What do you think?
Rate this book
Edward the Second: Christopher Marlowe
The introduction to this edition contains an analysis of the first quarto (including new evidence of its original dating) and a reconsideration of the play's complex relation to the Shakespearean histories that preceded and followed it. Charles R. Forker offers a discussion of Marlowe's use of sources, and presents a new argument for the drama's five-act structure. He delves into the conflicting and controversial opinions concerning the genre and sexual politics of the play, and also includes a full record of the stage history. Forker has collated some 46 editions (including the important, rare and usually ignored editions of Broughton and Oxberry in 1818). The appendices provide substantive variants from the Broughton and Oxberry texts as well as extracts from the sources.
384 pages, Paperback
First published June 19, 1593
87 people are currently reading
5357 people want to read
About the author
Christopher Marlowe
650 books832 followersChristopher "Kit" Marlowe (baptised 26 February 1564) was an English dramatist, poet and translator of the Elizabethan era. The foremost Elizabethan tragedian next to William Shakespeare, he is known for his magnificent blank verse, his overreaching protagonists, and his own mysterious and untimely death.
The author's Wikipedia page.
The author's Wikipedia page.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 378 reviews
January 25, 2020
Marvelous! It’s been years since I binged on the complete works of Shakespeare, and I’d forgotten just how wonderful renaissance theater could be. Christopher Marlow was, of course, one of Shakespeare’s rivals, and a worthy one at that. Edward II is just as good as Shakespeare’s finer histories, and clearly better than some of his worst.
My instant obsession with this play is likely a result of Marlowe’s uninhibited lines expressing same-sex romance. King Edward and Gaveston pine over each other as passionately as Romeo and Juliet, with lingering embraces, confessions of eternal devotion, and a willingness to die for true love.
Prior to recent memory, most literature referencing gay love tends to be thickly veiled behind a wall of friendship, lest anyone consider it obscene. Imagine my surprise when something from the late 1500s is brave enough to go there quite openly. I think it would be very hard to argue that Marlowe didn’t intend for these historical figures to be seen as intimate lovers.
Perhaps even more surprising--the gays aren’t villainous! Well, Gaveston does have a moment of drunk power, and Edward’s horniness causes unnecessary turmoil in the kingdom, but, by the end, we weep for the male lovers and have disdain for the usurping rebels.
At least I did.
Outside of the romance, there’s plenty of action to keep this a non-stop, high-stakes tragedy. “Off with his head!” is said many times, conspirators plot, wars are waged, torture devices are used--you know, all the typical ongoings of palace life.
I hesitate to say more because I want to avoid spoilers, but know that it’s an edge-of-your-seat thrill ride from beginning to end. If you’re into Shakespeare and his contemporaries, or just want to try reading something different, Edward II is a must.
My instant obsession with this play is likely a result of Marlowe’s uninhibited lines expressing same-sex romance. King Edward and Gaveston pine over each other as passionately as Romeo and Juliet, with lingering embraces, confessions of eternal devotion, and a willingness to die for true love.
Prior to recent memory, most literature referencing gay love tends to be thickly veiled behind a wall of friendship, lest anyone consider it obscene. Imagine my surprise when something from the late 1500s is brave enough to go there quite openly. I think it would be very hard to argue that Marlowe didn’t intend for these historical figures to be seen as intimate lovers.
Perhaps even more surprising--the gays aren’t villainous! Well, Gaveston does have a moment of drunk power, and Edward’s horniness causes unnecessary turmoil in the kingdom, but, by the end, we weep for the male lovers and have disdain for the usurping rebels.
At least I did.
Outside of the romance, there’s plenty of action to keep this a non-stop, high-stakes tragedy. “Off with his head!” is said many times, conspirators plot, wars are waged, torture devices are used--you know, all the typical ongoings of palace life.
I hesitate to say more because I want to avoid spoilers, but know that it’s an edge-of-your-seat thrill ride from beginning to end. If you’re into Shakespeare and his contemporaries, or just want to try reading something different, Edward II is a must.
June 3, 2023
I wish I could love Edward II. Not only is its treatment of passionate male friendship unique in Renaissance English Drama, but its plotting is exemplary, its rhetoric disciplined, its imagery restrained, and—perhaps its greatest achievement—it expertly summons a coherent historical vision, calling forth the essential events from a myriad of incidents in order to convey a few hard political truths. In addition, not only did Marlowe’s portrait of a weak, self-indulgent monarch inspire Shakespeare’s characterization of Richard II, but his method of using history showed his fellow playwright the way, making possible not only the three great Henry plays but the Roman plays as well.
Still, there’s nothing here to astonish me, as Doctor Faustus continually does, no grand rhetoric, like that of Tamburlaine to stir me like a big bass drum, no Machiavellian monologues from Barnabas or the Guise to horrify me with a smile. Marlowe the dramatic technician may triumph, but it is Marlowe the poet and evil genius I love, and I see little of him in Edward II.
I’ll conclude with a little of that poetry--and a touch of that evil genius-- I did see here. Piers de Gaveston, the friend and favorite of King Edward, describes the pleasures and pageantry he will use to intoxicate the heart of the king.
I must have wanton poets, pleasant wits,
Musicians, that with touching of a string
May draw the pliant king which way I please:
Music and poetry is his delight;
Therefore I'll have Italian masks by night,
Sweet speeches, comedies, and pleasing shows;
And in the day, when he shall walk abroad,
Like sylvan nymphs my pages shall be clad;
My men, like satyrs grazing on the lawns,
Shall with their goat-feet dance the antic hay;
Sometime a lovely boy in Dian's shape,
With hair that gilds the water as it glides
Crownets of pearl about his naked arms,
And in his sportful hands an olive-tree,
To hide those parts which men delight to see,
Shall bathe him in a spring; and there, hard by,
One like Actæon, peeping through the grove,
Shall by the angry goddess be transform'd,
And running in the likeness of an hart,
By yelping hounds pull'd down, shall seem to die:
Such things as these best please his majesty.
March 30, 2025
This is not so much a review of Edward II as jotting down a few shafts of memory before they completely dissipate.
In November 1969, I went to see a performance of Edward II at the "Leeds Grand", a very old, ornate theatre dating from 1878. I was interested in the playwright Christopher Marlowe, as I was studying "Doctor Faustus". My boyfriend had a school trip to see Christopher Marlowe's Edward II, and I was allowed to tag along. (He in turn got to tag along on one of my schools trips later - to see the bright lights of London.) I had no idea what the play was about, but think one of the main attractions might well have been the principal actor, a very young - and very handsome - Ian McKellen:
I probably knew him best through a dramatisation for television in 1966, following his earlier stage performance in 1962, of "David Copperfield",
But in 1968, the previous year, Ian McKellen had wowed the critics with his performance of "Richard II", and had established himself as a major Shakespearean actor:
He now seemed to be in the forefront of the public eye as an upcoming actor from the North of England, specialising in literary roles. He was not an obvious choice, still being so youthful. Often heavy roles like this were taken by older actors, "made up" to look young for the early parts of the play. In 2003, the now Sir Ian McKellen recalled how he coped with such a major role,
"The arc of Edward's progression is as simple and strong as Marlowe's language. He starts as a lovelorn youth. His passions are thwarted by his advisers, on whom he turns his anger and growing strength. By the climax of the play he is a full-blown tyrant. I emphasised all this by ageing through make-up and false beard."
