The Jew of Malta

By Christopher Marlowe

The spirit of Machiavelli presides over The Jew of Malta, in which the title character relentlessly plots to maintain and extend his political influence and wealth. A paragon of remorseless evil, Barabas befriends and betrays the Turkish invaders and native Maltese alike, incites a duel between the suitors for his daughter's hand, and takes lethal revenge upon a convent of nuns.
Both tragedy and farce, this masterpiece of Elizabethan theater reflects the social and political complexities of its age. Christopher Marlowe's dramatic hybrid resonates with racial tension, religious conflict, and political intrigue — all of which abounded in 16th-century England. The playwright, who infused each one of his plays with cynical humor and a dark world view, draws upon stereotypes of Muslim and Christian as well as Jewish characters to cast an ironic perspective on all religious beliefs.
The immediate success of The Jew of Malta on the Elizabethan stage is presumed to have influenced Marlowe's colleague, William Shakespeare, to draw upon the same source material for The Merchant of Venice. The character of Barabas is the prototype for the well-known Shylock, and this drama of his villainy remains a satirical gem in its own right.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Dover Publications
• Release date: Jul 1, 2014
• ISBN: 9780486153742

Christopher Marlowe

Christopher Marlowe (1564-1593) was a 16th century playwright, poet, and translator. Considered to be the most famous playwright in the Elizabethan era, Marlowe is believed to have inspired major artists such as Shakespeare. Marlowe was known for his dramatic works that often depicted extreme displays of violence, catering to his audience’s desires. Surrounded by mystery and speculation, Marlowe’s own life was as dramatic and exciting as his plays. Historians are still puzzled by the man, conflicted by rumors that he was a spy, questions about his sexuality, and suspicions regarding his death.

Book preview

DOVER · THRIFT · EDITIONS

The Jew of Malta

CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE

DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC.

Mineola, New York

DOVER THRIFT EDITIONS

GENERAL EDITOR: PAUL NEGRI

EDITOR OF THIS VOLUME: T. N. R. ROGERS

Copyright

Introductory Note and footnotes copyright © 2003 by Dover Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved.

Theatrical Rights

This Dover Thrift Edition may be used in its entirety, in adaptation, or in any other way for theatrical productions, professional and amateur, in the United States, without fee, permission, or acknowledgment. (This may not apply outside of the United States, as copyright conditions may vary.)

Bibliographical Note

This Dover edition, first published in 2003, is an augmented republication of The Jew of Malta from Christopher Marlowe, the collection of Marlowe’s plays edited by Havelock Ellis and originally published (as part of the Mermaid Series) by Vizetelly, London, in 1887. We have written a new introductory Note and additional footnotes especially for the Dover edition.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Marlowe, Christopher, 1564–1593.

The Jew of Malta / Christopher Marlowe.

p. cm. — (Dover thrift editions)

Augmented republication . . . from Christopher Marlowe, the collection of Marlowe’s plays edited by Havelock Ellis, and originally published (as part of the Mermaid series) by Viztelly, London, in 1887—T.p. verso.

eISBN-13: 978-0-486-79607-9

1. Jews—Drama. 2. Malta—Drama. I. Ellis, Havelock, 1859–1939. II. Title.

III. Series.

PR2666.A1 2003

822’.3—dc21

2003048964

Manufactured in the United States of America

Dover Publications, Inc., 31 East 2nd Street, Mineola, N.Y.11501

Note

WHAT MARVELS might have come from his pen if he had not been struck down in a tavern at the age of twenty-nine? What other plays and poems would he have created? And how might our estimation of the great Elizabethan age, and of Shakespeare himself, have changed? Questions impossible to answer—but impossible to put from one’s mind when considering the brief career and promising works of Christopher Marlowe.

Though they were exact contemporaries, both born in 1564, we seem to possess more tangible facts about Marlowe than about Shakespeare. He was born in Canterbury, the son of a shoemaker; attended King’s School, Canterbury; and received a bachelor of arts degree in 1584 from Cambridge University’s Corpus Christi College. Three years later, because he had been too often absent from school (and because he refused to take holy orders), the university at first refused to grant him his master’s degree—but relented when Queen Elizabeth’s privy council intervened, noting that Marlowe had done her Majestie good service, & deserved to be rewarded for his fathfull dealinge. It has been suggested that during his absences he was in fact spying on Catholics in Rheims who were plotting against the queen. Whether or not that is true, he went to London in 1587 and started his career as a playwright for the Lord Admiral’s Company. And six years later, on 30 May 1593, he was stabbed to death by Ingram Frizer in a hired room in Dame Eleanor Bull’s house in Deptford (London).

