How would you look at Dr.

Faustus as a play
Dr. Faustus is an unbelievable play based on Christopher Marlowe's stories about scholar and magician, Johann Faust. Faust, born in 1488, made a pact with the devil to gain magical powers. The original Faust wandered through his German homeland until his death in 1541. The first story about his life appeared in 1587 (written in German), and was translated into English in 1592. Its title, "The History of the Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus." Dating Renaissance texts is a difficult task, but this text is a bit more challenging. Scholars are of the opinion that Marlowe heard or read the story of Johann Faust and composed Doctor Faustus sometime between 1588 and 1592; it is officially registered in 1601. The play is a tragic comedy, and only today did I learn that it is widely believed that Marlowe only constructed its beginning and conclusion. It is said that he wrote the tragic elements, whereas two other collaborators wrote the comedic dialog in the middle. Nonethe-less, it's a masterpiece. The play as a whole is well loved and well written. Marlowe uses a well though out plot, and his descriptive language gives the reading audience the illusion of being physically present. Our main character is an 'every day Joe;' we can relate to him and in many ways understand his internal struggles; his traits are very like our own...... they're just amplified to a degree that catches our attention. Doctor Faustus is a lesson in morality. The never ending conflict between good and evil is evident throughout. Marlowe's personification of these characters are right on target......... Fautus' struggle with the devil is real...... we see him lose his soul. Angels and devils highlight this struggle by showing them as real physical beings that are encountered and use their influence rather spiritual beings. They're used to show Fautus' struggle and eventual capitulation to darkness, a darkness that's only exemplified in the last few moments of his struggle- those moments of regret because it's all over and there's no more turning back. Like most morality plays, Marlowe uses allegory to dramatize Faustus' struggles with good and evil. He touches on sin, redemption, and damnation; the conflict between medieval and Renaissance values; absolute power and corruption; the dividedness of human nature A chorus appears between the scenes, which provides background and comments; their songs take us back and forth between the past and present. Long, detailed soliloquies are a part of Fautus' dialog, allowing us an intricate look and understanding of his perspective. There are some very humorous moments mixed in with the tragedy of Fautus' life, and we often wish he'd use the brains he traded his soul to attain. As a play, I'd say Marlowe was more than successful in making the point he wished to make. Further proof is there simple fact that we still use his works and enjoy them in the present day.

Hamlets Indecisiveness in the Play, Hamlet.

A swimmers moment is defined as when you are faced with a decision that will define the rest of your life
A swimmers moment is defined as when you are faced with a decision that will define the rest of your life. The swimmer is forced to make a decision whether he will enter the whirlpool, or By their refusal they are saved from the black pit.(Avison, 5-6) In Hamlet, the swimmers moment is when Hamlet is deciding what he thinks he should do about his fathers death and Claudius. Whether he should enter the whirlpool and make the decision to kill Claudius, or do nothing and turn away from the whirlpool. Hamlet does not make a decision either way, in fact, he is pushed into the whirlpool by Laertes and Claudius when he is challenged to a fight. Rather than make a clear and concise decision, Hamlet just goes along with it until he is poisoned, and then he is fully engulfed in the whirlpool. In Act V Scene 1 Claudius says to Laertes, Strengthen your patience in our last nights speech; Well put the matter to the present push. (V. i 281) He is talking to Laertes about the deal that they made to kill Hamlet. Without any action from Hamlet, nothing would have happened. He had simply taken refuge away from the country, and had caused madness in the country of Denmark. But he had not taken any action in proving the kings guilt, rather he had simply made himself appear raving mad. When Osric comes to tell Hamlet that the king has agreed to a duel between Laertes and Hamlet; Hamlet has no other choice. He resists, and he gets arrested. He agrees, and he begins to enter the whirlpool, without his knowledge. But he still doesnt make a decision about Claudius. Osric says, my lord, his majesty bade me signify to you that he has laid a great wager on your head; (V, ii, 102) and then when Hamlet states, How if I answer no, (V, ii, 162) Osric says, I mean, my lord, the opposition of your trial. (V, ii, 179)
Read more in Classics To Kill a Mockingbird
The Apology and Its Tragic Elements

