Read the introduction (vii-xix) in your copy of Faustus and respond to Sylvan Barnet’s commentary on the play. You may agree, disagree, comment or add to his discussion, but you must do so with evidence from the text (cited correctly). Additionally, please respond to one additional post from a classmate in a thoughtful and grammatically correct manner. Again, please use proper citation and textual evidence.
Please be sure to "post a comment" for this assignment.
Please be sure to PROOFREAD your work before posting. Careless errors are not only embarrassingly public, but they are also costly to your test grade.
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSylvan Barnet's commentary of Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe as the introduction to the play was appropriate, and at many times, correct. Throughout his commentary, he spoke of many different issues and problems that lied within the play, and he was correct with many of his arguments, and the side that he chose.
ReplyDeleteBarnet begins his commentary with a description of how Faustus is “seen as the figure of the Renaissance,” and is a representation of the time period “in which man's thinking took a bad turn and entered upon the course it still pursues.” Both statements are correct and they both explain the reason Marlowe decided to make the story one in which Faustus “centers his life on the quest for knowledge, and for power that knowledge confers, rather than on God.” This is reasonably truthful, but Barnet could have possibly elaborated on this by explaining more about Christopher Marlowe, how Christopher attempted for an absence of God in the search for knowledge because he is an atheist. In addition, Barnet could have spoken on how Faustus' confusion with God could have also reflected what Marlowe had been experiencing at the time. Marlowe claimed to be an atheist, but the play had the presence of God in every act, and it showed God as the leader of the side that Faustus should return to.
Later on, throughout his commentary, Barnet says that a strong idea in the play is that Faustus is trapped. His example of this is the beginning of act V scene ii, when Lucifer, Belzebub, and Mephostophilis enter to take Faustus' soul. An addition that should have been stated is that Faustus is the cause of himself to be trapped when he first makes the deal. The evidence appears when Faustus says “ Think'st thou that Faustus is so fond(foolish) to imagine/ that after this life there is any pain?/ No, these are trifles and mere old wives' tales.” (II .i. 139-141) To which Mephostophilis replies “But I am for instance to prove the contrary,/ for I tell thee I am damned and now in hell!” (II .i. 142-143) Mephostophilis was trying to warn Faustus that hell is a bad place to be, but Faustus allowed his ego to overshadow the fact that Mephostophilis was telling the truth and trying to warn him of what would eventually happen.
Towards the end of the commentary, Barnet speaks of many different agreeable terms which are present within the play. When speaking of Faustus, Barnet says, “his magnificence is corrupt because it is founded on egoism rather than on love and service.” Faustus precisely shows in many of his speeches, actions, and monologues which given throughout the play. The story of Faustus is memorable because of the unique magnificence which Barnet states, and how it leads to his deterioration, rather than to his future success.
I have noticed that Sylvan Barnet brings up several elements about the play that we have previously discussed in our Socratic circles. He provokes a strong argument and supports his scenarios with copious examples from the play. I concur with a lot of the statements he bought up, but there is a couple that I disagree with.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of Barnet’s commentary, Faustus is epitomized as a “Renaissance man” He argues that the readers are able to hear the voice of a Renaissance humanist in Faustus due to the fact that, “He is a man refreshed by the greatness of the pagan past and anxious to lie an ampler life than his father had lived” (xii). I concur that with the fact that Faustus did want to be greater than his father, but that was only due to his greed for power. Barnet also suggests that Faustus can be seen in one of two ways, a heroic humanist or a fool, depending on the way people view the play. In my opinion, he is a fool. I can’t even think of one instance where Faustus is seen as a heroic humanist. The reason why I say that is because Faustus had known what the outcome of his deal would be before he made it. He was aware of the dangers it was going to bring about; however, his avarice prompted him to ignore the immoral sides to the deal. The fact that he disregarded the cautions and carried on with actions that he knew were going to corrupt him, was what makes him a fool.
