Paris'te Katliam

by Christopher Marlowe, Özdemir Nutku (Translator)

Christopher Marlowe, (1564-1593): Hayatı ve ölümü bir gizem perdesiyle örtülü olan sanatçı Elizabeth döneminin en önemli oyun yazarları arasında yer alır. Canterbury'de bir ayakkabıcının oğlu olarak dünyaya gelmiş, zekâ ve yeteneği ile sivrilmiş, zamanının en iyi eğitimini almıştır. Din öğrenimi yapmak üzere gittiği Cambridge Üniversitesi'nde tarih ve felsefeyle de ilgilenmiş, Fransızca öğrenmiş, lisans ve lisans üstü derecelerle mezun olmuştur. İngiliz tiyatrosunda uyaksız dizeler ve açık ölçü sayesinde dilin tüm olanaklarının kullanılabildiği yeni bir çığırın öncüsü olmuştur. Kartaca Kraliçesi Dido'yu Thomas Nashe ile birlikte 1587'den önce yazdığı tahmin edilmektedir. Bu oyunu Büyük Timurlenk I-II, Maltalı Yahudi, Doktor Faustus ve II. Edward izler. Paris'te Katliam yazarın son oyunudur. Uyumsuz, kavgacı ve küfürbaz bir insan olan Marlowe'un Katolik öğrenciler arasında devlet ajanı olarak çalıştığına dair şüpheler vardır. Kalpazanlıkla suçlanmış, tanrıtanımazlık iddiasıyla kovuşturulmuş ve bir meyhane arkadaşı tarafından öldürülmüştür.

Genres: Plays, Drama, Classics, Theatre, Fiction, Renaissance, Historical Fiction

112 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1593

About the author

Christopher "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.

Reviews

[Bill Kerwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

This play is the redheaded stepchild of the Marlowe canon, and with good reason. For one thing, it is the runt of the litter, only half as long as its big brothers Tamburlaine I and II, The Jew of Malta, and Edward II. It is not nearly as eloquent as its siblings either, for it only sports one bang-up villainous speech (by the Duke de Guise), and even this speech lacks the rhetorical finish of the grand speeches of the other plays.

All this leads the critics to suspect, in addition to being abridged, that Massacre is a “reported text” or “memorial reconstruction,” that is, a copy generated by an opportunistic publisher who, lacking an official text, hires a number of actors who have performed in the play to recall its words from memory. Since the star actors rarely participated in such a venture, the principal speeches were more likely than others to be mangled and truncated. (This is the process by which the beginning of Hamlet's soliloquy “Oh what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” was transformed, in the “bad quarto” of 1603, into “Oh what a dunghill idiot slave am I!” I could give you the complete text of “To be or not to be” too, but I don't want to make you sad.)

So if the only text we have is half its original length, deprived of almost all of its best lines, why read it? Because, in its cynical, amoral, Machiavellian attitude, it is distinctively Marlowe, and it is based on a characteristically Marlovian event: the self-righteously motivated slaughter of the French Huguenots by the French Catholics during “The Massacre of St. Bartholomew.” The prospect of all these hypocritical Christians espousing their sincere belief in Jesus Christ and the saints and then hacking and shooting and poisoning their fellow Christians to death obviously fills the free-thinker Marlowe with wicked delight, giving him many opportunities, great and small, for death's head humor.

In addition, I believe that the lack of big showy speeches in Massacre may be intentional, that Marlowe may have restrained his great gift for rhetorical effect in a calculated search for a spare, realistic style, suitable to historical subjects. Massacre is a small station along the road to the spacious, densely populated but sparsely furnished inn that is Marlowe's Edward II.

(Also, consider this tantalizing possibility. The play deals with nearly contemporary events, concluding with the murder of Henry III in 1589. At the very end of the play, the new French monarch summons an "English Agent" and gives him a message to deliver to the English King. Marlowe is rumored to have been a member of Francis Walsingham's secret service, and is known to have traveled the continent during this period. Could it be that sly Kit Marlowe included himself as a character in his own play?)

