It has been suggested that Marlowe's audience would have seen Dr Faustus as a 'simply morality play' consider this view of the play using scene 5 as your starting point.

It has been suggested that Marlowe’s audience would have seen Dr Faustus as a ‘simply morality play’ consider this view of the play using scene 5 as your starting point.

Dr Faustus is, without a doubt, among Marlowe's most celebrated works of literature. It is said to be a morality play, which would be an accurate analysis, as there are many moral questions and themes present. However, it cannot be said that it is a simple play, because what is thought to be simple by one person could be interpreted as very complex by someone of a higher calibre. It is necessary to explore all levels of the play to understand its true meanings and messages.

If one is to analyse what Marlowe's audience thought of Dr Faustus, then one must establish who his audience was. The play was shown during the Elizabethan period, so Elizabethan people of all classes would have watched the play. It was popular entertainment at the time, and would have been regarded as an afternoon play. Many say that Marlowe wrote the play with the primary intention to make money, so it was in his interests to make it appealing to the rich minority, but also to the poorer majority, making it an efficient source of income.

What is interesting is how he managed to do this, because at the time, upper class people would have been highly educated in the fine arts, but the lower class people would not quite understand the true meaning of a philosophical question. Marlowe addressed this problem in several ways. The first was to make the play a mixture of drama, pantomime, and morality in order to please his entire audience. This explains the seemingly ridiculous scenes where Marlowe incorporated acts such as dismembering, which is a far cry from the seriousness that is a morality play. It would also explain the comic scenes, which are scattered throughout the play and serve as a means to get cheap laughs from the audience. Many were perplexed as to how a magnificently talented playwright could produce such distasteful writing present in the comic scene, which consisted of crude sexual innuendo and bizarre acts of idiocy. It is now thought that the comic scenes were written by an associate of Marlowe’s, someone adequately educated in the art of vulgarity.

This is a preview of the whole essay

For a play to be one of morality, it would have to contain a theme to do with morals. An example would be scene 5, where Faustus is seen in his study, and is questioning his faith in God. He encounters a good angel and an evil angel, the earlier of which tries to draw Faustus back into having faith in God, whereas the evil angel tempts him away from the divine path, and entices him towards blasphemy and heresy, with the promise of honour and wealth. This is a very grave situation of morality, where a person is asked to choose between right and wrong. Morals usually influence our judgements, but if a person does not have morals, or has forgotten their morals, their mind is free to follow the path to their desires, without having to worry about ethics or principles. This is what has happened in the play, where Faustus chooses to worship Lucifer and says, ‘Ay Mephastophilis, I give it thee’, meaning of course, his soul.

It is a known phenomenon that the more a person knows, the more they strive to know, because with an increase in knowledge comes the realisation of how very little we actually know. Faustus has spent his entire life studying, gaining knowledge, and all the time becoming more and more curious, until he got to the point where he was willing to put his thirst for knowledge ahead of his own religious security, simply because he wanted to know things that others did not.

There is still a sign in scene 5 that even if the mind has been poisoned with greed, the body is not so easily subdued and still refuses to participate in the act of sheer blindness. Faustus informs Mephastophilis that ‘My blood congeals and I can write no more’, when Mephastophilis demands that Faustus signs a contract in his own blood, which confers his soul to Lucifer. The congealing of blood is seen as a diabolic image, brought about by an evil presence. This shows that the body, which was created by God, still knows the difference between right and wrong, even when the mind, developed by human beings, is so poisoned with greed that it permits any act in order to gain what is wanted. In the end however, Mephastophilis brings fire to melt Faustus’ blood, and the contract is signed. It is easy to see that this act will entail serious consequences and moral repercussions.

Faustus sells his soul in order to have all the knowledge he wishes, and even have Mephastophilis wait on him hand and foot for a period of twenty-four years. His sheer hubris is what leads to his downfall, and he only realises that he has made a mistake when it is too late to repent, or at least that is what he thinks.

