While reading Troilus and Cressida for the first time, I felt that it was somehow a bit off, tonally. It was after learning a bit more about the work that I found out I was not alone in my observation. Troilus and Cressida is a problem play. So what is that problem exactly? Kristina Faber points out that critics have not reached an agreement on this matter, but in her essay “Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida: Of War and Lechery” she sets forth her own theory.
Faber begins by examining what the actual problem is in Troilus and Cressida and how critics have classified it in the past. The main issue she finds is the way audiences perceive the play. Namely, that they don’t know how to perceive it. Viewers of the play can easily walk away feeling as though they have seen either a botched comedy or tragedy, as elements of both genres exist in Troilus and Cressida. While the first half of the play is relatively light-hearted, the second half contains the rather tragic ending. Yet Faber points out that this gives us neither the happy ending expected of a comedy or the feeling of catharsis anticipated at the end of a tragedy. The author believes that failed tragedy aspects are overlooked by critics in favor of the failed comedy aspects. Faber then argues that this has led to a misrepresentation of the play by critics as a “problem comedy” and that Troilus and Cressida is actually a problem tragedy.
To help prove her point, Faber examines how Shakespeare set up the tragic nature of the play, and also how he managed to leave out the catharsis necessary to make it work as a tragedy. For example, the oft unpleasant settings are important to establish this tragic mood, such as the deplorable Greek camp and the bloody Dardan plains. Just as important as the setting are the larger events looming over the action of the play. The author likens the feud in Romeo and Juliet to mere child’s play compared to the war raging just outside of Troy, furthering the air of impending tragedy.
Faber notes two forces in particular blocking the catharsis in the play; the scale of the tragedy in this play is much larger than any of Shakespeare’s other tragedies, and there is no tragic hero. In most of Shakespeare’s tragedies a few characters may die, and it may be sad, but ultimately it is not the end of the world. In some cases, like in Romeo and Juliet, it even brings an end to the problems of the play (the feud). In the case of Troilus and Cressida though, Hector’s death, which is the most tragic in the play, instead spells out doom for all of Troy. Total annihilation of the city. Furthermore, Faber does not believe the play contains a tragic hero because Shakespeare’s take on this particular war is too negative, lacking the redemptive glory found in most war stories. She posits that this war is too ignoble to allow for heroism.
Because of this groundwork seemingly being laid for a tragedy, and in spite of the lack of catharsis to be found in the play’s conclusion, Faber finds this play to not be a problem comedy at all. Instead, it is a problem tragedy, the problem being the aforementioned blocking of catharsis.
WORKS CITED
Faber, Kristina. “Shakespeare’s Troilus and Cressida: Of War and Lechery”. Colby Quarterly, Volume 26, no.2, June 1990, p.133-148