Another argument that Barnet brings up is that Faustus comes to destruction not merely through his actions, but through the actions of a hostile cosmos that entraps him. He also uses many quintessential examples that support the fact that the devils had trapped him to make a deal with them. However, I strongly refute this argument. I believe that this came up in one of the Socratic circles, where we discussed weather Faustus was responsible for his own downfall. I believe that he is the only one to blame for his demise because, as previously mentioned, he knew beforehand what was going to happen to him. Barnet argues his side to this by comparing God and Adam to Faustus and the devil. This parallel is illustrated to blame the devil for Faustus’ downfall. He argues that God knew what was going to happen to Adam before he created Adam. Similarly, it is wont that the devils had known what was going to happen before they made the deal with Faustus, and that is why they entrapped him. I think that this is the weakest point in the argument because Adam did not know about his punishment and the price that he was going to pay before he ate from the tree of knowledge, whereas Faustus knew.
I agree with many of the statements made in the commentary by Sylvan Barnet, but disagree with certain others. Faustus is depicted as a man who was changing with the times of the Renaissance period. The Renaissance itself was a dramatic movement that centered around individuals and human achievement. The Renaissance humanists were evolving but conflicts arose as church officials were threatened with the new preoccupation with arts and sciences rather than God and the Bible. The pride and desire of Faustus can be attributed to the Renaissance. After all, the Renaissance was “the discovery of the world and of man” (Burckhardt viii). Human’s opinions of themselves changed and they were becoming more materialistic as portrayed in the changing arts. Human features and human thinking were showcased and a human centered world emerged replacing the church centered world for many. It is almost as if certain individuals were moving and the rest of society was standing still with traditional values at heart. The play is describing “the story of a Renaissance man who had to pay the medieval price for being one” (Professor R. M. Dawkins viii). Faustus is the epitome of a Renaissance humanist exploring many sciences. While engaging in the Renaissance, he is straying further and further away from the medieval way of life. Going back to this being a morality play, perhaps the lesson learned is to go back to Christian values because Faustus deviated from this and that led to his demise. Marlowe was an atheist, so is he saying that there is something wrong with not following medieval values? However, maybe by following the church, Faustus could not have explored the sciences to the extent that he wished for. There are downsides of both viewpoints. I do not agree that: "The difference between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages was not a difference by addition but by subtraction. The Renaissance, as it has been described to us, was not the Middle Ages plus man, but the Middle Ages minus God, and the tragedy is that in losing God the Renaissance was losing man himself" (Gilson x).
ReplyDeleteIt states that those who participated in the Renaissance not only lost God, but lost themselves. It completely opposes the whole ideal of the Renaissance in man discovering himself. Humans accomplished much in the discovery of anatomy and physical form. It suggests that God is needed for life and one cannot accomplish anything by losing their religious connection. Renaissance humanists may still believe in God, but put their individual goals first.
Faustus did begin his journey with knowledge and fame in mind but he seemed to deteriorate and become uncivilized as the play progressed. The Seven Deadly Sins are used to showcase how Faustus is pleased and excited by childish images. It is much like Othello whereby Othello was once admired and looked highly upon by many, but towards the end his notable exterior broke down and a crazy paranoid man emerged. Faustus had such high hopes of helping save people and presenting new learned ideas to the masses but he uses the powers he has to impress emperors with devil impersonators of famous people. This not only makes him look foolish, but presents a weakness in his intelligence because he does not know how to manage the power that he does have and he does not even accomplish what he sought after originally. His powers got the best of him and led to his downfall.
Unlike the Creator who takes blame for the fall of Adam, Faustus must take the on the responsibility for his actions. “…the devils cannot control Faustus; they can only come to him when he has laid himself open to them” (Barnet xv). It was Faustus’ idea to conjure up the devils and in the end it was his choice to follow the Good or Bad Angel and he chose the Bad Angel. The nature of man cannot take the responsibility of one individual. The humanists showed the distinct human features of each person and since all humans are different, the whole group cannot take the blame for one’s mistakes.