When the duel begins, Hamlet is only seeking redemption. Even at this point in the play, he is circling around the whirlpool, but never entering. He states, Give me your pardon, sir: I have done you wrong; But pardont, as you are a gentleman.(V, ii, 214) He has no intent during this scene to make an attempt on Claudiuss life, he doesnt state it ever or even hint towards it. When the King says, Stay, give me drink. Hamlet, this pearl is thine; heres to thy health; give him the cup, (V, ii, 268) is trying to push Hamlet into the whirlpool, to force him to make a

decision. Hamlet doesnt realize this, but declines the wine presumably so as to not get drunk while fencing. When Gertrude drinks the poisoned wine, Hamlet has begun to teeter on the edge. But when Laertes says, My lord, Ill hit him now (V, ii, 307) in reference to poisoning Hamlet, is finally when Hamlet is pushed into the whirlpool. His decision has been made for him already, death is imminent. He realizes this when Gertrude states, No, no, the drink, the drink, O my dear Hamlet, The drink, the drink! I am poisond. (V, ii 314) And finally, when Hamlet realizes that he is falling into the depths of the whirlpool and has no other option to revenge his father, he stabs the King and kills him. He did not choose to enter the whirlpool, but instead was pushed in when he was stabbed. Thus, Hamlet throughout the play is an extremely indecisive character who cannot come to terms with what he wants to do. Finally, at the climax of the play, rather than make a decision; Hamlet is poisoned. In a rush, he kills Claudius. He never makes an executive decision to kill Claudius, it is rather an impulsive decision made purely by emotion.

Works Cited
Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Hauppauge, New York: Barrons Educational Series, 2002. Avison, Margaret. The Swimmers Moment, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962 pp.36
****Hamlet is one of Shakespeare's most complex and most analyzed characters. His actions throughout the course of the play are contradictory and confusing, indicating that he is a young man who is not quite sure who he is and who does not trust himself. Both of these qualities contribute to make him indecisive. He sees his father's ghost and can't be sure if he should trust it or not. He discovers that his uncle has murdered his father and married his mother and can't decide if he wants to kill him or not. He sees his uncle at prayer and can't decide if he should strike then or wait until Claudius's sould won't be saved.He can't decide whether to take his own life or take revenge. He can't decide what to do about Ophelia. His indecisiveness is not always negative, however. It makes him cautious and thoughtful. However, sometimes he does act impulsively despite his usual wishy-washiness. It causes him to kill Polonius in Gertrudes' bedroom. It saves his life when he bails out on Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern. It ends his life when he jumps at the chance to duel Laertes, not knowing that he is up against a poisoned sword. You will likely find many other examples in the play to create a good response for your assignment.

*** When you look at only the "To be or not to be" soliloquy then it is reasonable to assume that Hamlet is indecisive -- he literally is asking himself whether it is better to live or die -- take action or not. But I don't think it is quite that simple. Every man has his weak moments when circumstances may overwhelm to the point of inertia, but Hamlet keeps moving towards his goal of proving Claudius's guilt and getting the vengeance his father requested. If you look back at the play as a whole: he decides to do what the ghost requests; he decides to act crazy; he decides to have the players put on a play in which he hopes to "catch the conscience of the king;" he decides to hurt Ophelia in attempt to assure everyone of his madness; he decides to ask Horatio to help him watch Claudius; he decides not to kill Claudius when he appears at prayer because that would mean that

Claudius would go straight to heaven and that wouldn't be a very just revenge for his father; he decides to kill whoever is behind the curtain in his mother's room; he decides to change the letter to England so that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern die; he decides to take Laertes up on the fencing dual; he decides to forgive Laertes on his death bed; he decides to kill Claudius. This doesn't seem like a man who is indecisive. There are many places where we can see a man who thinks, or perhaps over-thinks, the choices he has or the potential consequences of action, but ultimately, Hamlet keeps on in cautious and contemplative way towards his goal.

Discuss the characters in The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho.

