Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers the Prologue and Scenes 1 through 7.


The beginning of the play lays out a brief biography of Faust and his upbringing that essentially matches the German chapbook version. Faust’s conjuring of Mephistopheles and their blood contract remains basically the same as well. Faust’s young apprentice, Wagner, however, seems able to call forth devils to impress his friend, Robin, who later steals a book of conjuring from Faust for the purpose of getting closer to the local maidens. Lucifer visits Faust and introduces him to the Seven Deadly Sins.

Marlowe adapts the chapbook version for the stage, and adds in some comic relief in the form of Robin the ostler. How does a comic element change the story?

He also brings in a good and an evil angel to debate whether or not Faust can be saved, even though he’s signed a blood pact. Interesting to see how the legend changes when brought to the stage for an English audience. Does this device distract from the questions? Or do the angels make it easier to follow the ideas presented?


To avoid spoilers, let’s restrict this discussion to the first 7 scenes, and we can discuss the outcome of the drama next week.

I just started reading this late last night, so I have not gotten very far yet, but I'm really enjoying it so far and I'm looking forward to this being quite an interesting ride.

Wagner is a hilarious character. This must be so much fun to watch on the stage.

Jim, are you and I the only two reading this???

I don't know what scene I'm up to. I'm reading an edition that I downloaded to my Nook, and for some reason it doesn't have scene numbers.

Anyway, I found it interesting how quickly Faustus is ready to sell his soul to the devil. He didn't seem to take much time to think about it. I wonder why he came up with the number 24 as the amount of years he gets. How old is Faustus when he first meets Mephistopheles and sells his soul?

I always wondered what Faust's first name was, and we find out in this play that it's John.

I'm still not very far into the play (because I've been working crazy hours) but I'm REALLY enjoying this.

So, it seems that Faust doesn't care that he will spend eternity in hell, because he doesn't believe that hell really exists. This makes me very curious to see what happens at the end (to see if he does actually go to a place called "hell"). I guess I would know the answer to that if I read the first read in our "Faust Through the Ages" theme, and I'm actually thinking of going back and reading it when I have a week or so between books.

(My goal for 2013 is to only read one book at a time, so we'll see how long that lasts. In 2012 I tried to read two or more books at a time, and I find that I prefer reading just one book at a time, even though it means that I may miss out on some good books that are read here.)

This is a short play and so things move pretty quickly with Faust. Not much time spent on back story and motives. Instead, actions happen quickly, for example, Wagner appears suddenly and conjures a demon for his friend Robin - no explanations. The two angels appear and disappear quickly and without much ado. Marlowe wants to present a short morality play and get home in time to watch Conan. There's nothing wrong with brevity, it just changes the gravity of the material and its impact. Things will be different when we read Goethe's version.

(BTW, the Faust chapbook is only 40 pages long.)

What is the Faust chapbook?? I've seen you mention it here, but I'm not sure what it is or where to find it.

Also, last night I was getting frustrated with my Nook, so I went through my mountain of paperback books and I found my Penguin Edition of The Complete Plays of Christopher Marlowe.

SO, I started from the beginning and reread Doctor Faustus (in the Penguin Edition, which has explanatory notes), and I read up to the end of Chapter Seven (which are the chapters this thread is set up for.)

Starting with the prologue, I will put down some thoughts here (but not all in one post -- I'm juggling this with some work I'm doing.)

In the prologue, the chorus tells us about Faust and his upbringing and schooling. We are told that he excelled in "heavenly matters of theology..." and I am also under the impression that he is a scholar in many areas, including astronomy.

So, now if we jump forward to Scene 7, Faust is asking Mephistopheles a lot of questions about astronomy. I can understand selling ones soul to the devil to get things and learn about things that one doesn't already have or know (not that I'm implying I would do it!!!) but why waste time asking Mephistopheles questions Faust already knows the answers to? Is he "testing" Mephistopheles' knowledge??

I have many more comments to make in the scenes between the prologue and scene 7 (and a LOT of comments to make about scene 7), but I'll be back with more comments.

Although I'm only halfway through, I do have to say that I think this play is excellent. Even without the explanatory notes I'm finding it to be a fairly easy read. (And a quick read.)

In the meantime, I'll go to the resource page and see if you have info on the Chapbook there. Also, in my Penguin edition (or maybe in the Nook edition), I saw the Faustbook mentioned. Is the Faustbook the same thing as the Chapbook?? I'm confused.

Jim wrote: "He also brings in a good and an evil angel to debate whether or not Faust can be saved, even though he’s signed a blood pact. Interesting to see how the legend changes when brought to the stage for an English audience. Does this device distract from the questions? Or do the angels make it easier to follow the ideas presented?..."

The ideas seem the same as those discussed back in the thread covering the Historia. What I took away from that was that yes, per the 'rules' Faust could repent and save his soul (although not his life), but having made his deal with the devil he had essentially sealed his fate, if only by his own feelings of unworthiness by the end. It seemed to me that having the angels say these ideas outright made the state of affairs clearer.

Did anyone else see Marlowe's version of Faust's damnation as different from the one in the chapbook? [Barbara, in case you haven't found it yet, Jim's links to the Chapbook et. al. can be found here: Historia D. Faustus]

Hi Whitney, thanks so much for the link to the Chapbook. I didn't realize that Historia D. Faustus, the first read in our "Faust through the Ages" project, was called the Chapbook. I shouldn't have skipped this read, but now I'll just go back and read it.

As far as your question regarding Faust's damnation, I've only read through Scene 7 in Marlowe's play because the discussion on the rest of the play is not until next week, and I didn't want to get ahead of the group because I tend to forget certain details from one week to the next. (Due to a bad case of "too much work" and trying to juggle my "reading for fun" with all of my work!!!)

Thanks again for the link!! I'm thinking I might finish Marlowe's play tonight and then go back and read the Chapbook (before we begin Goethe's Faust.)

I find Faust to be a rather cold, selfish person in many respects, but I think Marlowe is trying to give him more "good" and "human" characteristics by having him question whether or not he really wants to go through with this pact (prior to signing with his blood.) And after he does sign the pact, he continues to question his decision.

Sometimes he rants and curses at Mephistopheles, but Mephistopheles will immediately say something that makes Faust apologize and tell Mephist that he realizes he did the right thing. Is he being sincere with Mephistopheles? Is Faust being sincere with himself?

Basically, I think Marlowe paints Faust as a very flawed human being, which adds more reality to the play.

Jim wrote: "This is a short play and so things move pretty quickly with Faust. Not much time spent on back story and motives. Instead, actions happen quickly, for example, Wagner appears suddenly and conjures ..."

I'm going to print out the version of the Faust Chapbook that's available here and read it. But I'm ready to start reading Goethe's Faust, so I may read them simultaneously.

I really enjoyed Marlowe's play, and I'm looking forward to the discussion next week so that I can post my thoughts (without putting spoilers in this thread.)

Sorry to be late on this discussion, but I was also juggling a lot of books and work.

I read the introduction in my edition, and that gave me a good background to the play, and the difficulties in placing it in time and in knowing which version of the play was closer to the one written by Marlowe (there are 2 texts, very different from one another, both in size and religious framework). The link to this edition follows below:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34...

What I found very different from the source book (Historia) was the way Meph comes to Faustus (by accident, not because his incantations worked) and the fact that Faustus offers the terms of his agreement. They are not proposed by Meph, but by Faust himself. Though Faustus here is much more active in seeking to make this deal, and can't wait to take advantage of it, we also see very early on signs that he is doubtful about it (when he is going to sign the deal and the blood congeals, and obviously the presence of the good and evil angels).

The number of years is now established by Faustus too, and not indefinitely mentioned by Meph in the latter's terms, as was the case in the Historia. In the Historia, we only learn that 24 years had passed at the end of the book, if I'm not mistaken).

Faustus is not required to renounce Christian faith, as was the case in the Historia. And he does not believe he will suffer after death, and thus does not really believe in Hell as the place of the damned. Which does not make sense, because where could Meph have come from if not from Hell? But then I think it is a case of reconciling different theories (religious and unreligious) in one play, which is a flawed work in itself, albeit a great one.

I am finally reading Marlowe's Dr. Faustus and I find Marlowe's Faust to be more arrogant than the German one. In lines 54 and 55, he talks about wanting to be able to provide eternal life or to raise the dead.

This is a different version of hell than the one in the chapbook. In lines 303 through 305 where he essentially tells Mephastophilis that he is not afraid of damnation since he believes that hell is like the Pagan afterlife, Elysium, and if he goes there he will spend eternity with the pagan philosophers. Since Marlowe is writing for a post-reformation England, it may not be as dangerous to conceive of a limbo like version of hell as it was in an earlier Germany.

I think that Faust summons Mephistophilis with his incantations. Lucifer comes because Faust invites him and Faust sets the terms of the agreement rather than the terms being dictated by Lucifer. But once Faust signs the agreement, Lucifer behaves more like the evil Devil we are familiar with. Starting with line 724, he insists that Faust stop speaking and thinking about God and Christ.

Simone wrote: "Sorry to be late on this discussion, but I was also juggling a lot of books and work.

I read the introduction in my edition, and that gave me a good background to the play, and the difficulties i..."

I suspect that the versions which survive are not as close to Marlowe as we might hope. The play feels thin and incomplete, and I suspect that is caused by the lapse between the original production and the first published version, which came many years after his death. In general, Marlowe follows the German version, but something is lost/changed in the play. I don't know if any of us here have seen the "A" text performed, but I wonder if one could understand the story if they came to this play with no prior knowledge of the Faust legend.

The angels were a necessary addition to serve as a stage device to represent Faustus' thoughts, whereas with prose, private thoughts and doubts can be represented directly to the protagonist. Placing the doubts external to Faust (in the mouths of the angels) contributes to our perception of him as arrogant.

@Jenny - Yes, a very interesting change in conception of hell, once transferred into the political climate of England - different culture, different theology.

This play was a collaboration. Marlowe was supposed to write the poetry and tragedy, and his collaborator, perhaps one Henry Porter, to write the prose and comedy. It is considered they worked on different scenes, and Porter didn't write as much as M, abandoning the project (it is believed).
After Marlowe's death, two other men were hired to finish the play, and thus the B text was written, with about 400 more lines. The A Text is considered closest to what Marlowe put forth, so it is the most frequent in print - from what I could gather.
The thing about Marlowe was the he was believed to be an atheist, or at least a non-believer, and departed from conventional religious views. That is why the Lutheran morality of the original text is somewhat lost in his play. It is also said that the A text - M's version - is more Calvinistic, with a sense of predestination. Hence, Che serà, serà.