Sylvan Barnet has made very interesting points on his commentary of Doctor Faustus. There are many points I agree with and disagree with.
ReplyDeleteFirst, Barnet makes a point of Faustus being a Renaissance Man. He explains that the “Renaissance saw the emergence of the individual” (Bruckhardt). This can be contributed to Faustus’ arrogance. I agree with Barnet on this concept. Since the Renaissance was the focus on the individual, it is only natural for him to concentrate on receiving knowledge and focusing on himself and the knowledge he wants to obtain. The Renaissance was a movement away from the religious values. It makes sense for Faustus to be interested in obtaining information beyond religion and God.
However I strongly disagree with his statement “that Faustus comes to destruction not merely through his own actions but through the actions of a hostile cosmos that entraps him” I do not think Faustus brought his own destruction by not heeding any of the warnings he was given by Mephistopheles and the Good Angels. When Faustus conjures Mephistopheles, he warns him not to do it. He says, “O Faustus, leave these frivolous demands/which strikes a terror to my fainting soul.” (I.iii.80-81). Nothing entraps Faustus but his own actions. He chooses to make foolish decisions and he chooses to ignore all of the warnings he is given. Faustus chooses to let his hubris get the better of him.
I agree with Barnet’s view that Marlowe shows that Faustus’ egotism blinds him to think that he can rule nature with magic. Faustus’ head swells with pride. He thinks that with playing with dark magic, he can be more knowledgeable and powerful. He is dissatisfied with the limitations of the knowledge he already has. For example, Faustus claims that with his knowledge, he cannot make man immortal (I.i.22). It would be very foolish if Faustus could think he could make men immortal.
Barnet makes strong points with his commentary on Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus. Even though his arguments are strong, they are some points that could be debated.
I personally feel that the introduction was able to cover most view points of what people thought about the play Dr. Faustus.
ReplyDeleteInstead of writing a boring never ending paragraph, I decided to break my blog post into parts; each part is a different quote, and I decided to explain my stance, and opinions on each.
Quote 1
“Yet another index, and one especially relevant to Doctor Faustus, is the concept of wisdom. For the Middle Ages, the highest wisdom was knowledge of divine things, which was achieved through God’s grace, bestowed in revelation. In the Renaissance, however, one finds abundant deprecation of the contemplative life rooted in faith, and abundant praise of the active life, of the study of political and social man”. (Page ix)
This personally stuck out to me, because it defines what I have been taught in school about the Renaissance. I agree with this statement, because it is true, the Renaissance is when people stepped away from the achievement of God and the religious world, and started focusing more on the achievements of man. Faustus could be considered a Renaissance man, because he did not believe in religion, and decided to make a deal with the devil acquire more knowledge, which is exactly what the play was about.
Quote II
“The difference between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages was not a difference by addition but by subtraction. The Renaissance, as it has been described to us, was not the Middle Ages plus man, but the Middle Ages minus G-d, and the tragedy is that in losing G-d the Renaissance was losing man himself.” (Page x-xi)
While I agreed with the last quote, I have to disagree with this quote. During the Renaissance man did subtract G-d from their life, but through that subtraction they made an identity for themselves, not only becoming aware of what man truly is, but what man has the capabilities of becoming. During the Middle Ages, people were forced into certain social classes in which there was no possibility of creating a better life for themselves. The word Renaissance means rebirth, and during this time people were not losing who they were, but instead were creating a new identity for themselves, and bettering their lives. Faustus lost his soul not because he was a Renaissance man, but for acquiring his knowledge through the devil.
Quote III
”The play ‘means’ what it says, beginning with the Chorus’ first entry and concluding with its final exit”
This last quote I personally agree with. While I was disappointed about the play giving away Faustus’ fate at the very beginning, it did help to the understanding of the play. While the chorus in the beginning sets up the play and gives away Faustus’ fate, the chorus at the end of the play puts everything together. The play’s meaning is to stick with the Great Chain of being, and never climb it. This concept might have been hard for Faustus to understand, but it is made clear throughout the play.