To say that the play is simplistic is a one sided view of it. To different audiences, the play will have different effects. Those who are educated in the subject will be able to interpret the deeper meanings of the themes and messages put across. On the other hand, those lacking the intelligence to decipher hidden meanings will simply enjoy the play on one level, laughing occasionally at some crude joke or pantomime act. The entire play is an allegory, for example, when Wagner takes one of Faustus’ books and summons spirits from hell demanding that the clown be his servant. On one level, it seems that Wagner is simply toying in something he does not know about, but on a more profound level, he is displaying how as you go lower down the hierarchy, you still see characteristics of those at the top with the most knowledge. It shows that all humans are curious, and that inquisitiveness has to begin somewhere for it to grow and become a part of someone’s life

Scene 5 is structurally simplistic, with dichotomous characters and representations of evil, but the scene has meanings on different levels. Faustus says ‘My hearts so hardened I cannot repent’. On one level, it seems that he is unable to repent as he feels it is too late. However, on a deeper level, one could say that his heart is his instinct, which has nothing to do with his judgement and is not blindfolded by greed, so surely his heart would be the one part of him that would cause him to repent. This shows that he does not have a heart anymore; it has been taken away with his spirit once he signed the contract. Therefore, it is clear how some areas of the play are infused with double meanings and oxymorons, which would only be picked up by those of a higher calibre.

The structure of the play is fitting for its nature. It is a bi-polar structure, with dichotomous characters such as the good angel and the bad angel, and since the play is about morals and hubris, two opposing themes, the structure is similar to the content. The play is based around heaven and hell, two themes that contrast each other. Another contrast is between the good angel and the evil angel, also representative of heaven and hell. An interesting point is that angels are always thought of as being good, as the word is associated with heaven, but Marlowe chooses to use an evil angel, which some would say is an oxymoron, a poetic device, or even go as far as saying that it is paradoxical. Marlowe uses other poetic techniques such as blank verse, especially in the soliloquies, for example, where Faustus says ‘the stars move still, time runs, the clock will strike’. One of the issues with the play is that it is very patriarchal. It lacks any female perspectives, let alone female characters or protagonists. This is mostly due to the era in which the play was written, when women were oppressed and men dominated almost everything.

Marlowe’s use of language is interesting as it changes throughout the play. In the serious scenes, Marlowe uses sophisticated language and sometimes incorporates some Latin to impress the audience. On the other hand, during the comic scenes, the language he (or whoever wrote them) uses is unrefined and there is less to impress the audience, but the comedy compensates for this. The changes in his use of language help the audience to tell whether the tension is mounting or not. Marlowe also uses much imagery, especially with themes to do with hell and evil. For example, when the seven deadly sins come on stage, Marlowe uses much negative imagery to give a good idea of how foul and disgusting the themes are. He also uses diabolic imagery to show the effect evil can have on nature, such as the congealing of blood.

To draw to a close, I would express that Marlowe’s play Dr Faustus is certainly one of morality as it deals with the struggle between morals, and the selling of the soul. The play fiercely criticises Christianity and Judaism and challenges the morals of religious people, but of course, all glory is fleeting, and Faustus eventually succumbs to his own want for power. Power that he never had because of his desire to impress those above him in the hierarchy. He is seen to be performing errands for people, such as the Duchess in scene 11 for whom he sends Mephastophilis to the Far East to fetch grapes, in order to be rewarded. A fitting analogy for the behaviour of Faustus would be a dog performing tricks for treats.

To say that the play is simple, however, is a very one sided view, and the play must be analysed with a sharper eye and mind in order to pick up on the messages that work on many levels at the same time. I do not agree that the play is simple because I have seen and understood the different levels of the play, but to someone who has little understanding and appreciation of the themes, it would indeed be a simple play. Some parts of Marlowe’s audience would agree with the suggestion that Dr Faustus is a simple morality play, but others may not. In effect, Marlowe has exhibited a complicated theme in a simple manner, yet he has riddled it with hidden meanings so that everyone, regardless of class, will be entertained by his allegorical masterpiece

Peer Reviews

Here's what a star student thought of this essay

cmas123

26th of Mar 2012

Quality of writing

The grammar and spelling in the essay was on the whole strong, however there were far too many paragraphs, meaning the essay didn't flow as well as it could've done. The writer shows a clear awareness of the fact that Marlowe has created the play, and that the characters aren't real people, through their referencing of the audience's reception. A more sophisticated range of vocabulary might make the essay more compelling for an examiner, which might lead to higher marks!

Level of analysis

Although, admirably, the writer has attempted to integrate context of production and reception into their answer, their comments were very general, and lacked in depth analysis. An example would be when they reference 'the lower class' people, and their possible lack of understanding regarding philosophy - a sweeping generalization. On a more positive note, language was discussed in the essay, and a clear sense of a variety of different interpretations was also present, which has broadened the essay's perspective.

Response to question

The writer has indeed attempted to define and direct their answer at the question, however, especially in the early part of the essay, the answer is a little general, and would improve if backed up by more referencing. Unfortunately, the question perhaps featured an error in calling the play a 'simply morality play' when it probably meant 'simple.' It was also maybe a mistake to totally separate the terms 'simple' and 'morality play' in answering the question.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn