Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Listen in Prime Learn more Shop now

Customer Reviews

4.1 out of 5 stars8
4.1 out of 5 stars
5 star
3
4 star
3
3 star
2
2 star
0
1 star
0
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item


There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 3 June 2015
Just to clear up some confusion:

All the older reviews here seem to be talking about J.B Steane's 1969 edition.

Steane's edition was aimed at the non-specialist and has minimal notes. It presents Faustus in a synthetic text, 1616 (B) supplemented by scraps of 1604 (A) (which one reviewer understandably describes as "the worst of both worlds", though I don't really agree) . Readable and attractive introduction, strongly dismissive of Edward II (something of an irony as its publication only just predates Ian McKellen's sensational performance in the role, which brought the play right back into prominence). Nevertheless a very pleasant book to read.

The newer Penguin edition, by Robert Lindsey and Frank Romany, was published in 2003. A bigger and less portable book, but useful. Reasonable notes, thought-provoking introductions. Faustus in the 1604 (A) text only.

Bevington and Rasmussen's 1998 Oxford World's Classics edition (though it omits Dido and the Massacre) might be worth considering, if you want fuller annotation. And this one contains both A and B texts of Faustus.

Marlowe is an exciting writer to think about, but when I read his plays in bulk, it never takes long before I'm feeling dispirited. Ultimately that comes down to the sheer lack of what I recognize as humanity or decency or morality. The hundred characters in Tamburlaine contain barely a single person that we don't dislike. Ok, there's a few blameless victims, like Olympia in Part 2. But heroic victim or bragging sadist or oafish coward, Marlowe's treatment betrays an acute lack of interest in their personalities. Tamburlaine is accompanied throughout ten long acts by his faithful comrades Theridamas, Techelles, and Usumcasane, and by the end of it we still know nothing about the nature of their friendships or their motivations or what sustains their lives or why they bother to be alive at all. They are merely furious noises, just brags in the void.

There's no-one to sympathise with. Start reading Edward II, and by page 2 we're already seeing Gaveston telling lies to the poor suitors he despises, in order to torment them with false hope. Edward's shrill tantrums come up against the grim bullying of the Mortimer faction. We hate them all about equally.

This alienation effect is evidently deliberate on Marlowe's part. It's fascinating, and when the subject of damnation itself takes centre-stage in Faustus, it leads to an overwhelming masterpiece.

But the experience of struggling through the "bloody fens" of the Jew of Malta and the Massacre at Paris is, on the whole, a good way of appreciating the joyous humanity that Shakespeare gives you on every page; and that Marlowe appears constitutionally incapable of giving at all.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 28 July 2006
I bought this edition of Marlowe's plays for a Renaissance Literature course at uni, expecting a wealth of notes and annotations to explain social and historic contexts. I was quite disappointed to discover that the notes were very meagre and the only aspect of the plays that is covered in the notes is the mythological references. I think Marlowe is a brilliant playwright, but without a good edition you miss so much of the Renaissance thinking that went into his works.

The Penguin edition is not all negative, however; the editor explains the existence of the two versions, basing his edition on the 1616 B text, providing an Additional Notes section in which uses of the A text are given. Both versions of Act v scene i (the Old Man's Speech) are presented, though sadly not adequately discussed.

I'd recommend this only to people who don't like to be distracted by looking at the Notes at back of the book. If you're interested in the thought and influences on Marlowe and his work, you'll need a more academic edition.
33 comments|17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 February 2003
This is a useful edition for those teaching or studying the plays of Marlowe. It includes the 1616 edition of Faustus, as used for the A-level, and a brief comparison to the 1604 version. The scripts are well laid out and edited, though the notes are a little sparse. Marlowe is a brilliant playwright and well worth reading, and this is a comprehensive introduction to his work.
0Comment|10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 September 2015
Christopher Marlowe is a controversial figure in the history of English literature. His mysterious death in a tavern brawl in Deptford, in May 1593, has been the subject of much speculation as to whether he was the victim of a political assassination or whether he may have been a “man who knew too much” about the activities of Queen Elizabeth’s government. (One theory is that he was a spy in the service of that government). He has the reputation today of having been both a homosexual and an atheist, although there is little direct evidence as to either his religious views or his sexuality. Most of what evidence exists is contained in a document known as the “Baines libel” and, even bearing in mind that the word “libel” did not have quite the same meaning in Elizabethan English that it bears today, its author, one Richard Baines, was so clearly hostile to Marlowe that he must be regarded as an unreliable witness.

