Troilus and Cressida

By William Shakespeare

Although one of his lesser known plays, Shakespeare’s considerable abilities as a playwright are readily apparent in “Troilus and Cressida.” This historical and tragic ‘problem play’, thought to be inspired by Chaucer, Homer, and some of Shakespeare’s history-recording contemporaries, is initially a tale of a man and woman in love during the Trojan War. When Cressida is given to the Greeks in exchange for a prisoner of war, Troilus is determined to rescue her. When he does find her, however, Troilus believes Cressida has betrayed him. On a larger scale, this play also deals with the political battle being waged by Agamemnon of the Greeks against Priam of the Trojans. Much of the plot centers on war councils and battles in which Hector and Achilles play a part. Ultimately, Shakespeare’s play is memorable for its love and betrayal, questioning of hierarchy and honor, morality in the face of reality, and cynical disillusionment. This edition is annotated by Henry N. Hudson, includes an introduction by Charles Harold Herford, and a biographical afterword.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Digireads.com Publishing
• Release date: Jun 24, 2019
• ISBN: 9781420962925

William Shakespeare

William Shakespeare (1564–1616) is arguably the most famous playwright to ever live. Born in England, he attended grammar school but did not study at a university. In the 1590s, Shakespeare worked as partner and performer at the London-based acting company, the King’s Men. His earliest plays were Henry VI and Richard III, both based on the historical figures. During his career, Shakespeare produced nearly 40 plays that reached multiple countries and cultures. Some of his most notable titles include Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet and Julius Caesar. His acclaimed catalog earned him the title of the world’s greatest dramatist.

Book preview

cover.jpg

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

By WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Preface and Annotations by

HENRY N. HUDSON

Introduction by

CHARLES HAROLD HERFORD

Troilus and Cressida

By William Shakespeare

Preface and Annotations by Henry N. Hudson

Introduction by Charles Harold Herford

Print ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-6291-8

eBook ISBN 13: 978-1-4209-6292-5

This edition copyright © 2019. Digireads.com Publishing.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

Cover Image: a detail of Troilus and Cressida in the Garden of Pandarus, by Edward Henry Corbould, c. 1873.

Please visit www.digireads.com

CONTENTS

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION

TROILUS AND CRESSIDA

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

PROLOGUE

ACT I.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

ACT II.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

ACT III.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

ACT IV.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

ACT V.

SCENE I.

SCENE II.

SCENE III.

SCENE IV.

SCENE V.

SCENE VI.

SCENE VII.

SCENE VIII.

SCENE IX.

SCENE X.

BIOGRAPHICAL AFTERWORD

PREFACE

First heard of through an entry in the Stationers’ Register, dated January 28, 1609, and reading as follows: Richard Bonian and Henry Walley: Entered for their copy, under the hands of Mr. Segar, Deputy to Sir Charles Buck and Mr. Warden Lownes, a book called The History of Troilus and Cressida. In pursuance of this entry, a quarto edition of the play was issued in the course of the same year. This edition is specially remarkable for being prefaced with an address to the reader by the publishers. The address has two points of information requiring to be noticed here. The first is, that the play was then new, and had never been publicly acted; the words being, You have here a new play, never staled with the stage, never clapper-claw’d with the palms of the vulgar. The other point is, that the issue was unauthorized and surreptitious: Thank fortune for the ’scape it hath made amongst you; since, by the grand possessors’ wills, I believe you should have pray’d for it, rather than been pray’d. The grand possessors were doubtless the theatrical company then known as the King’s Servants, in whom the rights of ownership were vested.

It would seem that the type of the 1609 issue must have been kept in form for some time, till after the play had been publicly acted, and then put through a second impression; as we have some copies of the same date, in which the forecited address is wanting, and the title-page changed so as to read, As it was acted by the King’s Majesty’s Servants at the Globe.

How the publishers obtained their copy for the press, is a question about which we must be content to stand in some uncertainty. Possibly the play may have been first performed at the Court; which would nowise conflict with the claim of its being a new play, never staled with the stage. But, whether this were the case or not, we can easily conceive how it may have got into the publishers’ hands without the consent of the owners. For copies of it must of course have been given out to the players some time before the day of performance. And so the most likely account of the ’scape it hath made amongst you is, that the copy leaked out through the players’ hands, and was put through the press before it could be got ready for the stage.

