Talk:The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of Wikipedia's Elizabethan theatre coverage, and has come to the attention of WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, an attempt to create a comprehensive and detailed resource on the theatre and dramatic literature in England between 1558 and 1642. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (just like any other article!), or visit WikiProject Elizabethan theatre, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


This whole thing was written by a Christard. Is there any possibility of getting an edit without so many value judgments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.193.9 (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


Could someone add a reference to the John Chrysostom claim at the bottom; it's very interesting but a quick google search didn't show up any evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.6.30 (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that many 20th century Marlowe scholars thought that the 1616 version was closer to what Marlowe wrote, and the 1604 version is what Shakespeare scholars call a bad quarto, a truncated and corrupt version put together by a few of the leading actors or perhaps memorially reconstructed from performances.

That's a good point. But if Marlowe counted on the audience imputing a significance to the number thirteen (from the number of scenes in his play), the 1604 version would be the most authentic. Good writers are keenly aware of the way they frame their arguments, and how they structure their plays. As Marlowe was certainly a gifted writer, it would make sense to suggest a deeper meaning to the way the play was overall organized.

I disagree with the conclusion that Faustus is indeed damned. This is a faulty conclusion that the other characters in the play come to as a result of discovering Faustus' body parts strewn about the stage, but the pact that Faustus makes with Mephistopheles is that he will pledge himself "body and soul" to Lucifer? Why then does Lucifer not claim the body? Also, Mephistopheles threatens Faustus with being torn apart by demons if he does repent. There is no reason for Mephistophiles to render the doctor limb from limb if he is willingly accepting his damnation. Faustus, at the last, chooses to sacrifice his life and body for the sake of his soul, and the fact that he does so at thievery last moment of his life is very much in keeping with Christian tradition. In light of this textual evidence, as well as extra textual evidence of thematic importance, that we revise the discussion of Faustus' damnation in this article. Thoughts? --StarX 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

After meditating on the "Themes" section a bit, I propose making it something a little more descriptive and lest argumentative. Something like:

  • The nature of redemption.
  • The role of science ("natural philosophy") in society.
  • Original sin.
  • The corrupting influence of power.

Anyone have any input on this? --starX 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The plot synopsis is only for the B text. It should be changed so that it can accommodate both (such as the scene w/ the scholars walking in on his dismembered body does not appear in the at text, which seems to say more definitively that he ends up in hell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.98.29.48 (talk) 04:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I definitely agree with starX about the conclusion of damnation. Something more neutral might do it. Definitely will be changing that in the near future.--Fort.gnosis (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)