How and to what extent is the literary and aesthetic nature of the Faustian Bargain and its consequences used to explore morality in Christopher Marlowe’s tragedy Doctor Faustus?

Introduction:

Doctor Faustus - first performed in either 1592 or 1593 and officially published posthumously in 1604 is an Elizabethan era tragedy. Summing it up in adjectives, it is a short, beautiful, and haunting text. In Doctor Faustus, a romantic quality is imputed to the epistemically dissatisfied Renaissance man and his quest for knowledge through the gothic imagery, fantastical adventures, and the intrigue of the occult between heaven and hell. However, by the end, Doctor Faustus is a didactic piece, warning of the repercussions of romanticising knowledge too much, to the extent that one would sell one’s soul for it. 

Since the story of Faustus and the Devil has been around for time immemorial, the folktale’s origin is debated, but the first official publication of the legend of Faust and the Faustian bargain was in 1587 as a chapbook, titled Historia D. Johann Fausten. Though Marlowe took inspiration from it, it is Marlowe’s masterful retelling of the age-old Faustian Bargain that brings the text together in its revelations of human morality and warnings against excess, giving the ‘deal with the Devil’ trope more depth and nuance. Despite the myriad dualities in the text, one of which has already been described, it is a duality of the physical against the metaphysical that drew me to this tragic tale and provided rationale for analysing it thoroughly. This duality is, quite simply, how small it is in length in contrast to the invaluable philosophical ruminations and wisdom it teaches. Doubtless, Doctor Faustus, is a widely studied text. Yet, Doctor Faustus stands stark against other works of literature of the time, in its darkness and talk of the devil. Paired with a contrarian wish to study a text not authored by Shakespeare in a Shakespeare-saturated epoch, another form of rationale was provided to study this great play.

Whilst reading the text, it was the duality of themes, the contradictions of character, and contrast in structure that were the most significant. Looking further within the text revealed that all these opposing lines of thought stemmed from the same heart, the same root - the Faustian Bargain. Every consequence reveals two sides of some fundamental aspect in the play. Accordingly, my line of inquiry was reached: How and to what extent is the literary and aesthetic nature of the Faustian Bargain and its consequences used to explore morality in Christopher Marlowe’s tragedy Doctor Faustus?

Thus, Marlowe’s authorial choices that shape the Faustian Bargain, the dualities that spring out of the bargain, and the explorations of morality will be analysed through two broad lines of research, with further subpoints that are all based on the Faustian Bargain. One, the multifarious dichotomies of character and what Marlowe is saying about the nature of morality through them; and two, salient literary and dramatic devices that speak directly to the nature of morality in man. The subpoints cover moral subversion, religious duality, symbolism of a somatic righteousness, and contrasts in representations of dignity and morality across society. 

A final note is regarding the details of the analysis. For Doctor Faustus, there are two versions of the text, A-Text (published in 1604) and B-Text (published in 1616, in the Jacobean era). This analysis strictly uses the A-Text. This is because the A-Text is generally regarded by literary critics, theorists, and historians to be more accurate to Marlowe’s intentions. The B-Text is longer with some of the particularly religious scenes being lengthened and Faustus’ final punishment being made more visceral and violent. These additions lend to the theory that other writers changed the text to create ecclesiastical propaganda for the masses, used to appease, patronise, and humour the Protestants under King James I. Hence, In the search of intellectual, literary, and aesthetic purity, only Text-A is being analysed. That being said, though notions and beliefs of heaven, hell, God, the Devil, and the soul will be talked about, they are strictly discussions of Marlowe’s ideas and what can be found further within. Such concepts are not necessarily espoused by the author and neither are they being preached.

DISCLAIMER: This is my extended essay for IB English, it got an A :)

Main Body:

The Question of the Faustian Bargain

In Doctor Faustus, the root of the entire text is its depictions of morality. The Faustian bargain emerges from this, in the pivotal Act 2, Scene 1 where Faustus ‘cut[s] [his] arm, and with [his] proper blood’ writes a bill signing his soul away to Lucifer. From here, branches of moral complexity that concern the very nature of morality, the inner voice of the human condition, the duality of character, and structural contrast in society are formed. Further, the effects of broader literary features of the time in the Elizabethan era will be analysed to see why this Faustian tree of analysis is shaped so. 