I agree with several of the points Sylvan Barnet makes on the play. Barnet states that Faustus is an example of a Renaissance man. The Renaissance was the time period when people began to question religion. People began to wonder more about the world as well. Faustus illustrates this concept several times throughout the play. “Go haste thee, gentle Mephostophilis,/ Follow the cardinals to the consistory/ And as they turn their superstitious books..” (III.i.113-115). Faustus looks at the bibles as books which are of little value. The black magic books which Faustus reads from seem to be of more value compared to the bibles. Barnet states that Faustus becomes more worried about the acquirement of knowledge. I agree with Barnet when he talks about Faustus’ desire to “heap up gold” but also “make men to live eternally.” This seems to me as contradicting; whenever someone has a passion there should only be one reason. However, for Faustus there are two reasons, which show how unsure he is of himself. Throughout the play Faustus repeatedly illustrates to the audience how powerful he can be. However, the powers he shows are only temporary. Majority of the works are done by Mephistopheles which shows how weak Faustus truly is. This implies that the desire of worldly information degenerated. This shows that Faustus’ greed was of more importance than gaining knowledge. This shows some of the seven deadly sins which are becoming more evident. “…whereas a wiser man would reject this activity as diminishing rather than nourishing..” ( Barnet xii). I agree with Barnet because Faustus loses his focus, he becomes entertained with things which are of little importance.
ReplyDeleteBarnet believes that Faustus was not the cause of his downfall; I disagree. Faustus repeatedly has the choice to repent and change his ways. However, he fails to make the right decision. “Ay so I do—But Mephistopheles, / My blood congeals and I can write no more.” (II.i.62-63). Faustus was warned before signing his soul to Lucifer, through the thickening of his blood. However, Faustus decides to find another way to make his blood run looser. This shows that he disregards one of the many warnings given by a higher authority. Throughout the play, the good and bad angels reappear. These angels show that Faustus was given both angles of a situation. However, every time the angels appear, Faustus sides with the bad angel. This shows that Faustus was in charge of his decisions.
I shall base this post on another student's post. I am going to disagree with Ladora and agree with the statement made by Sylvan Barnet.
ReplyDeleteThe statement of controversy by Barnet is “that Faustus comes to destruction not merely through his own actions but through the actions of a hostile cosmos that entraps him.” To elaborate on the quote, it says that Faustus future is fatalistic, that he has had his future planned out by the gods.
The first thing I would like to mention is that his tragic flaw will ruin him. It is a renaissance thing to do is to base this off of the classics. So, this story is going to be based off an Aristotelian tragedy. Therefore, Doctor Faustus will be ruined by his flaw, which is pride. This pride is always shown in the novel. For example, Think’st thou that Faustus is so fond to imagine / That after this life there is any pain? / Tush, these are trifles and mere old wives’ tales. (II, II, 132–135) This is right after he is warned that hell is going to be torturous. So, he believes he knows what is going to happen. Thus, his pride is getting in the way of the truth. Like most renaissance plays that are based off the classics, this is one of them. In addition, these plays use predetermined futures in it, just like this play.
Sorry to cut this short, but I have ACT’s in the morning.
Wait a minute...
ReplyDeleteWhere's my post???
I commented at around 10 last night.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMrs. Silva???
ReplyDeleteI am having extreme technical difficulties right now. It seems I can't make posts longer
than three lines without the computer freaking out. Can I give you my post on Monday? Please pardon this very strange occurrence.