When I saw him in Edward II, Ian McKellen was currently touring the country in a dual production, reprising his roles as Richard II and also as Edward II, an idea first put forward by Toby Robertson, the artistic director. Toby Robertson had previously directed Derek Jacobi and other Cambridge undergraduates in 1957 in a performance of Edward II. Ian McKellen himself had also started his acting career as an undergraduate. Under consideration alongside Ian McKellen, was Alan Bates, who was also a bit of a looker in those days...
Ian McKellen recalls,
"In 1969 ["Edward II"] was still considered an outrageous play, after all, perhaps, the first drama ever written with a homosexual hero. had been discretely mimed behind a curtain when Harley Granville Barker played the eponymous role. We showed all, as it were, with the aid of a glowing torchlight and dim lighting."
After all these years, I still remember that moment vividly, perhaps because we were so near the stage, and it was so shocking if you did not know the play. (If you don't either, but your history is better than mine, then feel free to look at the spoiler.) I remember whispering shakily to my boyfriend, "Is he dead?" and his equally emotional but kind whisper back, "I should think so..."
Another memory of that particular performance, was one of the stage lights blowing dramatically, at a moment of high tension. Was it part of the production, I wondered? Neither of us were sure. But later on, at an open lecture given at Sheffield University, someone asked Ian McKellen if this had affected his performance. He replied simply, "I wouldn't be likely to notice," showing just how absorbed this consummate actor becomes in his roles.
They were different times. Even though this was Art, the objections poured in. The play featured a kiss between two male characters, Edward and Gaveston (played by James Laurenson). Sir Ian McKellen recalls,
"At the Edinburgh Festival, the late Councillor John Kidd took offence to this show of male affection, particularly as it took place on a stage erected within the Assembly Hall of the Church of Scotland. The local watch committee sent along a couple of policeman who reported "no problem" and the fuss guaranteed full houses for the run and the subsequent tour."
Here is "Time Magazine"'s review of this production, from September 19th, 1969,
"McKellen and Director Toby Robertson have confronted with stark candor the fact that Edward II is a play by a homosexual about a king who was a homosexual who indeed ruined himself for an infatuation. The sum is a better play about that too-fashionable subject than anything overt or covert recently on or off Broadway. It is sensuous, unpleasant, funny, guilt-obsessed, and intensely masculine."
I remember thinking very highly of "Doctor Faustus", so must read this play on the page some time. But notwithstanding the incredible fact that my then boyfriend and I are still together all these years later, I would tentatively suggest that this play is not a very good idea for a first date, for love's young bloom.
Maybe go to see "Titus Andronicus" instead? Or "The Duchess of Malfi"? (Or am I just being wicked now?)
(all the photographs are from Sir Ian McKellen's own website)
In November 1969, I went to see a performance of Edward II at the "Leeds Grand", a very old, ornate theatre dating from 1878. I was interested in the playwright Christopher Marlowe, as I was studying "Doctor Faustus". My boyfriend had a school trip to see Christopher Marlowe's Edward II, and I was allowed to tag along. (He in turn got to tag along on one of my schools trips later - to see the bright lights of London.) I had no idea what the play was about, but think one of the main attractions might well have been the principal actor, a very young - and very handsome - Ian McKellen:
I probably knew him best through a dramatisation for television in 1966, following his earlier stage performance in 1962, of "David Copperfield",
But in 1968, the previous year, Ian McKellen had wowed the critics with his performance of "Richard II", and had established himself as a major Shakespearean actor:
He now seemed to be in the forefront of the public eye as an upcoming actor from the North of England, specialising in literary roles. He was not an obvious choice, still being so youthful. Often heavy roles like this were taken by older actors, "made up" to look young for the early parts of the play. In 2003, the now Sir Ian McKellen recalled how he coped with such a major role,
"The arc of Edward's progression is as simple and strong as Marlowe's language. He starts as a lovelorn youth. His passions are thwarted by his advisers, on whom he turns his anger and growing strength. By the climax of the play he is a full-blown tyrant. I emphasised all this by ageing through make-up and false beard."
When I saw him in Edward II, Ian McKellen was currently touring the country in a dual production, reprising his roles as Richard II and also as Edward II, an idea first put forward by Toby Robertson, the artistic director. Toby Robertson had previously directed Derek Jacobi and other Cambridge undergraduates in 1957 in a performance of Edward II. Ian McKellen himself had also started his acting career as an undergraduate. Under consideration alongside Ian McKellen, was Alan Bates, who was also a bit of a looker in those days...
Ian McKellen recalls,
"In 1969 ["Edward II"] was still considered an outrageous play, after all, perhaps, the first drama ever written with a homosexual hero. had been discretely mimed behind a curtain when Harley Granville Barker played the eponymous role. We showed all, as it were, with the aid of a glowing torchlight and dim lighting."
After all these years, I still remember that moment vividly, perhaps because we were so near the stage, and it was so shocking if you did not know the play. (If you don't either, but your history is better than mine, then feel free to look at the spoiler.) I remember whispering shakily to my boyfriend, "Is he dead?" and his equally emotional but kind whisper back, "I should think so..."
Another memory of that particular performance, was one of the stage lights blowing dramatically, at a moment of high tension. Was it part of the production, I wondered? Neither of us were sure. But later on, at an open lecture given at Sheffield University, someone asked Ian McKellen if this had affected his performance. He replied simply, "I wouldn't be likely to notice," showing just how absorbed this consummate actor becomes in his roles.
They were different times. Even though this was Art, the objections poured in. The play featured a kiss between two male characters, Edward and Gaveston (played by James Laurenson). Sir Ian McKellen recalls,
"At the Edinburgh Festival, the late Councillor John Kidd took offence to this show of male affection, particularly as it took place on a stage erected within the Assembly Hall of the Church of Scotland. The local watch committee sent along a couple of policeman who reported "no problem" and the fuss guaranteed full houses for the run and the subsequent tour."
Here is "Time Magazine"'s review of this production, from September 19th, 1969,
"McKellen and Director Toby Robertson have confronted with stark candor the fact that Edward II is a play by a homosexual about a king who was a homosexual who indeed ruined himself for an infatuation. The sum is a better play about that too-fashionable subject than anything overt or covert recently on or off Broadway. It is sensuous, unpleasant, funny, guilt-obsessed, and intensely masculine."
I remember thinking very highly of "Doctor Faustus", so must read this play on the page some time. But notwithstanding the incredible fact that my then boyfriend and I are still together all these years later, I would tentatively suggest that this play is not a very good idea for a first date, for love's young bloom.
Maybe go to see "Titus Andronicus" instead? Or "The Duchess of Malfi"? (Or am I just being wicked now?)
(all the photographs are from Sir Ian McKellen's own website)
August 7, 2017
This is a marvellous play; it is clearly an equal to any of Shakespeare’s histories. It’s such a shame Marlowe had his life cut short; he could have been a real rival to Shakespeare if he wrote more. He’s only got a few plays compared to Shakespeare’s forty or so. He just didn’t write enough before he died; it’s a real tragedy because he had the talent to do so much more.
Well, anyway, this is still superb regardless of Marlowe’s short repertoire of writing. I love the tragic elements, and I love the relationship between King Edward and his Gaveston. It’s complex and real. Edward is clearly madly in love with Gaveston, but I’m not entirely sure that his lover returns the passion. He has some feelings for Edward, this much is clear, but I think he is mainly using him for social advancement. He wants to get back at the nobles who have laughed at him, and looked down on his peasant class. So, he uses Edward as a shield to hide behind as he attempts to return the disdain.