Frizer’s two companions, both as unsavory as Frizer himself, claimed that Marlowe had attacked Frizer in a dispute over the bill, and Frizer had grabbed the knife away and plunged it into Marlowe’s eye. A coroner’s jury determined that Frizer had acted in self-defense—but some scholars believe that Marlowe was deliberately murdered, either because of his activities as a spy or because of his heretical beliefs.¹ Ten days earlier he had been called before the Star Chamber—the notorious court that made its decisions without a jury and made use of torture to obtain confessions. His roommate and fellow playwright, Thomas Kyd, was thus coerced into giving evidence against Marlowe, but Marlowe himself was freed on bail for ten days. Just as his time ran out, he was killed and buried in an unmarked grave—and his killer pardoned with unparalleled dispatch. Is it any wonder that the circumstances of his death are still swathed in mystery?

It does seem possible that the playwright was as fiery and impulsive as the passionate, intemperate characters who raged and strutted through his plays. During his six years in London he had been arrested five times, accused variously of assault, counterfeiting money, and promoting atheism. In 1589, he had gotten into a sword fight with an innkeeper’s son; a friend of Marlowe’s leapt into the fray and killed the other man. But even so, the circumstances of Marlowe’s demise leave us with nothing but questions. Some scholars think he was murdered to prevent his incriminating important people as he might have done if tortured by the Star Chamber. Some argue that he was not murdered at all: the circumstances of 30 May, they suggest, were part of an elaborate plot to keep him from having to testify, and instead of being murdered he was whisked away to a silent exile in Italy—where he survived until 1627, writing all the plays that have been attributed to Shakespeare.

IT IS NOT a hard thing to believe—at least if you are among those who find it impossible to accept the notion that Shakespeare might have been the author of his own plays. At the time of the Deptford incident, Marlowe was at the top of his form. According to some commentators,² he had pretty much single-handedly invented the Elizabethan tragic drama and introduced first-rate blank verse to the stage—whereas Shakespeare, that upstart Crow (as Robert Greene called him in his 1592 Groats-worth of Witte), was only beginning to make a name for himself. If you looked at both men’s work at that time, how could you predict that Shakespeare would come out so far ahead?

There are many fine passages in The Jew of Malta (or, to give the full title of its 1633 publication, The Famous Tragedy of the Rich Jew of Malta). But by the time you get to the last couple of acts, you may wonder how anyone could put Marlowe in the same league as Shakespeare. It seems vastly over the top, with characters as exaggerated and black-hearted as in a fairy tale. A villain who poisons his own daughter without compunction, and who meets his end in a vat of boiling oil—surely Marlowe cannot be serious!

Some people have suggested that the text that has come down to us is unreliable. Unlike some of Marlowe’s other plays, there is no record of this one’s having been printed before 1633. Then it was printed with two prologues and two epilogues by Thomas Heywood—and what other changes, we might well ask, did Heywood or other well-intentioned revisers make in the play during the forty years since Marlowe’s death? Certainly no one can vouch for the authenticity of this text—or the texts of any of Marlowe’s plays, for that matter. When Tamburlaine the Great was published in 1592, the printer noted, with some pride, that he had purposely "left out certain fond

Reviews for The Jew of Malta

[velmeran · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

And interesting take on the Medieval morality play.

[therebelprince · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

"Faustus", like all Marlowe's plays, is a fascinating exercise but far from a satisfying one. This seems like a cheap and somewhat naive review to give to one of the most well-known works of the Western canon, but there you go.

After the uneven poems-cum-plays of "Dido" and "Tamburlaine", Marlowe achieved comedic success with "The Jew of Malta", even though it too runs on far too long. "Faustus", which followed, certainly doesn't have THAT problem, and it continues Marlowe's streak of dominating, fascinating leading men. Faustus is one of those roles which is a delight for an actor, as he quite literally sees all of human history, and what lies beyond, but the play is a challenging work. First of all, Marlowe was a pioneer, working in a medium that was far from fully-formed. "Faustus" is a significant step away from his early plays, which are glorified poems at times, and it's only in Faustus' (justified) opening and closing monologues that we get something too lengthy for the stage.

The story itself - the learned man giving up his future life for present glory - would be replayed again and again in both Western and Eastern dramas, and it's not hard to see why. Faustus' most beautiful moments include, of course, his "Is this the face that launched a thousand ships?" speech, and his final realisations that he is truly damned. The rest of the play is never quite certain what it wants to be. The comic interludes are (pardon the pun) damn funny, even if they sometimes feel like they wandered in from another play. The Representational elements in Faustus' good and evil angels are - understandably - removed from some modern productions. The play, intriguingly, chooses to portray very little of Faustus' 24-year orgy, instead showing us only the beginning and ending of his deal with Lucifer. It's an enjoyable production, but an uneven one. While Marlowe had managed to tame his language for the stage, he created something lacking in subtlety and still a long way from the bravura productions that Shakespeare was about to start writing for the London stage.