[Jesús De la Jara · Rating 4 out of 5]

"LA MASACRE DE PARÍS" o "LA TRAGEDIA DE GUISA" de Christopher Marlowe

Ésta es una obra que ha llegado a nuestras manos incompleta y reconstruida a partir probablemente de los parlamentos memorizados de los protagonistas.
Me gusta mucho porque habla de un periodo muy importante en la historia francesa Las guerras de Religión (tema también abordado por la Reine Margot de Alejandro Dumas) y además por la capacidad de Marlowe de resumir años de pleitos en una sola obra. Realmente me sorprendió la veracidad histórica y lo vertiginoso de la obra, donde se aprecian muchas muertes tal como sucedió históricamente pero muy resumidas.
Es interesante apuntar que la obra narra sucesos muy contemporáneos al autor, lo que había sucedido en Francia hace unos años fue llevado a escena en Inglaterra y por supuesto que hay un enfoque político según la inclinación de la reina Isabel de Inglaterra. No está leña de diálogos memorables pero me gusto mucho la acción que maneja él duque de Guisa así como la manera que son representados los reyes Enrique III y Enrique Iv y un sinnúmero de princesas, reinas, regentes, cardenales, soldados, Etc. que a mi parecer hacen a la obra un importante testimonio de un acontecimiento histórico muy importante.

[BJ Lillis · Rating 3 out of 5]

The surviving text of The Massacre at Paris is a bare shadow of the play it may, or may not, have been. Although it’s impossible to know for sure, it probably represents about half the play Marlowe wrote, and that the London theater company Lord Strange’s Men (which included, at the time, an upstart actor and aspiring playwright named Will Shakespeare) staged in 1593. The text we do have consists, evidently, of all the murder scenes strung together, with just enough context to basically make sense.

Marlowe was a genius—a fact not unrepresented here. His verse combines elegance and violence, grace and raw power. There are scenes and speeches that for beauty, moral equivocation, and sheer bloodiness represent Marlowe at, if not his best, certainly his most characteristic. But we don’t have a whole play, and it doesn’t feel like we have a whole play. It is possible to see, in what we do have, the outline of an effective piece of theater. The subplot involving the Duchess of Guise’s attempted infidelity, for example, comes from nowhere and leads—well, to another murder, which if the murders in this play had any emotional effect, might have meant something. But it is possible to imagine, in a play twice as long, how the juxtaposition of marital strife, irrational love, and military and political power enriched and humanized and complicated Marlowe’s story.

Or maybe it was all just as random and senseless as it is, only twice as long. We’ll never know.

One star for the play Marlowe wrote, if it sucked. Five stars for the play Marlowe wrote, if it rocked. Three stars for the play we have.

[Ivana Books Are Magic · Rating 3 out of 5]

I tend to disagree with those who claim that Marlowe wasn't as a good dramatist as he was a poet, but in this play I do see what they mean. This play seems to lack something. Despite being a fan of Marlowe's writing, I found it quite challenging to really get into this play. I honestly think Marlowe is underrated as a writer. Marlowe had the bad luck of being a Shakespeare's contemporary (not to mentioned being killed before his time) and this sentenced him to living in the shadow of the great bard. I absolutely loved many of his plays and there are some that I reread often (for example Dr Faustus).

Nevertheless, I found this play a bit slow and confusing. The writing is beautiful, it really is but somehow this play doesn't seem well put together. Marlowe knew how to write potent verses yet despite of his eloquence and poetic genius, the characters in this play remained blurry to me. This made me think to myself that perhaps it is true what they say, perhaps Marlowe was more a poet than a dramatist. I plan to return to this play when I have more time and concentration. Maybe it is me, maybe it is not him. Still, this play might not be his finest hour.

[Pia G. · Rating 3 out of 5]

kitap, saint bartholomew günü katliamı’nı konu alıyor ancak oyun ne yazık ki oldukça kısa ve eksik, sanki yalnızca bir taslak gibi kalmış. oyunun merkezinde dük de guise’in soğukkanlılığı, catherine de medici’nin manipülasyonları ve navarre kralı henry’nin hayatta kalma mücadelesi var.

yine de ben isterdim ki oyun aşkı merkeze alsın. evet, belki kanlı siyasi bir olay olması gerekiyor ancak marlowe, keşke yasak aşk temasını biraz daha işleyip bu vahşeti, aşkın etrafında kurgulasaydı. ve katliamın tüm o acımasızlığı kraliçe marguerite ile henry'nin gözünden anlatılsaydı beni daha çok etkileyebilirdi.

