I own this book and have given copies away to family and friends. Most people who pick this book up and open it to almost any page will learn something, be reminded of something they forgot, or maybe get straightened out on a misconception they had. Rarely will they put it down without having enjoyed the experience.

Open Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Allusions to any page and you're bound to learn a thing or two..or three...or more. You'll also smile at the journey that brought you to new insights. The authors have done a masterful job of illuminating the language with scholarship and wit. So much brighter, lighter, enlightening and fun than most reference books--but no less useful.

From "Abelard and Heloise" to "Zuzu's Petals", this book provides the history, meaning, and context for many of the creative and colorful allusions that enrich fine writing. For every entry I knew, I found at least a dozen that I either was misinterpreting or just glossed over in my reading. A great book for the reference shelf, bedside or to leave in the bathroom!

The last installment of the "A History of the Plantagenents" succeeds admirably. Costain has a way of transferring is love and excitement of a subject onto his pages. It's a method that has yet to be rivaled. He gives each character a distinct personality no matter how trivial. William Caxton being a prime example. About half the book is concentrated on Richard II, which is fine because most historians either concentrate on the Black Prince or Henry V and skip over him. Here we see a sympathetic monarch who was easily bullied and who made some bad decisions early in his reign. After Richard II, he continues on through the kings until Richard III. Here he breaks protocol and gives evidence in defense of Shakespeare hunchback, citing Tudor propaganda as the catalyst. Normally, Costain is careful to present detailed accounts of both sides to an arguement, but here he takes a stance. It is quite refreshing and readers will eat it up. Highly recommended as well as the others in the series. My uncle gave me these books and I plan on returning the favor when the next generation comes my way. Treasure these.

English History at it's finest. You feel as if you are there with these people, living their lives. Always in good form, this is one of Costain's best.

Mr. Costain is a very good historian. His scholarship is thorough and his conclusions are always logically wrought and sometimes surprising. His sensibilities are surprisingly contemporary, although I would not term him a "revisionist," (he wrote this history in the 1950s). For example, in his defense of Richard III (in this, the final book in this four-volume history) he travails against conventional opinion to demonstrate why King Richard was, indeed, not the Richard III of Thomas More as popularized by Shakespeare and held true to this day. And in the first volume, the author dashes myth and idle folklore to side with those historians who portray Eleanor of Aquitaine as the wise and effective check on Henry II and her sons that, she no doubt was. In so doing he disperses, through well-reasoned argument, the rumors and "Entertainment-Tonight" kind of fluff (History-Lite) that many still believe. I had been told these four volumes were classics. After reading them, but without being a scholar of history, I think those critical readers might be right. Certainly, Mr. Costain opened my eyes to a different kind of history telling, one in which an historian does not hesitate to conjecture or opine openly and to honestly make his case and then leave it for a reader's judgement. From front to back, from first through fourth volumes, this is a valuable and pleasurable experience. Mr Costain, presents, argues, harangues convention and, always entertains with a use of the language that is as sharp as his reasoning and as precise as his scholarship. Mr. Costain is a very good story-teller.

John Webster's play "The Duchess of Malfi" is a violent play that presents a dark, disturbing portrait of the human condition. According to the introductory note in the Dover edition, the play was first presented in 1613 or 1614.

The title character is a widow with two brothers: Ferdinand and the Cardinal. In the play's opening act, the brothers try to persuade their sister not to seek a new husband. Her resistance to their wishes sets in motion a chain of secrecy, plotting, and violence.

The relationship between Ferdinand and the Duchess is probably one of the most unsettling brother-sister relationships in literature. The play is full of both onstage killings and great lines. The title character is one of stage history's intriguing female characters; she is a woman whose desires lead her to defy familial pressure. Another fascinating and complex character is Bosola, who early in the play is enlisted to act as a spy. Overall, a compelling and well-written tragedy.

This is a review of the New Mermaids edition of The Duchess of Malfi by John Webster. Elisabeth M. Brennan edits this edition (ISBN: 0393900665.) I mention this incase it is cross-posted under some other editor's edition.

I bought this after reading snippets of it in other books. I do not recall having to learn this in school. Only now do I intend to read "The White Devil" in anticipation of it being encountered in other works.

Well what do you know? This animal is based on a true story of the Duchess of Amalfi. Evidentially there were several books written on this and he picked one for the outline of the play.

This edition is almost as good as taking a class in its self. The introduction gives you a back ground and the basic story that the play was based on. You get some information on John Webster and some of his other plays. There is even a further Reading List. There are even notes on the text and how to read the notes for the different versions of the play its self. By the time you get to the play you are well prepared to read it.

The play its self has stanzas, line numbers and notes to help you through the difficulty of understanding what the words mean in context. It is almost like reading a bible. You soon pickup speed and then actually get intrigued in the writing and story.

