Hey everyone! Don't even bother paying ANY attention to the ...peter kline spouted in his horrendous review of The Spanish Tragedy. Shakespeare wrote Kyd's masterpiece? Give me a break! And I suppose you're also going to say that Shakespeare secretly wrote Marlowe's plays as well, right? Kudos to Mr. Richard for being a well-informed reader of the English Classics! And as for Mr. Kline, you should do some research ...

J.R. Mulryne's edition of *The Spanish Tragedy* is without a doubt the best that may at present be bought: informative, helpful, intelligent and accurate in introducing the text, presenting it, and glossing difficult words and phrases where necessary. The play is among the most exciting and artistic of its period. Kyd writes, and constructs his plot, with a level of skill comparable to that of Shakespeare, who was much influenced by *The Spanish Tragedy*, particularly in writing *Hamlet*, which is possibly yet "richer", but undoubtedly less clear and focused. Kyd shows us in an extremely sophisticated way the workings of revenge, both at an earthly and at a supernatural level. From the beginning the audience knows, in a way that the characters do not, that the supernatural world will insist on revenge. The pain of those who suffer injustice here on earth and clamour for revenge is painful to behold. Ultimately, however, in a baffling way, evildoers are punished: Hieronimo, the main character, manages to take matters into his own hands after exhausting all other possibilities, and thus ironically enacts the wishes of the higher powers. The FORM of Hieronimo's revenge is extraordinarily interesting: under the cloak of art - of a theatrical plot - he manages to kill his evil opponents quite easily. The tension between "art" and "life" is thus handled by Kyd in a very innovative fashion which still shocks modern spectators and readers. The role of language, too, is called into question: much of the play demonstrates that in real life finally action does speak louder than words, which often do not make their point or simply get ignored. Any reader who wants to get a notion of the superb quality of plays written by Shakespeare's contemporaries is certain to admire and enjoy this striking work of art. - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia

I reviewed this play a year ago; my purpose here is only to correct some of the astonishing misinformations given by Mr. Kline for fear that some students or others interested in Kyd might be misled.

First of all, there is no evidence that Shakespeare wrote a word of this. The play was ascribed to Kyd by Thomas Heywood in 1612, when Shakespeare was still living. The Spanish Tragedy is not mentioned in Francis Meres's list of Shakespeare's plays made in 1598; and at the very latest The Spanish Tragedy was in existence by 1592, when it was published, and performed as an old play by Henslowe. And how anyone who has read Shakespeare could possibly think the style of The Spanish Tragedy is his is beyond me; both Kyd and Shakespeare possess very distinctive styles, to neither's demerit.

The existence of the earlier version of Hamlet is not doubted. It is mentioned by Henslowe in 1594 as an old play, and alluded to by Thomas Nashe in 1589 and by Thomas Lodge in 1598 (I think). Nashe links the old Hamlet to Thomas Kyd. The fact that its text did not survive is not extraordinary; most plays in the Elizabethan period have been lost as well. The date of Shakespeare's Hamlet is almost universally accepted to be 1600 or 1601.

It is incredibly absurd to even suggest that Henry V may have been written at the same time as TST. Because of a reference to the Earl of Essex's expedition to Ireland, Henry V can be securely dated to the spring or summer of 1599. The Spanish Tragedy was at least 7 years old by then, and probably 12.

I agree that the Spanish Tragedy is worthy of frequent theatrical performance. Just don't pass it off under the mock-guise of Shakespeare.

"Dr. Faustus," the play by 16th century writer Christopher Marlowe, has been published as part of the Dover Thrift Edition series. The brief introduction to this version notes that the play was first published in 1604, and also discusses its relationship to a German text from 1587 known as the "Faustbuch." In his play Marlowe tells the story of the title character, a scholar who is "swollen with cunning." Faust dabbles in the dark arts of "magicians / And necromantic books," and literally makes a deal with the devil. These actions drive the tragedy forward.

This play is a curious mixture of Christian theology, tragedy, slapstick comedy, and colorful pageantry. It moves along fast, and contains some really beautiful and stately language.

"Dr. Faustus" is ultimately a cautionary tale about human pride and ambition. I must admit that in the end I find it less satisfying than some of the other great tragedies of the Elizabethan era, perhaps because this play relies less on universal human issues than on a culturally-bound theological contrivance. Still, it's a noteworthy play that, I believe, still holds relevance for contemporary audiences. ...