In the quarto edition, Troilus and Cressida is called a history; while in the prefatory address it is spoken of as a comedy. In the folio of 1623, where it was next printed, it is called a tragedy. The circumstances of its appearance in the latter edition are in some respects peculiar. It is not included in the list of plays prefixed to the volume, and is without any numbering of the pages, save that the pages of the second leaf are numbered 79 and 80. In that edition, as I have elsewhere observed, the plays are distributed under the three heads of Comedies, Histories, and Tragedies. Each of these divisions is paged by itself, and in that of Tragedies the paging begins with Coriolanus. Troilus and Cressida is placed between the Histories and Tragedies, with nothing to mark which of the two divisions it belongs to, except that in the general title it is called a tragedy. From its not being included in the list of plays nor in the paging, some have inferred that its insertion in the folio was an after-thought; and that either its existence was unknown or ignored by the editors, or else the right of printing it was withheld from them till the rest of the volume had been made up and struck off. All this may indeed have been so: yet the most probable explanation of the thing seems to be, that the editors did not well know where to class the play. Nor has any headway been since made towards clearing up the puzzle. The play is indeed a perfect nondescript, and may with equal fitness be included in either of the three divisions, or excluded from them all.

The originals, both quarto and folio, are without any marking of the Acts and scenes, save that at the opening we have "Actus Primus. Scœna Prima." That a copy of the quarto was used in printing the folio, is probable, as several misprints of the former are repeated in the latter; while, again, each copy has several passages that are wanting in the other; which shows that in making-up the folio recourse was had to some authority besides the quarto. There are also clivers other variations in the two copies; which puts us occasionally to a choice of readings. The printing, too, of both abounds to a rather unusual extent in errors, though most of these are of a kind to be easily corrected.

Nearly all the critics have remarked upon the great inequalities of style and execution met with in this play. In fact, scarce any of the Poet’s dramas show more of ripeness or more of greenness in his art than we find in different parts of this: it has some of his best work, and some of his poorest: yet the greenness, except, perhaps, in the last ten lines, appears to be that of Shakespeare, and not of an inferior hand.—Nearly connected with this point is the fact, that the play is singularly defective in unity of interest and impression: there is no continuity of design apparent in it; where the real centre of it lies, what may be the leading and controlling idea, nobody can tell. The characterization, individually regarded, is of a high order, but there is little, if any, dramatic affinity among the persons; and, as they do not draw together towards any perceptible issue, we cannot gather why they should be consorted as they are. There withal the play abounds most richly in the far-sighted eloquence of moral and civil wisdom and discourse, such as carries our thoughts into the highest regions of Hooker and Burke; moreover it is liberally endowed with noble and impressive strains of poetry; yet one is at a loss to conceive why such things should be here, since the use of them does not seem to be regulated by any final cause, or any uniform law. So that, though ranking among the Poet’s greatest and best efforts in respect of parts, still, as a work of art, the piece is exceedingly lame, because the parts do not converge in any central purpose, and so round up into an artistic whole.

All which naturally starts the question whether the play were originally written as we have it; or whether, in its present shape, it were an improvement on an earlier drama; and, if so, whether the earlier drama were by Shakespeare or by some other hand. As before seen, the address prefixed to the quarto calls it "a new play." There appears no cause to question the truth of this statement, as it need not mean any more than that the play was new in the form it then had. In several cases, the Poet’s earlier pieces are known to have been afterwards rewritten, enlarged, and replenished with the strengths and graces of his riper years. The inequalities of Troilus and Cressida are so like those in the plays thus revised, as to infer a common cause. And the argument thence growing is not a little strengthened by an entry in the Stationers’ Register, dated February 7, 1603: Mr. Roberts: The book of Troilus and Cressida, as it is acted by my Lord Chamberlain’s men. The Lord Chamberlain’s men were the company to which Shakespeare belonged, and which, being specially licensed by King James soon after his accession, in the Spring of 1603, took the title of his Majesty’s Servants. Still some question is made whether the play entered in 1603 were Shakespeare’s, because in Henslowe’s Diary, under date of April and May, 1599, several entries occur of money paid to Dekker and Chettle in earnest of a play they were then writing, entitled Troilus and Cressida, for the rival company known as The Earl of Nottingham’s Players. It appears, however, that in the title of this play Agamemnon was afterwards substituted for Troilus and Cressida. But, even if such had not been the case, there is very little likelihood that the Lord Chamberlain’s men would have used on their boards the play of a rival company.