This review - in retrospect - is less than coherent, and I apologise. I don't want to seem like a complete dolt for so blithely dismissing "Faustus". It is a fascinating play done well, and has at its core a character whose desires and fate will probably remain relevant and terrifying as long as we live. As in all of Marlowe's work, moments of pure beauty rise to the surface and the comedy was archetypal for what was to follow with other authors. Yet to me, it still feels slight. It has neither "The Jew of Malta"'s dramatic unity nor "Edward II"'s sheer breadth of character. Instead, it is Marlowe's most crowd-pleasing mature play. A pioneer for its time, and still of merit to the Western canon (whatever you believe that to be) but - sad to say - since eclipsed.

[pgchuis · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This edition comes with an almost oppressive number of notes and commentaries and background pieces and questions to think about. A good read, but I imagine a stage production would be disturbing.

[m.akter.tonima · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

its the first of its kind, so there is no comparison. The only problem in this play is that it has no perfect structure, its a comedy and at the same time its a tragedy, the comical stature dominates entirely in the play leaving the reader completely diminished and disappointed by the unfair tragic ending.If God forgives all,shouldn't the realization be all that needed,why MUST it be ASKED?!

[wellreadcatlady · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It's one of those plays you need to read through and reread to get the whole idea of what's going on. My first opinion of it was that it didn't make sense and was poorly put together, but once I read it again and allowed myself to get sucked in and think "ok lets say this is possible" I felt like I had a better understanding and can actually say I kinda like the play now. The characters are similar for a reason, and I know this, but it bothers me.

[pitcherbooks · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I always feel it is unfair to review a script... that one should only review the actual enacted play. But here goes anyway. One can guess that the visual effects would have been great fun. Audiences apparently found the stage devils terribly frightful back in the day. Not a complex or terribly clever script but a popular play in its time. Pretty direct and quite easy to read even today. Seems like a fairly basic morality play to me. The intellectual Faust over-reaches himself by selling his soul to Lucifer for more knowledge and supernatural powers for a period of 24 years. Despite Faust's eventual regrets and opportunities for redemption, his lack of faith & enjoyment of his worldly success damn him. Some read this 1604 play as an indictment of John Dee (1527-1608) a respected, well-known scholar and adviser to Queen Elizabeth I who by 1582 devoted himself to the occult & supernatural. An interesting look at a past era.

[leslie398 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Glad I read this but think that Elizabethan English will continue to be a trouble for me. Maybe I should look for a modern-language version...

[regularguy5mb · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Dr. Faustus is the classic tale of a man who sells his soul to the devil in return for power and prestige. This is the story that so many similar stories over the years have taken their cues from.This is one of those plays that gets mentioned in pop culture so much that Faust is just an accepted part of the cultural zeitgeist. There was even a short lived television show in which two agents for Good tracked down humans who had made deals with the devil called "Faustians."I feel like everyone should either read or see this play performed at least once in their lives.

[floratina · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

READ IN ENGLISH

It is one of the stories you've read parts of in class or maybe just heard about (it is after all not as well known as Shakespeare; but I personally like this one better).

Dr. Faustus is tempted to sell his soul to the devil in order to make his wishes (ultimate wisdom for example) come true.
The story shows similarities to a well known 16th century Dutch play called 'Marieken van Nieumeghen'; in which Marieken also makes a deal with Mephisto in exchange for wisdom.

It's a short read, just sit down an hour or two and read this book. It's available for free on forgottenbooks.com. I liked the Latin in it as well, but when you can't translate it, it's not a problem to understand the story. Personally I liked the notes which came with the story (as it is a play) and some seemed rather extraordinary but were fun to read and imagine Enjoy the story!

[soplada · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Doctor Faustus won't make you close your head as soon as you close the book, No it will ignite it to question every thought which you encounter in your life with the relation to your major standards in your life wither it is your religion or just thought about life and why we are here

when the story is embodied by a protagonist it will be much closer to you; you will feel the sufferance of the loss and the deviation the shattering that is caused because of confusion, hesitance, indecision and in the end despair.
Maybe some people will think of Faustus as a sinner and that no matter what we do we would not be like him he is damned and he is the one who chose it, so we won't choose it and end up like him, of course! but his humanist side (even if it's sometime more apparent in the play) is within us too. we could encounter a situation when choosing the truth is so much harder than staying on the easy and appealed side, right ?
we may be put in a situation like this, like what happened to Faustus, but I'm not sure if we really could be patient on the verge of choosing the damnation , life is deceiving .. but being fortified by truthful rules will do the trick :)
and in conclusion this is of course a tragic End and tragic play too.