Well, the only problem is that Edward is a very flimsy shield. He is a weak King. Not just because he is homosexual, like the ignorant writers of Braveheart will have you believe, but because he has no backbone. This isn’t because he is gay; he just happens to be gay as well as weak. The two are not related. His nobles push him around and bully him because of his lack of strength. They manipulate him and he doesn’t have the power to prevent it. Gaveston is a stronger man than he in this. He stands up for what he believes in whereas Edward just lets the world overrule him. He lacks the abilities of a strong ruler. His wife is a more authoritative monarch and his young son even more so. All in all, Marlowe’s Edward is a doormat.
Indeed, he causes his own demise at the end of the play, which is a horrible end; it’s almost a mockery of his sexuality. He gets killed by having a hot poker shoved up his arse. This is to prevent physical evidence of his murder being easily perceivable on his corpse. I mean, the medievalists wouldn’t check there for a cause of death if they checked at all. It’s horribly ironic and brutal. It’s actually based upon some flimsy truth, but there are all sorts of conspiracy theories about that. Personally, I love the way Ken Follet handled it The World Without End. He let his Edward escape, but Marlowe couldn’t of done that in a play; it needed its tragic ending.
“All live to die, and rise to fall.”
The two lovers caused their own deaths. Edward was too absorbed in his lover’s arms where as Gaveston was too arrogant. He attracted the wrath of the nobility when he needed to be humble to survive. He pushed them too far and angered them too much. They were both fools, but characters that can easily be sympathised with. Edward saw nothing but his Gaveston, and Gaveston saw nothing but prestige and glory. It’s a great play; I wish I could find a copy of the Ian Mckellen version somewhere. I bet he nailed the role.
Well, anyway, this is still superb regardless of Marlowe’s short repertoire of writing. I love the tragic elements, and I love the relationship between King Edward and his Gaveston. It’s complex and real. Edward is clearly madly in love with Gaveston, but I’m not entirely sure that his lover returns the passion. He has some feelings for Edward, this much is clear, but I think he is mainly using him for social advancement. He wants to get back at the nobles who have laughed at him, and looked down on his peasant class. So, he uses Edward as a shield to hide behind as he attempts to return the disdain.
Well, the only problem is that Edward is a very flimsy shield. He is a weak King. Not just because he is homosexual, like the ignorant writers of Braveheart will have you believe, but because he has no backbone. This isn’t because he is gay; he just happens to be gay as well as weak. The two are not related. His nobles push him around and bully him because of his lack of strength. They manipulate him and he doesn’t have the power to prevent it. Gaveston is a stronger man than he in this. He stands up for what he believes in whereas Edward just lets the world overrule him. He lacks the abilities of a strong ruler. His wife is a more authoritative monarch and his young son even more so. All in all, Marlowe’s Edward is a doormat.
Indeed, he causes his own demise at the end of the play, which is a horrible end; it’s almost a mockery of his sexuality. He gets killed by having a hot poker shoved up his arse. This is to prevent physical evidence of his murder being easily perceivable on his corpse. I mean, the medievalists wouldn’t check there for a cause of death if they checked at all. It’s horribly ironic and brutal. It’s actually based upon some flimsy truth, but there are all sorts of conspiracy theories about that. Personally, I love the way Ken Follet handled it The World Without End. He let his Edward escape, but Marlowe couldn’t of done that in a play; it needed its tragic ending.
“All live to die, and rise to fall.”
The two lovers caused their own deaths. Edward was too absorbed in his lover’s arms where as Gaveston was too arrogant. He attracted the wrath of the nobility when he needed to be humble to survive. He pushed them too far and angered them too much. They were both fools, but characters that can easily be sympathised with. Edward saw nothing but his Gaveston, and Gaveston saw nothing but prestige and glory. It’s a great play; I wish I could find a copy of the Ian Mckellen version somewhere. I bet he nailed the role.
June 20, 2023
Marlowe’s verse is not as nimble as Shakespeare’s, nor as overwhelmingly brilliant. But it has undeniable power, an irresistible forward momentum, and moments of astonishing depth and beauty. In my view, Edward II is the equal of all but Shakespeare’s very greatest histories. Marlowe's characters are richly drawn, his politics complex and changeable, human foibles and affairs of state refracted one through the other.
The play is ambivalent about the meaning of Edward II’s queerness—but the theme is not subtle. Gaveston tells us right away what Edward “delights to see”:
Sometime a lovely boy in Dian’s shape,
With hair that gilds the water as it glides,
Crownets of pearl about his naked arms,
And in his sportful hands an olive-tree,
To hide those parts which men delight to see,
And if it is unclear whether Gaveston’s love for his king is as genuine as Edward II’s for him, Edward’s second lover, Spencer, is as distraught at their separation as at his own impending death—echoing Edward’s ardor for Gaveston earlier in the play:
O, is he gone? is noble Edward gone?
Parted from hence, never to see us more!
Rend, sphere of heaven! and, fire, forsake thy orb!
Earth, melt to air! gone is my sovereign,
Gone, gone, alas, never to make return!
Edward’s own character manages to be at once indeterminate and all-too-human. But then, the entire play is ambivalent, all of its characters moving targets. This ambiguity elevates Marlowe’s poetry, brings out the psychology of even minor characters, and renders the extreme violence of the denouement as gripping as it is surreal.
The play is ambivalent about the meaning of Edward II’s queerness—but the theme is not subtle. Gaveston tells us right away what Edward “delights to see”:
Sometime a lovely boy in Dian’s shape,
With hair that gilds the water as it glides,
Crownets of pearl about his naked arms,
And in his sportful hands an olive-tree,
To hide those parts which men delight to see,
And if it is unclear whether Gaveston’s love for his king is as genuine as Edward II’s for him, Edward’s second lover, Spencer, is as distraught at their separation as at his own impending death—echoing Edward’s ardor for Gaveston earlier in the play:
O, is he gone? is noble Edward gone?
Parted from hence, never to see us more!
Rend, sphere of heaven! and, fire, forsake thy orb!
Earth, melt to air! gone is my sovereign,
Gone, gone, alas, never to make return!
Edward’s own character manages to be at once indeterminate and all-too-human. But then, the entire play is ambivalent, all of its characters moving targets. This ambiguity elevates Marlowe’s poetry, brings out the psychology of even minor characters, and renders the extreme violence of the denouement as gripping as it is surreal.
January 29, 2019
Aside from the fact that I will see it performed at the Globe Theater in March, I didn't know much about Edward II when I picked it up. While I'm still looking forward to the performance, Christopher Marlowe's Edward II falls short in a number of areas. Some of the language is interesting, but the main characters are hopelessly one dimensional. Edward II, recently made king, rescinds banishment for his favorite, Gaveston. Gaveston has very few redeeming qualities; he is just desirous of pleasure and gaining the king's favor. Edward is obsessed beyond all reason for Gaveston who others in his court refer to as the king's toy. This single minded obsession which falls into self pity when Edward is away from the object of his desire gets old quickly. I would have preferred rage over the self-pity, but that's all Edward could muster. 2.75 stars and here's hoping it's a good performance!
February 7, 2015
What I've learned? When it comes to choosing between your kingdom and a pretty boy, you should probably choose your kingdom. Not that I would, but that probably just strengthens the point.
August 7, 2020
"Cual Juno en delirio llenaré el campo de murmullos, de suspiros y gritos; pues tras Ganimedes no chocheo Júpiter tanto como él tras el maldito de Gaveston"
Me gustó mucho y también me sorprendió esta tragedia. ¿Recuerdan a aquel príncipe homosexual y apocado de la película "Corazón Valiente" hijo del rey apodado piernas largas? Bueno pues ese es Eduardo II. Esta tragedia me permitió conocer una parte de la historia de Inglaterra que ignoraba. Pues parece que su amor por el noble francés Gaveston llevó a la completa perdición de Eduardo II.