This volume contains all of the seven plays which are today attributed to Marlowe, or six if the two parts of “Tamburlaine the Great” are regarded as a single play. Unlike some editions of Marlowe’s collected plays it only prints the so-called “A-text” of “Doctor Faustus” as the editors Frank Romany and Robert Lindsey take the view that this better represents the author’s intentions than does the longer “B-text”, which includes extra material added by other writers after Marlowe’s death. The editors also provide a glossary of unfamiliar words, a list of mythological, historical and geographical names and textual notes.

Marlowe is sometimes thought of as a predecessor of Shakespeare, although in terms of their chronological ages this is not really accurate. Both were born in the same year, 1564, Marlowe being the elder by only two months. In other respects, however, there is greater justification for regarding Marlowe as a sort of Shakespearean John the Baptist, as their literary careers only overlapped by about a year. The first reference to Shakespeare as a playwright comes in 1592 and Marlowe was to die the following year. Shakespeare scholars refer to the years 1584-1592 as the “lost years” as we have no idea what Shakespeare was doing during this period. In the case of Marlowe, however, although there is much more we would like to know about his early life, we do know one thing he was doing during these years- writing most of the plays which were to make him famous.

There can be no doubt that Marlowe was an influence on Shakespeare; his “The Jew of Malta”, for example, can be seen as prefiguring “The Merchant of Venice”. There are also many similarities between Marlowe’s only English history play, “Edward II”, and Shakespeare’s “Henry VI” trilogy which also deals with civil war and with the downfall of a weak monarch at the hands of arrogant, power-hungry nobles. In this case, however, the influence might conceivably have been the other way round, as both works were written around 1592 and we cannot be sure which came first. “Edward II”, however, did act as an influence upon a later Shakespeare play on a similar theme, “Richard II”.

It has even been suggested that Marlowe might have been the author of Shakespeare’s plays, although in my view such an idea cannot hold water, and not only for the obvious reason that there is no evidence to support, and plenty to refute, the theory that he might have survived that fateful brawl in Deptford. The two men might have grown up in the same Elizabethan England, but mentally they inhabited quite different worlds. This was partly due to differences in their education. Marlowe was a university man, a scholar of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, and this is reflected in his writings which are steeped in a knowledge of the classics; “Doctor Faustus”, for example, contains numerous quotations in Latin and Greek as well as references to academic philosophy. Even Tamburlaine seems remarkably well versed in Greek mythology for a man who started life as an Uzbek shepherd. Shakespeare, who was famously said to have “little Latin and less Greek”, never went to university; he did make reference to classical authors, but mostly those like Plutarch and Ovid who would have been available to him in translation. Marlowe, by contrast, translated classical texts into English himself.

A more important difference lies in the two men’s world views. To put it plainly, Shakespeare’s plays suggest a belief in a moral order in the universe, whereas Marlowe’s do not. Some examples will make it clear what I mean. Shakespeare wrote two plays about the rise and fall of a tyrannical usurping monarch, “Richard III” and “Macbeth”. The protagonists of both plays are presented as unnatural monsters, men whose villainy represents an overthrow of the natural order, and their adversaries, Richmond and Malcolm, are shown as fighting to restore that order, a task in which they both ultimately succeed. Marlowe too wrote a historical play about a tyrant, but deals only with his rise, not his fall. Tamburlaine, a man with far more blood on his hands than either Macbeth or Richard, is presented as an irresistible force of nature, part of the natural order of the universe rather than a disturber of it. He is finally overcome only by old age, not by any human enemy.

The line “There’s such divinity doth hedge a king” actually appears in “Hamlet”, where it is ironically put in the mouth of another usurper, Claudius, but it also seems to express Shakespeare’s attitude to royalty in his history plays; Richard II and Henry VI may be fallible men who make mistakes, yet in each case their overthrow is presented as something ominous, threatening disaster to the realm. Marlowe’s Edward II, by contrast, merely proves to be the losing party in an amoral power-struggle, as does his enemy Mortimer when Edward III proves to be a more astute player of the game than his father.

