History as a Problem Play
Kris Ellis
Class of 2012

Of all of Shakespeare’s works, there are none as problematic to audiences and critics alike as that of Troilus and Cressida. The play does not fit into any clear genre category based on content and this has left audiences from Shakespeare’s time to today puzzled over how to interpret the play. Indeed, the play often creates problems and confusion to its audience because of this lack of a clear definition of genre. Audiences are unsure how to interpret the play without the concrete support of the characteristics of a genre. In this case, modern audiences and Renaissance audiences share the same experience of confusion with how to interpret Troilus. Vivian Thomas goes so far as to state that “bewilderment appears to have been historically the most characteristic response” (21). In an essay discussing of Troilus and Cressida, Samuel Taylor Coleridge notes that he “scarcely knows what to say of it [and concedes that] none of Shakespeare’s plays are harder to categorize” (1). This attitude is universal amongst readers of the play and is illustrated by the confusion and arguments as to how to categorize the play. Is it a tragedy, a historical play, a comedy or a satire? The play has been considered by critics and audiences to be each of these genres, a mix of genres, and ultimately a failure on Shakespeare’s part throughout its history.  
Historically, Troilus has had an extremely interesting and confusing printing history when it comes to how the play was classified. Kenneth Muir describes the classification of the play as having been “something of a puzzle” from the time it was believed to have been written by Shakespeare in 1602 to today (96). In the Renaissance the play was described as a history on the title page of the Quarto, where the play was listed under the title The Historie of Troilus and Cressida (Hillman 17). Later on it was labeled as a comedy in the Quarto in a forward to the reader. The play was later placed between the histories and the tragedies in the Folio edition of Shakespeare’s plays (Muir 96). According to Michael Jamison, much of the confusion of how to interpret the play stems from these early inconsistencies in classification. He notes in his essay “The Problem Plays, 1920-1970, A Retrospect,” that historians and scholars studying Shakespeare’s work have concluded that the title page of the Quarto was canceled before it was published and that while the play ended up between the tragedies and the histories in the folio, it was originally planned to be placed behind Romeo and Juliet, with the tragedies (132).
Today, the play is most often classified as a tragedy. There are many arguments made toward why Troilus should be considered a problem tragedy as opposed to a problem romance or comedy. One of the biggest arguments for considering the play as a tragedy is that historically, we know that Shakespeare would have used Chaucer’s Troilus and Creseyde as basis for his play. Chaucer’s story of the death of courtly love fits clearly into the category of tragedy. Many critics believe that the tragic nature of Chaucer’s play would have heavily influenced Shakespeare while writing his play of Troilus and Cressida, and therefore it is only natural that he wrote it as a tragedy (Ure 35). The argument against this position is that if Shakespeare wrote the play as a tragedy, why is there all of this confusion as to what genre it is - why doesn’t the play fit neatly into the category of tragedy? In her essay, “‘Discord in the Spheres’: The Universe of Troilus and Cressida,” critic Una Ellis-Fermor comments that critics and audiences “have ranged from dismissing [Troilus and Cressida] as a hasty piece of work to defending it as a failure on a grand scale” (17). Those who advocate that the play was intended as a tragedy by Shakespeare explain the failure of its clear classification as a failure on the part of Shakespeare as a playwright.
Those who argue that the play was meant to be a tragedy cite events in the play as being characteristic of tragedies. Richard Hillman states that “the savage murder of Hector and the multiple unhappy ending, if nothing else in the play, violate the basic rules of comedy and would clearly apply a tragic stamp” (17). However, he notes that “the protagonist’s death is deferred” in the play, which is not characteristic of a tragedy at all, even if the tragedy that is deferred is the Fall of Troy, a tragic literary staple that has been repeatedly used throughout the centuries (17). Clearly, despite the events in the play having a negative or tragic stamp to them, such as the deaths of many characters and the use of the tragic Fall of Troy, the play still is unable to fit neatly into the genre of tragedy. Vivian Thomas compares the play to other Shakespearean tragedies and finds that it falls short in terms of the emotional response it evokes in the audience. She notes that Hamlet creates a very different emotional reaction in its audience than Troilus and that these feelings “belong distinctly to the world of tragedy,” unlike those in Troilus (21).