Toda la debilidad del rey y sus excesos de orgías y derroches llevan a la escalada de diferentes nobles como Kent, Lancaster, Warwick y muchos más, liderados por el valiente y galán Mortimer quien de paso sedujo a la reina, esposa de Eduardo II, Isabel, que hace en parte mala fama a las francesas pues me enteré que es llamada la reina loba.
Es una pieza muy interesante, me gusta mucho el dinamismo y la gran acción que hay en las obras de Marlowe, sobre todo las últimas, las hace muy emocionantes y también me parece que sabe balancear entre la acción y los parlamentos líricos, pocas obras de Shakespeare creo son tan vertiginosas.
Excelente adaptación histórica y como siempre un grado de crueldad en esta interesante pieza.
Me gustó mucho y también me sorprendió esta tragedia. ¿Recuerdan a aquel príncipe homosexual y apocado de la película "Corazón Valiente" hijo del rey apodado piernas largas? Bueno pues ese es Eduardo II. Esta tragedia me permitió conocer una parte de la historia de Inglaterra que ignoraba. Pues parece que su amor por el noble francés Gaveston llevó a la completa perdición de Eduardo II.
Toda la debilidad del rey y sus excesos de orgías y derroches llevan a la escalada de diferentes nobles como Kent, Lancaster, Warwick y muchos más, liderados por el valiente y galán Mortimer quien de paso sedujo a la reina, esposa de Eduardo II, Isabel, que hace en parte mala fama a las francesas pues me enteré que es llamada la reina loba.
Es una pieza muy interesante, me gusta mucho el dinamismo y la gran acción que hay en las obras de Marlowe, sobre todo las últimas, las hace muy emocionantes y también me parece que sabe balancear entre la acción y los parlamentos líricos, pocas obras de Shakespeare creo son tan vertiginosas.
Excelente adaptación histórica y como siempre un grado de crueldad en esta interesante pieza.
October 23, 2019
Despite some beautifully written lines and an interesting topic, this play didn't accumulate to much. I found it fascinating, but ultimately not very satisfying. The portrayal of homoerotic/ homosexual relationship is an interesting choice of topic for a play. It seems terribly advanced for its time. It is hard to know how the public saw this play at that time, but they must have understood the unorthodox nature of this relationship. The concept of a power stripped king is an ironical one. In Marlowe's edition, Edward II is a powerless monarch. Everyone seems to have more political power than him, even his wife. The problem is that Edward II doesn't do anything to deserve power. Therefore, it was hard to relate to his troubles. His lover wasn't much of a character either. He seemed only interested in the king for what the king can offer him (influence and material wealth). It was hard to sympathize with this couple. I wanted to, but I couldn't.
February 8, 2015
A story of sex and politics
15 February 2014
My first encounter with this play was a movie that I watched once on SBS (the Special Broadcasting Commission for you non-Australians – this television station specialises in foreign and art-house programs, and soccer, however it has earned the moniker of 'Sex before Soccer' because a lot of the foreign movies are quite saucey) and I would have to say that this movie pretty much falls into the category of 'gay cinema'. Now, because I am not homosexual I have never been interested in gay cinema, however this movie intrigued me even more when I discovered that it was written by the one and only Kit Marlowe.
As I read through this play (the second time that is) I came to realise how it does fall into the category of gay literature because it revolves around the love affair between King Edward II of England and his lover Piers Galveston, who happens to be a commoner. In a way this play could easily be about any king of that period who falls in love with a commoner, however the fact that his lover is male no doubt adds insult to injury. Kings would have had their fare share of concubines and prostitutes, and while I thought that the issue that confronted the antagonists of the play was that he was sleeping with a commoner, the more of think about it the more I realise that this probably went on all the time.
The problem was that his lover was a man, and a commoner, and the concern that the antagonists had was that Galveston held power over Edward and as such could use his influence as Edward's lover to better his position, as well as holding the hear of the king. However Galveston is pretty quickly dealt with by the antagonists, much to the king's horror, and we then learn that he finds himself another lover. What is really interesting is that this story is true – according to this play Edward II was a homosexual, and the only reason that he married Queen Isabella was so that he might have legitimate children to inherit the throne.
One could see this as a tale of a jilted lover, that being Isabella, who was effectively sidelined in favour of Galveston, but the truth of the matter is that royalty do not marry for love, they marry for political convenience (or at least they did in those days) so it would not be all that uncommon for royals to only have sex with their partners to produce legitimate offspring. Further, I am not convinced that the problem necessarily lay with the fact that Edward was having an affair with another male because no doubt that was occurring as well, but the problem was the status of his lover. A king could not marry a commoner, but no doubt he could have one as a concubine. However I suspect that it was different when it came to males because what we see here, and it is emphasised throughout the play, is that this was not the Greek or Roman idea of an old man sleeping with a young man, but rather a relationship of love, and a relationship that threatened to upset the social order – he was in love with a commoner and was raising the commoner to the position of a noble, which was something that was not to be done.
However, as the play moves on (and Marlowe has compressed the entire reign of Edward II into the play, as well as the epilogue where Edward III seeks revenge against the antagonists Mortimer and Isabella) it comes to light that Edward is not a strong king, but Mortimer, being Isabella's lover (and there is no criticism of that relationship) has gained such power that he is able to take the position of regent (namely the king that rules in place of a child king) and arranges for Edward's death. Yet Edward was not universally hated, particularly since Edward III after his coronation orders the release of his uncle, and then turns on Mortimer to make sure that his reign does not come to an abrupt end (as generally happened in those times). Mind you, from what I have read of the story of Edward III dealing with Mortimer, it was a lot more bloodier than occurred in this play, however the name of Mortimer has now come down to us as the atypical name of a bad guy.
Such is the power of the literary genius.
15 February 2014
My first encounter with this play was a movie that I watched once on SBS (the Special Broadcasting Commission for you non-Australians – this television station specialises in foreign and art-house programs, and soccer, however it has earned the moniker of 'Sex before Soccer' because a lot of the foreign movies are quite saucey) and I would have to say that this movie pretty much falls into the category of 'gay cinema'. Now, because I am not homosexual I have never been interested in gay cinema, however this movie intrigued me even more when I discovered that it was written by the one and only Kit Marlowe.
As I read through this play (the second time that is) I came to realise how it does fall into the category of gay literature because it revolves around the love affair between King Edward II of England and his lover Piers Galveston, who happens to be a commoner. In a way this play could easily be about any king of that period who falls in love with a commoner, however the fact that his lover is male no doubt adds insult to injury. Kings would have had their fare share of concubines and prostitutes, and while I thought that the issue that confronted the antagonists of the play was that he was sleeping with a commoner, the more of think about it the more I realise that this probably went on all the time.
The problem was that his lover was a man, and a commoner, and the concern that the antagonists had was that Galveston held power over Edward and as such could use his influence as Edward's lover to better his position, as well as holding the hear of the king. However Galveston is pretty quickly dealt with by the antagonists, much to the king's horror, and we then learn that he finds himself another lover. What is really interesting is that this story is true – according to this play Edward II was a homosexual, and the only reason that he married Queen Isabella was so that he might have legitimate children to inherit the throne.
