About Me
Interests
Books
Writings
Movies
Travel
Coins
People
Places
Calendars
Links
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Home About Me Interests Books Writings Movies Travel Coins People Places Calendars Links |
|||||||||||||||||||
| October 4, 1999 | |||||||||||||||||||
| Beyond Good and Evil | |||||||||||||||||||
| ����������� Ethics have remained an ever-changing, malleable idea. Many philosophers and theologians, from Plato and Moses to Frederic Neitzsche and John Rawls, have done their best to set forth various codes of ethics and left indelible stamps on their respective societies. William Shakespeare's play Troilus and Cressida offers a unique perspective on ethics, or, to be more precise, a mode of actions considered to be "good" by a person or community. Written during the height of the Renaissance around 1602, the play reflects some of the popular conventions of the early seventeenth century. Yet the play is set during the Trojan War, which would place it at least a millenium before the birth of Christ. To determine the morality of the characters in the play, each individual must be assessed by both Renaissance and Pre-Roman standards. Upon examining the principle characters, one can conclude that based on the concepts of reason, honour, and fealty, little of either Roman or Renaissance morality is found in the play. | |||||||||||||||||||
| ����������� Reason held a predominant role in the works of Renaissance writers. For instance, Sir Philip Sidney used in-depth logic and reasoning in his Defence of Poesy. Since one of the motivations of the Renaissance writer was to provide examples for moral behaviour, one would expect to find some character in the play that acts purely by rational means. If not this, one should at least hope to find a character that upholds the Roman ideal, where reason succumbs to loyalty and honour. Instead, Shakespeare offers us Hector. Hector is neither the typical unthinking Roman nor the rational man of the Renaissance. Rather he is plagued by reason. In Act II, Hector shows an uncanny ability to see through the Trojans' rather sentimental and vain reasons for continuing the war. Though his brothers reiterate their traditional stances that the war should be fought for loyalty to their brother Paris and for respect for their homeland of Ilium, he shows them their folly by explaining the truth of the matter, that more men had given their lives than the possession of Helen was worth. "She is not worth what she doth cost/ The holding," (II, ii, 50-1). In fact, Hector adamantly insists that the Trojan camp should "Let Helen go" (II, ii, 16). Yet this reasoning does nothing to persuade Hector's own actions. In fact, in the same conversation with his brothers, Hector rejects his momentary burst of reason: | |||||||||||||||||||
| My sprightly brethren, I propend to you | |||||||||||||||||||
| In resolution to keep Helen still; | |||||||||||||||||||
| For 'tis a cause that hath no mean dependence | |||||||||||||||||||
| Upon our joint and several dignities.... (II, ii, 189-192). | |||||||||||||||||||
| In the end, Hector repudiates this reason and fights for the cause of Helen. In the end, Hector rejects both his arguments to his brothers and his own wife's admonitions and goes out to fight Achilles. In the end, Hector is slain, despite the fact that his own reason should have stopped him from fighting for what he deemed a worthless cause. In the same vein, Hector hardly remained constant to the Roman idea of reason, which was basically to ignore it. Though he acts in "faith of valour," (V, iii, 71), he still manages to infuse his actions with reason. Rather than act "with too much blood and too little brain," (V, i, 44) as Thersites says Achilles and Patroclus do, Hector always appears to act in such a calculated way as to ensure a faithful obedience to the gods. In Act V, as his wife and sister beg him not to fight, Hector states that he must fight because "the gods have heard me swear" (V, iii, 15). In his fight with Ajax, he recommends that the two stop fighting, because "the just gods gainsay/ That any drop thou borrowed'st from thy mother,/ My sacred aunt, should by my mortal sword/ Be drained" (IV, vii, 16-9). Though Hector may practice both religion and warring in a pragmatic manner, by continuing to thwart these bursts of reason in exchange for conflicting interests, Hector rejects both the Renaissance and Pre-Roman understanding of reason. | |||||||||||||||||||
