This impression is not present merely in the comparison to Homer; it is present as well in comparison with the rest of the Shakespearian corpus. The bitter and deflating account of the war, the pomposity and even vulgarity of the major characters have been noticed by most readers.
In its bleak vision, Troilus and Cressida seem only akin to Timon of Athens. Yet, major twentieth-century statements on it have repeatedly focussed on the "philosophic" and "modern" dimensions of the play. Indeed, the definition of the play as modern encapsulates one of the enigmas surrounding it. Troilus and Cressida was virtually ignored for almost three hundred years after its composition. It has no record of performance in English until 1907, and even then it was castigated, the critic from the Times concluding that it was "better left unacted. "
A survey of the critical literature surrounding the play often does little more
than confirm Swinburne's elegant judgement regarding its "palpable perplexities."
If critics have been divided about the meaning of the play and its relation
to the rest of Shakespeare's work, they have also been divided over how to even
classify the play. When the play was first printed in the Quarto edition of
1609, it bore the title of The Historie of Troylus and Cresseida. A hint
of the confusion that was later to surround the play can be found in the prefatory
epistle that was added to the second quarto edition. There the play is described
as the most "witty" of the author's "comedies." Fourteen years later, in the
Folio edition of 1623, this confusion was further compounded when the play was
entitled The Tragedie of Troylus and Cressida. Thus this one play has
run the gamut of all the standard classifications of Shakespeare's plays.
While these variations might be
dismissed as but the results of an age of embryonic criticism, it is interesting
that re-evaluations of the play's genre have continued up to the present day.
If the play was ignored or castigated in the three hundred years following its
appearance, in the
twentieth century it has undergone a virtual rebirth. It has been staged at
all the major critical festivals and, has become the subject of serious and
extended interpretation.
Despite this new-found popularity, however, this history raises some puzzling questions. One immediate, although external, question is the mystery of the play's reception: why was it all but universally ignored for three hundred years? And what is it that causes the play to now bedefined as peculiarly "modern"? It is at once obvious that since the play is about war, and that this century is generally conceded to be the bloodiest in the history of mankind, then there might be some special appeal in its understanding of warfare. Is this why the play could be disregarded for three hundred years; that these centuries, unlike our own, had no experience of total war, and consequently, no connection to Shakespeare's vision with respect to this subject?
This is an attractive thought but it ignores the fact that these centuries, while blissfully unaware of the concepts of blitzkrieg, fire-bombing, genocide, and nuclear deterrence, were not exactly peaceful. one need only recall the American Civil War, or the campaigns against Napoleon, in which the slaughter was horrendous. Perhaps, then the claim to modernity on this basis is unjustified. If so, then what about the claim of its being "philosophical"? Now, some writers, most notably Eliot and Kermode, have denied Shakespeare the status of philosophical poet; yet many other, and perhaps equally respectable, critics have deemed this play to be philosophic. Indeed, if Troilus and Cressida has been justly called Shakespeare's most philosophical play, it becomes an especially appropriate vehicle for our investigations into the relations of poetry, philosophy, and politics. If it has also been called enigmatic, then might we not see these two descriptions as complementary? For philosophy is often enigmatic, while enigmas are often provocations to philosophy. This much is clear in a comment of Erasmus:
Allegory not infrequently results in enigma. Nor will that be unfortunate, if you are speaking to the learned, or if you are writing . . . . For things should not be so written that everyone perceives, but rather so that they are compelled to investigate certain things and learn.
Indeed, since the "philosophy " is so apparent, we might pay heed to Erasmus' comment and wonder if the surface is all there is to this play. As John Vyvyan has noted:
The Renaissance was an age of mysterious philosophies; and it delighted to express them in a veiled way, so that they should be published and not published . . . . At least it would be unwise to assume, in studying Shakespeare, that what shows on the surface is all he intends.
The discussions of value, of appearance and reality, of the transient nature of fame, of the encroachment of time, all constitute parts of the overt philosophical preoccupations that animate Troilus and Cressida. Since no single interpretation can hope to definitively deal with all the implications of all the themes the play presents to us, and despite the fact that they all impinge on its action, the prudent course might be to explore one select general theme, and thereby see if there is more to Troilus and Cressida than the surface.
The following argument is grounded on the idea that Shakespeare's public plays contain a teaching, very much in the tradition of political philosophy, concerning the perennial political problems. Consequently, what follows is an interpretation of Troilus and Cressida in light of the large and overarching theme of love and war. Specifically, it is an examination of the relations between men and women in the larger context of a war that began with one man's desire for another man's woman.
Throughout Troilus and Cressida there is an explicit debate as to the necessity and justice of a war conducted over the possession of a woman. The love affair of Troilus and Cressida, which is played out among the scenes of battle and debate concerning Helen of Troy, is a microcosm of the larger conflict that rages between Greek and Trojan.
Love and war are two of the more enduring concerns of human beings, and their interrelatedness can be seen in the countless proverbial observations about the "war between the sexes". Shakespeare's examination of this relationship throws special light, not only on the respective natures of men and women, but on the justification we give for both love and war.