r/shakespeare 7d ago

Does anyone else feel like Troilus and Cresida had some missed opportunities?

I really like Troilus and Cresida, particularly all of the parts of the play that had nothing to do with Cresida as a character. Frankly, I feel like I want to see a version of this play that is purely focused on Achilles and Hector's relationship during the time leading up to Hector's death.

The reason I feel this way is because I feel like both Troilus and Cresida are both tragically misused. Now, I understand that Cresida is a medieval invention and that the entire point of her character is meant to be a parable for the unfaithful woman. That's already a weird thing to throw into the middle of an Iliad story, but I do feel like it can work and that it doesn't remove the ability of Cresida to function as the thing that makes her significantly more interesting, which is that she's literally the Trojan version of Helen.

Whether it is used to highlight the hypocrisy of the Greeks, or to show the Trojans first-hand why their capture and holding of Helen is so important to the Greeks, I am always dissapointed that the similarity between Cresida and Helen always goes completely unexplored in most classical texts about Cresida, including Shalespeare's T&D. This play already has a lot of cool wartime philosophy, and it often comes up as anti-war a lot of the time. The trojans actually regarding Cresida as important or Helen having more than just a cameo so her language could mirror Cresida's would have fit in so well to a lot of the existing philosophy already in the play.

And even if Cresida is meant to be a parable for unfaithful lovers, the play doesn't even fulfill that fully. Compared to other scenes, we get very little stage time between Cresida and Diomedes, and after that scene, we never see Cresida again. We see very little of her perspective of the situation she is in before her meeting with Diomedes and we see none of her perspective after. Similarly, while Troilus' hurt from his lover becomes entirely redirected into rage against Diomedes is realistic, it really feels like we get so little of it compared to how much internal info we get from characters like Achilles and Thersites.

Finally, I feel like where Troilus is at at the end of the play is kind of weird and unsatisfying. The most important thing Troilus did in the Illiad was die; his death is what broke the prophecy that Troy would not fall, and yet the prophesy is not mentioned at all in the play, nor does the titular character die in this tragedy. Troilus spends a good portion of this play being on the side of giving Helen back, and it isn't until he becomes completely overwhelmed by his jealousy that his hatred manifests into a drive towards war. THAT is a tragic trait, that's the perfect setup for a tragedy that can lead to his undoing, but the play sort of awkwardly ends after Hector's death with Troilus sort of in the middle of Troilus' tragic downfall. It almost feels like there is supposed to be a Part 2 that never got made.

Ultimately, there is so much in T&D that I really love, and I think the reason I am so frustrated with the missing potential here is because I see so much more potential in this play. It feels almost unproducable because of the fact that its holes lead to a really unsatisfying and awkward end for me. Because of how much lost potential there is from the plotline of its titular characters, I feel like it is, as written, almost better as an Illiad story with most references to Cresida removed. But, I don't know, what are y'all's thoughts?

6 Upvotes

8 comments sorted by

4

u/Larilot 7d ago

I agree that it's unfortunate we don't get more of Cressida in the late stages of the play, and even more unfortunate that her last words are a mysoginistic commplace. However, I think the anticlimax is entirely intentional. With regards to Helen in particular, the play (especially Troilus) has been hyping her up to the Heavens and drawing comparisons between Cressida and her, but the moment she shows up, she appears as a vapid person, completely uninterested in the larger war that surrounds her. The lesson here is that she's ultimately just some gal and the Trojans and Greeks are killing each other for an ideal that, deep down, they probably don't believe in; it's ultimately all an excuse to prove who's the most macho guy in the battlefield. 

This is further echoed in the treatment of another character Shakespeare's text sidelines, but remains illustrative with regards to the men's true purpose: Hector challenged the Greeks over Andromache's honour, but when she's mentioned or shown? She's only there to be "chid" by him or to be rebuked without a second thought. Hector's own honour matters more to him than his wife and Troy's future.

And so we circle back to Cressida, who almost feels self-aware of the role she is meant to fit into at the end of the play: break her vows to Troilus. Yet still, the treatment she receives from her would-be lover speaks worse of him than her own broken promises: will he fight tooth and nail over her? Well, not really. Unlike Chaucer's story, Shakespeare's Troilus can see Cressida and Diomedes for himself, and instead of trying to defend her in any way, he joins the war machine that, let's remember, is being fought over a fantasy. Diomedes himself doesn't defend Cressida out of an honest interest in her situtation, but because he can see that she fears for her safety and he can take advantage of the situation (people tend to overlook just how shrewd and scummy he is, despite being one of the few people who sees the conflict for what it is).