[becky221_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Interesting play, rather short. I enjoyed reading the original English translation (from the German) more.

[mstrust · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Doctor Faustus doesn't believe in hell, and so has no fear of conjuring a demon. Faustus wants to sell his soul, which he does, in return for fame, status and knowledge. He quickly begins moving in circles with the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, able to conjure Alexander the Great and Helen of Troy and make himself invisible so he can punch people. His plan is to spend his allotted time being rich, famous and devious, then repent in order to save his soul from Lucifer.For the Elizabethan audience, this play must have been like nothing else. There are devils, the Pope and his Cardinals, Alexander killing his foe Darius, and whores. The theatergoer must have left feeling they had gotten their money's worth. Marlowe was the bad boy of playwrights and this play shows why he had that reputation.The big surprise for me was the amount of Latin spoken, which is a lot. I don't know how much Latin the average person would have understood, especially since illiteracy was the norm, but Marlowe certainly flaunts his fluency in it.

[rinnreads · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

I found this a little dull to start with, due to the way it's written (why does that make me feel bad?). But it picked up when Faustus finally signed the contract. It was actually pretty funny!

Here are just some of Faustus' hijinks...

- Faustus often talks about himself in third person, so I was just imagining him as some sort of crazy doctor
- he doesn't seem to completely realise what he's getting himself into when he signs the contract
- one of the first things he does is ask Mephistophilis for a wife. He is presented with a demon in a dress
- he sees an opportunity to punch the Pope in the face, and takes it. He's going to Hell anyway, so why not?
- he also steals food and wine from the Pope's plate
- he insults a knight by suggesting his wife is committing adultery (makes him wear horns upon his head -> cuckolding)

[akblanchard_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

Elizabethan dramatist Christopher Marlowe wrote the first English-language version of the classic German tale of a man who sells his soul to the Devil in exchange for knowledge and worldly pleasures. There are different, varying texts; I read the 1604 edition as provided by Project Gutenberg, which "is believed by most scholars to be closer to the play as originally performed in Marlowe's lifetime" (according to Wikipedia). I was pleasantly surprised at how readable and easy to follow this play was. Faustus is not a sympathetic character (one sign of his narcissism is that he always refers to himself in the third person) but it is hard not to feel sorry for him when the end of his twenty-four years of earthly pleasure come to an end, and the Devil takes is due.My 2008 Kobo e-reader (which came with the text pre-loaded) did not allow me to easily access the footnotes at the end of the text, which was just as well. The footnotes tend to be a distraction, and most of them compared varying editions of the play, which may be useful for scholars, but not for general readers.

[grlintrrptdrdng · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

It's one of those plays you need to read through and reread to get the whole idea of what's going on. My first opinion of it was that it didn't make sense and was poorly put together, but once I read it again and allowed myself to get sucked in and think "ok lets say this is possible" I felt like I had a better understanding and can actually say I kinda like the play now. The characters are similar for a reason, and I know this, but it bothers me.

[baswood · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Most people will have heard of Doctor Faustus. There have been plays, novels, films, operas all based on a folk legend of a man who sold his soul to the Devil to enjoy power on earth. Christopher Marlowe is credited with the first play probably written in 1588/9. His play was an adaption of a story in a chapbook "The History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus" which was probably available in an English translation a couple of years before Marlowe wrote his play. The title from the chapbook gives the game away immediately it was a morality story and Doctor John Faustus brought it all on himself. Marlowe's Doctor Faustus pretty much follows the storyline to the extent that some early critics have called it just a theatrical treatment of a popular legend. It is not considered that today to the extent that the ambiguity of Marlowe's treatment of the legend has led it to be considered a cultural work of art. I would also add that that some great lines of poetical drama have ensured it continues to be read today:"Was this the face that launched a thousand shipsAnd burned the topless towers of Ilium?Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss."The play has come down to us in two main versions: the A text and the B text both published some time after Marlowe's death: the A text in 1604 and the B text in 1616. The A text is quite a short play of 1517 lines while the B text is an extended version running to 2121 lines. It is known that two playwrights were commissioned to write some additions to the play in 1602 which probably were included in the B text, but as playwrights in the Elizabethan theatrical world often collaborated or patched plays there is no real evidence of how much of Marlowe's hand is in either of the texts. However most of the thrilling lines of poetry are contained in both versions. I read the two versions one after another and found the shorter A text much more to my liking. It seemed to me that many of the additions in the B text were aimed at drawing out the comedy which I thought was merely padding. The B text also aims to make the drama more clear in its interpretation and provides more in the way of instructions to actors/producers to aid the flow. I think the extended B text seriously undermines the drama of the A text. Of course producers/directors of a live performance are able to combine the two. With the existence of the two published texts there have been reams of study by academics and others on the subject of how much of the texts did Christopher Marlowe actually write. It is always going to be an open ended question because we do not know what Marlowe's handwriting looked like and there is no artistic work in existence with his signature. This debate in my opinion is futile, what matters is the text that has come down to us with the knowledge that Marlowe probably wrote some of it. That is enough for me, because obsession with authorial identity can lead to a failure of enjoyment in the work, almost like not seeing the wood for the trees.The play was an immediate hit. It was performed pretty much continuously (when the theatres were open) from the early 1590's until the closing of the theatres in 1642 and played again after the restoration. With hindsight it is not difficult to account for its popularity with the Elizabethan audiences, because it would have probably pushed some of their buttons: the power of the magician, the threat of the devil and the admonition to repent. The plays opening scene shows Doctor Faustus in his study and a chorus has already informed the audience that:his waxen wings did mount above his reachAnd melting heavens conspired his overthrow.Faustus tells us that he has achieved all he can by study and he is now going to turn to magic to get more power and change the world, he invites two conjurers Valdes and Cornelius to teach him the art of conjuration. It is not long before Faustus has summoned a devil: Mephistopheles with whom he negotiates a contract for ultimate power on earth in return for his soul on his death. While this may appear far fetched to modern audiences it would not have been to many levels of Elizabethan society. Magic and natural science was of great interest to the intellectual free thinker group led by Sir Walter Raleigh which included John Dee (Queen Elizabeths favourite) and Marlowe. Lower down the pecking order spells, conjuration, black magic was part and parcel of many peoples lives and so the act of summoning devils from hell would have an horrific resonance to theatre goers. The drama in the play is whether Faustus will be able to save his soul: can he have his cake and get to eat it too. Repentance for protestants as well as catholics was a powerful tool of the clergy and playgoers would have this in mind when at various points in the play Faustus wonders how he can get free of his contract. He is visited by a good angel who encourages him to repent, to throw himself on the mercy of God, however along with the good angel appears an evil angel who has no trouble in appealing to Faustus baser instincts. In a powerful final act the clock is ticking down on Faustus contract and when he attempts to turn to God for salvation Mephistopheles says he will rip him to pieces. The appearance of the devils on stage makes for tremendous visual theatre and would no doubt have frightened some play goers.Todays readers and theatre audiences will know the story, the surprise element would be diminished, but there is still much to enjoy. Crucially some of the text is ambiguous and different interpretations can be placed on it: for example how much free will does Faustus really have, could he have saved himself? For readers at home and directors of the stage play there are plenty of talking points, it is a play that does invite debate; for example assuming that Marlowe wrote a substantial amount of the text how much could it be considered to be autobiographical. How much of Marlowe is in Doctor Faustus. The play could be considered a cultural milestone in the early modern theatre. It was dramatic, it was popular and it contained some great writing. It has held up through the intervening years and there have been modern successful productions. However it was not completely new, it still shows a debt to the old morality plays, it goes back further by incorporating a Greek style chorus at the beginning of the first four acts and there is still room for pageantry when the severn deadly sins are paraded across the stage. The character of Faustus and his relationship to Mephistopheles holds our interest, but there is nothing much else. There are no female characters to speak of, only the Duchess of Vanholt gets to say a few words; even Helen of Troy is just paraded around the stage. Then there are the comic interludes. In the A text the scenes with Wagner (Faustus servant) serve to provide some light relief by mirroring some of the actions of his master. Wagner steals one of Faustus magic books and sets out to summon some devils. It is however in Act 4 where the comedy comes into its own when an invisible Faustus creates some havoc at a banquet thrown by the Pope. I think the play of the A text just about survives these comic interludes and Faustus dealing with the Pope and the Horse-courser throws some additional light onto his character, however the bulk of the extended B text is a rewriting of the comic scenes and while they might have served a demand for more entertainment at the theatre they do not in my opinion enhance the play.I read the Norton Critical edition of the play which has all you need as a student or interested reader. It has both the A text and the B text. It has substantial extracts from the chapbook that provided Marlowe with his story. It sketches in the religious context and Marlowe's wranglings with Richard Baines who accused him of atheism. There is some early criticism, some modern criticism, articles on ideas and ideologies and performance. Altogether an excellent book that should enhance your enjoyment of the play and so 5 stars.