To begin, how is the Faustian bargain a portrayal of morality? The Faustian bargain is the ‘a deal with the devil’ trope, where one is willing to sacrifice something of extreme importance to the individual, be it the indwelling, the soul, in order to obtain a preternatural facility of knowledge or strength. Works like Doctor Faustus and Faust have given this trope such a perennial quality since such works had huge impacts, but more importantly, because this trope directly relates to the human condition. Should one trade away a sacrosanct aspect of one’s character to possess a talent of unearthly proportion? Early critics claimed that Marlowe was tainted by ‘athetistical positions, to have denied God and the Trinity.’ However, Doctor Faustus’ epilogue shows Marlowe to be otherwise. In the epilogue, a chorus sings a dirge to regard the ‘fiendful fortune’ of Faustus to ‘exhort the wise/Only to wonder at unlawful things, whose deepness doth entice such forward wits/To practice more than heavenly power permits.’ Marlowe believed in the morally correct and in heaven, at least that is what his writing would suggest. Still, the early critics would have confused religious denial with creative expresison; the centuries of belletrism that followed also thought so. While it is hard to simply separate religion from such an intensely religious play in an intensely religion epoch, this analysis will look further within the usages of heaven and hell, Lucifer and God. 

The final answer of Doctor Faustus is to not overreach beyond the limitations of human nature and into the seven deadly sins. This grand maxim is a lesson and allegory to simpler realities: Marlowe effectively proposes the acceptance of limits in all their forms, and advises against excess. This answer is perfectly reasonable, however the question that precede it is far more interesting and a better look into the morality of Doctor Faustus and the Faustian bargain. Once again, in Act 2, Scene 1, prior to Mephistopheles’ entry, there is a three-way discussion between the Good Angel, the Evil Angel, and Faustus, in a fashion similar to stichomythia, since the rapid, impassioned, and generally crisp dialogue raises tension for the audience and towards the signing of the contract. While the Good Angel tries to dragoon Faustus into turning back to the side of God by ‘think[ing] of heaven and heavenly things’, the Evil Angel seduces him further to ‘think of honor and wealth.’ This is a key, almost meta-ethical point. When is it moral and ethical to do something ‘bad’ to achieve something of honour and wealth? When is it moral to commit depravity for the venerable search of knowledge? One would normally argue that doing something would ‘bad’ will bastardise the nature of the goal. Yet with Faustus, that is not the case. He does not seem to rue signing the the blood contract over his twenty four years with limitless knowledge and Mephistopheles as his servant. Such questions are a dilemma for the majority of the play until the final portions when Faustus’ realises his mistake. However, these dilemmas are treated through dualities, that allow for explorations of morality.

Moral Subversion

One such key feature is Marlowe’s dichtomous characterisation of Faustus, used to emphasise the nature of morality. The first dichotomy poses an interesting dynamic in morality, and more specifically between Faustus and Mephistopheles through dialogue. 

From the very beginning of the play, following the prologue, Faustus is lofty and imperious in his  attitude, haughty and brusque in his dialogue. He makes grand assertions to ‘read no more’ since he ‘hast attained the end’ of practically all academic fields. He trivialises and is contemptuous of the latin in the myriad that books that sit in his study. The impression of a supercilious man is made on the audience right in the beginning. Later on, the aforementioned power dynamic comes into action in the initial dialogues between Mephistopheles and Faustus, when the contract is being negotiated. In Act 1, Scene 3, Faustus arrogantly says that Mephistopheles is ‘too ugly to attend on [Faustus]’ and commands him to change into ‘an old Franciscan friar’. Literary representations of this power dynamic are seen through juxtapositions in line length and diction. In the negotiations and questioning, Faustus uses baroque language, rich in elaboration and metaphor, and his number of lines are significantly larger than the other cast of characters, specifically Mephistopheles. Mephistopheles, initially, almost always speaks in one or two lines, providing short, serious responses to Faustus’ lengthy, meandering questions. Mephistopheles’ ask for Faustus to ‘leave these frivolous demands’ in his questions suggests that Faustus is not as serious as Mephistopheles. Consequently, it seems as though Faustus thinks this contract is something inconsequential and silly that is there to satisfy an almost puerile demand for more knowledge. Thus, Faustus is characterised in, ironically, a ‘holier-than-thou fashion’, especially for someone who will sell his soul to the Devil, while the Devil is characterised a lethal simplicity, whose rudimentary actions and words can be and will be orders of eternal suffering. Through these interactions, the audience sees that Faustus disregards everything except for his interests, having no respect even for his own life. While Faustus has extreme amounts of self-respect for the aesthetics (distinct from literary aesthetics) of his life in being learned and the scholarly addiction, he has no respect for the innate value of life and its soul. Marlowe subverts the expected dynamic between demon and mortal, to show the immensity of Faustus’ insolence; there is hypocrisy on all sides of Faustus and his morality is certainly questionable.

