Troilus and Cressida
In the year 1602, William Shakespeare began writing a play that would confuse audiences for four centuries. The story draws from two distinct traditions that rarely meet in one work. One thread comes from Homer's Iliad, an ancient Greek epic where Achilles refuses to fight and Hector dies at the hands of his enemies. This war narrative had been retold by medieval authors like Benoît de Sainte-Maure in his Roman de Troie between 1155 and 1160. Another thread emerges from Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde, a chivalric romance written in the late 14th century. These two lines of storytelling operate independently until Shakespeare forces them together on stage. The love affair between Troilus and Cressida belongs to the medieval tradition, not classical mythology. It appears first in Benoît de Sainte-Maure's poem as a romantic subplot woven around the Iliad material. Later versions include John Lydgate's Troy Book and Caxton's translation of the Recuyell of the Historyes of Troye. Shakespeare knew these works well and used them to create a hybrid structure. The result is a play where heroic warfare clashes with cynical romance. Critics note that the two storylines have completely different origins yet share the same stage time.
Frederick S. Boas labeled this play one of Shakespeare's problem plays in the early 20th century. He grouped it with Measure for Measure and All's Well That Ends Well because its tone shifts unpredictably. The text alternates between bawdy comedy and tragic gloom without clear transition. Readers struggle to know how to respond to characters who seem both noble and ridiculous. Jonathan Bate argues the play deliberately undermines the heroic style found in George Chapman's translation of Homer. Pandarus speaks with cynicism about the lovers' tryst while Achilles displays childish behavior despite his legendary status. Anthony B. Dawson suggests the confusion itself is intentional. He writes that the play remains full of puzzles, but those puzzles are generative rather than defective. Joyce Carol Oates calls it a new kind of contemporary tragedy, an existential statement on love, honor, and hierarchy. The First Folio classed it as a tragedy under the title The Tragedie of Troylus and Cressida. Yet the quarto edition labels it a history play called The Famous Historie of Troylus and Cresseid. Editors placed it between histories and tragedies in the original volume, possibly due to typesetting delays. Modern scholars often group it with so-called problem comedies instead. The tonal inconsistency makes genre identification difficult compared to other Shakespeare works.
James Roberts entered the play into the Register of the Stationers Company on the 7th of February 1603. Two separate quarto editions appeared in 1609, each claiming contradictory facts about performance history. One version states the play was acted by the King's Majesty's servants at the Globe Theatre. The second omits any mention of public staging and includes an epistle calling it a new play never staled with the stage. Richard Bonian and Henry Walley re-registered the play on the 28th of January 1609 before issuing these conflicting versions. Georg Brandes proposed that Shakespeare composed the work around 1600, 1602 but revised it heavily shortly before printing. This revision may have been done by another hand entirely. The darker material resembles plays written during 1605, 1608 such as King Lear or Timon of Athens. Scholars believe the original version was a more positive romantic comedy similar to As You Like It. Later additions injected bitter caustic elements creating a hybrid jumble of tones. The First Folio pages remain unnumbered and the title does not appear in the Table of Contents. It appears squeezed between histories and tragedies, suggesting it was added late to accommodate available space.
John Dryden remodeled the plot in 1679 and presented it as The Truth Found Too Late at the Duke's Theatre in London. John Philip Kemble prepared an acting version in 1795 emphasizing warriors while sidelining Cressida but abandoned production before opening night. Henry Irving commissioned a new version in 1889 for the Lyceum Theatre yet never staged it. Public performances remained sparse until the twentieth century when political conflicts revived interest. Peter Holland notes William Poel's 1912 production served as a warning as European powers armed themselves for conflict. Michael Macowan's modern dress production of 1938 coincided with the Munich crisis. An international production at the Swan Theatre in August 2012 depicted Thersites as a wounded war veteran. This resonated with ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Barbara Bowen observes that we see the play as modern partly because premodern readers rarely saw it performed. Colin Chambers describes how British theatre began reconnecting to society after failing to account for World War changes. Values, ways of living, ideals, hopes, and fears had all shifted since earlier eras. The BBC broadcast a modern-language version by Ian Dallas called The Face of Love in 1954. Albert Finney received his first lead stage role in a RADA staging at the Vanbrugh Theatre in 1956.
Shakespeare subverted heroic conventions by portraying warriors as unworthy of their legendary reputations. Achilles behaves like a childish barbarian while Hector displays pragmatic wisdom despite being a Trojan enemy. Pandarus becomes a synonym for procurers within the cultural tradition surrounding the play. The image of Cressida changed throughout the 16th century to include infidelity and falsity. Almost every character proves unworthy of their established reputation yet Shakespeare links contradictory characterizations to make them accessible. The play's lack of popularity in the original playhouse indicates this approach failed initially. Critics note the bitter nature resembles works written during 1605, 1608 such as King Lear or Coriolanus. John Barton found parallels between the prolonged war in Vietnam and the stalemated siege of Troy during his 1968 Royal Shakespeare Company production. He described the situation as ludicrous yet an insoluble impasse where both sides remained inexorably committed. Modern revivals continue to highlight these satirical elements through diverse directorial choices. Elizabeth LeCompte directed scenes featuring Trojans dressed as 1800s Native Americans with American actors Scott Shepherd and Marin Ireland. Mark Ravenhill directed Greek scenes using contemporary soldiers played by British actors Danny Webb, Joe Dixon, and Zubin Varla. These productions demonstrate how the play remains relevant when audiences face new conflicts.
Up Next
Continue Browsing
Common questions
When did William Shakespeare write Troilus and Cressida?
William Shakespeare began writing the play in 1602. The text suggests he may have composed it around 1600 or 1602 before revising it heavily shortly before printing.
What are the two main literary traditions that form Troilus and Cressida by William Shakespeare?
The play draws from Homer's Iliad for its war narrative and Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde for its chivalric romance. These distinct threads operate independently until Shakespeare forces them together on stage.
How was Troilus and Cressida classified in the First Folio of William Shakespeare works?
The First Folio classed the work as a tragedy under the title The Tragedie of Troylus and Cressida. Editors placed it between histories and tragedies possibly due to typesetting delays, while the quarto edition labels it a history play called The Famous Historie of Troylus and Cresseid.
Who entered Troilus and Cressida into the Register of the Stationers Company?
James Roberts entered the play into the Register of the Stationers Company on the 7th of February 1603. Two separate quarto editions appeared in 1609 with Richard Bonian and Henry Walley re-registering the play on the 28th of January 1609 before issuing these versions.
Why did public performances of Troilus and Cressida remain sparse until the twentieth century?
Public performances remained sparse because premodern readers rarely saw the play performed and its bitter nature failed initially in the original playhouse. Political conflicts revived interest later when productions like Peter Holland's noted European powers arming themselves for conflict.