Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

The Traitor

Rate this book
1965 copy of this play - has list of abbreviations, introduction, and appendix of chronology

Unknown Binding

First published April 1, 1965

8 people want to read

About the author

James Shirley

232 books6 followers

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
1 (20%)
4 stars
0 (0%)
3 stars
3 (60%)
2 stars
1 (20%)
1 star
0 (0%)
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Profile Image for Bill Kerwin.
Author 2 books84.6k followers
April 11, 2019

The Traitor was one of Shirley's most popular plays, and is generally considered to be his most effective tragedy after "The Cardinal." I read Shirley's The Cardinal years ago, liked it very much, and was pleased to find that I still liked it a good deal when I read it again last month. It was, however, the only play Of Shirley's I had read, so my entire opinion of his work was based upon it.

The Traitor makes me doubt that Shirley is as good as I once thought he was. The machinations of Lorenzo, the principal traitor, involve two separate schemes, one featuring the breaking of a betrothal and the other the destruction of the Duke. Yes, there is some relationship between the two, but exactly what that relationship is is not immediately clear, and so the first act is a little confusing. Once things get going, however, the plot is interesting if not absorbing, and the verse is as accomplished and mellifluous as that of The Cardinal. And there is an amusing subplot involving another traitor, with a mock arraignment somewhat in the Prince Hal/ Falstaff style.

The Traitor was written about ten years before The Cardinal, and yet shows more signs of decadence than its successor. Like the later work, it contains numerous echoes of earlier playwrights, but in addition it is filled with a hunger for extreme emotional effects for their own sake--a tendency I have also noticed in Beaumont and Fletcher--regardless of whether those effects move plot, intensify symbolism, or develop character. Shirley seems interested only in vicariously arousing his reader's lust (The Duke's physical description of Amidea) or pity (Amidea's depiction of her own condition and fate), not in using them to advance the action or enrich a theme.

In spite of my reservations, however, there is much to interest and amuse the reader here, and I'm sure I'll be reading more Shirley plays in the future.
Displaying 1 of 1 review