Faustus even plays with notions of heaven. In Act 2, Scene 1, he questions the Good Angel and thus, heaven, ‘Contrition, prayer, repentance–what of them?’. Faustus begins to realise the consequences of his actions when he tries to deny hell as well.  Faustus comments that ‘hell’s a fable’ and asks Mephistopheles if he thinks that ‘Faustus is so fond to imagine/That after this life, there is any pain?’. Mephistopheles provides an apt response: ‘I am an instance to prove the contrary.’ Here Faustus realises that he may not have outsmarted concepts like punishment after life, characters like Lucifer, and places like hell that he thought were illusions, in signing the contract. Still, in denying both heaven and hell, he does not see the latter’s threat until it is too late and he is barred out of the former. 

Following the signing of the contract and once Faustus and Mephistopheles’ adventures begin, the dynamic evens out. They are now partners in crime. By the end however, the power dynamic has shifted to put Mephistopheles in control, subjugating Faustus under contractual obligations of the blood contract. Mephisotopheles’ aside in Act 2 Scene 1 hints at this plan, when he says ‘O, what will I not do to obtain [Faustus’] soul?’. It reveals that he had intended to behave submissively to Faustus in order to obtain his soul for Lucifer’s kingdom. By breaking the fourth wall between the audience and the world of Doctor Faustus, the aside also creates dramatic irony, for the audience now has the hint that Mephistopheles’ meek behaviour belies his true nefarious nature that is concomitant to demons, hell, and the devil - an association that had adroitly been subverted by Marlowe. As a result, the audience knows that they are seeing a heavily flawed but ‘essentially good man, because in a moment of infatuation [Faustus] had signed away his soul, [being] driven against his will to despair and damnation.’ The dramatic irony enforces the tragic nature of Faustus in his postlapsarian death-sentence - issued by the Faustain bargain - and thus it emphasises the morality depicted in the play. Mephistopheles’ aside also lays out the subtext that underpins another aspect of Marlowe’s representation of morality. This dynamic reveals a representation of morality being a choice. Marlowe seems to be saying that, to some extent, the individual must choose to seek morality, while vice will seek the individual. Furthermore, if one sees the shorter path and takes it - vice - then the end result will be debased in someway. For example, though Faustus signs away his soul to take Mephistopheles as a servant and and a store of limitless knowledge, he receives a servant that can kill the master at any moment and an incomplete knowledge that cannot answer questions such as ‘who made the world?’ since it is against the kingdom of hell. Another folly is that Mephistopheles’ resurrections that awe emperors, dukes, and duchesses are mere illusions. The most melancholic and intense instance of this is in Act 5, Scene 1 when Mephistopheles ressurrects Helen, Faustus and her kiss. Yet the kiss is not true and the moment of physical love is not true either. This false reality displays that what Mephistopheles afforded Faustus was ultimately bastardised. Furthermore, Helen represents the possibility of love that Faustus had but is now lost because of the Faustian Bargain. It is a moment that is microcosmic of what another life of love could have happened. 

The Religious Duality of Faustus

The second, arguably more important and impactful dichotomy that Marlowe creates is the cycle of realisation and ignorance, at one point turning to God and and at another, turning to Lucifer. For example, in Act 5, Scene 1, an Old Man successfully convinces 

Faustus to look to God once again, as Faustus finally says that ‘I do repent; and yet I do despair.’ However, Mephistopheles’ threat of ‘in piecemeal tear[ing] [Faustus’] flesh for betraying the contract makes Faustus cower back into the arms of Lucifer. This pattern is laced throughout the text. Earlier, in Act 2, Scene 3, the Good Angel says, ‘Faustus, repent; yet will God pity thee’ and Faustus is proselytised, when he affirms that ‘God will pity me if I repent’. The next few lines reflect the opposite of this. The Evil Angel proclaims a prophetic statement, saying that ‘Faustus never shall repent’. The visual nature of theatre would have emphasised the power of this statement, since it as at this point that the Angels exeunt, forcing a pause and the desolate stage upon the actor of Faustus, left alone to echo the Evil Angel’s words: ‘[Faustus’] heart’s so hardened I cannot repent.’ The immediacy of this effect creates a dramatic parallelism in the moment, between the Evil Angel’s statement and the ineluctable nature of Faustus that defines his actions. Additionally, Marlowe’s occasionally makes Faustus speak in third person. This may have been a usage appropriate for Elizabethan era literature, it may have been used for comedic effect as one of Faustus’ idiosyncrasies. However, by the end, in Faustus’ final pleads for to Lucifer to ‘spare [Faustus]’ and to God for ‘one drop’ of Christ’s blood so that ‘Faustus may repent and save his soul’, it is evident that the third-person usages shows how little control Faustus has over himself. The third-person self-narration is analogous to the hold a powerless spectator has on another’s fate. 