[meditationesmartini · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The Faust legend-topos is one of our really old and deeply rooted ones, allied to those of Raven and Icarus and Frankenstein and Babel (esp. as seen by early modern Faustian scholar-mystics like Jakob Böhme and Athanasius Kircher*) and the tragical history of the Germans (as seen by Thomas Mann); and in the darkest and smokiest irony, also that of Lucifer. And it is more relevant every day, and indeed may prove in this age of moneymancers entering a kind of posthuman state and technomagi melting icecaps to chase the singularity to be humanity's fittest epitaph. (It is of course also at some level the motivation for just about everyone still studying the humanities in our age. What profit a man if he gain forbidden knowledge but lose his job prospects? That's hubris!)So I really want Marlowe's version to be the definitive one, not only because it's for the stage and that's where all our deepest folk-warnings should play themselves out, not only because Marlowe himself stands as such a vivid and brilliant transgressor of norms in the literary mythic unconscious, but also because of when it was: English Renaissance, kicking off a modernity that was already making whole new types of human, whole new types of self-creation, possible. The Romantics would famously rediscover Faust (and cf. to Goethe's probably more definitive Faust the Prometheus of Shelley or the Hyperion of Keats), but the Romantics also show that transgressive knowing becomes mere self-improvement if everyone's doing it; the Elizabethans still burned witches at the stake.But expecting a magnificent light-bringer here turns out to be expecting just a bit too much--Marlowe is too canny a player of both sides against the middle to make of Faust an antihero for the present's version of the forward(-thinking) edge of the past and risk getting burned. Instead of Galileo-as-a-smouldering-leading-man, sapere aude, we get something more akin to a dangers-of-excess tale, where everyone is clucking their tongues about Faust and he is using his devilish servant, after a few initial sallies at the kind of music-of-the-spheres, number-of-the-birds-of-the-air deep lore deftly turned aside by Mephistophilis with pseudo-answers, to cuddle up to the HREmperor and take Helen of Troy as concubine and do the kind of groundling-oriented stage business like slapping the Pope and giving horns to hapless dickhead knights that might have gone over when everybody still half-wanted (and official culture and state religion explicitly wanted) Faust to fall on his arse for thinking he was a smart fucker with his books. You thrill a little bit at his initial daring in rejecting God, no matter how guided and groomed by the devils—the effortlessness with which he assumes that he’s forced Mephistophilis to take on corporeal form and he’s not just being manipulated, the flaming human pride with which he meets Lucifer as a kind of equal, though the imposing figure he cuts will prove insubstantial once they have his soul and he’s left with an eschatological credit card debt no honest man can pay. This, again, makes him a hero for our times (I too drape myself in nicer rags than I can afford! Pleasantly, capitalism in this metaphor is Satan), but it is disappointing in a larger sense if we see the truest tragedy as the tale of nobility brought low. Crucially, Faustus does not merely gamble his soul: he gambles on the existence of his soul, because if there is no such superstitious thing, what punishment can he face? And that kind of radically enlightening Do-As-Thou-Wiltism promises us a kind of paragon in Faust, but as he indulges his appetites we learn to our chagrin that what he’s really about is a (with apologies to Nietzsche’s Zarathustra) less principled “nothing is true; everything is permitted.” He never learns a thing … but then it turns out he never really wanted to anyway, which transmutes a bit too much of the pathos into satire for me.Two particular notes on all this. The first on religion and meritocracy: We today are used to thinking of Protestantism, liberal capitalism, and science as mutually reinforcing threads in the early modern period, and the Catholic Church as essentially medieval in its hierarchies, attitudes, and practices, but this here was not so long before the Thirty Years’ War set Faustus’s Germany on fire and the situation is entirely more complicated. Marlowe went to Cambridge during the period of the great debates there on the Calvinist idea of absolute predestination, which was actually adopted as official doctrine by the Church of England in this period, and which of course sees Faust as tragic because he is destined to be great but not good, full of supernatural mojo borrowed from Lucifer, who takes back with interest, rather than truly Elect. This play has been read both as a substantiation and a critique of that view, an ambiguity of course by authorial design. But it’s interesting the way the Catholic Church as “worldly” (and “demonic”) is aligned somewhat with Faust’s knowledge-quest and certainly with his brilliant career (the Pope gets sooooo mad when Faust steals his lunch) and not with the backward ignorance we’re comfortable ascribing to the historical Church in the Anglo-American, post-Protestant present; Protestantism here is still a rude young fundamentalist movement with a lot of its own transgressives still to burn. In this sense it’s almost too cute when Marlowe gestures back to the Faust story’s roots as a medieval morality tale by conducting a Parade of the Sins only instead of scaring us they are being held out by Lucifer to Faustus as baubles, as instances of the kind of knowledge (and, implicitly, indulgence) he can expect.The second on books: we fetishize them plenty today, of course, rise of the ereader notwithstanding, but it’s fascinating to see what a monopoly book-learnin’ had on knowledge transmission and people’s ideas about what had meaning and where it was located in this pre–scientific method, vernacular-Bible era. Books lubricate the plot and embody the choice between good and evil—the Good Angel** enjoins Faustus to “lay that damnéd book [that he uses to summon the devil] aside […] Read the Scriptures:—that is blasphemy”; and it is deeply adorable when Mephistophilis asks Faust what’s his command and Faust takes the most literal-minded interpretation of the “Book of Nature” that he could and wants a book about the secrets of the Earth and one about the firmament and one about Hell so that he can go back to his room and read them like a bookworm. (It makes me laugh to think about the Hollywood film version, where instead of a Master and Margarita-style effects-laden flight to the source of the rainbow and the dark side of the moon we get Faust sitting in his study with a candle rubbing his chin like “I see, I see” and pushing the cat off his lap.) And these same “conjuring-books” then stand as knowledge-talismans or fetishes (most people still couldn’t read, of course), appropriated in various ways by other characters and leading to much hijinx. (The only other motif of comparable complexity to books in the play, barring perhaps the planets, is fire, and, well, we know what you get when you put fire and books together, literally and symbolically.)You can’t always get what you want, so don’t try or you’ll be damned, damned, damned, seems to be the message; but this is salvaged and made darkly majestic by its author’s wisdom about the evil in the hearts of men: he knows what we are and that we’ll never listen to that old saw, and that certainly makes this a powerful tragedy, albeit simply one of the appetites, not the “tragedy of the scholarly mind” or the “tragedy of the creation of the self” that the Faust-legend can be at its best.*Whaaaa I was just reading about these mystics and found out Faust was a real dude! A cabalist, astrologer, etc., just like those others. The real guy is distinct from and preceded by the legend-topos, of course, whether it took his name or not.**Is the angel-and-devil-on-the-shoulders thing beloved of Looney Tunes animators original with Marlowe?

