Talk:Doctor Faustus (play)

Untitled user comments

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)

This whole thing is abysmal, absolutely full of spelling mistakes. It is pretty horrifying that the wiki page for such an important play can be of this low level of quality. I'm currently writing a paper on Faustus and once I get it back/graded/the course is over I'll try to have a go at improving this. Arianna (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (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'm no expert on Elizabethan drama, but I thought Dr Faustus was originally printed without scene divisions, which have been added by later editors? --Hors-la-loi 12:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

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)

"No man is excluded from calling upon God, the gate of salvation is set open unto all men: neither is there any other thing which keepeth us back from entering in, save only our own unbelief."

John Calvin, from his commentary on Acts 2.

Remember that Reformed Theology/Synod of Dort was 54 years after John Calvin's death. The part on the debate on "Calvinism," in the article, may not be what John Calvin actually believed, rather more of a "TULIP"/Reformed Theological ideas. Easeltine (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2023 (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)

I'm not sure - is it a tragedy if he still manages to achieve salvation? StarX's point is that Faustus is threatened to be torn limb from limb if he repents - ergo, as he is found torn limb from limb, he managed to repent. But the Good Angel tells Faustus that if he repents, the demons shall 'never raze thy skin'. 90.209.131.142 (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect possession of Faustus

Reading through this page there are glaring inconstancies in the possession of Faustus, sometimes being "Faustus' handbag" and other times "Faustus's handbag".

With reference to this guide: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/department/docs/punctuation/node22.html which is written by the same author of the published "Penguin Guide to Punctuation" (and includes the same content), because you pronounce an additional 's' when speaking of Faustus's handbag, you would write the additional 's'. For this reason I would suggest that all references to "Faustus'" without the additional 's' when relating to his possession should be replaced. Unless anyone has any objections to this I am happy to make this correction. Mattm591 (talk) 11:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do: it would then comply with The Cambridge Guide to English Usage and the Chicago Style Manual as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Done Mattm591 (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

That's great—thanks for spotting this!--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

unsigned comment

how can the play have been based on Goethe's Faust when Goethe lived after Marlowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.217.48 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Faustus' alma mater?

I didn't know there ever was a university at the little German town of Wittenburg: might this article mean Wittenberg? Hors-la-loi 13:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hors-la-loi (talk • contribs)

Is there really a character called Little Richard' in this play, or has somebody inserted it as a joke? The link takes you to the page of the rock n roll singer Little Richard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.23.121 (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Poor article but not fixed?

Interesting that so many Wikipedia articles can be tagged with "this needs improvement; someone should fix this or it may be removed"... and those warnings hang around for 2, 5, 7 years.... Someone said in this Talk page, in 2009, that they "may" fix this. If I had the skill, I would. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.56.45.216 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)