Plot Construction :
According to Aristotle there are five distinct divisions of a an ideal plot of tragedy of which the first one is the initial incident or the “Paritass” giving birth to the conflict and there is the rising action or “Epitass” to intensify the conflict; thirdly we get the climax, the turning point or the “peripeteia” and fourthly there is the “dénouement” then comes the falling action or the “Calabasm”; and finally the “Catastrpohe” or the conclusion in which the conflict is brought to an inevitable end .
Aristotle believed that the plot may be either simple or complex, although complex is better. Simple plots have only a “change of fortune” (catastrophe). Complex plots have both “reversal of intention” (peripeteia) and “recognition” (anagnorisis) connected with the catastrophe. Both peripeteia and anagnorisis turn upon surprise. Aristotle explains that a peripeteia occurs when a character produces an effect opposite to that which he intended to produce, while an anagnorisis “is a change from ignorance to knowledge, producing love or hate between the persons destined for good or bad fortune.” He argues that the best plots combine these two as part of their cause-and-effect chain (i.e., the peripeteia leads directly to the anagnorisis); this in turns creates the catastrophe, leading to the final “scene of suffering.
Hence, the plot must be “complete,” having “unity of action.” By this Aristotle meant that the plot must be structurally self-contained, with the incidents bound together by internal necessity, each action leading inevitably to the next with no outside intervention, no deus ex machina . According to Aristotle, the worst kinds of plots are “‘episodic,’ in which the episodes or acts succeed one another without probable or necessary sequence”; the only thing that ties together the events in such a plot is the fact that they happen to the same person.
Analysis of ‘Doctor Faustus’:
Limitations & Drawbacks:
A critical study of the play in the light of the above clearly reveals the drawbacks in the plot construction of ‘Doctor Faustus’. Although the first few scenes, which create the initial incident of the plot, are well planned and when ‘Faustus’ is found to be discarding all other branches of knowledge to accept only the art of necromancy as a sole subject of his study the birth of conflict takes place. Then in the scenes in which Faustus raises the spirit of ‘Mephistophillis’ and ultimately sells his soul to the devil by writing a deed of gift in blood, creates a rising action and climax of the drama develops to a great extent on the right lines . But then comes the scene – specially the comic scenes which serve of little purpose in the development of the plot to reveal the ‘dénouement’ or the falling action leading to the ‘catastrophe’. From the stand point of plot-construction this middle portion of the play is the weakest. These scenes have been treated as separate episodes without any organic unity to with the structure of the drama .Although the beginning and the end have been nobely executed yet the middle remains still with no progress. As Levin’s comment on the structural weakness of the play is just and relevant: “Examined more technically the play has a strong beginning and even a stronger end but its middle section, whether we abridge it or bombast it out, is unquestionably weak “.
Three Plots:
There are however some modern critics who ascribe three plots to ‘Doctor Faustus’: The main-plot, the under-plot and the over-plot. The first one deals with Faustus’s inordinate ambition to acquire superhuman power by mastering the art of necromancy bringing about his ultimate doom and damnation. The under-plot with its fun and frolic is more or less, a foil to the main plot. The main-plot and the under-plot present the two main facts of life –pleasant and painful or comic and tragic. The over-plot according to the critics is the philosophical plot that reveals the conflict or struggle between the forces of good and evil in the external world as well as with in the soul of man. And it is this philosophical plot that adds greatness and grandeur to this tragic play. The arguments regarding the significance of the main-plot and the over-plot questionably carries weight, but the point put forward in favour of the comic scenes are not so impressive. Almost all the critics are unanimous that the comic scenes with its frivolity and buffoonery dilutes the tragic effects and are discardent with its general tone .
Faulty Approaches:
Inspite of all his stupendous achievements in the realm of dramatic literature, Marlowe had his limitations too. ‘Doctor Faustus’ is however a perfect example of a play that has no regular plot in the conventional sense of the term and is considered as a stringing together of just fourteen important scenes in its original form. This regular division of play into acts and scenes however was only in the eighteenth century edition hence in this respect it is very much linked with the old Miracle and Morality plays. And this is why Schelling has sternly remarked: “As we have it ‘Tragical History of Doctor Faustus’ by Christopher Marlowe is little more than a succession of scenes void of continuity or cohesion, except for the unity of the main figure and the unrelenting progress of the whole towards the overwhelming catastrophe. Moreover the fragment – for the play is little more disfigured and disgraced by the interpolation of scenes or clownage and ribaldry”.
Although “Doctor Faustus’ is undoubtedly a great play; but at the same time it is said to be a flawed one and it is true that some of these flaws are beyond defence. The play begins with its long soliloquy, which is quite significant for the development of drama and shows clearly the working in the mind of Faustus. Similarly the summoning of Mephistophillis, the signing of the contract, the Helen episode and the final scene are all might scenes that go a long way to establish Marlowe as a great Dramatist. But the minor incidents, which fill in the play, are of little moment; hence they are just a necessary bridging between the few great situations where the emotional and intellectual vacillations of Faustus ‘ mind are laid bare.
Conclusion:
Hence the fact remains that ‘Doctor Faustus’ is unquestionably a masterpiece by Christopher Marlowe and one of the greatest and the most powerful tragedy to be written before Shakespeare inspite of its flaws and limitations. But at the same time it is also clear that though the beginning of the play just like the end has been perfectly executed but the middle portion is weak and does not serve its purpose. As Levin puts it: “The structural weakness of the plot however corresponds to the anti-climax of the parable; it lays bare the gaps between the bright hopes of the initial scene and the abysmal consequences of the last”. Therefore, the statement that Doctor Faustus has a beginning and an end but no middle can be accepted to some extent as the middle portion though existing is not relevant to the development of the play.