ReplyDeleteMy computer seems to need a bit of a repair
ReplyDeleteAlthough Sylvan Barnet’s commentary contained some very interesting points, there were other points that I disagreed with.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of his commentary, Barnet explains how Faustus resembles a “Renaissance Man.” He also goes on to explain that he’s a Renaissance Man “who had to pay the medieval price for being one” (Barnet xviii). I would have to agree with Barnet on this one because in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, the beliefs of the medieval time period and the beliefs of the Renaissance clash in an epic war. Faustus represents both of these time periods because he was “doubtful of traditional authority, anxious to exert himself to the fullest, Faustus drove himself – and was driven – into experiences that were exhilarating but that brought him into conflict with the basic laws of life” (Barnet xviii). I think that Barnet is absolutely right in this point. Faustus was doubtful of religion which was one of the main reasons why he went into dark magic. He felt that he had to escape the claws of society by going into dark magic and harnessing its powers. His goal to become a demi-god, drove him further to the point where he makes a deal with the devil. Also as an historical note, the Renaissance was a time period where people began to move away from religious value so it would only make sense for Faustus to obtaining all knowledge.
Something that I strongly disagreed on was Barnet’s point on how Faustus was not the only one to blame for his downfall. Barnet believes that “Faustus comes to destruction not merely through his own actions but through the actions of a hostile cosmos that entraps him.” From my perspective, I think that Faustus is the only one to blame for his own demise. Not only did Faustus know what he was getting himself into, but he was also warned several times throughout the play to discontinue his practice of black magic. Characters such as the Good Angel, the Old Man, and Mephotophilis, all tried to warn Faustus about the consequences to his actions but he chose not to heed their warnings. The Old Man that appeared before Faustus toward the end of the play, tells Faustus to “…leave this damned art, /this magic that will charm thy soul to hell/and quite bereave the of salvation” (Marlowe V.i.36-38). Also to add another point, even though Faustus realizes that he has the chance to repent, he always chooses to not to. He does, however, show constant doubtfulness throughout the play: “Now Faustus, must thou need be damned; /canst thought not be saved! /What boots it then to think on God or heaven? /Away with such vain fancies and despair…” (II.i.1-4). Faustus reveals doubtfulness in his decision to surrender his soul to Lucifer as he battles whether or not he should repent to God. He quickly tries to get rid of these thoughts as he knows it will not help him in his desire to gain knowledge and power.
Barnet brings about some very strong and controversial points concerning the complex character, Faustus. Although many of his arguments are strong, others are very controversial.
This introduction from Sylvan Barnet was very interesting and I actually enjoyed reading most of it. I agreed and disagreed on some points, and liked some of his quotes.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, I like the point Barnet makes about how literature actually began a profession during the Renaissnce. He says on page ix that it widened mens horizons and the church was not the leading power anymore. Men were now held down by the restrictions of the church and could go out searching for knowledge. He also talks about painters, and how they concentrated more on the sitters and a more portrait look. During the middle ages, it was more vague but during The Renaissance, men became more important. Also, we discussed in class about the Middle Ages being about God and everything was achieved through God. However, during the Renaissance, men wanted their own achievements. I liked one of the quotes found on pages X- Xi.
" The difference between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages was not a difference by addition byt by subtraction. The Renaissance, as it has been described to us, was not the Middle Ages plus man, but the Middle Ages minus God, and the tragedy is tht in losing God the Renaissance was losing man himself."
I liked this quote because it is basically saying that God created man in his image, so if God is taken out of the picture, then you are taking man out the picture. I just liked the way Etienne Gilson puts it because i never thought of it like that before.
Barnett talks about Faustus being great but i have to disagree with that. Faustus WAS great before he was damned to hell. He was a very smart man in every aspect yet he still wanted to be greater. How can he be great with the decisions he made? And having the chance to repent, he chose not to. Another quote i liked is found on page Xiv.
"Man is mortal. That is his fate. Man pretends not to be mortal. That is his sin."
This quote is basically saying that since Man is mortal, he is doomed because man always wants more. He wants to be a greater figure and consequently, that is his sin.