| ����������� Achilles, the slayer of the misguided Hector, presents another example of a character falling short of both Renaissance and Pre-Roman ideals. Unlike the importance of reason, however, the concept of honour remained virtually unchanged from the time of the Trojan War to the time of the Glorious Revolution. During both time periods, acting in a courtly manner to one's adversary was both expected and respected by the community. The customs of the Trojans and Acheans can be inferred by the actions of most of the company of either camp. For instance, Hector is gladly welcomed by almost everyone in the Greek camp when he comes to dine with Ajax. Yet Achilles breaks this cordiality and acts in a most dishonourable fashion, confronting Hector with hostility and threatening him with violence: | |||||||||||||||||||
| Tell me, you heavens, in which part of his body | |||||||||||||||||||
| Shall I destroy him - whether there, or there, or there - | |||||||||||||||||||
| That I may give the local wound a name, | |||||||||||||||||||
| And make distinct the very breach whereout | |||||||||||||||||||
| Hector's great spirit flew? (VI, vii, 126-30). | |||||||||||||||||||
| Achilles also acts dishonourably in his oath with Queen Hecuba's daughter. After receiving a letter from the daughter, a girl he obviously loves, Achilles renews his oath that he will not fight the next day. "My major vow likes here; this I'll obey," (V, i, 41) he tells Patroclus. Yet the next day, after being incited to frenzy by the death of his friend, he breaks the oath and boldly charges on to the field. Neither pre-Roman nor Renaissance concepts of honour and integrity would justify breaking an oath of such magnitude. Achilles goes further in his defiance of both codes of morality in the way that he takes revenge on Patroclus' murderer. Unlike Hector, who observed the specified rules for fair fighting and who had previously let Achilles live after he had lost his sword, Achilles kills an unarmed man. That this man is Hector makes the act all the more dishonourable. And taking the act to the extreme, Achilles goes so far as to desecrate the body by dragging it behind his horse. In all these ways, Achilles fails to uphold any sense of honour or integrity by almost any standard. | |||||||||||||||||||
| ����������� The examples for fealty are also few and far between in this play. Though Cressida's name is the one generally associated with falsehood and disloyalty, Troilus, that very picture of constancy and fidelity, also has problems keeping true to his oaths of love to Cressida. Early in their relationship, Troilus laments that his "will is infinite and the execution confined; that the desire is boundless and the act a slave to limit" (III, ii, 78-9). Yet when given the chance to act as a person whose "passion doth embrace [his] bosom" (III, ii, 33), Troilus fails to act at all; rather than protect Cressida from her fate with the Greeks, he acts as a willing participant in the transaction. Troilus would do well to take some lessons from Romeo. Besides, Troilus had never had true faith in Cressida's love for him. Before Troilus handed her over to the Greeks, he repeatedly reminded Cressida to be true to him (IV, v, 57, 61, 64, 65, 73). Throughout the tirade, Troilus fails to mention how much he loves her, how much he will miss her, or how grieved he is to see her go. Tired of his constant advising and lack of affection, even Cressida cries out: "O heavens, you love me not!" (IV, v, 83). Troilus immediately disagrees with her conclusion, yet proves otherwise by handing her over to the Trojans and then willfully spying on her with her new lord Diomedes. Rather than engage Diomedes in a fight for Cressida's honour as Menelaus has done for Helen, Troilus sits idly by and watches Cressida as she deals with a terribly difficult situation. He may indeed feel something for her, but it is not the kind of love accompanied by the loyalty and respect that both the Renaissance and the Pre-Roman era required as a matter of moralistic behaviour. | |||||||||||||||||||
| In short, Troilus and Cressida is a play that concerns itself more with the distorted moralities of each character rather than a cohesive set of beliefs and ideals. By examining three of these ideals - honour, fealty, and respect for reason - one can get a better grasp on what morality means to the characters and perhaps to Shakespeare himself. In this play, virtue, like Troilus' perception of Cressida, is a bit too smeared to be called true. | |||||||||||||||||||