An interesting line of belletrism expands on this dichtomous cycle. This line links Faustus’ Wittenberg background to his ‘hardened heart’ and relates it to the Lutheran emphasis on the bondage of the will. Belletrism building on this idea suggests that such ‘bondage of the will’ means ‘man has no power to initiate his own repentance’, however, Marlowe uses the ‘speeches of the Good and Evil Angels, the Old Man, and Faustus himself to convince us dramatically, if not theologically, that repentance is a constant possibility.’ Thus arises the ‘tragic balance’ of Faustus’ 24 years under the terms of hell.

Marlowe clearly portrays the ‘good’ and ‘evil’ side of morality through dichotomy. However, a grey area is invented between these sides when Faustus keeps shuffling between them. Faust’s mercurial switching of sides is Consequently, Marlowe delineates the malleability and ambivalence of clear-cut morality, for the human condition is both too complex and crude-minded to ordain to follow rules of society, state, and religion. This is one of Marlowe’s key ideas that helps form his multifaceted display of morality. 

Symbolism of the Righteous Inner Voice

While it may seem like Marlowe emphasises the evil of man, Marlowe uses symbolism to suggest an inner voice to the human condition that will always strive to act correctly. Thus, a clash is created between an individual’s desires and actions, and the inherent probity within an individual. So far within, in fact, that it can be overridden by desires for vice and the actions taken to obtain it. This duality is akin to a literary form of Cartesian dualism, or where the mind and body are distinct, except in this case they are distinct morally rather than ontologically. Such characterisation of morality is another form of tragedy, since, despite the righteous intentions of human nature, people and characters like Faustus end up in situations where the inevitability of a violent death is the only constant. Regardless, Marlowe’s delineation of the positive nature of the human condition is another vital exploration of morality. Marlowe primarily does so through symbolism and allegory. Three symbols can be related to the resistance of the human soul to evil, these symbols being the Angels, Faustus’ blood, and the Old Man. 

With the Angels, they symbolise the two sides of the conscience. The Good Angel represents rectitude while the Evil Angel represents turpitude. In Act 2, Scene 1 and Scene 3, the clashing dialogues represent the inherent clash in the human condition, further symbolising the inward ‘tragic balance’ and duality of Faustus mentioned earlier, except here it is applicable to everybody. This inner duality can also be linked to the Cartesian dualism where the negative intentions of the mind equate to the Evil Angel and the positive intentions of the body equate to the Good Angel, further expanding upon the duality of morality.

However, while the Angels create a moral foundation in the human condition, Marlowe uses more symbols to emphasise the righteousness of the inner voice.

Once again returning to the key scene Act 2, Scene 1, when Faustus is writing the contract with his own blood, he finds that it ‘congeals’ and he ‘can write no more’. While Mephistopheles ‘fetch[es] [Faustus] fire to dissolve [the blood] straight’, Faustus questions what the ‘staying of [his] blood might portend.’ While one may consider this question foreshadowing since something was portended - his death. However, that fact that at the end of the contract, Great Lucifer would ‘claim [Faustus’ soul] as his own’. Marlowe, instead, seems to be foreshadowing an important nuance in the ending which is Faustus’ extreme despair and dread for having to forfeit his soul to Lucifer under contractual obligations. This contrasts the casualness with which Faustus signs his soul away, as he questions ‘Why streams it not?’, ‘Is not thy soul thine own?’, and thus is not in Faustus’ control to sign the contract? Eventually the mind overpowers the body with the help of the fire - symbolic of the forces of hell - and he finishes writing the contract. Here the blood represents the purest form of the material body, perhaps Marlowe’s material representation of the soul or human purity. Naturally, then, when the blood resists being used to sign the contract by mysteriously coagulating (a plot point that heightens the sense and atmosphere of the occult), it is a sign coming from Faustus’ inner voice to stop. It is a sign that forebodes a tragic end to a life in a tragic death. Therefore, this symbol is the material force of the inner voice. Marlowe uses it to elucidate how when faced with the allure of sin, the righteous inner voice will try to protect itself and the body it inhabits.