Now I desperately want some local theater to present "The duchess of Malfi"

Of the "popular" editions of this play that by John Russell Brown (Revels Student Editions) and Elizabeth Brennan (New Mermaids) are both useful, though it must be said that no edition as yet does adequate justice to Webster's compexity - notably his presentation of Ferdinand. The play is both a tour de force and profoundly searching. It is perhaps the first major feminist play in England, with the Duchess presented as an outstandingly noble even if fallible character, the victim of her two evil "partriarchal" brothers. Of these, her twin brother Ferdinand is among the most intelligently conceived characters to appear on the Jacobean stage. Unknowingly (i.e. in his "unconscious") he is incestuously in love with his sister. Unable to cope with this "taboo" feeling, he tries to "repress" it unsuccessfully, and finally his ... "libido" comes to express itself in a violent wish to destroy her if he cannot ... own her, and he ends up believing himself to be a wolf, attempting to dig up her grave after he has had her killed. Obviously, then, this is a very Freudian work - anticipating Freud's insights brilliantly by some four centuries, and without lapsing into Freud's extravagantly improbable claims about such matters as the Oedipus complex. It is the working of the unconcious, as a reservoir of what we do not understand and cannot control, which is quite central in this play, and Ferdinand's ... confusion is potently contrasted with his sister's openminded, acknowledged and generous ... health. An outstanding play, recommended as among the best of its time (comparable in quality and interest to e.g. *Othello* or *The Changeling*). - Joost Daalder, Professor of English, Flinders University, South Australia

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.

There is nothing spectactular about this book. It is a nice read about a boy who is leading a tough life, his relationship with other adults and a dolphin.

If you are after a simple no brainer story this is a nice one.

I picked up this book (in regular print) on a throw out table at a local bookstore while I was between reading matters. I found it a great book describing female hardship, strength and the tenderness of sisters united. The story of Laurie's weakness and fears which turn into courage and strengths is inspiring. I love the similarity of the swans to her idea of freedom. It is a really well written story which would I am sure will touch the heart of any woman. I need more of Elizabeth Webster's writtings to compare to this one.

Well of course I have a few complaints with this book. It's not perfect. Izabel just seems to take too much of an interest in the family to be true. I know characters mention this to her and she tries to explain it, but it still seems unreal. And just a minor complaint of the way she calls Ireland Eire, as in referring to the republic. No-one in Ireland calls it this unless they are speaking as gaeilge, and even then, it means the whole of Ireland. But it is a heartwarming book, and when you discover Mizzabel's secret, it makes her seem more human

Brown's The Power of Sympathy is a strange set of letters that form a strange world where sentimentality is outrageously rampant and its characters drawn in flat, lifeless tones. The main story (although that's a hard definition to give to anything in this jumble) is that of Harriot and Harrington, who fall in love. The correspondence that makes up the novel is mainly between Harrington and his friend Worthy - Harriot has one of the smallest roles in the story. Other seduction stories are told, all of them a little ridiculous. In one instance, a woman is tricked into a man's carriage, and her faithful, loving fiance immediately despairs and drowns himself in the river. Other men of the village track down the carriage and bring her back, but the man who apparantly loved her gave up all hope when she lost her innocence. What a bleak tale. This novel of morality is actually very shallow, enforcing and reinforcing one idea only: that of the sin of being seduced or seducing. Of course, Brown wrote for a female audience, so it can perhaps be assumed that the only sin they really needed to worry about was losing their virtue. And of the ten main characters in all the seduction stories in Sympathy (there are five separate seductions, I think), 6 do not survive to the end. According to Brown, the wages of sin are most definitely death.
These characters are either so boring or so over the top emotional that I found it hard to draw a good lesson from any of it. At the end, when tragedy has struck, Harrinton sends a series of distraut letters to Worthy, each one saying, in effect, "I'm going to kill myself." Worthy's somewhat delayed response is a dismal attempt to save the life of his friend. "Our prison grows familiar," Worthy tells Harrinton, "there is not one but finds his partiality for his dungeon increase...how few are they who are hardy enough to break their prison?" That's not a very good attempt to keep a grieving man from taking his life, and that last part almost seems like Worthy is egging Harrington on, saying, "c'mon, chicken, I bet you WON'T kill yourself, you aren't hardy enough!"

The Coquette - this is a far more interesting tale, starting out with a sort of anti-heroine in Eliza Wharton. She does enjoy society, and seems to have her heart in the right place, but is easily and repeatedly misled by the novel's rake, one Major Sanford. The story gets muddled as it tries to fictionalize a true account of Elizabeth Whitman, who bore an illegitimate child and died shortly after. The introduction by Carla Mulford gives us some information on the real woman, and it seems pretty clear that Whitman fully encouraged the love affair that led to her ultimate ruin. Foster attempts to make Eliza Wharton into a fully sympathetic character - Wharton denies to everyone that Sanford wishes ill for her, and seems never to notice (until too late) that he does not have good intentions. The effort to reconcile the real Whitman, 37 and completely in control of her (mis)conduct with the completely guileless woman who elicits pity from even the hardest heart does not quite work, and leaves a mysterious chasm.
All of Eliza's friends, her mother, her rejected ex-fiance, warn her about the intentions of Sanford. The fact that Eliza still believes he is a good man means that she is either completely oblivious, or pretending not to know his true colors so that she has an excuse to remain in his company. I think that Foster probably did not intend the second character to come across, but I think THAT Eliza would have been more compelling than the one we are given. What an interesting tale that would have been...sort of another Shamela. But, especially when compared to Brown's "Sympathy," "The Coquette" is really an interesting morality tale. Eliza, before descending into pure imbecility, makes a lot of compelling arguments for her freedom and her desire to remain as she was in society, which her society would not tolerate.