The story of the infamous Dr. Faustus shows depth on many levels. Marlowe explores the developing morality play genre while calling upon aspects of classic tragedy. The main character, Faustus, finds himself too intelligent for the sciences of mortal man, and pursues a god-like existence in exchange for his soul. Prodded and guided by Mephostiphiles, servant to Lucifer, Faustus explores aspects of nature and society that the common man only dreams about. The conflict within Faustus is the central focus of the play, and Marlowe challenges the reader to consider whether it is more worthwhile to pursue mortal prestige or eternal salvation

In the Faust legend, a man by the name of Faust or Faustus sells his soul to the devil for twenty-four years of worldly power. This legend has been told many times over by such writers as Goethe and Mann, but no doubt the most famous retelling, and probably the best, is the play, Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe.

The most prominent influence on Marlowe's version of the Faust legend was the social upheaval during the time period in which it was written. Doctor Faustus was probably first performed in 1594, a time of tremendous change in Europe. The Medieval times were over and the Renaissance was beginning, however, influences of both times can be found in the play. Doctor Faustus is a transitional play where beliefs from both time periods intermingle, sometimes with disastrous results.

Doctor Faustus, himself, is a man torn between two traditions. He is a man with medieval beliefs, but renaissance aspirations. When he first attempts to conjure Mephistopheles, Faustus believe that Mephistopheles was forced to come by his (Faustus's) words. In response, Mephistopheles says, "for when we hear one rack the name of God, abjure the Scriptures and his savior Christ, we fly in hope to get his glorious soul." Mephistopheles has, of course, come of his own accord, because he feels that there is a soul to be had. He states this blatantly, yet Faustus is clouded by his old beliefs and also by his desires.

From a medieval point of view, Doctor Faustus can be looked upon as a morality play; a play about one man who aspires beyond his God-given place in the world. On the other hand, from a renaissance perspective, this play is a tragedy. The Renaissance was a time of individuality unlike the Middle Ages where a man was trapped in whatever social class into which he was born. Faustus is "an essentially good man" by Renaissance ideals who believes he has reached the end of human knowledge and is thus justified is using the black arts to further his knowledge. As in most classical tragedies, his downfall is complete and is due to his pride.

After Faustus makes his deal with Lucifer, the question must be asked: Is there any way back for him? Faustus believes he is damned at the moment that he signs his name in blood, although he has many chances to repent during the course of the play. The first chance comes after his first conjuring. He says, "O something soundeth in mine ear, 'Abjure this magic, turn to God.' Aye, and Faustus will turn to God again. To God? He loves thee not." Something is pleading for Faustus to repent, but Faustus remains firm in believing God has already condemned him. Each time the Good Angel appears is yet another chance for Faustus to repent, but the Evil Angel continues to threaten him if he even thinks about repenting. If it were not possible for Faustus to save his soul, then the Evil Angel and his demons would have simply left Faustus alone to cry out in anguish to God.

The final indicator that Faustus could have been saved at any point over his twenty-four year bargain is given by Mephistopheles, himself, as Faustus's fate is sealed beyond irrevocability.

Christopher Marlowe's brilliant retelling of the Faust legend springs not only from his own creativity, but from the times in which he lived. Marlowe's life and times allowed him to create the greatest retelling of one of Western cultures more timeless stories. When put to words, the legend seems so simple, yet its possibilities and implications, as Marlowe proves, can be nothing less than monumental.

The Two Noble Kinsmen was only partially written by Shakespeare. The primary author was John Fletcher, and Shakespeare seems to have been doing a rewrite more than a collaboration. As a result, you get two different styles of narration and development in the same story. The underlying tale follows very closely on the famous Knight's Tale from Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales. As a result, you get a three way perspective on Shakespeare that is not available elsewhere -- what his co-author did, what Chaucer did, and how Shakespeare handled similar problems in other plays.

