Edwards 1

Andrea M. Edwards

Rocklin, Dr. Edward

English 552-Studies of English Renaissance Literature

12 March 2014

Revised: Fall 2015

Is Act 1 Scene 2 Necessary in Doctor Faustus?

As I stare upon Act 1 Scene 2 of Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, I wonder if the

first and second scholars and Wagner are necessary to this

play, because as I read this play repeatedly, I felt it

unnecessary to include this scene. If I had to delete a scene

from Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, it would have to be Act I

Scene 2, because the tropes that occur in this scene can easily

be discovered and viewed in other areas of the play. In

Wagner’s lines alone he addresses “corpus naturale” (1.2.18) which refers to “matter natural”,

and he discusses the issue of “nature phlegmatic” (1.2.20) or the four humors.

I easily view these topics being conferred with in the next scene, Act 1 Scene 3, or in any

other part of Marlowe’s play. It appears as though in this scene the scholars and Wagner are

conversing about subjects that are banal, and have almost little or nothing to do with the overall

spectrum of Doctor Faustus whatsoever, thus it appears unnecessary to leave this scene in the

narrative due to the repetitious nature of the content in the overall spectrum of the play. The

Scholars and Wagner also appear in other scenes of the play, in particular Act 1 Scenes 4, 12,

The four humors were common tropes referred to in various plays of this era, and a play such as Doctor Faustus would require such tropes due to the repetitious content presented in the play.

Edwards 2

and 13. They even go so far as to asking him to ask God for forgiveness in those scenes by

stating, “Yet Faustus, look up to heaven; remember God’s mercies are infinite” (1.13.13-14). It is

the scholars who are attempting to assist him in saving his soul before the damage to his physical

body and moral soul have been done, so if they appear in this scene, and they are useful and

helpful to Doctor Faustus in this scene, then one may wonder why, if I were to direct this play,

would be interested in deleting Act 1 Scene 2 from the play? I assert these are the only scenes in

which the scholars appear to be of any benefit to the play, and they only appear to give the

audience narrative reinforcement and repetition which does

not appear to be useful to the play overall.

Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is designed to focus on

Faustus’s journey and descent into a metaphorical or literal

Hell, and both are assumed from the audience’s perspective,

although according to Adrian Streete this is a Calvinist

version of hell because Mephistopheles does not refer to hell

as a destination, but refers to it more as a state of mind

(Streete 430-32) (Doctor Faustus 2.1.119-31). If the focal point is Faustus, Hell, the four books

Faustus speaks about, which encompass four of the five acts of the play (Golz 444-49), then it

becomes unnecessary to incorporate Wagner and the scholars if they are not the sole focus of the

play. I believe this play will function with or without Act 1 Scene 2 of Marlowe’s Doctor

Faustus. However, the deletion of Act 1 Scene 2 may leave the audience with a few questions as

to whether there is an area of the play missing, although once they view the scenes individually,

they can see this scene has no merit because the rest of the play can and will answer the

questions of scholarship, Hell, and the four books which juxtapose four of the acts of the play.

There is a hint of irony here because Faustus had no intent on going to a metaphorical or literal hell; although he goes to both regardless due to his actions. This can be seen as a possible Act/Agent/Agency ratio if we are viewing this from Kenneth Burke’s Pentad.

Edwards 3

In Act 1 Scene 2 of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, the First Scholar and Second Scholar’s

curiosity about Faustus comes into view:

1 Scholar: I wonder what’s become of Faustus, that was wont to make our schools ring with sic probo.

2 Scholar: That shall we know; for see, here comes his boy.

Scholar: How now sirra, where’s thy master? (1.2.1-4)

The audience discovers throughout the play Faustus becomes obsessed with knowledge and

power because his intense ambitions, and thus is the reason why he conjures Mephastophilis

name in Act 1 Scene 3. Faustus uses Latin to conjure up the devils, and in particular,

Mephastophilis who appears in line 35 of Act 1 Scene 3.

Faustus also claims during the beginning of Act 1 Scene 1 that he reads through four

books consisting of Aristotle’s Analytics, Galen aphorisms, Justinian’s Institutes, and Jerome’s

Bible (1.1.5-38), and these four books relate to the four core studies of the 16 th and 17th centuries:

logic or rhetoric, physic, law, and divinity (Golz 444-

45). Faustus becomes disgusted with these books, and

throws them to the side for books on alchemy and the

dark arts (1.1.49-99). He wishes to turn to necromancy

even through the Good Angel persuades him against it:

Good Angel: O Faustus, lay that damnèd book aside,

And gaze not on it, lest it tempt thy soul,

And heap God’s heavy wrath upon thy head:

Read, read the Scriptures; that is blasphemy (1.1.70-73).