In my opinion, the major characters in Paulo Coelho's The Alchemistare Santiago (the boy), the King of Salem, the Englishman, the crystal merchant, the alchemist, and Fatima. Santiago is a young man who decides to become a shepherd so that he may travel and not be tied in one place. On his "life journey," he learns from the King of Salem (Melchizedek) that he has a Personal Legend the reality of his life's dream if he will only believe in it enough to pursue it and thus realize it. The journey is not an easy one, as is the case with life, and there are moments when Santiago is ready to quit and once again become a shepherd. During one such time, Santiago takes a job with a crystal merchant, working for him for eleven months to make money to buy more sheep. He helps the merchant greatly improve his business, and over time, they become close. It is from the merchant that Santiago further learns the importance of pursuing one's Personal Legend. The merchant also once had such a dream, but he allowed himself to be diverted from his purpose. Now, well-established with his business and much older, he is no longer able to pursue his dream to travel to Mecca, and he has regrets. Eventually Santiago does leave, but not to buy sheephe decides to continue his quest. While traveling by caravan across the desert to find the alchemist, Santiago meets the Englishman, who also wishes to find the same man. The Englishman has a dream to learn to change common metals into gold (called "alchemy"). He believes that he can learn most of what he needs from books and he tries to convince Santiago that his truth is Santiago's truth: that Santiago must read. Santiago tells the Englishman to listen to the sounds of the desert to hear the universal language that all parts of the world speak to each other. In time, both men realize that they cannot live the other's dream, or walk his path. Whereas Santiago is following a path that will not only help him reach his dream but find true happiness in life, the Englishman can only see the draw of the gold, and he will never achieve his Personal Legend. At the oasis, Santiago meets Fatima, who lives there. He immediately falls in love, realizing that should he die at that moment, it would all have been worth it, for love brings him true happiness and Fatima feels the same about Santiago. The alchemist is the last major character that Santiago meets. The alchemist is very knowledgeable, speaking not only the Universal Language, but knowing, too, how to become one with the Soul of the World (which you are closest to "when you want something with all your heart"). He knows that for Santiago to realize his Personal Legend, "you must do the things you think you cannot do:" he must turn himself into the wind. A seemingly impossible task, Santiago is driven by his will to survive the threat of the soldiers at the military camp where he and the alchemist have been taken prisoner. He

succeeds, but realizes that even though he may acquire wealth, that which he values the most is his love for Fatima. Santiago tells the sun, "Love is the force that transforms and improves" This is what love does for Santiagoand he fulfills his Personal Legend.

What is the plot of Pygmalion?

Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw is a publication of the Pennsylvania State University. This Portable Document file is furnished free and without any charge of any kind. Any person using this document file, for any purpose, and in any way does so at his or her own risk. Neither the Pennsylvania State University nor Jim Manis, Faculty Editor, nor anyone associated with the Pennsylvania State University assumes any responsibility for the material contained within the document or for the file as an electronic transmission, in any way. Pygmalion by George Bernard Shaw, the Pennsylvania State University, Electronic Classics Series, Jim Manis, Faculty Editor, Hazleton, PA 18202-1291 is a Portable Document File produced as part of an ongoing student publication project to bring classical works of literature, in English, to free and easy access of those wishing to make use of them. ****Pygmalion is a wonderful play about Eliza Doolittle. Eliza is a young educated girl working in the

flower district of London, England. On night she runs into Professor Henry Higgins, a noted professor of phonetics. Higgins is intrigued by her broken speech and low station in life. He believes he can tell all he needs to about a person based on his speech
"I can place any man within six miles. I can place him within two miles in London. Sometimes within two streets."

Higgins suggest to Colonel Pickering that he could in fact have Eliza speaking like a high class London lady in three months. In the second act, Eliza shows up at Higgins' house to take him up on his offer. Higgins is mean and cruel to the young lady. He mocks her accent; however, Pickering suggests that the girl has feelings and offers her a seat. They agree that Eliza will live with Higgins for 6 months and he will tutor her and turn her into lady. In Act 3, Higgins tries to show off Eliza's transformation with his mother and her group at tea. Eliza's stuns them in her beautiful dress and polite conversation. The tea turns when the group begins discussing influenza. Eliza drops into a long story of her aunt dying of influenza. The group is put off by this, but it's dismissed when it's suggested that she's just making "small talk". As she leaves, the group is smitten by her and young Freddy is in love with her. In Act 4 Higgins and Pickering congratulate themselves on their great work. They do not consider the work she has put into changing and ignore her completely. A huge fight erupts between Eliza and Henry as he considers her ungrateful and she wishes he had left her where he found her. As the act ends, she leaves and he throws her ring in the fire. In the final act, Eliza has taken refuge at Henry's mother's house. His mother criticizes Henry and Pickering for treating Eliza like an experiment and not like a lady. Higgins promises that he never treated her anymore badly than he treated anyone else. He invites her to move in with him again as his daughter or even to marry Pickering. She says she's thinking of marrying Freddy's who's been writing her letters.Her father enters claiming that Higgins' money has "ruined me. Destroyed my happiness." Before he could bum money from friends, but now all of his friends come to him for money. As the play ends, we're not sure if she will marry Freddy, but the play ends with Higgins laughing at the notion