Lastly, Barnett says that the Creator is responsible for the fall as seen on page xv. I have to disagree with that because the creatore gives everyone a choice. He says that Adam should have been created of better stuff. God may know if someone may fall, but hes giving you the decision. He wants to see if you can fight temptation and live for him. So i had to disagree with Barnett on that one.
This reading was very interesting and it brought up ALOT of points. Some which i agree with and others that i disagreed with.
I hear you Gene my comment didn't post either -___-
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading the introduction of Dr. Faustus by Sylvan Barnet. If I'm not mistaken, it is a book review, i think? It is amazing that one person wrote this introducion because it covered a lot of various points of views readers may have about Dr. Faustus. The first major point that Barnet comes across is Faustus's hubris- overbearing pride (page vii). However, in a way, he is not saying that pride is mainly responsible for Faustus's downfall. He explains that pride always suffers a fall and Faustus simply had too much of it, which resulted in a major and eternal downfall. Then, he typifies Faustus as "a Renaissance man who paid the medieval price for being one" (Pg vii). I find this statement not accurate. Because even though he desires knowledge and represents individualism as a typical Renaissance man, he devalues himself as the play goes on with stupid little tricks and jokes played on various people. That is nothing like a Renaissance man. He is solely responsible for the consequences and most of his actions don't associate with renaissance values, in my opinion. Marlowe is known as an atheist, and the point of view that "the first beginning of religion was only to keep man in awe (pg. x) is such a typically atheist one. Like most people would, I also disagree. I think religion gives human beings hope and safety. Another point of view in the introduction is that Renaissance is rather a turn to the worse from the medieval times. Move to secularism does not make up for the benefits of humanism quite enough. That is the type of POV that Marlowe would disagree on.
ReplyDeleteOn Pg xii, Barnet acknowledges thatFaustus did have good humanistic thoughts and intentions to begin with. Then he gives an example of Helen for that particular argument, which I quite don't get. Because that exaple with Helen rather shows how lost and confuesd Faustus is by that point that he fell for the illusion of helen. However, that example best reasons the next POV, which states that in Faustus, we see both the heroic humanist or the fool (PG xiii). As a heroic humanist, he obtains incredible knowledge- probably more than anyone during that time period. As a fool, he tries to reverse his fate- mortality; that is his major sin that will lead to his downfall.
The play "means" what it says. The meaning of the play is the play itself. - PG xvii. It is absolutely true. The whole play is so straight forward- the reader knows what each character is thinking; the chorus is very open as well, telling us everything right from the top since the start until the end of the play; finally, there are no surprises, meaning that nothing unexpected happens. We all know what will happen to Faustus from the beginning. We all know he is stubborn and he would not regret it, until the end, that is .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletei think i posted mine in the wrong place like 4 times -____-
ReplyDeleteAlthough Sylvan Barnet presented many good ideas in the introduction of Marlowe's play, Dr Faustus, I do not view some situations from the same perspective. In the case of Dr. Faustus, I do not necessarily agree with the statement; "pride will have a fall" (Barnet vii). I find that greed will have a fall. It was mostly Faustus' greed that led him to his fall; greed for more knowledge, and more of anything he could grasp. While reviewing the play, I found that Faustus did not have lot of pride. Personally, I think that he was not really proud of himself. His lack of self pride is shown through his excessive need to obtain more knowledge. He would most likely be over confident, with the notion that he is the best, eliminating his obsession of needing to be "more". "Why Faustus hast thou not attained that end? (Act I.i 17). The more I review this line, the more I sense his feelings of inadequacy. Continuing in the book, we see that Faustus repeatedly looks towards others for answers and guidance, showing that he is unable to trust himself, showing his lack of personal pride. If anything, I feel as though he lacked pride and tried to convince himself otherwise through his behavior. For example, his cockiness and how he repeatedly referred to himself in the third person in attempts to give himself more importance. Also, if he was proud of himself, he would not have been as vulnerable as he was. If he was a strong confident person, he would not have been easily swayed and seduced by the ideals the devil presented to him.