[maowangvater · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Based on the Faustbuch, an anonymous cautionary tale about the German magician who sold his soul to the devil, this Elizabethan update on the old medieval morality play is enlivened by short comic sketches layered between the miraculous conjuring tricks—complete with fireworks for special effects—and tragedy as Faustus, torn between Good and Evil Angels struggles with thoughts of repentance only to sign a compact with the devil in his own blood in exchange for the spirit of the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen of Troy, to be his lover. The language is marvelous. Here’s three verses, from Scene 13, of what Ben Johnson characterized as “Marlowe’s mighty line.”Was this the face that launch’d a thousand ships,And burnt the topless towers of Ilium?Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.

[br13wivan · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Doctor Faustus is a stunning literary jewel by Christopher Marlowe. It is a fascinating and moving religious work. It is hilariously funny at points and brutally serious at others. This story of Victorian jihad (the struggle is lost in this case) couldn’t have been clearer in its message, touching in its story, or crafted better than Marlowe had from his block of marble, the Historia von D. Iohan Fausten, which provided the bones of this spectacular theatrical work.It tells the tale of a Doctor in Wittenburg, Germany. While experimenting in the dark and unholy art of magic, he summons a demon named Mephostophilis. Through the cajoling of the demon and an evil angel, and regardless of God’s offers of forgiveness and callings, the Doctor, John Faustus, sells his soul to Lucifer in exchange for twenty-four years of absolute power given to him by Mephostophilis, who will stay with him until that time and grant whatever Faustus desires. He goes from swindling money from unsuspecting people to even haunting the Pope. And through it all he denies God, trading eternal life in Heaven for a mortal life full of all the knowledge and power that he could ever want. In the end, one hour before his demise and descent into Hell, he is shown of the tortures that await him. And he prays to God for forgiveness, declaring his repentance and begging for mercy. Sadly, Faustus does not receive it, and is torn asunder by demons who proceed to drag his soul away.There wasn’t really anything wrong with the writing at all. It was beautiful and got its point across quite easily. One might even wish for it to be longer! A definite five stars.

[brent6hall · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

A must read, it's a classic

[smiler69 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This short play is based on a classic German legend about Faust, a scholar who makes a deal with the devil where he proposes to sell give his soul in exchange for unlimited knowledge and pleasure. In Marlowe's interpretation, Doctor Faustus asks the Devil for twenty-four years of life during which time the demon Mephistopheles will do his bidding, in exchange for his soul which will spend eternity in the fires of hell, and he signs his pact with Lucifer in his own blood to finalize the deal. Throughout the play, we see Doctor Faustus being pulled between his craving for unlimited power and his yearning for salvation, with the Good Angel urging him to repent and the Bad Angel encouraging him to fulfill his promise. Faustus chooses to keep to the path of sin for the privileges that power affords him, such as the ability to perform magic, and is taken to hell by Mephistopheles when his time on earth is expired. Of course, there is much more that can be said about this play, but I am not a scholar and have found that Wikipedia gives a very interesting—and thorough—analysis of it. I did have a little bit of trouble understanding some of the old English and numerous Latin quotes and expression, although these were translated in my annotated version. I was expecting a very serious and dark approach to this story, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that it was in fact treated with quite a lot of humour. I initially became interested in the legend of Faust when I was reading [The Master and Margarita], which is why I got this book, forgetting all along that Bulgakov had based himself on Goethe's [Faust], written much later, but am glad I did read the Elizabethan classic interpretation first which will give me something to compare Goethe's version to when I get to it.