The most likely conclusion, then, from the whole matter seems to be, that Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida was originally written and acted before the Spring of 1603; that some years later, probably in 1608, it was rewritten, enlarged, and trans figured with the efficacy of the Poet’s best period; and that this revision was with a view to the play’s being brought out anew on the stage, and so was the cause of its being set forth in the quarto as a new play.

Four sources are specially named as having been drawn upon by the Poet for the materials of this play. These are, first, Chaucer’s Troilus and Cresseide; second, The History of the Destruction of Troy, translated from the French by Caxton; third, The Troy Book of Lydgate; fourth, Chapman’s translation of Homer. The first seven books of the latter were pub lished in 1596, and the next twelve books not far from two years afterwards: the whole twenty-four books, entitled The Iliads of Homer, Prince of Poets, done according to the Greek, by George Chapman, were not published before 1603, and probably not till several years later, the edition being undated. It was from Chapman most likely that Shakespeare derived in the main his ideas of the Greek and Trojan heroes, as their several characters transpire in the council and in the field. And the in fluence from this quarter is most manifest in precisely those parts of the play which give the strongest relish and impress of the Poet’s consummate mind; insomuch as to favour the belief of their being the fruits of after-thought grafted upon the stock of a much earlier production. It is equally probable that Chapman furnished the hints for the delineation of Thersites, there being nothing about him in the other sources mentioned. I say hints; for such are the most that could have been furnished by the Thersites of Homer towards the Thersites of Shakespeare; the character of the latter having all the life and vigour of an original conception.

In all that regards the action of the hero and heroine, the main staple of the play was unquestionably taken from Chaucer’s poem. It is well known that of the particular story of Troilus and Cressida no traces are found in any of the old classic writers. Caxton and Lydgate have indeed something of it, but not in a form to have served the design of the play; while the part of Pandarus, whose character and doings are interwoven with the whole course of the story, as represented by the Poet, is altogether wanting in them, except a single mention of him by Lydgate, who refers to Chaucer as his authority. So that Chaucer’s poem was the only work accessible to Shakespeare, that could have supplied the material for this part of the drama. And it is to be noted withal, that in Chaucer’s poem Cressida is clothed with a purity and loftiness of character not consistent with the action there ascribed to her. Shakespeare borrowed the chief points of her action, and made her character conformable thereto. The character of Troilus, with its heroic ardour and constancy of soul, is substantially the same in the play as in the poem.

There remain but certain accessories of the play to be set down to the credit of Caxton and Lydgate. The History of the Destruction of Troy, translated by Caxton from the French of Le Fevre, appeared in 1474. In Shakespeare’s time it had been modernized, and was very popular.—The History, Siege, and Destruction of Troy, commonly distinguished as the Troy Book of Lydgate, came from the press in 1513. In Shakespeare’s time, however, it was fast sinking out of use, being written in verse, so that it could pass for prose, while the metre was so rude and stumbling that it could not go as verse. I can discover no sure signs of the Poet’s having drawn from this source at all; there being, I think, nothing common to him and Lydgate, but what is also common to Lydgate and Caxton. A few particulars due to this source are given in the foot-notes.—Perhaps I ought to add, that A proper Ballad, dialogue-wise, between Troilus and Cressida, was entered at the Stationers’ in 1581, by Edward White; which may possibly have furnished the Poet a hint for working the story into a play.

The address prefixed to the quarto is as follows:

A NEVER WRITER TO AN EVER READER: NEWS.

Eternal reader, you have here a new play,

Reviews for Troilus and Cressida

[therebelprince · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Blissful scholarly edition of this play. For new readers, I'd recommend the Penguin or the Oxford, but the Arden really is number one for professionals and scholars.

[dgrachel · Rating: 1 out of 5 stars]

I just didn't get this one. I tried print and audio and ended up going back to print to read the whole thing, but I still couldn't tell you much of anything that I read. I know my eyes moved across the page, but for some reason the words just refused to sink in. Possibly part of the problem is that I detest Ancient Greek history. I've never enjoyed it. However, I really liked Margaret George's novel Helen of Troy, so I thought I'd be okay here. I wasn't. I know it was a cultural norm both in Shakespeare's time and it seems to still be a norm today, but women being treated as property is a theme that angers me. The way Cressida was treated makes my blood boil, and I didn't see anything in her behavior that justified the label of "whore". Again, I obviously missed the message of the play. I didn't like any of the characters. I found no humor in the story. But, I finished, so I can check another of Shakespeare's plays off my to-read list.