Where the Knight's Tale was primarily a story about chivalry, love, and spirituality, The Two Noble Kinsmen is very much about psychology and human emotions. Like other plays that Shakespeare wrote, this one shows how conflicting emotions create problems when we cannot master ourselves. In this case, the two loving cousins, Palamon and Arcite, fall out over having been overwhelmed by love for the appearance of Emilia, Duke Theseus's sister. The play explores many ways that their fatal passion for Emilia might be quenched or diverted into more useful paths. The dilemma can only be resolved by the removal of one of them. This places Emilia in an awkward situation where she will wed one, but at the cost of the life of the other. She finds them both attractive, and is deeply uncomfortable with their mutual passion for her. In a parallel subplot, the jailer's daughter similarly falls in love with Palamon, putting her father's life and her own in jeopardy. Overcome with unrequited love, she becomes mad from realizing what she has done. Only by entering into her delusions is she able to reach out to others.

What most impressed me from reading this play is how much better Shakespeare was as a writer than either Chaucer or Fletcher. You can tell the parts that Shakespeare wrote because the language is so compact, so powerful, and so filled with relevant imagery. The tension is unremitting and makes you squirm.

By contrast, the Knight's Tale is one of the dullest stories you could possibly hope to read and admire for its virtuosity without experiencing much enjoyment. Although the same plot is developed, few emotions will be aroused in you. When Fletcher is writing in this play, the development is slow, the content lacks much emotion, and you find yourself reaching for a blue pencil to strike major sections as unnecessary.

In fact, this play would not be worth reading except for the exquisite development of the dilemmas that are created for Emilia. Her pain will be your pain, and you will want to escape from it as much as she does. In these sections, you will find some of Shakespeare's greatest writing.

I also was moved by the way several scenes explored the duality of cousinly friendship and affection occurring at the same time that lethal passions of love and jealousy are loose.

Although this play will probably not be among your 50 favorites, you will probably find that it will sharpen your appetite for and appreciation of Shakespeare's best works.

I also listened to Arkangel recording, and recommend it. The performances are fine, the voices are easy to distinguish, the music is magnificent, the singing adds to the mood nicely, and you will find your engagement in the play's action powerfully increased over reading the play.

When do you lose control over your emotions? What does it cost you? How could you regain control before harm is done?

May you find peaceful, positive solutions to all of your dilemmas!

I will be the first to admit this is not the "best" or the "greatest" play written by the bard, but it is still very worthy of his name, and incredibly beautiful! Kinsmen is a romance in the style of Shakespeare's other late plays, Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, and The Tempest (my favorite). In many ways it reflects his earlier works, namely A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hamlet, and The Tempest. It tells a wonderfully romantic story of two good friends who fall for the same girl (I know, sounds familiar, but trust me, it's a different take on the setup) in Athens. The poetry in it is lovely, the characters very well developed, and the plot is incredible. Many people haven't heard of this play as Shakespeare cowrote it with Fletcher, but belive me, it is still wonderful. Highly recomended.

The Arkangel Shakespeare series being issued by Penguin Audio is now halfway through the plays and the surprise is that was given preference to the remaining more familiar works. Co-authored by Shakespeare and Fletcher, this play remains an odd man out for several reasons. Based fairly closely on the "Knight's Tale" from Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales," it tells of two cousins, who just after swearing eternal friendship in one of Duke Theseus' prisons immediately fall in love with the same woman, Emilia, and become bitter rivals for her affections. One of them, Arcite, is exiled but returns in disguise; the other, Palamon, escapes with the help of the Jailer's Daughter, who goes mad for love of him; and...well, see for yourself. Of the play's 23 scenes, 7 and part of an 8th are attributed to Shakespeare, a 9th doubtfully so, and the rest to John Fletcher, who was probably handed over to Shakespeare to learn the ropes as it were. The Shakespeare parts are easy to spot: they are nearly impossible to understand without a heavily annotated copy of the text open before you! Even more so than in his late plays like "Cymberline" and "Winter's Tale," the syntax is so complex, the thoughts so condensed, that one might (and has) compared his writing with the late Beethoven String Quartets. As one of the scholars quoted in the excellent Signet Classic paperback edition of this play comments, the play is most unShakespearean in that none of the characters change over the course of the play. And I should add the subplot of the Daughter's madness is never integrated into the main plot. One scene, in fact, is devoted entirely to the description of some minor characters and might have been influenced by a similar and much longer sequence in "Seven Against Thebes." In short, do not play this for a casual listen; but be prepared to be challenged. Look especially for echoes of the earlier all-Shakespearean plays. The nuptials of Theseus and Hippolyta recall the opening scenes of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," the main plot that of "Two Gentlemen of Verona," the Daughter's madness of Ophelia, and so on. As for the actual recording, it would be difficult to better it! The voices of the two kinsmen (Johnathan Firth and Nigel Cooke) are easily distinguishable, Theseus (Geoffrey Whitehead) sounds advanced in years and noble, Emila (Helen Schlesinger) mature and alert, Hippolyta (Adjoa Andoh) vocally of African origins as perhaps befits the character, and all the rest as understandable as the text allows and "into" their roles. Thank you, Penguin, for this noble entry in a series that is getting better and better.