One could see this as a tale of a jilted lover, that being Isabella, who was effectively sidelined in favour of Galveston, but the truth of the matter is that royalty do not marry for love, they marry for political convenience (or at least they did in those days) so it would not be all that uncommon for royals to only have sex with their partners to produce legitimate offspring. Further, I am not convinced that the problem necessarily lay with the fact that Edward was having an affair with another male because no doubt that was occurring as well, but the problem was the status of his lover. A king could not marry a commoner, but no doubt he could have one as a concubine. However I suspect that it was different when it came to males because what we see here, and it is emphasised throughout the play, is that this was not the Greek or Roman idea of an old man sleeping with a young man, but rather a relationship of love, and a relationship that threatened to upset the social order – he was in love with a commoner and was raising the commoner to the position of a noble, which was something that was not to be done.
However, as the play moves on (and Marlowe has compressed the entire reign of Edward II into the play, as well as the epilogue where Edward III seeks revenge against the antagonists Mortimer and Isabella) it comes to light that Edward is not a strong king, but Mortimer, being Isabella's lover (and there is no criticism of that relationship) has gained such power that he is able to take the position of regent (namely the king that rules in place of a child king) and arranges for Edward's death. Yet Edward was not universally hated, particularly since Edward III after his coronation orders the release of his uncle, and then turns on Mortimer to make sure that his reign does not come to an abrupt end (as generally happened in those times). Mind you, from what I have read of the story of Edward III dealing with Mortimer, it was a lot more bloodier than occurred in this play, however the name of Mortimer has now come down to us as the atypical name of a bad guy.
Such is the power of the literary genius.
January 19, 2016
The 1970 stage adaptation of this play stars Sir Ian McKellen and James Laurenson. It is perfection!
Your lover or your kingdom... you decide...
Your lover or your kingdom... you decide...
February 12, 2015
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 18, 2025
unironically? edward did nothing wrong
--
2025 reread: reread this mostly to compare with richard ii, because they're very interesting to read in light of one another (i recommend the this shakespeare is gay podcast episode). and wow, i had forgotten so much of this! it doesn't have the sauce for me the way r2 does (the middle felt. very long) but it is the most beautifully homosexual play from this era i've ever read. so. liveblog of my thoughts going along (spoiler bar for space)
this time i read the mermaids edition with an intro by stephen guy-bray, which is a really really fantastic intro. let's everybody get into SODOMY
--
2025 reread: reread this mostly to compare with richard ii, because they're very interesting to read in light of one another (i recommend the this shakespeare is gay podcast episode). and wow, i had forgotten so much of this! it doesn't have the sauce for me the way r2 does (the middle felt. very long) but it is the most beautifully homosexual play from this era i've ever read. so. liveblog of my thoughts going along (spoiler bar for space)
this time i read the mermaids edition with an intro by stephen guy-bray, which is a really really fantastic intro. let's everybody get into SODOMY
February 3, 2021
From the first line the action starts, I’m totally gripped – and I feel like I’m watching an action flick but there’s no car chase scenes. Instead, all the edge of the seat drama is with continual verbal interchange.
I enjoyed reading this play, but I did notice how the characters of Edward II and his wife, Isabella, change with no foreshadowing. Edward II changes from a king that is paranoid, insecure and needs to be continually indulged to one who is saintly and humble. Isabella’s change is equally extreme, she starts off as a loyal, loving wife to a smart politician and then changes again to a traitor. I’m beginning to understand that the inner change of these characters is not meant to be coherent, as audiences it was originally written for would not have needed this context. Wanting to be in that audience’s shoes I did extra reading of my own though the real historical events are covered very loosely by the in-depth essay and notes accompanying this play. I’m glad I did, otherwise I would have missed how cleverly Christopher Marlowe crafted his story.
I get by on British history but early 1300s, is pretty much a blank slate, so I would have accepted Marlowe’s version of Edward II’s reign, as it’s believable. However, reading a chapter, headed Isabella, in She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth by Helen Castor, gave me the context that I was looking for. Helen Castor highlights how Isabella is one of the many queens of England who’ve earned themselves a reputation that views them unkindly. Her book illustrates her story objectively whilst drawing a historical backdrop of greed, corruption, ambition, civil war and jealousy. Her chapter highlighted how this all went on whilst the everyday people, who have no say in the fall-outs between a king and his lords, go on blindly. There were times I did wonder if Edward was a better king than would his people suffered less? But this is a distraction, as Marlowe’s play focuses on the incompetent king who is so easily led that he has no clue what impact he is having on his court, his people and his own life. Marlowe also tells his tale by distilling real historical events into composite scenes and characters to illustrate the conflict, which in real terms lasted decades. Reading the chapter in Helen Castor’s book helped me make sense of the sudden change in the characters of Edward II and Isabella.
In Marlowe’s play, the conflict is fuelled by Edward’s favouritism towards Piers Gaveston, a nobody that’s climbed the ranks because the Edward prefers his company to his own wife and running the country. His lords are not happy, but all is calm whilst Marlowe’s Isabella remains patient, a patient that Edward II takes for granted and overlooks the power his wife has when she is the mother of the next king of England. This short-sightedness doesn’t see the peril that is to come to both his and Gaveston’s life.
I won’t say how the play ends, the tension was relentless, and Marlowe’s poetry sweetened big moralistic message.
I enjoyed reading this play, but I did notice how the characters of Edward II and his wife, Isabella, change with no foreshadowing. Edward II changes from a king that is paranoid, insecure and needs to be continually indulged to one who is saintly and humble. Isabella’s change is equally extreme, she starts off as a loyal, loving wife to a smart politician and then changes again to a traitor. I’m beginning to understand that the inner change of these characters is not meant to be coherent, as audiences it was originally written for would not have needed this context. Wanting to be in that audience’s shoes I did extra reading of my own though the real historical events are covered very loosely by the in-depth essay and notes accompanying this play. I’m glad I did, otherwise I would have missed how cleverly Christopher Marlowe crafted his story.
I get by on British history but early 1300s, is pretty much a blank slate, so I would have accepted Marlowe’s version of Edward II’s reign, as it’s believable. However, reading a chapter, headed Isabella, in She-Wolves: The Women Who Ruled England Before Elizabeth by Helen Castor, gave me the context that I was looking for. Helen Castor highlights how Isabella is one of the many queens of England who’ve earned themselves a reputation that views them unkindly. Her book illustrates her story objectively whilst drawing a historical backdrop of greed, corruption, ambition, civil war and jealousy. Her chapter highlighted how this all went on whilst the everyday people, who have no say in the fall-outs between a king and his lords, go on blindly. There were times I did wonder if Edward was a better king than would his people suffered less? But this is a distraction, as Marlowe’s play focuses on the incompetent king who is so easily led that he has no clue what impact he is having on his court, his people and his own life. Marlowe also tells his tale by distilling real historical events into composite scenes and characters to illustrate the conflict, which in real terms lasted decades. Reading the chapter in Helen Castor’s book helped me make sense of the sudden change in the characters of Edward II and Isabella.
In Marlowe’s play, the conflict is fuelled by Edward’s favouritism towards Piers Gaveston, a nobody that’s climbed the ranks because the Edward prefers his company to his own wife and running the country. His lords are not happy, but all is calm whilst Marlowe’s Isabella remains patient, a patient that Edward II takes for granted and overlooks the power his wife has when she is the mother of the next king of England. This short-sightedness doesn’t see the peril that is to come to both his and Gaveston’s life.
I won’t say how the play ends, the tension was relentless, and Marlowe’s poetry sweetened big moralistic message.
