Joseph Sturcken

727.Bains, Richard. “Letter”. A Norton Critical Edition: Doctor Faustus. Ed. David Scott Kastan. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2005. 127-129. Print. Page 128.

828. I refuse to devote any substantial discussion to any potential alternatives to this statement. In his review of Park Honan’s Christopher Marlowe: Poet and Spy, titled “Street-Fighting Man,” Michael Feingold notes the fact “[t]hat [Marlowe] can’t be equated with Shakespeare (and could not possibly have written Shakespeare’s plays) is self-evident precisely because his own sensibility is so distinctive.”

929. I would also like to elaborate on how, even though Marlowe may have intentionally put certain themes in the two Faustus texts, the themes present are not necessarily “his own.” Rather than viewing the two texts as inquisitive vehicles for his beliefs and curiosities in particular, I view them as vehicles for preexisting skeptical beliefs to which Marlowe subscribed. In short, he creates the inquisitive vehicles “on behalf” of skepticism of his time.

030.Obviously, these are only three possible topics which may have shaped Marlowe’s beliefs. I do not argue that these are the true defining events (such a claim would be impossible to verify), but that these events bear a strong connection to the Faustus texts.

131. Tamburlaine’s “barbarism” can be seen throughout both Part I and Part II, however, I will limit my example to two incidents. I direct the reader’s attention to Tamburlaine commanding that his soldiers slaughter the virgin escort sent to plead for his mercy in Part I and Tamburlaine’s murder of his own son and burning of a Koran in Part II. The B-Text of Doctor Faustus also boasts an extravagant scene which features both Faustus’s own beheading and the knights’ torment by devils, as well as the ending in which scholars consider gathering up Faustus’s mangled remnants so that he might have a proper funeral. Clearly Marlowe is fascinated by, or at least desensitized to, brutality. His view of violence seems to reflect John Faustus’s view of necromancy: something to be examined rather than feared or avoided.

232. Riggs, David. “Marlowe’s Quarrel with God.” Doctor Faustus: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2005. Print. Page 133. Henceforth, all references to this source will be cited in-text as “Quarrel” and the appropriate page number.

33. Pinciss, G.M. “Marlowe’s Cambridge Years and the Writing of Doctor Faustus.” Studies in English Literature. 33.2 1993: 249-264. Print. Page 149.

434. Ibid. Page 252.

535. Bacon, Francis. “Of Atheism.” ed. Kiernan, Michael. The Essays or Counsels, Civil or Moral. Page 23 as quoted in “Marlowe’s Quarrel with God” page 132.

Francis Bacon was an influential politician and philosopher who rose to prominence during Christopher Marlowe’s lifetime. Here he is noted for his discussions on faith and humanity. (He is known for the Baconian method of inductive reasoning.) Bacon was not considered an atheist: his discussions of religion, humanity, and the afterlife were all well within the (Anglican) church’s doctrines and dogma. However, he provides a useful “outside” look into contemporary sixteenth century faith), as an “outsider” (though he discussed religious matters, he never rose beyond the position of an ordinary faithful in the Anglican church). In this instance, his reasoning (or, to be specific, the conclusions of his reasoning) can be used as an example of a layman’s (accurate) portrayal of church doctrine and dogma.

636. Bacon, Francis. “Of Atheism.” ed. Kiernan, Michael. The Essays or Counsels, Civil or Moral. Page 47 as quoted in “Marlowe’s Quarrel with God” page 132.

737. Ibid.

838. Fletcher, Angus. “Doctor Faustus and the Lutheran Aesthetic.” English Literary Renaissance. 35.2 2005: 185-209. Print. Page 205.