There are certainly similarities between “The Jew of Malta” and “The Merchant of Venice”. Both plays are set in the Mediterranean area and both have as their protagonist a Jewish merchant and moneylender who is seeking revenge against his enemies. There are, however, also equally significant differences. Shakespeare’s play is set within a firm moral framework established first by Shylock’s “Hath not a Jew eyes?” speech and then by Portia’s “quality of mercy”. Shylock is today generally played on the stage not as an anti-Semitic caricature but as a dignified figure who has been the victim of prejudice and bigotry and whose downfall comes because he cannot resist the temptation to retaliate against one of his tormentors. There is no comparable moral framework in Marlowe’s play, and there would be no point in trying to play as anything but a villain his barbarous anti-hero Barabbas, a man seeking bloody revenge not just against one individual but against the entire Christian community, even those members of it who have never wronged him.
“Dido and Aeneas”, based on Virgil's Aeneid and possibly written in collaboration with Thomas Nashe, was probably Marlowe’s first play. It is unusual among his plays in that the main force motivating the characters is heterosexual love; in all the others the main driving force is either hatred or the desire for power in one form or another. It is officially a tragedy, and ends with a chain of suicides provoked by disappointed love, but it must be said that Marlowe’s treatment of his subject-matter is often more flippant in tone than one might expect. The play opens with Jupiter fondling his favourite Ganymede, a scene which has contributed to speculation about Marlowe’s own sexuality, as has the relationship between the king and Gaveston in “Edward II”.

“The Massacre at Paris” is an early example of a play based on current, or nearly current, events. (Shakespeare, by contrast, never wrote about any historical period more recent than the reign of Henry VIII, a monarch who came to the throne around a hundred years before the play which bears his name was written). It is an account of the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre and the French Wars of Religion, written from a highly anti-Catholic position. The hero is Henry of Navarre, so it was presumably written before his conversion to Catholicism, and the villain the Duke of Guise. In reality Guise appears to have been a fanatical Catholic, but here he is depicted as a religious unbeliever who makes a false show of piety in order to conceal his true intention, which is to seize the throne of France for himself. Despite Marlowe’s reputation for atheism, those characters in his plays who express contempt for religion are generally shown as villainous; other examples include Faustus and Machiavelli, his name significantly anglicised to “Machevil” (“make evil”), who speaks the prologue to “The Jew of Malta”.

“Doctor Faustus” is probably Marlowe’s best-known play today, and is the earliest dramatic version of the German legend about the scholar who sold his soul to the Devil. It has been described as consisting of “a beginning, a muddle and an end”; the opening and closing scenes, depicting Faustus’s bargain with Mephistopheles and his eventual damnation, are powerfully written, but the intervening scenes often descend into farce. Marlowe never wrote a pure comedy, but this is probably the closest he comes.

Marlowe was part of the great renaissance of English literature which took place in the late sixteenth century; other members include not only Shakespeare but also Spenser, Sidney, Ralegh and Donne. Apart from creating dramatic plots with strongly-drawn protagonists, his great achievement was to bring poetry, as opposed to mere verse, into English drama. The verse in the earliest English verse dramas such as “Gorboduc” is often little more than doggerel, and even in something like Kyd’s “The Spanish Tragedy” it is little more than serviceable. Marlowe’s grand rhetorical speeches showed that dramatic verse could be great poetry in its own right.
0Comment|2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 12 June 2004
Christopher Marlowe is the first great dramatist in the english language and this is a fine addition of all his plays. It is well laid out with suitably adequate notes for classical and historical alusions. In short it is a good edition of some great plays. Dr Faustus, Tamburlaine & Edward II are classics.
0Comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 9 March 2015
Nothing to add.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 June 2006
Christopher Marlowe is a practically unknown writer... as Shakespeare's teacher it is a mystery as to why the focus is solely upon Shakespeare... in schools, plays, etc.

After reading this book it gave me a sense of familiarity as to where Shakespeare got his humour, wit, ideas and great skill for writing harrowing tragedies and love stories.

Unfortunately Marlowe's life work consists of only 7 plays, but the saying quality not quantity most deifnitely takes its toll here.
0Comment|4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 February 2011
If you are an A level student this is NOT for you. The book is unfortunately advertised as having both A & B text on the 'Look Inside' however it only has one text and there is no specification as to which it is... very disappointing and as I have only five days to read it I haven't got time to re-order.
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Send us feedback

How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you?
Let us know here.

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)