Table Of ContentThe Meanirlg of
SHAKESPEARE
The Meaning of
SHAKESPEARE
By
HAROLD C.GODDARD
'I IlEU N I \l E R S I ~r Y () F CHI C A. GOP RES S
CHICAGO & LONDON
THE UNIVERSITYOF CHICAGO PRESS, CHICAGO60637
The UniversityofChicagoPress, Ltd., London
© 1951 by The University o/Chicago. Allrights reserved.
Published1951.
Paperbackedition 1960
Printedin the USA
10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 16 17 18 19 20
ISBN: 0-226-30042-0 (ppbk)
LCN: 51-2288
@ Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimum
requirementsoftheAmericanNationalStandardfor
InformationSciences-PermanenceofPaperforPrinted
LibraryMaterials,ANSI239.48-1992.
Table of Contents
XXIV. TROILUS AND CRESSIDA . . .
XXV. ALL'S WELL THAT ENDS WELL
XXVI. MEASURE FOR MEASURE
XXVII. OTHELLO
XXVIII. MACBETH
XXIX. KING LEAR
XXX. TIMON OF ATHENS
XXXI. ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA
XXXII. CORIOLANUS.
XXXIII. PERICLES .
XXXIV. CYMBELINE
XXXV. THE WINTER'S TALE
XXXVI. THE TEMPEST 277
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 293
INDEX . . .... 295
Chapter XA~IV
Troilus and C:ressida
Ho\vcouldShakespeareproduce oneof the lTIOst unblushingglorifications
of\varever\vrittenandthenface rightaboutandutteranequallyextren1e
denunciation of it? How could he ,vrite IIenry V, in other words, and
then, within a year or t\VO, Troilus and Cressida? There is a "poser" for
those who adopt the conventional view of Henry V and assume that it is
aglorificationofHenryand his imperialistic conquests. If it isn't, no such
problem exists, for in that case Shakespeare is simply saying right out in
TroilusandCressidathesame thing he said LInder cover in Henry V.
Itis not Shakespeare's habit to speak right out. Usually he follows pre
ciselyEmily Dickinson's injunction:
Tellallthetruthbuttellitslant.
Was there any reason \vhy in this particuIar case he should have aban
doned hisgeneralpractice? There\vas, and avery plausible one. Henry V
,vas written for popular consunlption in a popular theater. Troilus and
Cressida bears all the marks of having been written for a very different
type ofaudience. The author of the preface to the Second Quarto indeed
says that the play was "never staled with the stage, never clapper-clawed
withthepalmsofthevulgar... [nor] sulliedwith thesmoky breathofthe
multitude," whichattheveryleastimpliesthat the playwas notproduced
on the popularstage, as indeed it seldom has been do\vn even to our day.
It is too weighted with long speeches and philosophical thought to make
any general appeal. For whom then was it written? ~1r. Peter Alexander
has ventured the suggestion that it may have been designed for an audi-
r
~
I
TIl E l\I EAN I N G () F SH AK ESPEARE
ence of barristers at one of the Inns of Court. This assun1ption, in addi
tion to resolving the paradox Inentioned, would go far to\vard explaining
anumberoftheplay'speculiarfeatures.
'10 begin \vith \vhat is least inlportant: if the country boy from Strat
ford, \vho according to one tradition began his dramatic career by hold
ing horses outside a London theater and ,vhoIn a university play\vright
hadattackedasan"upstartcrow,"hadanopportunityto presentone ofhis
plays beforeaselectgroup of university I11en, could he have failed, for all
hismodesty, to feel the irony ofthe occasion and \vould he not have been
I110re than human if he had not indulged in a bit of innocent revenge?
Twitted perhaps with having "smallLatin and less Greek," how could he
resistthechanceto revealto these learned clerks and wits an acquaintance
\vith Latin quite as thorough as their own? The extraordinary Latinisms
\vithwhichthestyleof TroilusandCressidais freighted are unique among
his playsand insome instances approach pedantry or burlesque according
as they are taken seriously or not, though they never perhaps quite cross
the line. The long formal debates which the play contains, and its ex
tended aphoristic and philosophical disquisitions, would,also be exactly
thethingto pleaseagroupoflawyers orlegalstudents.
