughts and desires were far from a driving force to determine the outcome of the plot.  Tiffany argued that when Cressida finally chose to speak, her thoughts were most often a reflection of a male’s opinion. For example, the character readily submitted to the notion that women were driven to action by lustfulness when suggested by Ulysses. 
     Although I am convinced by Tiffany’s argument, I find her feministic undertones slightly distracting.  Even when Adelman seemed to agree with the need for Cressida to be interpreted as an individual with choice, Tiffany viewed Cressida’s choice to be with Diomedes as a “final passage into silent nonbeing as she conforms both to Ulysses’ assessment of her character and to Troilus’ fearful prediction of her.”  To me, this conclusion allowed Cressida to be victimized, an interpretation that Tiffany worked to avoid throughout the article.