The final significant symbol would be the Old Man. The context and description of the Old Man is obscured from the audience; he appears suddenly in. The Old Man plays a role similar to the Good Angel. He tries to convince Faustus to look to God once again. Despite the similar dramatic purposes, it is the appearance of this allegorical role that bears significance. Based on the limited description provided, it can be posited that Faustus and the Old Man are meant to look similar in their old age to create a comparison. Faustus is damned as he is, while the Old Man is an allegory for faith and a belief in God. The similarity in appearance suggests that the Old Man is who Faustus could have been if he had followed the signs of his blood, and this lost opportunity is now being projected through Faustus as the Old Man. Considering two facts: that the Old Man is an allegorical projection of self and that the Old Man gives hope to Faustus by saying ‘an angel hover o’er [Faustus] head’, pleading him to ‘call for mercy and avoid despair’, Marlowe is saying that there is a righteous inner voice through the layering of motifs and imagery that create a continual structural symbolism.

Degrees of Morality in Society

The various dualities presented thus far reveal the irony of morality. One form of irony is aforementioned; Marlowe suggests that man, far within, is inherently moral, however actions that would exemplify such rectitude does not come forward with Faustus. The Faustian bargain quite literally shows how despite being it a terrible deal, individuals will take it. Similarly, one can postulate another irony in Marlowe’s explanation of morality. Here, morality is a distinctly human product, yet human susceptibility to vice prevents a perfect harmony where humans would use this human product. Furthermore, despite being a human product, not everybody is ‘moral’. Morality is not universal. Thus, Marlowe suggests another key aesthetic of morality: it exists in degrees. Marlowe proposes and forwards this idea through portrayals of society in the Late Tudor Era leading into the Elizabethan era. Marlowe uses characterisation through motives, structural contrast between consecutive scenes, and the motif of ‘master and servant’ in multiple contexts to show another form of irony: how values of morality and dignity do not necessarily rise along societal classes.

As a Renaissance Man, Faustus is suggested to be in the upper class. Even if he does not have material wealth, he certainly he has epistemic wealth. As a supposed member of the upper class, he has a servant, Wagner, and this dynamic of ‘master and servant’ is established from the very first scene when Faustus order Wagner to ‘Request [Faustus’ friends Valdes and Cornelius] to earnestly visit me.’ Marlowe established the first form of this trope, highlighting a rift between people because of societal divides. Though such a trope may have been common and left unquestioned in that era (and in parts of today as well), as retrospective analysis, Marlowe is subtly communicating the oddity of class systems since they mean that certain people are superior to others. This would make no sense with the belief that everybody is equal. Hence, for class systems to operate, they assume that certain people are innately superior by virtue of such people having ‘better morals’. 

The next two forms of the trope come in succession. The dynamic between Faustus and Wagner is heightened when in Act 1, Scene 3, Faustus conjures Mephistopheles and asks him to ‘To give [Faustus] whatsoever [he] shall ask/To tell [Faustus] whatsoever I demand’ and ‘always be obedint to my will.’ Faustus is effectively asking Mephistopheles to be his servant. As mentioned earlier, this act showcases Faustus’ arrogance. Further, it displays how man will constantly wish to have suzerainty, even over forces beyond mortal life, and greed is not characteristic of morality. Marlowe alludes to this even more by utilising structural contrast and displaying a similar bargain in the next scene. In Act 1, Scene 4, Wagner contemptuously accosts Robin, a stable-hand. Already, Wagner’s behaviour is contrasted with earlier scenes where he is obsequious and his current arrogance when interacting with a lower class. Wagner asks Robin ‘wilt thou serve me’; Wagner, Faustus’ servant, wishes to be a master with a servant too. Marlowe is broadening his point about the wish for sovereignty; despite societal structures, everybody wants the same thing - control. It is like a domino-effect of dominance across society that is perpetual. While Marlowe certainly shows that good side of the inner voice, he also reveals its rapacious mouth that desires everything. Even if the motive is greed and the human spirit is the same, Marlowe also delineates how limiting societal structures (regardless of their relative insignificance when considering the magnitude of heaven and hell) can be in one’s scope and goals, with one scene showing an upper-class Renaissance man asking the very Devil to be his servant contrasted by a following scene portraying a middle-class man requesting a stable-boy to be his servant. 