Why then is the modern tendency to categorize the play as a tragedy? One reason is that most critics and readers have agreed the play contains many more tragic elements than comedic or romantic elements. Peter Ure claims that “we may call [Troilus and Cressida] at best a ‘problem tragedy,’” a play that most clearly fits the classification of tragedy but contains elements that do not fit the typical tragedy and characteristics of other genres such as comedy (33). Most critics and audiences agree with Ure’s interpretation of the play. Although most people consider it a tragedy, there are many elements in the play that upset that analysis. The play may be called Troilus and Cressida, but their failed love does not appear to be the focus. Instead, multiple characters share the stage light equally. Even if one considers their relationship to be the most important and central to the play, the story of the lovers is, if anything, less tragic then the war story going on around them. Another reason that modern audiences and critics choose to classify the play as a tragedy is to make the play easier to interpret. Vivian Thomas notes that “in recent times there has been a temptation to tilt the play towards tragedy” (22). She believes that this is an attempt to make the play more assessable to the general audience. By choosing one category and classifying the play as such, the audience is given a frame for the play that they are familiar with. This is necessary because the play does not explicitly follow any of the prescribed framing categories of history, tragedy, comedy, or romance. There is a feeling among many critics that a category for Troilus needs to almost be prescribed to the audience in order for the play to be appreciated. The play did have very little success in both Renaissance and modern productions until recently, so there may be some truth to this idea (Muir 96).
The question of why audiences and critics alike struggle with the play and almost need it classified for them is a complicated one.  Vivian Thomas argues that one of the reasons for the confusion of the audience is that they are detached from the characters within the play. The audience is “left pondering the questions raised by action rather than contemplating the sense of loss characteristic of a tragedy or of feeling the release or joy inherent in Shakespeare’s romantic comedies” (21). Because there is no clear protagonist, the audience struggles to relate with the characters. Without this connection the audience is distanced from each character and their individual struggles and therefore do not experience the same kind of emotional response due to their triumphs and failures as is prevalent in typical tragedies, comedies, or romances. Thomas notes that “the audience [is made] acutely aware of the problems [in the play’s society] without [the play] providing […] adequate answers or a dramatic mode which facilitates a satisfactory release of emotions” (28). It is not that the conflicts in the play are not made evident to the audience, but that the audience is prevented from fully investing emotionally in the play. Because the audience is not able to have a true emotional response to the play there is confusion over the genre.
Kenneth Muir adds to Thomas’s argument. He believes that another reason for the confusion of categorizing the play stems from the constantly changing point of view. Muir notes that in Troilus, the point of view is constantly shifting between characters. He points out that “it is this shifting of emphasis that makes the play so difficult to grasp as a unity” (105). Without a central point of a constant point of view to anchor them, the audience is shifting between emotions and ideas as each point of view shifts. Muir illustrates how much point of view affects the audience by discussing how at the beginning of the play, when the audience is seeing the war from Troilus’ point of view it is “futile” and Troilus’ character is appealing. Later on, however, the audience views the world through Hector’s eyes and it is Troilus who plays the “romantic young fool” when he argues with Hector about keeping Helen (105).
Despite the seemingly incongruent nature of the play, Muir believes that there is a unity to the play. This is contrary to the opinion of many critics who complain that the play is an ultimate failure because its seemingly disjointed, unstructured nature (105). Ellis-Fermor agrees, arguing that since Troilus has “discord as a central theme, it is hard to imagine how else it should be formally reflected but in a deliberately intended discord of form also” (21). These critics suggest that it is the very disharmony of the play that other critics frown upon that makes the play work as a whole. If one looks at the play with this in mind when reading, one can get a very different reading of the play than if one tries to view it through the lens of a tragedy, or a comedy, or any other genre. Although the play can be analyzed as containing elements of history, romance, comedy, and satire it is unnecessary to try and force the play to fit the confines of each category. Instead, it is wisest to look at the play as a blend of all of these genres in order to gain the largest amount of understanding of it. Our attempts to ground ourselves by assigning a specific genre to the play ultimately will lead only to a lack of comprehension of the play as a whole. We can use elements from each genre to help us analyze it, but we must also be able to look beyond these categories and view the play as the sum of its parts. If we view the play this way, chances are that we will no longer view the play as an artistic failure on Shakespeare’s part, but instead as one of his most involved and difficult.

Works Cited

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. “Troilus and Cressida.” Discussions of Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies. Boston: D.C. Health and Company. 1961. 1-2. Print.

Ellis-Fermor, Una. “‘Discord in the Spheres’: The Universe of Troilus and Cressida.”         Discussions of Shakespeare’s Problem Comedies. Boston: D.C. Health and Company.       1961. 17-28. Print.

Hillman, Richard. William Shakespeare: The Problem Plays. New York: Twayne, 1993. Print.

Jamison, Michael. “The Problem Plays, 1920-1970: A Retrospect.” Aspects of Shakespeare’s        ‘Problem Plays’. London: Cambridge University Press, 1982. 126-135. Print.

Muir, Kenneth. “Troilus and Cressida.” Aspects of Shakespeare’s ‘Problem Plays’. London:          Cambridge University Press, 1982. 96-107. Print.

Thomas, Vivian. “Shakespeare’s Problem Plays: Concepts and Perspectives.” Shakespeare’s          Problem Plays. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Print.

Ure, Peter. Shakespeare: The Problem Plays. Great Britain: F. Mildner & Sons,1964. 33-44.
Print.