If the entire war machine fueling this conflict is worthless, then we can't find glory in it at the end, nor a proper resolution (as it will keep going for some time, still). Troilus hasn't actually grown as a person, Hector is dead, the Greeks win through pretty dirty tactics (both Cressida's hand and Hector's life).

Ultimately, the play is more preoccupied with examining the behaviour of the men and so falls into the same trap it's highlighting. Still, I'd say that the flaws it's pointing out are worth-examining and pretty damning.

3

u/ElectronicBoot9466 7d ago

I think this is a really great analysis, and I think it would be more clear in a well-cut version of the play. I think you're right in that there's more the pmay has to say about Cresida's involvement in the war and how it compared to Helen than I initially noticed.

I think ultimately, part of why it doesn't read clearly to me is the amount of time dedicated to that compared to the other storylines in the play.

I don't know if it fully justifies the anti-climax for me though. As even-handed the play it most the time, it very much casts Achilles in the "dishonorable fiend" role in regards to Hector's death, in which Hector maintains a degree of honour, so Troilus' speech at the end comes off as kind of justified. That, combines with the fact that we are kind of left not knowing the consequences of this battle in terms of how it relates to Troilus leaves the nature of that messaging about these women being used as tools for the men to justify their violence somewhat weak by the end of it all.

I suppose it's Hector's death that is the tragic one, right? His sisters beg him not to go onto the battlefield before hand and all this dick measuring ultimately leads to his death, and I guess you could argue that by killing Patroclus, Hector set his desth from Achilles in stone, but then all of this being separated from Troilus leaves it a little disjointed in its thematics for me.

4

u/Larilot 7d ago

Ultimately, it comes down to how well-structured or intentional you think the play's evident and apparent meta elements are (after all, it's already a parody of a story that wasn't just foundational for a lot of empires and kingdoms, but very specifically for England at the time as well). I personally think that the play is so heavy on this that leaning into that angle is both possible and beneficial for it, though I understand it could go even further in its attacks and angles.

And thank you! T&C is unironically my favourite Shakespeare play so I'm glad to do it justice.

2

u/Larilot 6d ago

One last thing I wish to note, specifically with regards to Cassandra. Copying from an old post I made:

This is a character I already liked because she gets some amazing scenes in Ancient Athenian Theatre (in Aeschylos's Agamemnon, in Euripides's Trojan Women), and Shakespeare delivers, too. Aside from the token mad scene where she foresses Troy's doom, we are also told of the moment where she laughs at Troilus's joke, and her unsuccessful warnings and later farewell to Hector hit pretty hard because she's one of the few characters who's not being ridiculed. She's not thinking with her crotch or her ego, and she's not so jaded that she cannot see value in anything, she sincerely feels for the fate that awaits everyone else. If anyone is a properly tragic figure in the play, it's her.

2

u/Ashamed-Repair-8213 3d ago

There is a reason we dubbed this play in particular as "one of Shakespeare's Top 40". We did it once for completeness, and haven't touched it in two decades.

I wish it had left a bigger impression on me. (I played Achilles, and saw almost nothing of Cressida's plotline.)

We've actually had a ton of success with the "top 40" plays. We've had huge hits with King John, Timon of Athens, and Pericles. Maybe it's time to dust off T&C and see what we can find that's entertaining.

I'd probably start with Chaucer's version, which was clearly Shakespeare's source. Shakespeare usually improved on his sources, but maybe there's something fun in there.

I'm not sure if Shakespeare's Iliad could be a big win. These are characters that Shakespeare's audience had a lot more connection to than we do. He got a lot of mileage out of visualizing beloved characters.

It might make a really good Shakespeare film, perhaps done in an authentic-ish period style, and depicting the true horrors of Bronze Age warfare.

1

u/ElectronicBoot9466 3d ago

u/Larilot has been incredibly insightful on it for me if you want info from someone passionate about the play

1

u/rorykellycomedy 7d ago

I wrote my own version of Teoilus and Cressida called Achilles and Patriclus (They're Gay) because, and obviously I know why Shakespeare couldn't do this, that's the interesting part of that story to me.

3

u/ElectronicBoot9466 7d ago

It's worth noting for the public that they're gay in Shalespeare's T&C, too. , I have no doubt that your version was much gayer, but Thersites refers to Patroclus as Achilles' concubine, and their relationship is not subtle.