Naturally, structural contrast reveals ironies in morality as well. In the same scene, Wagner assumes that Robin would ‘give his soul to the devil for a shoulder of mutton, though it were blood-raw.’ In response, slightly appalled by such an assumption, Robin says he would ‘need have [the shoulder of mutton] well roasted and good sauce to it if I pay so dear.’ Trading one’s soul to the devil for mutton, roasted or raw, compared to limitless knowledge and dark magic, is a massive difference. However, analysing these situations individually in an isolated manner traces Marlowe’s exploration of a final aspect to his ideas of morality. Faustus does not seem to question the idea of this bargain, partly because he initiates the deal, or that there may be something sinister to the convenience of this pact with the Devil. Furthermore, his questions are directed towards the nature of Mephistopheles, hell, and reality in order to enlarge his lexicon, rather than the bargain he is trapping himself into. On the other hand, Robin protests the hypothetical bargain offered by Wagner. He wants something better and will not accept simply anything without questioning it. This simple fact implies that even a ‘lowly’ boy would have higher respect for his own life and soul. As the audience progresses into the scene, Wagner tricks Robin into becoming his servant, by telling Robin, who for all his wit was still naive, to ‘take these guilders’ and as a result, become subject to the condition that at an ‘hour’s warning whensoeever or wheresoever the devil shall fetch thee.’ Robin realises what has happened and tries to return the coins to Wagner to escape this deal. The situation mirrors the Faustian Bargain, except Faustus, no matter how many signs and symbols he was given to turn away, kept giving in to Mephistopheles. Marlowe uses structural contrast to show how morality has an inverse relationship with societal classes, and thus another form of morality.

By the end, however, Marlowe reduces societal classes to the belief that everybody is the same, because Robin and Rafe are punished despite using magical books from Faustus to escape their destitution and Faustus is punished for the bargain. No matter what status one has, punishment meets sin and death comes for all. By that logic, everybody is equal.

To conclude, Marlowe characterises duality itself into myriad shapes that come together to form a picture of the human soul and the nature of the morality it houses. Marlowe uses moral subversion, religious duality, symbolism of the inner voice, and structural contrast in society and values - all of which are united by the Faustian Bargain and a ubiquitous sense of irony - to reveal a fractured portrait. It is a portrait that paints the good morals of the human soul and body that are tainted and bastardised by epistemic, metaphysical avarice. There is a fundamental dissonance in human nature and Marlowe would seem to suggest that indulging in excess and greed will always have damning consequences.

Works Cited

Davidson, Clifford. “Doctor Faustus of Wittenberg.” Studies in Philology, vol. 59, no. 3, 1962, pp. 514-523. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4173389. Accessed 5 August 2023.

Frey, Leonard H. “Antithetical Balance in the Opening and Close of Doctor Faustus.” Modern Language Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 4, 1963, pp. 350-353. Duke University Press, https://read.dukeupress.edu/modern-language-quarterly/article-abstract/24/4/350/17030/Antithetical-Balance-in-the-Opening-and-Close-of?redirectedFrom=fulltext. Accessed 11 October 2023.

Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von. Goethe's Faust : part one and sections from part two. Translated by Walter Kaufmann, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, 1963.

Hamlin, William M. “Casting Doubt in Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus."” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, vol. 41, no. 2, 2001, pp. 257-275. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1556188. Accessed 2 August 2023.

“Historia D. Johann Fausten, Title Page. | The Core Curriculum.” Columbia College, https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/content/historia-d-johann-fausten-title-page. Accessed 5 August 2023.

Lamb, Charles, editor. Specimens of English Dramatic Poets: Who Lived about the Time of Shakespeare. Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Marlowe, Christopher. Doctor Faustus : a two-text edition (A-text, 1604; B-text, 1616) contexts and sources criticism. Edited by David Scott Kastan, W.W. Norton, 2005.

“Marlowe's Doctor Faustus, 1631.” The British Library, https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/marlowes-doctor-faustus-1631#. Accessed 6 August 2023.

Santayana, George. Three Philosophical Poets: Lucretius, Dante, and Goethe. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1910.

Snyder, Susan. “Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus" as an Inverted Saint's Life.” Studies in Philology, vol. 63, no. 4, 1966, pp. 565-577. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/4173538. Accessed 5 August 2023.