*** Like all of Shaw's great dramatic creations, Pygmalion is a richly complex play. It combines a central story of the
transformation of a young woman with elements of myth, fairy tale, and romance, while also combining an interesting plot with an exploration of social identity, the power of science, relations between men and women, and other issues. Pygmalion is one of Shaw's most popular plays as well as one of his most straightforward ones. The form has none of the complexity that we find in Heartbreak House or Saint Joan, nor are the ideas in Pygmalion nearly as profound as

the ideas in any of Shaw's other major works. It can be considerated an issue of language. This play was written by George Bernard Shaw in 1912, presents a comic Edwardian version of the classical myth about Pygmalion, legendary sculptor and King of Cyprus, who fell in love with his own statue of Aphrodite. At his prayer, Aphrodite brought the statue to life as Galatea. George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion is the story of Henry Higgins, a master phonetician, and his mischievous plot to pass a common flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, off as a duchess at the Embassy Ball. In order to achieve his goal, Higgins must teach Eliza how to speak properly and how to act in upper-class society. The play looks at middle class morality and upper-class superficiality, and reflects the social ills of nineteenth century England, and attests that all people are worthy of respect and dignity. Shaw is a British socialist who sympathized with the lower classes. Shaw criticized that the way of speaking of a person reveals his the social class of the people. Shaws Pygmalion is Henry Higgins, a voluble professor of phonetics, who undertakes in a wanger with his colleague Colonel Pickering to turn a cockney flower-girl, Eliza Doolittle, how to speak English in an upper-class manner and transform her as to pass her off for a lady. In one sense she is the very antithesis of Galatea, since she starts a... **** Pygmalion Summary

In Covent Garden, the Eynsford Hills wait for a cab in the rain. When Freddy goes to hail one, he knocks Liza's flowers out of her basket. She accepts money from Freddy's mother, then Colonel Pickering. A bystander warns her that a man is writing down what she is saying, and she confronts him, saying that she has done nothing wrong. Higgins amazes the crowd by imitating her accent and guessing where they all come from. Pickering and Higgins meet and agree to have dinner, and Higgins fills Liza's basket with money before he leaves. Liza leaves in a cab. The next day, Liza intrudes upon Pickering and Higgins in Higgins's home. She wants English lessons, and Pickering bets that Higgins could not pass her off as a lady at the ambassador's ball in a month's time. Mrs. Pearce takes Liza away to bathe her and dress her more appropriately, and Liza's father arrives and demands some payment. Higgins likes him and gives him five pounds. A few months later, Mrs. Higgins is writing letters at home when she is interrupted by her son, who shocks her by telling her that he is bringing a flower-girl to his house. The Eynsford Hills arrive for a visit, as does Eliza--with her newly elegant accent and manner. Freddy is infatuated right away. Eliza makes the mistake of swearing and describing her aunt's alcoholism, and she is hustled away by Higgins. Clara thinks that swearing is the new fashion and shocks her mother by saying "bloody" on the way out. Mrs. Higgins scolds Pickering and her son for not considering what is to be done with Eliza after the experiment. At midnight at Higgins's house, Eliza enters looking exhausted. Higgins ignores her, looking for his slippers and crowing over her success at fooling everyone as his own. Eliza begins to look furious. When Higgins asks where his slippers are, Eliza throws them at his face. She explains that she does not know what to do with herself now that Higgins has transformed her. He suggests that she marry, to which she responds that she used to be something better than a prostitute when she sold flowers. She throws the ring that he gave her into the fireplace, and he loses his temper at her and leaves the room. She looks for the ring in the ashes. Mrs. Higgins is in her drawing room when her son comes and tells her that Eliza has run away. Doolittle arrives and announces that after he spoke with Higgins, Higgins recommended him as a speaker to an American millionaire who died and left him everything. Doolittle is now middle-class and hating every minute of it; his mistress is

