Language, Value, and "Troilus and Cressida"

In any work, the intentions of an author influence how that text is read and applied to everyday life.  Because of this, William Shakespeare’s intentions in writing Troilus and Cressida, what his message about language and the debate between inherent worth and intrinsic value, are particularly important to how we understand the play’s characters and their actions, and interpreting the underlying meaning is perhaps the most elusive aspect of an already ambiguous text.  

Throughout the debate within the play of these two methods of valuation, Shakespeare demonstrates that language is a creative force, for good or bad. It is a way of perpetuating certain concepts of how people are valued, and that one’s perceptions of reality—especially the reality of identity—can be made into an illusion through the manipulation of words.

Source: http://www.collectorsprints.com/_images/shakespeare/plays/500/troilus.jpg

“Inherent worth” refers to a method of self-valuation in which the individual’s worth is transient, regardless of outside expectations or estimations. In contrast, “intrinsic value” is a method of valuation which relies on society’s perspective of whether an individual is useful to the community. While inherent worth does not change without the individual’s consent, intrinsic value treats individuals as integral parts of a human stock exchange, whose value fluctuates according to contributions of society.  

In the Trojan debate on whether or not to return Helen to the Greeks, Shakespeare presented different techniques of argument which would have been recognized by audiences during that time. Troilus and Cressida illustrates a capitalist world wherein ordinary people are reduced to objects, pieces of property to be bartered and sold at the whim of those in positions of power. 

The idea of inherent worth was also well-known. The nobility believe in their own inherent worth, but they believe this worth gave them the ability to assign intrinsic value to their subordinates, as Hector does to his people and Helen in II.ii.18-23:

Every tithe soul ‘mongst many thousand dismes

Hath been as dear as Helen—I mean, of ours

If we have lost so many tenths of ours

To guard a thing not ours, nor worth to us

(Had it our name) the value of one ten…

The inherent worth one might have does always not translate into “the real world”; that is, the opinions held by society in general may sometimes differ from the beliefs of a specific individual.  Troilus’ imagined world is an abstract ideal rather than concrete reality; he is infatuated not with the real, flesh-and-blood Cressida, but with a romanticized figment of his imagination. Cressida’s ultimate betrayal shatters his perceived reality. Ultimately Troilus is duped and betrayed by Cressida, whereas the believers in intrinsic valuation, the capitalists like Ulysses, are unscathed because of their prevailing pragmatism

Instead of distinguishing the characters’ beliefs from one another, Shakespeare blends them into an inscrutable whole of unclear intentions, muddled language, and tragic fatalism. It is imperative that readers not put more significance into the criticism than in the play itself; when made inseparable from the commentary on it, Troilus and Cressida becomes jumble of unclear opinions intertwined with the indistinct definitions of the inherent and intrinsic philosophies of worth.

Peeling back these layers of interpretations, it might be possible to understand Shakespeare’s true intentions in writing this play. This is only possible by learning how Troilus and Cressida would have been performed during Shakespeare’s lifetime and comparing it with other Shakespearean works.  Unlike other plays written for the general public, Troilus and Cressida was probably performed in private theaters for a more educated audience, which would have been more admiring of its satirical and philosophical overtones. This must factor into how the ambiguity of the play is understood, since this ambiguity would be artistic and its thoughts on language and value more likely to be appreciated by intellectuals. 

Language, too, could be more nuanced than a play written for a less educated audience. It is not surprising that Shakespeare, whose livelihood relied upon the art of manipulating words, would see how important a contribution language made to his society. With language, Shakespeare creates the world of the play just as characters in Troilus and Cressida create reality with their words. 

Troilus and Cressida is not alone in the use of these motifs. Language is a method of motivation, of getting people to act in certain ways, as Falstaff notes when going into battle at the end of 1 Henry IV: “Honour pricks me on…what is honour? A word. What is in that word, honour? What is that honour?  Air…therefore I’ll none of it: honour is a mere scutcheon” (1HIV V.i.29-38). Language is a method of creation, a way of giving characters reasons for behaving in certain ways. 

Language’s power of creation can be misused when possessed by the wrong people.  King Lear believes that language has the ability to give and take away worth. He says that Cordelia is no longer his daughter, and deceives himself that this proclamation makes it true. Lear’s attempt to transform words into reality is similar to intrinsic value, although he views himself as having inherent worth since he was born king. In the end, however, Lear’s final words of repentance aren’t substantial enough to belay the fate he has imposed on himself by his prior foolish actions. The ends, not the means, are what matters; in this, the intrinsic valuation is underscored as the way “the real world” operates, although in this case “the real world” is a harsh and dismal place.

Contrasting this dismal reality is the pastoral world of the Forest of Arden in As You Like It. Arden is the reality apart from the imposed facades of civilization, as the Duke says “this is no flattery: “these are counselors / that feelingly persuade me what I am” (AYLI, II.i.10-11). Arden is also a place where individuals can create their status on basis of their deeds, regardless of their birth or education.  Arden is Shakespeare’s idyllic creation of a reality apart from the heartless judgments of intrinsic value in “civilized” society.

The egalitarian paradise would suggest that William Shakespeare as an artist could not help but agree to some extent in the inherent worth of human individuals. As a writer, he could immortalize his worth without affecting his contemporaries, but as an integral part of the theatre, his connection to the audience, the world, ingrained in him a need to contribute to his society. As a learned man he would have appreciated the metaphysical aspects of inherent worth, but as a businessman and middle-class citizen he would have recognized the usefulness of intrinsic value. He had to have known that at some point words must be transformed into action.

Understanding this dichotomy between Shakespeare’s artistic and pragmatic sensibilities, we can guess that Shakespeare’s true opinion of valuation may be best illustrated in his “procreation” sonnets, in which the poet pleads with a young man to marry and have children. In the poems, the youth’s inherent worth is his beauty, but in intrinsic terms he must pass his admirable traits on to the next generation like an inheritance. The individualist idea that value transcends an individual’s contribution to society, but the intrinsic valuation acts as a foil to this ideology, ensuring that inherent worth is not neglected or hoarded, but put to good use to better the community, as Ulysses says: “No man is the lord of anything, / though in and of him there be much consisting, / Till he communicate his parts to others” (III.iii.116).

Modern readers cannot assume that Troilus and Cressida’s satire was aimed at a specific Elizabethan-Jacobean audience, but must apply that same satirical tone towards society today. How do the media change our perspective of what it means to have worth? Does language continue to wield power in creating one’s perspective? Should our intrinsic value—what society thinks—be more important to us than our own self-respect, or should we honor that self-respect by proving our inherent worth to others? 

These are questions we simply can’t afford to ignore. Thus Troilus and Cressida, while in itself is a masterwork of rhetoric and an exposition of the underlying hypocrisies of humanity, must, like Achilles, maintain its value by continuing to affect how we the audience esteem ourselves and value others.