[unionhawk_1 · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

A tragic tale, yet not so tragic, if you think about it. Faustus isn't exactly a character you can really cheer for, given his devilish tricks and arrogance.I enjoyed reading Doctor Faustus, despite being assigned to read it for English class. It was an interesting story, and I would read it again.

[eldatari · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

Even if you haven't read this play, you're probably familiar with the tale of Dr. Faustus. The fact that this tale has proven so enduring over the centuries is due in good part to the power of this text. Reading this play, it's hard to believe that it was written back in the 1500s. Marlowe is every bit as good as his contemporary, William Shakespeare.

[klai_78 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

Perhaps it's because this play only survives in two very different source texts, I couldn't help feeling that it didn't work nearly as smoothly as I had hoped. Mostly enjoyed it, except for the occasional cobbled-togetherness. The story itself is a classic.Could have done with a more erudite edition, too: the annotations etc in this edition are about high school level.

[joririchardson · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I expected Marlowe's writing to be closer to Shakespeare, but instead he reminded me more of Dante or Chaucer.A well written play with religious, philosophical, and allegoric implications. Doctor Faustus is overly attracted to power and wealth, and thus begins to practice necromancy. This leads to him securing a pact with the devil, Lucifer, and selling his soul in return for riches and fame.I loved how this work of theater combined comedy with tragedy, though I would say that I felt more moved by the ironic sadness of the story than the laughable scenes.A very good work of literature.

[alera_6 · Rating: 3 out of 5 stars]

This play reveals the story of a common man who allows his greed for knowledge to overwhelm his common sense and objectivity and lead him down a cursed path from which he cannot recover. It is also a commentary on the plight of the Renaissance man as he attempted to find and define himself without God. Intriguing to look at, and quite revealing to the mindset of both the author and the time.

[the_awesome_opossum · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

The Faustian deal of selling your soul to the devil is so pervasive in our culture now, most people would probably be familiar with the story without having read it - either Marlowe's version or any other. Partly morality play (although more engrossing than most) and partly commentary on pre-destination versus free will, Doctor Faustus is about a young scholar who manages to conjure up a devil and live a short and sweet life of luxury before his eternal damnation. Faustus is never a particularly sympathetic character - he is horrifically short-sighted and solipsistic, right up to his final hour before damnation. But it is entertaining, and would be a fun play to stage. Plus it's interesting to see the origins of what I had thought of as a timeless cultural legend

[deptstoremook · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

This short but important work seems to pre-figure the more nuanced and complex ethical questions that Shakespeare starts addressing a few years down the line from when this piece was written and performed.The length of the piece makes it easy to analyze, but also leads to a shallowness of meaning. Doctor Faustus, having explored and mastered all the fields of study he knows of, turns to the occult to relieve his boredom. Though constantly advised against it, he summons the demon Mephistopholes and sells his soul to Lucifer in exchange for "four and twenty" years of power.These years are squandered--naturally, perhaps; what is the point of doing anything when you needn't expend any effort doing it? Faustus refuses to repent to God for his sins, and is dragged down to Hell/consumed by demons. End of story. If you don't repent, you're damned, but if you do repent, you're saved. Not quite the multi-layered ethics Hamlet.While the piece might lack in symbolic depth, the language is (in my opinion) very well-crafted, not to mention quotable:Was this the face that launch'd a thousand shipsAnd burnt the topless towers of Ilium?Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.(I remember one of my high school English teachers reflecting that Faustus must certainly have been lonely to summon an apparition of Helen to accompany him. I must admit, though, that I too would like to see just what was so great about this girl!)Overall, one of the 'classic' Elizabethan plays, it lives up to its reputation and is only rated so because it is overshadowed by other formidable works of the time period.

[cleverusername2 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

I love Shakespeare too, but his verbiage is much harder to follow than Marlowe. This story, what can I say. It's about hubris, forbidden lore, attaining ultimate power and ultimate corruption. It's epic and just as relevant all these years later.

[antiquary_1 · Rating: 4 out of 5 stars]

The great scenes meeing the devil, Helen, the final damnation) are truly great, but some of the comedy is very feeble.