forcing him to marry her that afternoon. Eliza comes downstairs (she ran away to Mrs. Higgins's house), and Higgins looks flabbergasted. Doolittle invites Pickering and Mrs. Higgins to the wedding, and they leave Eliza and Higgins alone to talk. Eliza says that she does not want to be treated like a pair of slippers--and Freddy writes her love letters every day. When she threatens to become a phonetics teacher herself and use Higgins's methods, he says that he likes the new, stronger version of Eliza. He wants to live with her and Pickering as "three bachelors." Mrs. Higgins returns dressed for the wedding, and she takes Eliza with her. Higgins asks her to run his errands for him, including that of buying some cheese and ham. She says a final goodbye to him, and he seems confident that she will follow his command. The onstage drama ends, and Shaw narrates, in an epilogue, that Eliza recognizes Higgins as predestined to be a bachelor; she marries Freddy instead. With a gift from Colonel Pickering, Eliza opens a flower shop. The only person truly bothered by this state of affairs is Clara, who decides that the marriage will not help her own marriage prospects. But then she begins to read H.G. Wells and travel in the circles of his fans, and she is convinced to begin working in a furniture shop herself in the hopes that she might meet Wells (because the woman who owns the shop is also a fan of his). Freddy is not very practical, and he and Eliza must take classes in bookkeeping to make their business a success. They do reach success, and they live a fairly comfortable life.

*** Two old gentlemen meet in the rain one night at Covent Garden. Professor Higgins is a scientist of phonetics,
and Colonel Pickering is a linguist of Indian dialects. The first bets the other that he can, with his knowledge of phonetics, convince high London society that, in a matter of months, he will be able to transform the cockney speaking Covent Garden flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, into a woman as poised and well-spoken as a duchess. The next morning, the girl appears at his laboratory on Wimpole Street to ask for speech lessons, offering to pay a shilling, so that she may speak properly enough to work in a flower shop. Higgins makes merciless fun of her, but is seduced by the idea of working his magic on her. Pickering goads him on by agreeing to cover the costs of the experiment if Higgins can pass Eliza off as a duchess at an ambassador's garden party. The challenge is taken, and Higgins starts by having his housekeeper bathe Eliza and give her new clothes. Then Eliza's father Alfred Doolittle comes to demand the return of his daughter, though his real intention is to hit Higgins up for some money. The professor, amused by Doolittle's unusual rhetoric, gives him five pounds. On his way out, the dustman fails to recognize the now clean, pretty flower girl as his daughter. For a number of months, Higgins trains Eliza to speak properly. Two trials for Eliza follow. The first occurs at Higgins' mother's home, where Eliza is introduced to the Eynsford Hills, a trio of mother, daughter, and son. The son Freddy is very attracted to her, and further taken with what he thinks is her affected "small talk" when she slips into cockney. Mrs. Higgins worries that the experiment will lead to problems once it is ended, but Higgins and Pickering are too absorbed in their game to take heed. A second trial, which takes place some months later at an ambassador's party (and which is not actually staged), is a resounding success. The wager is definitely won, but Higgins and Pickering are now bored with the project, which causes Eliza to be hurt. She throws Higgins' slippers at him in a rage because she does not know what is to become of her, thereby bewildering him. He suggests she marry somebody. She returns him the hired jewelry, and he accuses her of ingratitude. The following morning, Higgins rushes to his mother, in a panic because Eliza has run away. On his tail is Eliza's father, now unhappily rich from the trust of a deceased millionaire who took to heart Higgins' recommendation that Doolittle was England's "most original moralist." Mrs. Higgins, who has been hiding Eliza upstairs all along, chides the two of them for playing with the girl's affections. When she enters, Eliza thanks Pickering for always treating her like a lady, but threatens Higgins that she will go work with his rival phonetician, Nepommuck. The outraged Higgins cannot help but start to admire her. As Eliza leaves for her father's wedding, Higgins shouts out a few errands for her to run,

assuming that she will return to him at Wimpole Street. Eliza, who has a lovelorn sweetheart in Freddy, and the wherewithal to pass as a duchess, never makes it clear whether she will or not.