As the audience can see, I was already attempting to include a rhetorical analysis into this essay; and still strive to do it. Rhetoric was a high prized commodity of this era because it was believed education in it would create a sophisticated individual and perhaps this was the case with Faustus.

Edwards 4

The Good Angel recognizes if Faustus shifts to dark or black magic his moral soul will be

damned, and that he should study the Bible instead in order to protect his moral soul, but the idea

of dark magic and conjuring up devils has already been asserted itself into Faustus’s mind:

Faustus: How am I glutted with conceit of this! (1.1.78)

Since he has the idea to use necromancy, he has a singular focus on this idea, and thus he decides

to move forward in summoning Mephastophilis in Act 1 Scene 3. And by skipping Act 1 Scene

2, I can read long to the dialogue and action of the play.

When one of the scholars asks, “How now sirra, where’s thy master?” Wagner is not sure

of Faustus’s whereabouts, and then he counteracts this response and claims he does know, this

can be seen as litotes. The audience is left to wonder if he knows where he is physically, but not

spiritually:

Wagner: God in heaven knows.

2 Scholar: Why, dost not thou know?

Wagner: Yes I know, but that follows not.

1 Scholar: Go to sirra, leave your jesting, and tell us where he is.

Wagner: That follows nor necessary by force of argument, that you,

Being licentiates, should stand upon’t; therefore acknowledge your

Error, and be attentive.

2 Scholar: Why, didst thou not say thou knew’st?

Wagner: Have you any witness on’t?

1 Scholar: Yes sirra, I heard you.

Wagner: Ask my fellow if I be a thief.

2 Scholar: Well, you will not tell us (1.2.5-16).

Edwards 5

This dialogue seems begrudgingly pointless because the scholars and Wagner appear to be

stating the obvious and suggest metonymy is being used in this passage. Wagner knows where

Faustus is physically, but he does not know where he is

mentally, and the reason for this is because Wagner

wonders why Faustus would want to summon devils, or

use black magic of any kind, when he (Wagner) believes

that Faustus does not have to resort to that. The scholars

are confused because they want Wagner to give them a

clear answer, and Wagner is not quite sure what to say to

them.

Later in this exact scene, Wagner states the real

nature of the situation with Faustus, and when he does the scholars are quick to judge Faustus on

his poor choices:

Wagner: Yes sir, I will tell you; yet if you were not dunces you would

never ask me such a question. For is not he corpus naturale? And

is not that mobile? Then wherefore should you ask me such a question?

but that I am by nature phlegmatic, slow to wrath, and prone to lechery […]

and so the Lord bless you, preserve you, and keep you, my dear brethren,

my dear brethren.

1 Scholar: Nay then, I fear he is fallen into that damned art, for

Which they two are infamous through the world (1.2.17-30).

Once Wagner informed the scholars of Faustus’s plans, the scholars immediately recognize

Faustus is going to suffer for what he is planning, and thus they want no part in it, and the second

scholar states this in the scene:

I decided to use metonymy because Wagner is stating he knows where Faustus is physically; however, not spiritually, and is doing it in a way to suggests to the scholars that he, Wagner, does not know where Faustus is either physically or spiritually. It appears pointless in the overall narrative because the audience does acknowledge where Faustus is, and it doesn’t appear to matter if the scholars have any knowledge of his whereabouts.

Edwards 6

2 Scholar: Were he a stranger, and not allied to me, yet should I

grieve for him. But come, let us go and inform the Rector, and see

if he by his grave counsel can reclaim him.

1 Scholar: Ay, but I fear me nothing can reclaim him.

2 Scholar: Yet let us try what we can do (1.2.31-35).

The scholars fear for Faustus’s soul, and they are hoping his moral soul can be saved; however,

they realize saving his soul may not be possible, and if this is the case, then they acknowledge he

is already in a metaphorical descent to Hell.

As I analyze this scene, I assert it is unnecessary to preserve Act 1 Scene 2 for this play

because the audience sees Faustus’s descent into Hell beyond the scope this scene, and the only

reason for leaving this scene in the play is it gives the audience additional content as to how

people in Faustus’s life perceive the choices he has made. The scholars feel as though he has

made a troubling decision, on the other hand, there are several characters in the play who agree

with the scholars when it comes to disagreeing with Faustus’s negative choices.

