The Complete Plays

by Christopher Marlowe

Other authorsJ. B. Steane (Contributor)

Paperback, 1986

Status

Available

Call number

822.3

Genres

All Topics

Fiction

Collection

Your library

Publication

Penguin Classics (1986), Paperback, 608 pages

Description

Marlowe's seven plays dramatise the fatal lure of potent forces, whether religious, occult or erotic. In the victories of Tamburlaine, Faustus's encounters with the demonic, the irreverence of Barabas in THE JEW OF MALTA, and the humiliation of Edward II in his fall from power and influence, Marlowe explores the shifting balance between power and helplessness, the sacred and its desecration.

User reviews

LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C

Marlowe was born the same year as Shakespeare, but died young, before he'd reached the age of thirty. So an edition of Marlowe complete plays only contains seven works, while the Shakespeare canon numbers 38 plays. When Marlowe was murdered on May 30, 1593, Shakespeare was thought to have written

only about 8 plays, and none of them, with the possible exception of Richard III, would be considered among his best. Still ahead would be all the familiar titles: Romeo and Juliet, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Much Ado About Nothing, Julius Caesar, Henry V, As You Like It, Hamlet, Othello, King Lear, Macbeth. Most believe Marlowe the lesser playwright--but if you compare the works by Marlowe, Dido, Tamburlane the Great, Dr Faustus, The Jew of Malta, Edward II, The Massacre at Paris, to early Shakespeare such as Two Gentleman of Verona, the Henry VI plays, The Taming of the Shrew and Titus Andronicus and even Richard III--his output over the same period--I'd say Marlowe wins handily. And I say that as an ardent fan of Shakespeare, not one of those who counts him overrated. Besides Faustus Marlowe's two Tamburlaine plays definitely made an indelible impression. There are plenty of quotes I could pull with all the resonance of Shakespeare--which in fact many might mistake as from Shakespeare. Note these quotes from Faustus:

When all the world dissolves,
And every creature shall be purified,
All places shall be hell that are not heaven.

Was this the face that launch’d a thousand ships,
And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?
Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss!
Her lips suck forth my soul: see, where it flies!

O, thou art fairer than the evening air
Clad in the beauty of a thousand stars.

Shakespeare has another unfair advantage with me over his rival--all the fine film adaptations and live productions I've seen. Even of the early Shakespeare plays listed above, The Taming of the Shrew, Titus Andronicus and Richard III all have fine film adaptations I could recommend, with Richard Burton, Anthony Hopkins and Lawrence Olivier respectively. Marlowe I've only experienced on the page, and the words of a play are only scaffolding--there is no substitute for a performance, live or film. There is a 1969 film with Richard Burton of Dr Faustus, Marlowe's most celebrated and famous play, but I haven't seen it. So I can only judge by what is on the page. But even by that yardstick, one can see why many name Marlowe as Shakespeare's chief rival among his contemporaries. Such a pity he didn't live to create more plays of such stature.

Show Less

6 more

LibraryThing member m.a.harding

The play that rises above all his contemporaries is The Jew of Malta. Such exquisite bad taste. Unlike The Merchant of Venice, this is no easy acceptance of the mores of the time. Savage and bleak, Marlowe shows we are all as bad. But somehow this is cheering. A sort of Sam Beckett play but about

morality instead of 'our condition'.

Show Less

LibraryThing member antiquary

Tamburlaine and Dr. Faustus are unquestionably great; Jew of Malta, though not PC, is fascinatingly grotesque. The rest, to me, are adequate

LibraryThing member WillyMammoth

Christopher Marlowe was an exact contemporary of William Shakespeare, born in the very same year and employed in the very same craft--chiefly as a dramatist, but also as a poet. Marlowe, however, never attained the renown of his more famous counterpart, partly because he died in a bar fight at the

age of 29, and partly because he simply wasn't as good. But then again, no playright has ever been as good as Shakespeare, so take that as you will.