For those of you who read my reviews and use them to try to understand literature, I owe you an apology. I made a slight error in my review of this, and I will correct it now. For those of you who know me, I cherish the writings of Marlowe, Shakespeare, Milton, Hawthorne, and Dickens. I now have a 6th hero. The opening is quite captivating when through testimony we learn of Lodovico's evil. Webster also grabs our attention with the affair between Vittoria and Bracciano. Despite the questionable qualities of these 2 characters, they are easy to like. He also draws the division between the virtuous Francisco and the ambitious Bracciano well. Cornelia is memorable as the mother who despairs over the actions of her children Flamineo and Vittoria. Isabella is fine as a picture of innocence. The Cardinal is captivating as one of the most careful characters in the play,and we need not be surprised when he gets elected Pope. Bracciano's son Giovanni is drawn well. Through an early appearance, we get a look at his character. We then see him in mourning after he has lost both his parents. Finally, we see him restore order after the massacre has fully unleashed. Lodovico is fine as a picture of ambition. (The mistake I made was that I named Lodovico in the murder of Isabella. He was innocent of her murder. But it is possible to wonder if his affair with her 'Bracciano's wife' triggered Bracciano's affair with Vittoria. Ofcourse, the affair between Bracciano and Vittoria triggers the events of this play.) Webster also offers us horrifying and yet beautiful passages, chilling omens such as the ghosts of Isabella and Bracciano, and pure suspense. My only complaint about this is that Lodovico's delight in his massacre does not mix well with Giovanni's sudden rise to power and his restoration of order. In Marlowe's "Edward II," the 17 year old Edward III fills his enemies with pure terror when he gains control of the situation. Once again, I apologize for my error, and I wish to thank all of you who found my reviews helpful.

For those of you familiar with my writing, you know I cherish the works of Marlowe, Shakespeare, Milton, Hawthorne, and Dickens. Well, I now have a 6th favorite. Lodovico is frighteningly demonic. 1st he participates in the murder of Isabella, then he participates in the revenge of Isabella! Poor Isabella is memorable as a picture of innocence. Vittoria is an interesting woman. She is not exactly a picture of innocence, but she does carry herself well, and she faces her death with as much dignity as possible. Webster also draws the dissension between Francisco and Bracciano well. Bracciano is captivating with all of his ambition. Francisco is memorable as the good and decent man prompted to fury by the death of his innocent sister. The harsh tones between Cornelia and her son Flamineo are dramatic. Bracciano's son Giovanni is well drawn. First he is an innocent young man, but his lines reveal his good character. Then we see him after he has lost both his parents. Finally, he flips the tables on everyone and restores order. Cardinal Monticelso is also captivating. He is a very careful character who probes the situations without losing his sense of reason. And we need not be surprised when this careful character is promoted to Pope Paul IV. What's left? Only striking images, only well constructed passages, only pure terror side by side with beauty etc. My only complaint about this play is that Webster combines 2 wonderful final touches that would be wonderful by themselves, but do not combine well (in my opinion). Lodovico's delight in his massacre does not (in my opinion) mix well with Giovanni's sudden rise to power and his sudden crush of the situation. In my opinion what makes Edward III's restoration to order in Marlowe's "Edward II" so dramatic is the pure terror the 17 year old king instills in his enemies. At this point, I would like to thank all of you who found my reviews helpful.

The drama of John Webster is characterized by themes of revenge, misanthropy, misogyny, villainy, murder and ultimately violence. Webster's play, The White Devil parallels a modern day soap opera in which the plot keeps readers on their edge with its numerous twists and sub-plots.

I had doubts about reading Jacobean Drama, but once I picked up The White Devil, I was hooked. I was especially intrigued with the duality of the heroine Vittoria. In Vittoria, Webster offers us a character we love to hate, but finds ourselves pitying her, perhaps even siding with her.

The White Devil is certainly a play worth reading.