939. Calvinism (like Anglicanism) can be viewed through either a psychological/existential “lens” or a physical “lens” as its main tenet dictates that some people will go to hell no matter what. Thus, there is no need for a Calvinist God to show a reprobate Faustus any mercy (note how in the A-Text, even at his last half hour of life, it is God Faustus fears rather than the devil or hell); this might be an example of “psychological predestination.” The B-Text then might display “physical predestination”: hell and its denizens become far more cunning and malicious to override Faustus’s supposed free destiny (with the assumption that their endeavor would be impossible unless Faustus was already doomed). The B-Text portrays Mephistopheles as an undeniably crueler character: the demon lies to Faustus about the nature of hell and mocks the doctor on his final hour. More importantly, however, Mephistopheles admits to “damm[ing] up” (B 5.2.94) Faustus’s passage to heaven and “le[ading his] eye” (B 5.2.96) to the text which began his path to ruin. It does not matter if this is true or merely an attempt by Mephistopheles to further demoralize Faustus: the act suggests a level of monstrousness not present in the A-Text’s Mephistopheles. (I am not suggesting that either text is governed purely by Calvinism, but that Calvinism fits perfectly in both a psychological lens and a physical lens.)

040. An example of a binary is line 1435 of W.W. Greg’s rendition of the A Text, in which the scholar says “O what shal we do to Faustus?” in comparison to line 1971 of Greg’s B Text, in which the scholar says “O what shal we do to saue Faustus?” (The implication might be that the A Text scholar is considering some sort of punishment for Faustus, whereas the B Text scholar is purely concerned with some method of saving Faustus. It is also possible that the scholar in the A-Text is too terrified to form precise sentences. Both are acceptable conclusions.) However, this is not one of the binaries I will examine.

141. The B-Text’s binary also alludes to volition, one of the core principles of Catholicism and, by extension, one of the principles of Anglicanism.

242. I could go on to discuss how the B-Text’s Good Angel might not know Faustus’s soul’s condition for the same reason his A-Text counterpart would not. However, I fear that this theory has already grown too far from fact-based analysis and too close to pure conjecture.

343. The B Text’s use of “O” in place of the A Text’s “Ah” is repeated more frequently than this Wertenberg/Wittenberg binary, but I doubt that the O/Ah binary contains any deeper meaning. Perhaps the O/Ah binary can serve as an example of an unintended binary: endlessly repeated, but without deeper meaning.

44. I must affirm that predestination played a role in Protestantism contemporary in Marlowe’s time. While the idea of reprobates was not held as forcefully as in Calvinism, sixteenth century Protestantism can still be viewed as a religion in which predestination plays a major role.

545. An example: “I’ll leap up to my God” (A 5.2.73) and “I’ll leap up to heaven” (B 5.2.144).

646. I cannot help but note how clever a binary this is, even if it was created unintentionally through censorship. The B-Text’s variation fits perfectly with the pageant: consider the terrified doctor, after seeing the horrific fate he must soon endure, now beholds a vengeful being (presumably a demon of some sort, if one is to consider the removal of references to God here to be a full removal of God from the scene) of tremendous proportions. The censor’s quill unintentionally created another physical representation of hell.

747. Several divergences occur earlier in the texts, such as the extended episode with the Pope and Benvolio’s ill-fated attack on Faustus. However, I feel that this divergence provides the greatest insight into the two texts’ different themes.

848. Many of the variations here are connected to the nature of hell, as I discussed in the eponymous section of my thesis. Because I already introduced many of the ideas in that section, my examination here will be somewhat streamlined.

949. I feel the need to clarify that the “garbling” or “muddling” of ideologies and concepts is not a sign of Marlowe’s ineptitude as a writer, but his refusal to provide any easy, obviously identified facts to interpret within the play. Though (virtually) nothing is affirmed, “everything” is suggested. It is up to the reader to think and interpret, not simply follow a clear path set by either text.

050. Ornstein, Robert. “Marlowe and God: The Tragic Theology of Dr. Faustus.” PMLA. 83.5. 1968: 1378-1485. Print. Page 1383.

151. Marlowe, Christopher. “Tamburlaine the Great.” Tamburlaine the Great Parts I and II. Ed. John D. Jump. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1967. 3-98. Print. Act III, Scene III, line 44.