[amerynth · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I've read all of Shakespeare's tragedies and "Troilus and Cressida" is definitely my least favorite by far. Set during the seventh year of the Trojan War, the play sprinkles a little bit of everything from romance to battle, but mostly focuses on people taunting each other. Much of action happens off-stage in the fifth act, as the actors dash on stage to mutter a few taunts and then leap off to fight with their swords. (As written anyway... I've never seen it performed.)Overall, I felt that Shakespeare took a story told so well in "The Iliad" (with the addition of a couple of star-crossed lovers) and made it boring. It didn't help that there seemed to be no motivation for Cressida's quick betrayal. Anyway, there are loads of Shakespeare's plays that feature similar set ups that are much better than this.

[bookworm12_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

“She is a pearl, whose price hath launch'd above a thousand ships.” The story of the Trojan War and the beautiful Helen is well-known, but this Shakespearean tragedy about it is not. Troilus and Cressida is the story of two young Trojans caught in the midst of a nation at war. Despite being surrounded by the problems of others they find themselves falling in love. Troilus is the brother of the infamous warrior Hector and the lovesick Paris who ran away with the married Helen, incurring the wrath of the Greeks. The entire play is filled with passionate declarations of both love and war. The Greeks, like King Agamemnon and the hotheaded Ajax, are itching for a fight. Ajax doesn’t realize until too late that he is only a pawn in the hands of the generals. The Trojans on the other hand aren’t sure how they want to respond. Paris wants to defend Helen’s honor, but his older brother Hector has to decide if she is worth the fall of an entire nation. From his opening scene he has an impossible task. He knows the right thing to do in theory, but the obligations of honor and family loyalty prevent him from doing it. The play is full to the brim with remarkable supporting characters. From the tragic Cassandra, whose prophetic wails go unheeded to Pandarus, Cressida’s uncle the meddling matchmaker. I was surprised to find one of the most poignant wooing scenes I’ve ever come across in a play. Usually the man takes the lead in these scenes, but in this one a guarded Cressida finally reveals how much she cares for Troilus. She been attempting to play hard to get, but she can’t hide her feelings any more. She gushes then quickly chides herself, finally begging him to kiss her so she’ll stop talking. “And yet, good faith, I wish'd myself a man; Or that we women had men's privilege Of speaking first. Sweet, bid me hold my tongue; For, in this rapture, I shall surely speak The thing I shall repent. See, see ! your silence, Cunning in dumbness, from my weakness draws My very soul of counsel: Stop my mouth.”This is a tricky play though because there are so many different plots. There’s the romance between Troilus and Cressida and another one between Paris and Helen. There’s the central story of war between nations. In the midst of all of this the title characters often feel secondary, which can make it hard to become invested in their relationship. The title may be Troilus and Cressida, but that’s really a misnomer. While their romance is sweet, it’s truly the story of the Trojan War and the dicey decisions that warriors must face in battle. What is a single life worth? For Achilles, his love for one man is enough to make him fight or to stay his hand. For the love of his brothers Hector is willing to pick up his sword. The tragedy of war is that it’s a cyclical game; one death always leads to the desire for vengeance from the other side. Grief and bloodshed fuel only more of the same and this play is a poignant reminder of that.BOTTOM LINE: A powerful story of the destructive force of war intertwined with a doomed love story. Bard enthusiasts must read it.  

[coach_of_alva · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Shakespeare's brutal and brilliant deconstruction of the Iliad is one of the most enjoyable surprises I've had in reading. Achilles is a brute and a fraud. Ajax is a chivalrous dunce. Agamemnon is a cipher. Menelaus is just a cuckold. Ulysses and Nestor are puppeteers whose main military virtue is their ability to manipulate the two strongmen. Thersites isn't a troublemaker but the most bitter of Shakespeare's jesters, tolerated by the powerful Grecians instead of beaten. Hector on the other hand is even nobler than he was in the Iliad and is murdered in the most cowardly way imaginable.Nothing is more surprising that the characters of the star crossed lovers, whose story ends with the woman changing her heart with her fortune and her enraged former lover consigning her to blazes and becoming a cruel killing machine. The play thus ends not with the tragic deaths of the lovers but with Cressida's pandering uncle complaining about the physical ailments his career has caused him.Did I say that Shakespeare was deconstructing Homer? On second thought, Shakespeare was deconstructing Shakespeare.