Why is Waiting.for Godot called an absurd play

Beckett is considered to be an important figure among the French Absurdists. Waiting for Godot is one of the masterpieces of Absurdist literature. Elements of Absurdity for making this play are so engaging and lively. Beckett combats the traditional notions of Time. It attacks the two main ingredients of the traditional views of Time, i.e. Habit and Memory. We find Estragon in the main story and Pozzo in the episode, combating the conventional notions of Time and Memory. For Pozzo, particularly, one day is just like another, the day we are born indistinguishable from the day we shall die. It is very clear from the very word Absurd that it means nonsensical, opposed to reason, something silly, foolish, senseless, ridiculous and topsy-turvy. So, a drama having a cock and bull story would be called an absurd play. Moreover, a play having loosely constructed plot, unrecognizable characters, metaphysical called an absurd play. Actually the Absurd Theatre believes that humanitys plight is purposeless in an existence, which is out of harmony with its surroundings. This thing i.e. the awareness about the lack of purpose produces a state of metaphysical anguish which is the central theme of the Absurd Theatre. On an absurd play logical construction, rational ideas and intellectually viable arguments are abandoned and instead of these the irrationality for experience is acted out on the stage. The above mentioned discussion allows us to call Waiting for Godot as an absurd play for not only its plot is loose but its characters are also just mechanical puppets with their incoherent colloquy. And above than all, its theme is unexplained. Waiting for Godot is an absurd play for it is devoid of characterization and motivation. Though characters are present but are not recognizable for whatever they do and whatever they present is purposeless. So far as its dialogue technique is concerned, it is purely absurd as there is no witty repartee and pointed dialogue. What a reader or spectator hears is simply the incoherent babbling which does not have any clear and meaningful ideas. So far as the action and theme is concerned, it kisses the level of Absurd Theatre. After the study of this play we come to know that nothing special happens in the play nor we observe any significant change in setting. Though a change occurs but it is only that now the tree has sprouted out four or five leaves.

Nothing happens, nobody comes nobody goes, its awful! The beginning, middle and end of the play do not rise up to the level of a good play, so absurd. Though its theme is logical and rational yet it lies in umbrage. Moreover, Waiting for Godot can also be regarded as an absurd play because it is different from poetic theatre. Neither it makes a considerable use of dream and fantasy nor does it employ conscious poetic language. The situation almost remains unchanged and an enigmatic vein runs throughout the play. The mixture of comedy and near tragedy proves baffling. In act-I we are not sure as to what attitude we should adopt towards the different phases of its non-action. The ways, of which the two tramps pass their time, seems as if they were passing their lives in a transparent deception. Godot remains a mystery and curiosity still holds a sway. Here we know that their endless waiting seems to be absurd. Though the fact is that they are conscious of this absurdity, yet is seems to imply that the rest of the world is waiting for the things, which are more absurd and also uncertain. Waiting for Godot is an absurd play for there is no female character. Characters are there but they are devoid of identity. These two Estragon and Vladimir are old acquaintances, but they are not sure of their identity. Though they breathe, their life is an endless rain of blows. They wait for the ultimate extinction, but in a frustrated way. This thing produces meaninglessness, thus makes the play absurd. Moreover, what makes the play absurd is its ending. We note that the ending of the play is not a conclusion in the usual sense. The wait continues; the human contacts remain unsolved; the problem of existence remains meaningless, futile and purposeless. The conversation between the two tramps remain a jargon, really a humbug and bunkum speech. So all this makes the play an absurd play. Absurd Theatre is a term applies to a group of dramatist in the 1950s. Martin Esslin was the first to use this term Absurd in his book The Theatre of the Absurd. Eugene Lonesco, Arthur Admor, Harold Pinter and Jean Garret are the writers who belong to this category.