September 10, 2011
Like Shakespeare's Richard II, Edward is an ineffective ruler but not an evil one; Richard prized luxury and pleasure, Edward is blinded by his love for a male commoner. Contrary to what one might think, it's not his homosexuality which offends the nobles (they comment is a typical "weakness" of rulers and noble minds, remembering Alexander or Socrates) but his choice of a low class lover.Edward is unable to play his cards well and his wife and subjects rebel against him, murdering his beloved. Even if we know he brought about his own disgrace we can't help but pitying this helpless king who is brutally murdered and we cheer when his son avenges him rightfully.
A story of power, desire and human failure, Edward II is poignant and beautiful and probably Marlowe's masterpiece.
A story of power, desire and human failure, Edward II is poignant and beautiful and probably Marlowe's masterpiece.
April 5, 2017
Tragedie istorică în cinci acte, surprinzând întreaga domnie a regelui Eduard al II-lea al Angliei. Marlowe comprimă realitatea istorică, din considerente de spaţiu. Opera merită citită, dacă nu pentru cunoaşterea romanţată a istoriei în sine, cel puţin pentru sentimentul de frustrare dobândit în urma relevării unor caractere înzorzonate cu grade ereditare, pioase şi de o uscatime aristocratică, figuri ce conduc destinele atâtor oameni şi în numele cărora se moare fără rost.
December 22, 2017
And yet another reason why Marlowe is my dude
September 11, 2020
It has been a very long time since I read a play, possibly counted in the decades. I should read more of them! And this is a more-ish one - non-stop action (not into the soliloquies, Marlowe, it’s all ‘off with your head’ and ‘oh no, not the hot spit’) and Elizabethan sexual politics, as powerful barons take armed offence at the king’s passionate attachment to his male favourite, and the queen gets in on the action with a male favourite of her own. You can tell these people are awful because they talk about themselves in the third person. Hoping Edward III turned out ok with such a messed up family....
March 17, 2016
I love Marlowe, and this is one of his best - confusingly heartbreaking and brilliant and incredible. Edward's speech in Act 3 Scene 2 (lines 128-47) is so fantastically bombastic that I just want to have it played on loop constantly. If I had a one-use time machine I would 100% spend my singular journey preventing Marlowe's premature death.
Read
December 17, 2022I really liked this when I read it in 2017 at the height of my Shakespeare obsession, but now, 5 years later (and reading it for a class this time), I just found it an absolute slog to get through. I think this play is most interesting for what it teaches about the anxieties around homosexuality & foreignness in the early modern period, and for the adaptations it's spawned. The Derek Jarman movie is great. Other than that... not for me anyone. Too bad!
I'm going to keep most of my original review from 2017 up, but also going to delete some bits for cringe factor and also because I really did not understand anything about sexual identity (or rather, lack thereof) in early modern England back then, and am now pretty embarrassed about it.
[2017 review]
Wow. I just read this entire play in an afternoon, and honestly I'm shook. This is such a fascinating play! I'd never read any of Marlowe's work before, but I really like it... I definitely want to read Faustus now.
First of all... I love how unambiguously gay this is, especially compared to Shakespeare. It's awesome. Just take the first few lines:
Enter GAVESTON, reading a letter.
Gav. 'My father is deceas'd. Come, Gaveston,
And share the kingdom with thy dearest friend.'
Ah, words that make me surfeit with delight!
What greater bliss can hap to Gaveston
Than live and be the favourite of a king!
Sweet prince, I come! these, thy amorous lines
Might have enforc'd me to have swum from France,
And, like Leander, gasp'd upon the sand,
So thou wouldst smile, and take me in thine arms.
And these:
Young Mortimer: Why should you love him whom the world hates so?
King Edward: Because he loves me more than all the world.
The relationship between Edward and Gaveston is so sweet and loving. All their interactions were great... I wish I could see a production. Gay people in Elizabethan theater!!! The concept is incredible to me.
And the clear presence of homophobia in the story is interesting as well. Mortimer & co object to Gaveston because he's (so they say) a flatterer and a commoner (classism anyone?)... but maybe also because he's a man. There's certainly a lot of prejudice going on, and I felt incredibly sorry for Edward and Gaveston throughout the first few acts.
But Marlowe, brilliantly, doesn't just make it white and black. Mortimer & co have legitimate grievances: Edward is not the world's best king, and he really shouldn't be giving Gaveston (and others he likes) so many privileges and favors. There's also the Queen, who I think is a fascinating character. I feel really sorry for her too—Edward is pretty mean to her, and I can certainly understand why she ends up betraying him. But still, she remains very morally ambiguous until the end.
"O that mine arms could close this isle about, / That I might pull him to me where I would! / Or that these tears that drizzle from mine eyes / Had power to mollify his stony heart, / That when I had him we might never part."
— good lines from the Queen
And then Gaveston dies, and the entire plot shifts. It's heartbreaking, and awful that the rebels would kill him before he has a chance to see Edward again. After this pivotal point, you can see Edward devolve into a mess, much like Shakespeare's Richard II does. They both talk a lot about death, kingship, and being deposed. And when they eventually, inevitably die... it's really sad.
Mortimer is also an interesting character. He starts out as a guy with a legitimate reason to dislike the king (though definitely one influenced by prejudice), and is carried away in his power-hungry rage. He has a fantastic speech near the end which basically amounts to "mwahahah I'm in control of everything, even the new king Edward III!"
The parallels with Richard II, and other plays by Shakespeare, are also fascinating. Compare:
"Gallop apace, bright Phoebus, through the sky" (Edward II)
"Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds" (Romeo & Juliet)
"Down, down I come; like glistering Phaethon, / Wanting the manage of unruly jades." (Richard II)
"Ignoble vassal, that like Phaeton / Aspir'st unto the guidance of the sun!" (Edward II)
Ultimately, I think that Shakespeare writes better speeches because he gets really abstract and speaks through his characters in interesting ways, but that isn't to say that Marlowe isn't brilliant as well.
I'd just like to mention some lines I especially like:
"You must be proud, bold, pleasant, resolute, / And now and then stab, as occasion serves."
"But what are kings, when regiment is gone, / But perfect shadows in a sunshine day?"
"Come, death, and with thy fingers close my eyes, / Or if I live, let me forget myself."
"Base Fortune, now I see, that in thy wheel / There is a point, to which when men aspire, / They tumble headlong down: that point I touch'd, / And, seeing there was no place to mount up higher, / Why should I grieve at my declining fall?"
Recommended for people who love Shakespeare, especially his history plays!!
I'm going to keep most of my original review from 2017 up, but also going to delete some bits for cringe factor and also because I really did not understand anything about sexual identity (or rather, lack thereof) in early modern England back then, and am now pretty embarrassed about it.
[2017 review]
Wow. I just read this entire play in an afternoon, and honestly I'm shook. This is such a fascinating play! I'd never read any of Marlowe's work before, but I really like it... I definitely want to read Faustus now.
First of all... I love how unambiguously gay this is, especially compared to Shakespeare. It's awesome. Just take the first few lines:
Enter GAVESTON, reading a letter.
Gav. 'My father is deceas'd. Come, Gaveston,
And share the kingdom with thy dearest friend.'
Ah, words that make me surfeit with delight!
What greater bliss can hap to Gaveston
Than live and be the favourite of a king!
Sweet prince, I come! these, thy amorous lines
Might have enforc'd me to have swum from France,
And, like Leander, gasp'd upon the sand,
So thou wouldst smile, and take me in thine arms.
And these:
Young Mortimer: Why should you love him whom the world hates so?
King Edward: Because he loves me more than all the world.
The relationship between Edward and Gaveston is so sweet and loving. All their interactions were great... I wish I could see a production. Gay people in Elizabethan theater!!! The concept is incredible to me.