Marlowe's limited dramatic catalogue includes seven plays: "Dido, Queen of Carthage," "Tamburlaine the Great Part I," "Tamburlaine the Great Part II," "Doctor Faustus," "The Jew of Malta," "Edward II," and "The Massacre at Paris," all of which are included in this book. Of all of his plays, the Tamburlaine plays and Doctor Faustus on the best, with the Jew of Malta being a close runner up. And while Marlowe may not consistently blow your mind like Shakespeare, there are a sufficient number of spots of brilliance to keep you hooked and reading.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Devil_llama

It's probably to be expected that the works of a Shakespearean contemporary would tend to be compared to Shakespeare; I have tried to avoid that temptation, but it isn't really totally possible. Besides, if you want to fit someone into their own time, the best place to look is the other writers of

the time. While Marlowe undoubtedly was a brilliant writer, it is easy to see why Shakespeare is more frequently performed. These plays tend to be more disturbing, and much less possible to play in such a way to fit into the modern zeitgeist, either in the universality or themes or the political correctness. Shakespeare gives you some leeway to play Shylock sympathetically, for instance; Marlowe doesn't leave you as many choices, though I was a bit surprised to find that Edward II didn't really allude specifically to homosexuality; it was more inferred. The productions I've seen tend to make it much more obvious. Marlowe also seems to veer between conventional moralizing and kicking back against the morality of his own day, which gives the works an interesting blend, sort of like a word casserole. Not a light read for a sunny summer day at the beach; you'll have to work a bit.

Show Less

LibraryThing member Marse

Having watched the first session of the TV show "Will" about William Shakespeare, I've become intrigued by the character of Christopher Marlowe, as presented in the show. Of course the TV show is pretty much fiction, as so much about William Shakespeare's life is unknown, but the era, the

intrigues, assassinations, religion (Shakespeare comes from a Catholic family and(here at least) is related to Robert Southwell) is enough to draw in anyone somewhat interested in the era and/or Shakespeare and his relationship to Marlowe. The depiction of Christopher Marlowe is fascinating and drew me to go read his plays, which I had never read, let alone seen on stage.

I was surprised by how few he had written, 7 total. In the show, he is the superstar of playwrights, everyone eagerly awaiting his next play. I wasn't exactly disappointed in his plays -- they are about people who disdain society's taboos to achieve either revenge or simply power -- but they seemed less than what I was expecting. Part of it was his language, which was completely readable. That is, I had absolutely no trouble at all understanding almost everything anyone was saying. This is not a bad thing at all, the language was quite modern and this may have been part of his genius. Compared to Shakespeare's language, Marlowe did not come close to the beauty, the wit, the double entendre, the sheer magnificence of it. The one play everyone talks about is the "Tragical History of Doctor Faustus" and I found the hero of this play ludicrous in his inane use of his powers and his cowardly vacillation between abiding by his agreement with Satan and repenting to save his soul. Maybe it comes off better on stage. My favorite was "The Jew of Malta" a play in which the (anti)hero destroys his own daughter in order to exact revenge against the injustice done to him.
Contents:
Dido, Queen of Carthage
Tamburlaine the Great, Parts I and II
Doctor Faustus
The Jew of Malta
Edward the Second
The Massacre at Paris

Show Less

LibraryThing member Ghost_Boy

A few things you should know about Marlowe before reading Marlowe: he's Shakespeare's contemporary, he's an atheist, he's possibly homosexual, and he was possible murdered for spying, and he doesn't seem to care about following the rules what can and can't be shown on stage.

I honestly don't know

anyone who would read Marlowe without knowing about Shakespeare first. I think the only reason people, including myself, read Marlowe now is to see how other writers of Shakespeare's time wrote and why they aren't as well known as Shakespeare. Marlowe's most famous play is his Faust, but his other plays aren't that well know. Even his Faust isn't the Faust people read anymore.

Who's a better writer? That's really hard to say. I like Shakespeare better, but Marlowe's plays were a little more entertaining. As I noted above, I get the feeling Marlowe wasn't writing his play or the Queen or King, but for the people. There are a number of quotes and examples of atheism and homosexuality where in Shakespeare plays it's only hints and guesses. You could say Marlowe's has a clearer message. However, Shakespeare is arguably a better writer and his plays are obviously more well known.

As far as Marlowe's plays go, Faust is still my favorite. He has some others that are good like Jew of Malta and Edward II, but than he has a few that are okay. My biggest issue with his play is some felt too short. Things sometimes happened to fast. However, unlike Shakespeare, he doesn't drag on during the boring parts. He seems more about putting on a good show rather than listening to long soliloquies and boring dialogue.

Overall, I enjoyed this book. I liked comparing him with Shakespeare. I liked learning about the man. I enjoyed most of these plays.

Show Less

Fewer