[Metin Yılmaz · Rating 3 out of 5]

Konuyu tam olarak anlatamamış bir tiyatro eseri gibi geldi bana. Yani kilisenin adamları ve kral arasında yaşananlar, hainler, katliam yapan mezhepçiler hepsi tamam ama hiçbirini anlayamadan kitap bitti. Belki bir kesit sunmak idi amaç bilemiyorum. Ama bana yarım gibi geldi. Güzel ve anlatılması gereken bir konu ama çok kısa geçilmiş veya geçiştirilmiş gibi görünüyor.

[David Sarkies · Rating 3 out of 5]

Remembering St Bartholemew's Day
7 March 2014

I do find it difficult to give low ratings to literature that tends to predate the modern commercial age, but sometimes you must wonder why some pieces seem to have survived at all. Granted, one can forgive the great playwrights and authors of the past for writing rubbish (because doesn't everybody, even the greatest, write rubbish), but sometimes one must raise the question as to whether the particular playwright could have done much better. As for this play, I feel that this commentary pretty much nails this play on the head (pardon the cliché, but for those who don't like cliches, all I can say is 'bite me').

The thing about this play is that it is about an event that I don't think that we, as modern, even post-modern, westerners, should actually forget. To me, the event that this play records is almost on par with the Nazi holocaust (and please do not suggest that nothing is on par with the Nazi holocaust because I can point out many events that are – the Rwandan genocide for instance).

The St Bartholemew's day Massacre actually occurred within Marlowe's lifetime (1572) so not only would it have been fresh in the memory of Marlowe, but also with many of those who saw the play performed. To put it simply, it was when the French Catholic rulers went around systematically murdering the French protestants to the point that there were actually no protestants left in France, and one of the main reasons why France never developed its own protestant denomination (namely because they had all been killed).



The Huegenots, the French Protestants, had formed strongholds in the west and the south of the country. They had its base in the Kingdom of Navarre and for a while had been in armed conflict with the French Catholics. However a peace treaty had been signed and, as was typical in those days, the treaty was consummated by the marriage between Catherine of France and Henry of Navarre. So, as the marriage was underway, many of the high ranking Huegenots travelled to Paris for the ceremony, which was a mistake because having so many high ranking Huegenots present in the enemy city was simply asking for trouble, which is what happened. What started off as a number of targeted assassinations quickly descended into mod violence, with French Catholics charging around the country and urban centres killing any Huegenot they could find (and I suspect that there was also quite a bit of scores being settled as well, which is generally what happens when chaos reigns).



The effect of this was to cement Catholicism within France, but to also alienate many of the protestant countries, who, in response, condemned the actions of the French government and the Catholic church. However this was not the end of the conflict because after securing France, trouble began to arise within the German and Dutch states which led to the 30 Years War. While the war came out as a stale mate, it did result in a draft 'rules of war' which has since become the Geneva Convention (not that anybody actually pays any attention to it). However, Spain was crippled by the event, with the Dutch insurrection effectively bankrupting them, and their fleet being destroyed while trying to attack England.

It is quite clear that the English themselves did not want to forget this event, since we have retained Marlowe's plays, and it was performed throughout the 17th century (when it could be performed, since for a period all of the theatre's were shut down), and a new version came out during the Restoration (probably to remind the people of what can come about from religious wars).

[Timothy Lissimore · Rating 3 out of 5]

A bloody stump of a play. Unfinished, but action-packed and quite satisfying. I'm getting into Marlowe! There is less soaring poetry here than in Edward II, for example, but the political machinations of Guise and his followers are interesting to follow and, once again, we get a flavour of the breadth and depth of enmity which tore through the fabric of European society in the wake of the Reformation. Marlowe must have been a fascinating, complex, unruly character.

[Allison · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Massacre at Paris is not my favorite Marlowe play, but it lives up to its name. A bunch of rich people with titles and thrones spend 24 scenes murdering each other and finish the whole thing off by swearing to commit more murders. As far as character development goes, it is not excellent, and the political machinations, which consist mostly of people murdering one another in a variety of ways, are not the best, either. If you have the need to read a particularly violent fictionalization of a historical fight between Catholics and Protestants, however, or are just looking for a play that's not all that long to fill a reading requirement, you could do worse than this. It is exciting, fast paced, and full of some of the most impressively hyperbolic death speeches I have ever read. (At one point, someone says that their brain-pan is splitting, which is quite descriptive.) I just wouldn't recommend going into it expecting a work of obvious depth or complex storytelling.