Comment on the theme of the play Look Back in Anger

Osborne's play Look Back in Anger explores the theme of alienation in the post-war England of 1950s. Jimmy Porter, the angry protagonist, is his author's mouthpiece in the play. He is a young university graduate who suffers from a deep sense of alienation from his society where he finds no more causes to live with, no meaningful role to play. Despite having received his degree from a "white-tile" university, Jimmy has failed to obtain any suitable employment. He runs a sweet-stall, funded by the mother of his friend, Hugh, with his friend, Cliff, as his partner. Jimmy is a volatile youth full of the contradictions and dwindlings characteristic of his time. He is terribly anguished to find that real power and opportunities lie monopolized with the Establishment. Jimmy's alienation from his wife Alison is essentially due to her lack of enthusiasm, her unwillingness to feel deeply, her submissive adherence to the run of the mill domestic obligations like cleaning and ironing clothes, and making tea. Jimmy cannot break through her "cool," cannot dislodge her "sitting on the fence'', cannot force her to a full commitment to her real emotions, to force her to feel and to have vital life
The play begins with Osbornes very specific stage directions. Osborne attempts to give definition to each character through an analysis of their physical traits and their emotional makeup. Jimmy is a study in dualisms: he is angry and bitter, yet he is also tender and intense in his zealous love. Osborne attempts to paint Jimmy as a very masculine character, though the audience is left to decide how much of that is real and how much of that is an act. Alison Porter is described as a woman that has been beaten down by life. Osborne uses the word malaise to describe her, denoting the fact that her life has not turned out as she hoped it would. Cliff is described as a likable man, unimposing in his physical characteristics. He is the opposite of the kind of person that Jimmy aspires to be, yet Jimmy is much more like him than he knows or cares to admit. Cliff seems to innately understand this relationship and, therefore, suffers Jimmys abuse with good nature. The opening scene uses stereotypical gender references to define the characters. Jimmy is smoking a pipe and reading a paper while Alison is ironing. These represent the way in which both of the characters have attempted to fit into societal roles and expectations that have both made them miserable and angry. The play opens in April, a reference to T.S. Eliots line from The Waste Land: April is the cruellest (sic) month. Eliot is mentioned several other times in the play and is used as a definitive English cultural reference for Jimmy. This love/hate relationship with British culture is characteristic of Jimmy's attempts to retain a vibrant patriotism even while being pessimistic about the state of English affairs. Their apartment flat is a symbol of 1950s domesticity. The staging of the play is important for understanding the mood of domestic disturbance. The room is filled with old furniture, half-read newspapers, and pieces of worn clothing. This is representative of the characters and the characters lifestyle. Like a piece of junk or old furniture, Jimmy, Cliff, and Alison have literally been stowed away in an attic, out of sight from the upper class culture. Their emotions and ambitions do not fit in with the upper class world and this causes a great amount of consternation for Jimmy. The cramped space contains all of the trappings of a meager domestic life. Jimmys political and social persuasions become evident here as well when he mocks a faux column in the paper written by the Bishop of Bromley. He considers himself unconventional and untied to traditional British politics and even declares that no political party would want him. Though his politics often align with the Liberal party, he is also a bit of an anarchist, opposed to any kind of organization whether it be politics or religion. The playful banter between Cliff and Jimmy belies the deep tension and anger beneath the surface of the relationships between the three characters. This soon turns to anger and one of the plays key themes is revealed. Jimmy is concerned, above all, with enthusiasm and living. He portrays others as slothful and lazy. Alison and Cliff are, presumably, included in this judgment. Jimmy has clear memories of several people who excited him in the past -- Alisons friend Webster and his former girlfriend Madeline. The reason, he alludes, that these people understood him was precisely because they understood his need for a more enthusiastic mode of living. Jimmys anger is a result of his inability to excite similar feelings in the people around him. The plays title alludes to a running theme: anger over the political, military, and social prominence of the British past. Jimmys comment about the American age illuminates his nostalgia for the former British empire. He is at once both antagonistic towards those that refuse to believe that such an empire does not exist anymore, such as Alisons father who he derides as a fool, and yet he is also fiercely patriotic, an emotion he equates with living a real life. The British empire, thus, represents for Jimmy a point in history in which the Englishman was allowed to truly live as himself. This American age is dreary in comparison -unless youre an American.