And the clear presence of homophobia in the story is interesting as well. Mortimer & co object to Gaveston because he's (so they say) a flatterer and a commoner (classism anyone?)... but maybe also because he's a man. There's certainly a lot of prejudice going on, and I felt incredibly sorry for Edward and Gaveston throughout the first few acts.
But Marlowe, brilliantly, doesn't just make it white and black. Mortimer & co have legitimate grievances: Edward is not the world's best king, and he really shouldn't be giving Gaveston (and others he likes) so many privileges and favors. There's also the Queen, who I think is a fascinating character. I feel really sorry for her too—Edward is pretty mean to her, and I can certainly understand why she ends up betraying him. But still, she remains very morally ambiguous until the end.
"O that mine arms could close this isle about, / That I might pull him to me where I would! / Or that these tears that drizzle from mine eyes / Had power to mollify his stony heart, / That when I had him we might never part."
— good lines from the Queen
And then Gaveston dies, and the entire plot shifts. It's heartbreaking, and awful that the rebels would kill him before he has a chance to see Edward again. After this pivotal point, you can see Edward devolve into a mess, much like Shakespeare's Richard II does. They both talk a lot about death, kingship, and being deposed. And when they eventually, inevitably die... it's really sad.
Mortimer is also an interesting character. He starts out as a guy with a legitimate reason to dislike the king (though definitely one influenced by prejudice), and is carried away in his power-hungry rage. He has a fantastic speech near the end which basically amounts to "mwahahah I'm in control of everything, even the new king Edward III!"
The parallels with Richard II, and other plays by Shakespeare, are also fascinating. Compare:
"Gallop apace, bright Phoebus, through the sky" (Edward II)
"Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds" (Romeo & Juliet)
"Down, down I come; like glistering Phaethon, / Wanting the manage of unruly jades." (Richard II)
"Ignoble vassal, that like Phaeton / Aspir'st unto the guidance of the sun!" (Edward II)
Ultimately, I think that Shakespeare writes better speeches because he gets really abstract and speaks through his characters in interesting ways, but that isn't to say that Marlowe isn't brilliant as well.
I'd just like to mention some lines I especially like:
"You must be proud, bold, pleasant, resolute, / And now and then stab, as occasion serves."
"But what are kings, when regiment is gone, / But perfect shadows in a sunshine day?"
"Come, death, and with thy fingers close my eyes, / Or if I live, let me forget myself."
"Base Fortune, now I see, that in thy wheel / There is a point, to which when men aspire, / They tumble headlong down: that point I touch'd, / And, seeing there was no place to mount up higher, / Why should I grieve at my declining fall?"
Recommended for people who love Shakespeare, especially his history plays!!
February 16, 2014
Warning: this review contains major spoilers!
December 2, 2020
I'm impressed by this fascinating piece of art.
ويظل سؤالي يتكرر، ماذا كان ليحدث لو عاش مارلو ثلاثون عاماً أخرى؟
ويظل سؤالي يتكرر، ماذا كان ليحدث لو عاش مارلو ثلاثون عاماً أخرى؟
May 10, 2014
An interesting historical play on "The troublesome reign and lamentable death of Edward the Second, King of England; with the tragical fall of proud Mortimer", by Shakespeare´s contemporary and rival, Kit Marlowe.
Nowadays, it is probably inevitable to start by comparing the two authors; in the case of this play perhaps the closest comparison would be to Shakespeare´s Richard II, which indeed is sometimes said to have been inspired by Marlowe´s drama. Both plays are based on similar chronicles about weak Plantagenet kings during the turbulent times framed by the War of the Roses. They are both historically inaccurate, carefully written to pass the censureship constraints and to comply with the propaganda needs and desires of the Tudor dynasty which overthrew and succeeded the Plantagenets. Both plays depict the unruly and often bloody, machiavellian political power struggles of the times, between king and feudal barons. They are fast-paced, gory narratives with memorable key scenes with twisting plot lines as the struggle favours now one, then another party.
Although Marlowe appears to have a better grasp of classical education, which shows itself in allusions to greek and roman deities and in its inclusions of some passages in latin (usually cut in modern productions), Marlowe´s language in this play is sparer and, for the modern reader, simpler than Shakespeare at the stage of Richard II; there are fewer allusions and less word play and punning. Marlowe is crueller and more sadistic. The final death scene of Edward II is more harrowing than anything in Shakespeare, with the exception of the blinding in King Lear. Marlowe reports on Edward´s cold-blooded gaolers indulging in psychological deprivation and physical hardships in order to break the king, while the professional assasin, Lightborne, relishes in his knowledge of methods of murder, dwelling, for example, in detail on the use of particular poisons. He calls on his assistants to "..lay the table down, and stamp on it/But not too hard, lest that you bruise his body", thus, presumably letting Edward die of internal injuries, to the point where Lightborne gets carried away by his handicraft and proudly exclaims in self-admiration "Tell me sirs, was it not bravely done?".
If you like Shakespeare´s early historical plays, I would highly recommend this play, if only to see what sort of competition Shakespeare was up against in his own time. I would also recommend reading this play while listening to the first two episodes of BBC Radio´s 1977 26-episode BBC radio drama Vivat Rex, in which John Hurt portrayed Edward. These two episodes constitute a slightly abridged version of the play and add a narrator (Richard Burton) to help identify where and when the different scenes take place.
Nowadays, it is probably inevitable to start by comparing the two authors; in the case of this play perhaps the closest comparison would be to Shakespeare´s Richard II, which indeed is sometimes said to have been inspired by Marlowe´s drama. Both plays are based on similar chronicles about weak Plantagenet kings during the turbulent times framed by the War of the Roses. They are both historically inaccurate, carefully written to pass the censureship constraints and to comply with the propaganda needs and desires of the Tudor dynasty which overthrew and succeeded the Plantagenets. Both plays depict the unruly and often bloody, machiavellian political power struggles of the times, between king and feudal barons. They are fast-paced, gory narratives with memorable key scenes with twisting plot lines as the struggle favours now one, then another party.
Although Marlowe appears to have a better grasp of classical education, which shows itself in allusions to greek and roman deities and in its inclusions of some passages in latin (usually cut in modern productions), Marlowe´s language in this play is sparer and, for the modern reader, simpler than Shakespeare at the stage of Richard II; there are fewer allusions and less word play and punning. Marlowe is crueller and more sadistic. The final death scene of Edward II is more harrowing than anything in Shakespeare, with the exception of the blinding in King Lear. Marlowe reports on Edward´s cold-blooded gaolers indulging in psychological deprivation and physical hardships in order to break the king, while the professional assasin, Lightborne, relishes in his knowledge of methods of murder, dwelling, for example, in detail on the use of particular poisons. He calls on his assistants to "..lay the table down, and stamp on it/But not too hard, lest that you bruise his body", thus, presumably letting Edward die of internal injuries, to the point where Lightborne gets carried away by his handicraft and proudly exclaims in self-admiration "Tell me sirs, was it not bravely done?".
If you like Shakespeare´s early historical plays, I would highly recommend this play, if only to see what sort of competition Shakespeare was up against in his own time. I would also recommend reading this play while listening to the first two episodes of BBC Radio´s 1977 26-episode BBC radio drama Vivat Rex, in which John Hurt portrayed Edward. These two episodes constitute a slightly abridged version of the play and add a narrator (Richard Burton) to help identify where and when the different scenes take place.