[Cemre · Rating 1 out of 5]

Marlowe, Shakespeare ile olan bağı sebebiyle bana hep ilgi çekici gelmiş bir yazar. Bu sene Kartaca Kraliçesi Dido'yu okuyarak onunla tanışabilmiştim sonunda. Oyun çok hoşuma gittiği için Paris'te Katliam'a da merakla başlamıştım; ancak hayal kırıklığına uğradığımı söylemem lazım. "Eksik kalan bir şeyler var" hissiyle bitirdim kitabı. İlgi çekici olabilecek bir konu yeterince işlenemeden anlatılmış bitirilmiş gibi hissettim.

[Emre · Rating 3 out of 5]

"En fazla gözyaşı dökenler değil,
Kanını en fazla dökmeye hazır olanlardır, beni en çok sevenler."

[Matthew · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Massacre at Paris is a tantalisingly incomplete work by Christopher Marlowe. As the play is only half the length of many of the dramatist’s other compositions, we can probably conclude that large chunks of it are missing.

What is left is a focus on the many killings in the play, but a reduction in the other scenes which might perhaps have been those that contained Marlowe’s best poetry. Who knows?

This is one of Marlowe’s historical plays, and it is based around the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, an event in France where the French Catholic establishment, led by Catherine de Medici and the Duc de Guise incite a massacre of the Protestants (Huguenots). Order is eventually restored under a new king, and Guise is killed.

Nonetheless this does not prevent many significant figures in government from being killed, including the Queen of Navarre (poisoned by a rose), the admiral (shot by a sniper), and King Henry III (stabbed by a friar). Finally Henry of Navarre returns to France to take over as a Protestant leader and avenge the wrongs done to him.

It is not known whether Marlowe was an atheist, but we can safely say that he either hated Catholics or pandered to popular prejudices. In other Marlowe plays, Dr Faustus humiliates the Pope, contriving Christians in Malta are probably Catholic, and King Edward II has a senior Catholic clergyman put to death.

Such views were understandable at the time. Protestantism was still in its infancy, and had faced much persecution from the Catholic establishment. In any case, a schism in a major religion was bound to produce violent hatred in both sides in its early inception. So Marlowe’s views are unsurprising, even if they seem ugly today.

Overall Marlowe’s play is a fascinating account of the horrors that can result from bigotry, even while the writer has his own bigoted viewpoint. It is just a pity that we do not have the original play to form a better judgement about its true merits.

[Alp Turgut · Rating 3 out of 5]

Marlowe’un bir diğer oyunu "Maltalı Yahudi" gibi bir intikam hikayesini konu alan "Paris’te Katliam / The Massacre At Paris: With The Death Of The Duke Of Guise", yazarın bir yandan katolik kilisesini eleştirirken diğer yandan aristokrasiye karşı olan saklı eleştirisini barındıran bir eser. Odak noktasına Barholomew Katilamı’nı yerleştirerek taht uğruna oynanan oyunları kanlı bir şekilde okuyucuya sunan Marlowe, din kavramının da bu oyundaki yerine dikkat çekiyor. Protestanları katlederek kral olma yolunda ilerleyen Guise karakteriyle yine mutlak bir kötü sunan Marlowe’un oyununda karakterin ana kraliçeyle bir araya gelip kral Charles’ı zehirlemesi, buna ek olarak da önüne geçen herkesi öldürmesi gerçekten kan dondurucu. Sonradan tahta geçen III. Henry’nin onla dalga geçmesi üzerine ikili oynamasına rağmen amacında başarılı olamayan Guise Dükü’nün intikamını ise zehirli bıçaklı bir keşiş yollayan kardeşi alıyor. IV. Henry’nin başa geçmesiyle din kavramının nasıl insanlar üzerinde bir oyuncak olarak kullanıldığının altını çizen Marlowe, vermek istediğini okuyucuya genel olarak hissettiriyor. Olayların gelişim süreci ve karakterlerin derinlikleri ise ne yazık ki çok başarılı değil. Marlowe’un bitmemiş bir eseri olması sebebiyle perde yerine tablo olarak okuyucuya sunulan eseri daha çok özet niyetine okuyabilirsiniz. Tam notum: 3,5/5.