So like\vise ,vould be the irreverent handling of Homer and Chaucer,
\vhich, as Mr. Alexandersays, "is not to be explained away as n1erely the
111edieval attitude to the classical story." "That the creator of a Prince
Henryand aHotspur," saysBoas, "should bring on the stage in travestied
fornl thegloriousparagons ofantiquity, an Achilles and an Ajax, is at first
sightoneofthe1110ststartlingphenomenainall literature."Yetnotquiteso
startling if Shakespeare had already had his tongue partly in his cheek
\vhen he created Hotspur and Henry. When, in the play, Ulysses tells
ho\vPatroclus-withAchilles for audienceonthebed holdinghissides for
laughter-Ininlicsthe Greek chiefs, Agamemnon, Nestor, and the rest, and
,vhenUlysses complainsthatall their mighty exploits serve only
Asstuffforthesetwoton1akeparadoxes,
he echoes exactlythe complaintofthosewhoobjecttoShakespeare'sdese
cration of Homer and Chaucer. But such "debunking," as \ve say today,
of the heroic and romantic is just what would have flattered a group of
young \vits and \vorldlings. For thenl, the n10re cynicism the better.
Bernard Sha\v once declared that his Man and Supennan ,vas written for
a pit of intellectual kings. Whether kings or knaves, Shakespeare appar
ently wrote his Troilus and Cressida for a pit of intellectuals. If, then, the
superficial taste of his audience happened to coincide \vith a deep and
serious disillusionment on his o\vn part ,vith popular ideas of the heroic
TROILUS AND CRESS IDA
and romantic (as plays like [-[cllry V* and All's IFell ]'hat Ends rVeli go
far to show that it did), the occasion 111ust have offered an irresistible
temptation to unburden hill1self of his inncrnl0st convictions, to let him
selfgo, sotospeak. Ifso, the result rnightvvell have been whatwe find in
Troilus and Cressida. "Would you see Shakespeare's mind unfettered,"
said Goethe, "read Troilus and Cressida, \vhere he treats the materials of
theIliadafterhis o\vnfashion." Unfettered: itis precisely the rightword.
It is a mark of an artist that he enjoys conforming to the fetters of his
art. Shakespeare seems to have recognized instinctively that it was his
function as drall1atist to represent, not to recomll1cnd or condemn, his
characters, and not to be conccrned with how the crowd might take
them, except to the extent of interesting it. Such COll1rnents on his plays
as he allowed himself he kept subtle or indirect, burying them often in
other plays. Yet occasionally even Shakespeare may have been tempted to
speak more openly. He obviously did so in Troilus and Cressida and
Tinton of Athens, and to a lesser degree in Measure for Aleasure. They
are his only plays that by any stretch of the adjective might be called
didactic.
Paradoxically, itisthe mostscurrilous figure in the play, the most near
lysev.rer-mouthedcharacterheevercreated,Thersites, whoseemsattimes
to betheauthor'smouthpiece, acting as asort of chorus and commentator
ontheactionandtheotherdramaticpersons.Inspiteofhisevildisposition,
vile language, and general nastiness, he utters no small amount of truth
negative truth. A ll1an lost to all decency has no motive for concealment.
Thersites delights in dragging everything, himself included, in the mud.
Afew rare nlenare above disguise. He is belo\v it. "Lechery, lechery," he
cries, "still \vars and lechery; nothing else holds fashion. A burning devil
take them! ...war and lechery confound all!" Here the statement of the
fact must be sharply distinguished from the attitude toward the fact.
Shakespeare's special audience, if he had one, probably on the whole
accepted Thersites' summary of the sins of the world and shared his atti
tude toward thern (as they did in another vein the attitude of Pandarus).
But Shakespeare, unless he had ceased to be himself, must have discrimi
nated. He obviously recognized the facts, but there is nothing to indicate
that he took any satisfactionin theln as Thersites so plainly does. No one
\vith justice ever accused Shakespeare of being a cynic. He understood
sneering, but where does he himself sneer? Those who hold that he does
here must certainly bear the burden of proof. His sweetness of teInper in
the Comedies is proverbial. I-Ience in part perhaps the annihilating power
'*'For a defense of this view of Henry V sree thE' chapter on thatplay in \Tolume 1.
~ 3