In William M. Hamlin’s article “Casting Doubt in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus,” he also

addresses the issue of what Faustus has wrought, and he has nothing to gain from using

necromancy, and this concept is addressed in Act 1 Scene 1 of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus,

“What character more thoroughly banishes the world in order to replace it with the solipsistic

trappings of his fantasy—a fantasy that “will receive no object,” but “ruminates on necromantic

skill” (1.1. 106-7)?” (262). Materialistically, Faustus has nothing to gain from using necromancy

because he has nearly everything he wants, although, he asks for a wife, “But leaving off this, let

me have a wife, the fairest maid in Germany, for I am wanton and lascivious, and cannot live

without a wife” (1.5.138-9). He wants to kiss Helen due her reputation as being the ultimate

Edwards 7

conquest because he believes she will somehow make him immortal, and the audience may

believe this to be a logical fallacy, “Sweet Helen, make

me immortal with a kiss” (1.12.83). This may not seem

materialistic at first, but Faustus is asking Mephastophilis

for a romantic interest which isn’t usually inherently evil,

and this is love or compassion from a woman.

Faustus interrogates Mephastophilis when it

comes to Hell and when it comes to several societal ideals

and conceptions of Heaven and Hell, marriage, and many

of the concepts people during the 16th and 17th centuries

would have envisioned about life and the afterlife. Mephastophilis gives Faustus the answers he

seeks, although, they may not be the answers he desires:

Mephastophilis: Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.

Think’st thou that I, who saw the face of God,

And tasted the eternal joys of heaven,

Am not tormented with ten thousand hells

In being deprived of everlasting bliss?

O Faustus, leave these frivolous demands,

Which strike a terror to my fainting soul (1.3.76-82).

Mephastophilis is implying that Hell is mainly a state of mind or what Faustus wishes it to be,

but ultimately, Hell is a mental construct rather than a physical one, and Mephastophilis created

this mentally constructed hell from what he may have experienced in a previous life. Faustus is

condemning himself to a similar mental hell. He is creating the pain and mentally constructed

hell he is inflicting upon himself through all of his wrongful decisions to use necromancy and

This portion of my essay was in desperate need of changes because I wanted to focus on Faustus’ wishes, while realizing Mephastophilis is stressing Hell as a mental construct rather than a physical one due in part to how human beings create a world of havoc and destruction for themselves, and in juxtaposition, Faustus creating a world of chaos and destruction for himself. He is hurting himself by condemning himself to a mental hell.

Edwards 8

call upon the demons of the literal hell, yet again, this is a hell of Faustus’s own manifestation. It

is as if Mephastophilis is warning Faustus not to damn himself, and end up in a literal or

metaphorical Hell as is the case with Mephastophilis.

He also addresses the issue of marriage as being an institution and an idea that the devils

of Hell do not worry themselves with, because they have no need for marriage. Marriage is

considered to be a socially and religiously constructed

ideal, and not a natural one. He gives Faustus his speech

on marriage in Scene 5:

Mephastophilis: Tut, Faustus, marriage is but a ceremonial toy;

If thou lovest me, think no more of it.

I’ll cull thee out the fairest courtesans

And bring them every morning to thy bed:

She whom thine eye shall like, thy heart shall have,

Be she as chaste as was Penelope,

As wise as Saba, or as beautiful

As was bright Lucifer before his fall […] (1.5.148-55).

He makes it clear to Faustus that the devils in Hell don’t care about marriage, and that it is a

ceremonial or societal concept, and if Faustus wants a woman he can have that, but he doesn’t

have to marry her.

Essentially, Act 1 Scene 2 was unnecessary to Doctor Faustus because it was already

addressing what the audience acknowledged to be legitimate about Faustus and what he intended

to accomplish throughout the play. The audience was aware of Faustus’s poor judgment skills

and upheld his decisions to be ludicrous by virtue of his decision to create a mentally constructed

I wasn’t satisfied with the original conclusion for this paper, so I created this alternative conclusion. This conclusion sums up my argument for this scene of the play.

Edwards 9

hell for himself. The audience didn’t need the verification of Wagner and the scholar to envision

Faustus’s ideas and realize those decisions to be unwise; therefore, a scene such as this one

wouldn’t be necessary due to its presence throughout the entirety of the play.

References

Brown, Eric C. “Shakespeare's Anxious Epistemology: Love's Labor's Lost and Marlowe's Doctor

Faustus.” Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 45.1 (2003): 20-41.

Champagne, RA. “An Ethical Model in a Postmodern Faust: The Daemonic Parody of the Politics of

Friendship in Thomas Mann's ‘Doctor Faustus’.” STYLE, 34.3 (2000): 444-457.

Coogan, R. “The Four and Twenty Years of Marlowe's Faustus.” Notes and Queries, 48.3

(2001): 265-266.