03.01.2019
Nişantaşı – İstanbul, Türkiye

Alp Turgut

http://www.filmdoktoru.com/kitap-labo...

[John Wiswell · Rating 2 out of 5]

A sharp drop from his Faust, but I’m observing constants in Marlowe’s writing: flowery but more readily comprehensible than Shakespeare (and less quotable), oversimplified characters cast in roles pregnant with controversy that force them to speak their minds, and plots that amount to making points. Not particularly entertaining and hard to sympathize with something in such thin fiction, but this particular iteration hits on a very worthwhile theme.

That theme is the "other" in times of conflict. Characters in supposedly religious battle go out to fight and kill not over God, theology, philosophy or dogma, but simply because their enemies are called “heretics.” Here what is supposedly religious strife has more to do with nationalism, and even the anti-French sentiments are shallow representations of the same thing behind the religious bigotry: disapproval of “the other.” The characters are more occupied with their dislikes, be they personal (the characters are quicker to insult the name or face of an antagonist than to explain why the fight is going on) or superficial (slights made to the nationality, ethnicity or religion of others), all made with sights on the glory of duty or battle, or simpler, even more narrow-minded pursuit of conflict. It speaks to today’s conflicts not just in horrible situations like the Middle East, but in the so-called civilized intelligentsia who seek only argue and attack those who disagree with them, without sympathy or compassion for anyone not on their side.

[Ted · Rating 5 out of 5]

this play is an absolute fucking mess and i love it

[ayşe · Rating 2 out of 5]

iyi ki kütüphanede denk gelip okudum çünkü herhangi bir şey kattığını düşünmediğim bir kitaptı :( gerçekten de katliamdan başka bir şey yok usjsksk herkes birbirini öldürüyor (is that a spoiler?)

[Kübra · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dr.Faustus gibi bi eserden sonra bunu okumak biraz yavan bir tat bıraktı ne yazık ki. Tam olarak bitmemiş bi eser hissiyatı var. Hatta uzun süre repertuvarda kalmış, yarısı kaybolmuş ve çoğunun da izleyenlerden yahut oyunculardan ezberlenen kısmıyla düzenlenmiş. Kafa karıştırıcı ve bir çırpıda okunup bitirilen, “ee ne okudum şimdi ben?” dedirtecek bir eser.

[Fale · Rating 3 out of 5]

tiyatronun arkaplanını okumak ve sadece bir kere ellde gittiğim drama dersinden öğrendiklerimle çıkarım yapmak çok eğlenceli marlowe da dalga geçmek için yazmış zaten nothing serious

[Hadrian · Rating 2 out of 5]

6/10
Ta stylowa książeczka nosząca sugestywny tytuł "Masakra w Paryżu" to ostatnia, wyraźnie pisana w pośpiechu sztuka Marlowe'a o silnym zabarwieniu politycznym. Dramatopisarz streścił w niej 17 lat z historii Francji, ten niezwykle burzliwy okres od nocy św. Bartłomieja do objęcia tronu przez protestanckiego Henryka IV Burbona.

Akcja dramatu jest niezwykle szybka i bez znajomości prawdziwej historii z trudem dałoby się poznać, że w rzeczywistości toczyła się przez tak długi okres. Marlowe zasadniczo nie odbiega daleko od historii, jak to zwykle czynią nowożytni tragediopisarze, ale przedstawia wydarzenia wojen religijnych we Francji w oczywiście sposób stronniczy i upolityczniony, przedstawia je na korzyść protestantów i elżbietańskiej Anglii. Przejawia się to chociażby w tym, że francuska królowa matka od początku umyśliła ślub córki Margot z Henrykiem Nawarskim jako podstępny plan, katolicy co chwilę bluźnią i wykazują się źle pojmowaną wiarą chrześcijańską, Gwizjusz jest opętany żądzą krwi i władzy, a biedni protestanci w ostatnich chwilach życia myślą wyłącznie o złączeniu z Bogiem w modlitwie. Wiąże się z tym pewna papierowość wielu postaci czy ckliwych kwestii, które postacie dramatu często wypowiadają tylko po to, by przypomnieć odbiorcy kim są i czy są postaciami pozytywnymi, czy też nie. Wyjątkowa na tym tle jest postać Henryka Andegaweńskiego (znanego nam jako polski król Henryk Walezy), który najpierw z zimną krwią bierze udział w tytułowej masakrze, a potem sprzeciwia się Gwizjuszowi, staje po stronie protestantów i wypowiada kwestie skierowane przeciwko krwiożerczości samego papieża.

