I've just finished reading 'Tamburlaine the Great' (parts one and two) by the Elizabethan playwright Christopher Marlowe. It was my first introduction to Marlowe and my initial impression was of how similar in structure and style it was to the plays of Shakespeare. I'm guessing this impression is more due to my ignorance of other writings of the period than anything else. At a distance of 400 years everything probably looks a bit Shakespeary to modern eyes.
Anyhow, I really enjoyed it and now look forward to reading 'The Jew of Malta'. The next Marlowe play I have lined up to read.
I should also mention that the similarity of 'Tamburlaine' to Shakespeare has moved me a little closer towards believing the 'Marlowe was Shakespeare' conspiracy theory. Then again, like I said above, it might just be that that was the general style at the time and I can't appreciate the subtle differences. This observation then in turn opens me up to the idea that Shakespeare could have been more than a single man. The plot thickens.