Duxfield, Andrew. “Modern Problems of Editing: The Two Texts of Marlowe's Doctor Faustus.”

Literature Compass, 2.1 (2005): *.

Eriksen, Roy. “The Epilogue in Doctor Faustus: The Petrarchan Context.” NJES: Nordic Journal of

English Studies, 9.1 (2010): 1-16.

Fletcher, Angus. “Doctor Faustus and the Lutheran Aesthetic.” English Literary Renaissance, 35.2

(2005): 187-209.

Gallagher, Lowell. “Faustus's Blood and the (Messianic) Question of Ethics.” ELH, 73.1 (2006): 1-29.

Gates, Daniel. “Unpardonable Sins: The Hazards of Performative Language in the Tragic Cases

of Francesco Spiera and Doctor Faustus.” Comparative Drama, 38.1 (2004): 59-81.

Edwards 10

Green, Clarence. “Doctor Faustus: Tragedy of Individualism.” Science &Amp; Society, 10.3 (1946): 275-

283.

Guenther, Genevieve. “Why Devils Came when Faustus Called Them.” Modern Philology, 109.1 (2011):

46-70.

Golden, Kenneth L. “Myth, Psychology, and Marlowe's ‘Doctor Faustus’.”College Literature, 12.3

(1985): 202-210.

Golz, D. “The Four Books of ‘Doctor Faustus’ (Christopher Marlowe).” Notes and Queries, 53.4

(2006): 444-449.

Halpern, Richard. “Marlowe's Theater of Night: Doctor Faustus and Capital.” ELH, 71.2 (2004):

455-495.

Hamlin, William M. “Casting Doubt in Marlowe's Doctor Faustus.” SEL Studies in English

Literature 1500-1900, 41.2 (2001): 257-275.

Hayden, Judy. “Harlequin, the Whigs, and William Mountfort’s Doctor Faustus.” SEL Studies in English

Literature 1500-1900, 49.3 (2009): 573-593.

Hirschfeld, Heather Anne. “‘The Verie Paines of Hell’: Doctor Faustus and the Controversy over

Christ's Descent.” Shakespeare Studies, 36 (2008): 166-181.

Mann, Thomas. “Doctor Faustus.” Daedalus, 88.2 (1959): 369-373.

Marlowe, Christopher. Doctor Faustus. Logan, George M., Barbara K. Lewalski, and Katherine E.

Maus. The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed. Stephen Greenblatt. 8th ed. Vol. B. New

York: Norton, 2006. Print.

Mays, JCC. “Faustus on the Table at Highgate.” Wordsworth Circle, 43.3 (2012): 119-127.

Edwards 11

Parker, John. “Faustus, Confession, and the Sins of Omission.” ELH, 80.1 (2013): 29-59.

Politzer, Heinz. “Of Time and Doctor Faustus.” Monatshefte, 51.4 (1959): 145-156.

Reisner, Noam. “The Paradox of Mimesis in Sidney's Defence of Poesie and Marlowe's Doctor

Faustus.” The Cambridge Quarterly, 39.4 (2010): 331-349.

Schuler, Douglas. “Doctor Faustus in the Twenty-first Century: A Meditation on Knowledge,

Power, and Civic Intelligence.” Ai & Society, 28.3 (2013): 257-266.

Shepherd-Barr, Kirsten, and Carl Djerassi. “Science on Stage: From “Doctor Faustus” to

“Copenhagen”.” Physics Today, 60.2 (2007): 63.

Sofer, Andrew. “How Do Things with Demons: Conjuring Performatives in Doctor Faustus.”

Theatre Journal, 61.1 (2009): 1.

Steggle, Matthew. “Doctor Faustus and the Devils of Empedocles.” Notes and Queries, 56.4 (2009):

544-547.

Streete, A. “Calvinist Conceptions of Hell in Marlowe's 'Doctor Faustus'.” Notes and Queries,

47.4 (2000): 430-432.

Tambling, J. “Opera and Novel Ending Together: Die Meistersinger and Doktor Faustus.” Forum

for Modern Language Studies, 48.2 (2012): 208-221.

“Thomas Mann: Neurological Cases from Dr Faustus.” Practical Neurology, 4.3 (2004): 180- 183.

Wall-Randell, Sarah. “‘Doctor Faustus’ and the Printer's Devil.” Studies in English Literature,

1500-1900, 48.2 (2008): 259-281.

Edwards 12

Yirinec, Jennifer A. “Re-Envisioning the Faust Legend: Christopher Marlowe's the Tragical History

of Doctor Faustus and Richard Burton and Nevill Coghill's Doctor Faustus.” Literature/Film

Quarterly, 41.1 (2013): 67-76.