Marlowe'owi oddać jednak trzeba to, że fenomenalnie połączył wszystkie wydarzenia zaszłe we Francji, w jeden spójny ciąg przyczynowo-skutkowy. Historia tego fascynującego okresu nigdy wcześniej nie jawiła mi się w taki sposób. Literacko nie jest nawet dobrze, choć to może kwestia tłumaczenia, ale propagandowo wyśmienicie. "Masakra w Paryżu" dobitnie przypomina, że teatr elżbietański rozwijał się przede wszystkim jako swoiste medium masowego przekazu, skąd jego odbiorcy mogli czerpać wiedzę o świecie, jak i przez który monarchia mogła wpływać na umysły poddanych. Jest też oczywistym przykładem, jak wolnym od odgraniczeń był teatr w Anglii, zwłaszcza gdy się porówna życiorysy działających wówczas "University wits" z trudnościami, jakie napotykali późniejsi klasycy francuscy.

[Emilie · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's hard to judge this play since it seems incomplete (which some have argued is the case). The drama isn't well-developed and the characters never really come to life either. However, as with the other Marlowe plays I've read, there's a great undercurrent of irony that keeps the play from being dull. In MASSACRE AT PARIS, the irony surrounds the religiously-motivated violence of the characters-- it's hard to miss when characters are pledging their love for Jesus before stabbing fellow Christians in the face time and again. The dark humor and social jabs make me wish we knew more about Marlowe-- he seems to have been quite the colorful character.

[Richard Seltzer · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wish I could see this either performed live or in a movie. It's difficult to visualize the characters and action with the bare words. The historical background is complex, and the playwright presumes that his audience is familiar with it. the play was written just 20 years after the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre and Catholic-Protetant tensions were still high.

I read this as part of my research for my Shakespeare novel -- All's Will that Ends Will: the Shakespeare Twins.

[Heidi · Rating 2 out of 5]

I think there is a reason they only taught us Shakespeare in high school. While some of the prose was very moving the plot and characters were no where near Shakespeare standards.

[Bettie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bettie's Books

[dilara · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was good

[ouliana · Rating 3 out of 5]

sure, this is not his best work, but marlowe is still better than shakespeare

[Fiebi · Rating 2 out of 5]

maybe i just? didn’t understand this? (it’s most definitely that)

[Islaludgate · Rating 2 out of 5]

I don’t get it ???

[Ana · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for Uni module.

I write this review knowing that the octavo edition of TMaP is essentially a rough, incomplete cut that is likely a memorial reconstruction. Therefore, the critical reception that it has had does make sense, whilst it is unfortunate

My previous engagement with Marlowe has only been through studying Faustus and watching some clips of various productions of Edward II. It almost seems to be distinct from these two other plays, but for reasons of construction and format. TMaP is a blood-bath coming in at a whopping 14 murders. It became a bit like a tally, turning page after page whilst adding another dash to the death list. The massacre is parasitic. From Scene 6 and beyond, you get the feel that the first murder (the Old Queen's poisoned gloves, a strong start bursting with dramatic staging potential) is the catalyst for what becomes an infectious case of prejudice and revenge.

Despite the format and the often rough dialogue, I think that it is still an interesting insight and recount of a truly horrific historical event. The painting 'A Hugeonot on St.Bartholomew's Day' by John Everett Millais is a great painting and proves to be an alternative perspective on the religious persecution that prompted the massacre (especially considering the scarcity of TMaP productions).

[Izabela · Rating 4 out of 5]

I seem to disagree with the views of others, because it was actually my second favourite of Marlowe's plays. Two main reasons, 1 it was shorter than others and 2 I actually learned something historically true and relevant to me as a Pole. Of course Marlowe's general disregard of history made me suspicious but I checked in other sources and he at least got one thing right.

[Bernard English · Rating 3 out of 5]

Perhaps not the best play with which to familiarize oneself with Marlowe. It's supposedly his weakest play and certainly doesn't feel like it has a proper ending. Still has a few fine speeches. I was surprised to learn that Ramus actually was a victim of this massacre.