ReplyDeleteAs most of you know from the final Socratic circle I did not entirely agree that Faustus was fully to blame for Faustus' his downfall. Yes, Faustus "makes a choice, and that he is responsible for his choice"(Barnet xv), but it can not go unnoticed that Mephistopheles did contribute to his miserable end. In Act V.ii line 99-105, Mephistopheles admits his devilish act in the story; "I do confess it Faustus, and rejoice. 'Twas I, that when thou wert i' the way to heaven Damned up thy passage..." Mephistopheles instigated the acts committed by Faustus. Although he started the play showing compassion for Faustus and his situation, he was really playing Faustus like a puppet, constantly stringing him along. Another occasion, which was also mentioned in the introduction was when Mephistopheles spoke aside to himself; "What will not I do to obtain his soul!" (Act II.i 74). Showing Mephistopheles' perseverance in obtaining Faustus' soul, and that he would endure whatever he must in order to do so. Although Barnet's commentary is very thoughtful and had a lot of details, I found these two opinions of his questionable.
Sylvan Barnet brings up a lot of very interesting points. One of them is the battle between Renaissance and Medieval thought. Renaissance thinkers, for the most part, strayed away from spiritual ideas, and concerned themselves with other type of knowledge. This includes knowledge ranging from science to art. Barnet quotes Marlowe's accusation of religion. Marlowe says, "the first religion was only to keep men in awe. This shows Marlowe's viewpoint on religion that is apparent through out the play. Barnet argues that Faustus is not guilty for his actions because he was just a man discovering uncharted areas of knowledge. Barnet explains, "He[man] is not content to be merely American man, or Chinese man, or bourgeois man, or man of the twentieth century. He wants to be man. He is not content with his truth. He seeks the truth". This is the fundamental problem that Faustus faces in the play. In reality, Faustus' only sin is his quest to know more about himself and the world around him. This then leads to another point that Barnet discusses. Barnet argues that it is the creator's fault for not creating man better. Unlike Danny, in his post, I agree with Barnet's argument. If God is the creator of everything then why did he not make man perfect? It is an interesting point because the answer can differ on every person's belief. Barnet's introduction really makes you see Doctor Faustus in a completely new point of view. God and the devil are blamed as well as Faustus. In the end it proves impossible to blame Faustus' demise on one person.
ReplyDeleteI liked what Derrick mentioned about Faustus seeking THE truth and his only sin is wanting to know more. However, he didn't REALLY seek as much as he could have. Instead, he decided to merely play games and have fun. So, the only sin he committed is really worse, because he didn't fully do what Barnett says. Also, how would life be with everything perfect? Nothing would be interesting, there would be no individualisim, no choice. But you are right, because there are probably a billion different view points on this topic alone. I enjoyed you're post, keep it up son!
ReplyDeleteSylvan Barnet brings up several points that are very accurate about the play and that I agree with; however, I disagree with some of his points of view.
ReplyDeleteR.M. Dawkins remarkes that Doctor Faustus tells “the story of a Renaissance man who had to pay the medieval price for being one.” I believe this play's attitude towards the clash between medieval and Renaissance values is ambiguous. Personally, I think that Faustus is, without doubt, a Renaissance man; one who seeks the infinite knowledge of the world and desires power to become an unforgettable figure. As we know, the Renaissance was a movement that carried with it a new emphasis on the individual, on classical learning, and on scientific inquiry into the nature of the world. In the medieval model, tradition and authority, not individual inquiry, were key. But Marlowe keeps his tragic hero squarely in the medieval world, where eternal damnation is the price of human pride.
" The difference between the Renaissance and the Middle Ages was not a difference by addition but by subtraction. The Renaissance, as it has been described to us, was not the Middle Ages plus man, but the Middle Ages minus God, and the tragedy is that in losing God the Renaissance was losing man himself." This quote is another clear example that, Marlowe keeps bringing Faustus back to the time when religion was supreme (medieval), where God was involve in the actions of every human being, rather than flowing along with the time period of the play, when people lived in a more likely "God-free" environment.