[jhudsui_1 · Rating: 2 out of 5 stars]

You know what I just don't get this play. Apparently a lot of people don't get it and it's labeled one of the "problem plays", but you know what, Timon of Athens was one of those too and that play made perfect sense to me. But this one.. just seems like a bunch of random shit that happens. Looking at the wikipedia writeup (which is not really the best source for this kind of information) I see it suggested that the joke is that a variety of conventionally epic tragedies are set up, and then subverted by either not resolving themselves or resolving themselves in the sort of petty venal way they'd happen in real life. In retrospect I can kind of sort of see that but it's not funny to me. Also the structure/pacing is really bizarre. Practically nothing happens in the first four acts and then the fifth act has like a dozen scenes and takes up a third of the page count.

[anthonywillard · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

** spoiler alert **This is a pretty good play. It doesn't fit the usual categories, being filled with comic scenes and speeches but following with an abrupt bleak ending. I found the dialogue throughout to be entertaining and clever, and the spoof of the Iliad very funny. The eponymous love affair is satirical. Troilus is a narcissistic and wordy brat, and Cressida a rather winning girl who can't say no. The love affair is at best a subplot to the Iliad satire, and it's most entertaining character the go-between Pandarus, who remarks that his name will be inherited by all panders to follow. Most of the main Iliad characters are presented satirically. All ends in a lengthy battle with many short scenes of individual combat, ending with the death of Hector in a rather unheroic attack by Achilles and his Myrmidons. Then a final comic soliloquy by Pandarus. If you like bawdy Shakespeare there is a lot of it here, including a large stock of gay humor in the Greek camp.

[meandmybooks-1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

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, 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...”Were it not glory that we more affectedThan the performance of our heaving spleens,I would not wish a drop of Trojan bloodSpent 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.

[saturnloft · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This is one of Shakespeare's problem plays, meaning it doesn't fit neatly into the category of tragedy or comedy, but occupies its own hybrid niche. "Black comedy" or "scathing satire" would probably be a fairly apt description for this outing. It's actually a lot of fun to read, especially if you like humor flavored with a heavy dose of cynicism.The "romantic" leads of the play's title, Troilus and Cressida, are no Romeo and Juliet. Not even by a long shot. Troilus is a superficial lad, concerned only with glory and momentary pleasures, and his love for Cressida lasts only about as long as her maidenhood. Cressida is just as fickle as her lover, swiftly shifting her physical affections to the enemy camp when she gets traded for ransom. This play is very anachronistic. It's not the sort of tale that resides in the ancient dusty battles of Greek times; it's very much a product of Shakespeare's era. This is what makes it such an interesting read for me. It reflects the rapidly changing world of a burgeoning global market, a place where chaos, hypocrisy, and corruption were rife. There are numerous references in the play to venereal disease, especially the notorious pox (syphilis), which was just beginning its lengthy reign in Europe.I do love it when Shakespeare gets gross, and he obliges his disgusting side with unapologetic alacrity here. "Thou crusty botch of nature", "thou sarsenet flap for a sore eye", and so on.. Shakespeare is a demigod when it comes to heinous insults, and Troilus and Cressida is brimful of humdingers.I also love Shakespeare plays for the treasure-trove of words, some of which should still be in use instead of being consigned to obscurity.Two words from this play that caught my fancy:Oppugnancy - meaning opposition. I like its bouncy character, like a rubber ball on the tongue.Gloze - a verb meaning to comment, make excuses for, or to use ingratiating language.

[pnorman4345 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This is a cynical version of incidents in the Trojan war. An over-romantic Troilus thinks he is in love with Cressida. (She has the part of a life time.) She is young, sexy, flirtatious and aware of her need to make our for herself while the time is ripe. She is traded to the Greeks for a warrior and immediately starts flirting. Troilus is devasted by this when he sees her behavior. The other incident is Achilles' murder of Hector. It is ugly.

[barbaranyc · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is one of my favorites of Shakespeare's work. It's been a LONG time since I've read it, so I plan to reread it at some point.