October 2, 2013
It’s always interesting to listen to Elizabethan plays which aren’t Shakespeare. It lets you see how much of the grandeur of his work is based one what, back then, was a sort of national style. Marlowe does good work here, and the readers in the Librivox version are great, but he’s let down a little by the historical events he’s chosen to portray, and the political slant he takes. Basically this is the period where Edward II is infatuated with Piers Gaveston, and splits his realm in half over it. I presume I’m meant to be on Edward’s side, as he loses everything for love. It is, however, hard favour him, because he goes about the whole business in such a dreadfully stupid way.
If he’d just kept Gaveston as an Extra Gentleman of the Wardrobe, it would have been considered a bit odd, but since he’d already fathered an heir, it would have been easy enough for him to get away with. Some of the Stewarts get away with this sort of thing. His flaw is that he wants to make his lover the most powerful noble other than him in the Realm. Powerful forces of reaction rise up and destroy him. Then Marlowe chickens out on the real historical drama and has Edward III roll in and kill the conspirators.
In real life, the queen and her lover, Mortimer, controlled the kingdom. Young Edward, knowing he’d be killed if he got in their way, played a masterful game of pretending to be a young buffoon. He used tournaments and binges to mask the consolidation of a power bloc within the younger generation and those disaffected with the current regime. Then, with a band of his tournament friends, he captured and executed Mortimer, and forced his mother into a nunnery. I think Edward’s early life is a great story, and Marlowe just skips it entirely.
Recommended for Shakespeare fans, and those liking stories of tragic infatuation.
This review originally appeared on book coasters
If he’d just kept Gaveston as an Extra Gentleman of the Wardrobe, it would have been considered a bit odd, but since he’d already fathered an heir, it would have been easy enough for him to get away with. Some of the Stewarts get away with this sort of thing. His flaw is that he wants to make his lover the most powerful noble other than him in the Realm. Powerful forces of reaction rise up and destroy him. Then Marlowe chickens out on the real historical drama and has Edward III roll in and kill the conspirators.
In real life, the queen and her lover, Mortimer, controlled the kingdom. Young Edward, knowing he’d be killed if he got in their way, played a masterful game of pretending to be a young buffoon. He used tournaments and binges to mask the consolidation of a power bloc within the younger generation and those disaffected with the current regime. Then, with a band of his tournament friends, he captured and executed Mortimer, and forced his mother into a nunnery. I think Edward’s early life is a great story, and Marlowe just skips it entirely.
Recommended for Shakespeare fans, and those liking stories of tragic infatuation.
This review originally appeared on book coasters
September 3, 2012
This excellent student edition is a good place to begin with Marlowe and this thrilling play. I think editor Martin Wiggins is quite right that Edward's downfall came not because he was homosexual, but because of the political mistakes he made in giving away favors, taxing the barons, and taking advantage of them. He may do much of this because he shows favor to his lovers, but those who bring about Edward's downfall tolerate his lovers until Edward's actions affect them. Great insight into a great play.
May 1, 2012
From BBC Radio 4 Extra:
Richard Burton narrates the playwright's chronicle of the English Crown. Marlowe's Edward II faces rebellion. Stars John Hurt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gxn5p
Richard Burton narrates the playwright's chronicle of the English Crown. Marlowe's Edward II faces rebellion. Stars John Hurt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gxn5p
June 14, 2020
İngiltere Krallığının tahttan indirilen (1307-1327) kralı II. Edward’ın (1284-1327) düşüşünü ve oğlu III. Edward’ın yükselişini konu alan Christopher Marlowe’un aynı adlı oyunu, dramatik yapısı ve sürükleyici olay örgüsüyle Marlowe’un "Büyük Timurlenk"le beraber en başarılı dramalarından biri. Makatına sokulan kızgın şişle can veren II. Edward’ın Gaveston’a olan eş cinsel tutkusu yüzünden başta soyluları ve halkı karşısına almasıyla başlayan oyunda soylu Genç Mortimer devamlı krala karşı gelmektedir. Zamanla ülke aşkının yerini taht ve güç tutkusunun aldığı Mortimer, kralla olan ilk savaşında yenilmesine rağmen Kraliçe Isabel’le birlikte olarak rövanşı kazanmasıyla kralı tahttan indirip, öldürttürür. Bu ana kadar oldukça dramatik ve sürükleyici bir oyun sunan "II. Edward"ın son perdesi ise ne yazık ki "Büyük Timurlenk I-II" olma şansını geri tepiyor. III. Edward’ın tahta geçmesi ve babasının ölümünü öğrenmesiyle Mortimer ve annesi Isabel’i ölüme mahkum ettiği final yaklaşık 2-3 sayfayla çözüme ulaşıyor. Marlowe’un cinayete kurban gittiği için son büyük oyunu olması düşünüldüğünde belki anlaşılabilir durum. Buna rağmen kesinlikle okunması gereken İngiliz dramalarından. Tam notum: 4,5/5
13.06.2020
Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
13.06.2020
Londra, Birleşik Krallık
Alp Turgut
September 12, 2011
3 stars instead of the 4 the play probably deserves only because my edition had endnotes instead of footnotes, which was endlessly frustrating and flow-obstructing. Not the play's fault, but the experience (unfairly) tainted the play in my first reading of it.
Edward II is less boisterous than any of the other Marlowe plays I've read, which given the subject - the deposition of King Edward II because of his low-class and homosexual love affair with Piers Gaveston - makes sense. Despite the bawdy puns, the play remains somber and intense throughout. As someone in my class mentioned: "the play is almost determined not to be liked." Very chilling (and potentially nausea inducing) ending.
Edward II is less boisterous than any of the other Marlowe plays I've read, which given the subject - the deposition of King Edward II because of his low-class and homosexual love affair with Piers Gaveston - makes sense. Despite the bawdy puns, the play remains somber and intense throughout. As someone in my class mentioned: "the play is almost determined not to be liked." Very chilling (and potentially nausea inducing) ending.
November 20, 2011
Wow. Such a boring play. Edward II comes off as a whining idiot. His affection for Gaveston is pathetic and I cannot believe he lasted as king for more than a few weeks. I am not entirely familiar with Edward II as a real person, therefore I cannot comment much on this representation of his character. It does make me wonder how he would react to it though. In this play, he is portrayed as a love sick idiot who is so taken by a man that he forsakes his wife. There is much more to it, but that is mostly what I got from my reading. It was hard to keep my eyes open during this one. I must say, I do not like Marlowe's writing. Shakespeare is much more my cup of proverbial tea.
February 5, 2018
3.6 stars
Wow, this is an incredibly gay play. The play as a whole is about a weak king who is so obsessed with his lover, he can't be bothered to pay attention to his wife or kingdom. Naturally nobody else likes that and mutiny ensues. The plot is fast and erratic moving through plot points and events very quickly. In the first couple of acts Edward and everyone else is primarily fixated on his lover Gaveston, but as the play continues the focus shifts to killing Edward and there is more room for thought on other (probably more important) issues. An entertaining play, even though the extremely-non-subtextual homosexuality in the beginning will bother some readers.
Wow, this is an incredibly gay play. The play as a whole is about a weak king who is so obsessed with his lover, he can't be bothered to pay attention to his wife or kingdom. Naturally nobody else likes that and mutiny ensues. The plot is fast and erratic moving through plot points and events very quickly. In the first couple of acts Edward and everyone else is primarily fixated on his lover Gaveston, but as the play continues the focus shifts to killing Edward and there is more room for thought on other (probably more important) issues. An entertaining play, even though the extremely-non-subtextual homosexuality in the beginning will bother some readers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 378 reviews