Lastly, Barnet claims that "pride will have a fall" and, also that "Faustus comes to destruction not merely through his own actions but through the actions of a hostile cosmos that entraps him". I have to agree with Jacey, Faustus is said to be to have pride, which consequently leads to his downfall. Nevertheless, if we recall Faustus's first soliloquy, the reason for his deal with the devil was his lack of pride. Faustus is highly unsatisfied for the multiple careers he studied and for the little he has accomplished. Personally, I would pick greed and curiosity rather than pride as his main flaw. Faustus seeks to escalate in society with the unlimited power he obtains, and thus, he learns the secrets and marvels of the world. Yet, his greed transforms in foolishness and progressively makes him regress in authority and power, ultimately, ending as a pathetic human being.
Interesting points Kesiah, however I have to disagree with you on a couple of things. Yes, I agree with you that Faustus is a fool for causing his own demise; however, he wasn’t always so evil. If you take a look back to the beginning of the play, Faustus actually wanted to use his power for good such as medicine; making him of a semi-heroic humanist. Unfortunately, he did not continue this path of good. I definitely agree with you on the point that Faustus is the only one to blame for his demise. As I stated in my comment, a person can’t really blame someone else for their actions; you are entitled for your own actions and the outcome of those actions. The comparison between God and Adam and Faustus and the devil is certainly a good example of this. Good job girly :-D
ReplyDeletevarun...I agree with what you are saying to an extent; however, actions, not words, are what determines if a person is good or evil. Faustus only 'thought' of using his powers for good. What truly makes him evil, is the fact that he did not use his power for respectable deeds, such as making medicine. Faustus' actions epitomizes him as an individual drowned in avarice.
ReplyDeleteI concur with the point you make in your post. I do believe that Faustus was doubtful of religion, and that is the reason why he turned to black magic. He must have thought that human beings are transgressors due to their nature. Therefore, it would not really make a difference if he sinned.
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Blog-
ReplyDeleteYou do the introduction to Marlowe's Faustus an honor with your indepth treatment of its claims and suppositions! All around, I offer you my congratulations for reaching a level of work that would make your comp and lit siblings jealous and perhaps a bit confused. LOL. OMG.
As for your discussions, I see that most of you struggled with a few common questions. Firstly, many of you seemed to question Barnett's treatment of the Renaissance as the "Middle Ages minus God." Many of you, most notable Maddy and Jacey, question this assumption that a period of time marked by such distinct human achievement and global endeavor could be described in such bleak terms. My response to this is to ask whether or not these accomplishments add to the previous conception of "God" or simply detract and remove humans further from the initial definition. If you follow Barnett's concept that the first inklings of medieval religion were designed to keep humans in awe, then you may follow her train of thought. If you disagree with this, however, you may find her argument lacking in substance and definition.
Additionally, most of you also took exception with Bartnett's assertion that Faustus was a victim of a "hostile cosmos" that entrapped him. Many of you felt that this comment "let him off the hook" for his own end of the bargain. Here again, I have no "answer" for you on this subject, as you are really struggling with a greater concept called free will, a philosophical and theological concept as a old as thought itself. The debate over free will and determinism is an old one, and if you are interested, you can read a bit more on the subject on Stanford University's website:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/
Finally, on this subject of the free will debate and the failure of Doctor Faustus, I offer you a quote from the very humorous and wry modern author Chuck Palahniuk:
“Experts in ancient Greek culture say that people back then didn’t see their thoughts as belonging to them. When ancient Greeks had a thought, it occurred to them as a god or goddess giving an order. Apollo was telling them to be brave. Athena was telling them to fall in love.
Now people hear a commercial for sour cream potato chips and rush out to buy, but now they call this free will.
At least the ancient Greeks were being honest.””