Major Themes
The Angry Young Man Osborne's play was the first to explore the theme of the "Angry Young Man." This term describes a generation of post-World War II artists and working class men who generally ascribed to leftist, sometimes anarchist, politics and social views. According to cultural critics, these young men were not a part of any organized movement but were, instead, individuals angry at a post-Victorian Britain that refused to acknowledge their social and class alienation. Jimmy Porter is often considered to be literature's seminal example of the angry young man. Jimmy is angry at the social and political structures that he believes has kept him from achieving his dreams and aspirations. He directs this anger towards his friends and, most notably, his wife Alison. The Kitchen Sink Drama Kitchen Sink drama is a term used to denote plays that rely on realism to explore domestic social relations. Realism, in British theater, was first experimented with in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century by such playwrights as George Bernard Shaw. This genre attempted to capture the lives of the British upper class in a way that realistically reflected the ordinary drama of ruling class British society. According to many critics, by the mid-twentieth century the genre of realism had become tired and unimaginative. Osborne's play returned imagination to the Realist genre by capturing the anger and immediacy of post-war youth culture and the alienation that resulted in the British working classes. Look Back in Anger was able to comment on a range of domestic social dilemmas in this time period. Most importantly, it was able to capture, through the character of Jimmy Porter, the anger of this generation that festered just below the surface of elite British culture. Loss of Childhood A theme that impacts the characters of Jimmy and Alison Porter is the idea of a lost childhood. Osborne uses specific examples -- the death of Jimmy's father when Jimmy was only ten, and how he was forced to watch the physical and mental demise of the man -- to demonstrate the way in which Jimmy is forced to deal with suffering from an early age. Alison's loss of childhood is best seen in the way that she was forced to grow up too fast by marrying Jimmy. Her youth is wasted in the anger and abuse that her husband levels upon her. Osborne suggests that a generation of British youth has experienced this same loss of childhood innocence. Osborne uses the examples of World War, the development of the atomic bomb, and the decline of the British Empire to show how an entire culture has lost the innocence that other generations were able to maintain. Real Life In the play, Jimmy Porter is consumed with the desire to live a more real and full life. He compares this burning desire to the empty actions and attitudes of others. At first, he generalizes this emptiness by criticizing the lax writing and opinions of those in the newspapers. He then turns his angry gaze to those around him and close to him, Alison, Helena, and Cliff. Osborne's argument in the play for a real life is one in which men are allowed to feel a full range of emotions. The most real of these emotions is anger and Jimmy believes that this

anger is his way of truly living. This idea was unique in British theater during the play's original run. Osborne argued in essays and criticisms that, until his play, British theater had subsumed the emotions of characters rendering them less realistic. Jimmy's desire for a real life is an attempt to restore raw emotion to the theater. Sloth in British Culture Jimmy Porter compares his quest for a more vibrant and emotional life to the slothfulness of the world around him. It is important to note that Jimmy does not see the world around him as dead, but merely asleep in some fundamental way. This is a fine line that Osborne walks throughout the play. Jimmy never argues that there is a nihilism within British culture. Instead, he sees a kind of slothfulness of character. His anger is an attempt to awaken those around him from this cultural sleep. This slothfulness of emotion is best seen in the relationship between Alison and Cliff. Alison describes her relationship with Cliff as "comfortable." They are physically and emotionally affectionate with each other, but neither seems to want to take their passion to another level of intimacy. In this way, their relationship is lazy. They cannot awaken enough passion to consummate their affair. Jimmy seems to subconsciously understand this, which is the reason he is not jealous of their affection towards one another. The Rise and Fall of the British Empire The character of Colonel Redfern, Alison's father, represents the decline of and nostalgia for the British Empire. The Colonel had been stationed for many years in India, a symbol of Britain's imperial reach into the world. The Edwardian age which corresponded to Britain's height of power, had been the happiest of his life. His nostalgia is representative of the denial that Osborne sees in the psyche of the British people. The world has moved on into an American age, he argues, and the people of the nation cannot understand why they are no longer the world's greatest power. Masculinity in Art Osborne has been accused by critics of misogynistic views in his plays. Many point toLook Back in Anger as the chief example. These critics accuse Osborne of glorifying young male anger and cruelty towards women and homosexuals. This is seen in the play in specific examples in which Jimmy Porter emotionally distresses Alison, his wife, and delivers a grisly monologue in which he wishes for Alison's mother's death. Osborne, however, asserts that he is attempting to restore a vision of true masculinity into a twentieth century culture that he sees as becoming increasingly feminized. This feminization is seen in the way that British culture shows an "indifference to anything but immediate, personal suffering." This causes a deadness within which Jimmy's visceral anger and masculine emotion is a retaliation against.

Themes
Alienation and Loneliness

Jimmy Porter spoke for a large segment of the British population in 1956 when he ranted about his alienation from a society in which he was denied any meaningful

role. Although he was educated at a "white-tile" university, a reference to the newest and least prestigious universities in the United Kingdom, the real power and opportunities were reserved for the children of the Establishment, those born to privilege, family connections, and entry to the "right" schools. Part of the Establishment etiquette was the "stiff upper lip," that reticence to show or even to feel strong emotions. Jimmy's alienation from Alison comes precisely because he cannot break through her "cool," her unwillingness to feel deeply even during sexual intercourse with her husband. He berates her in a coarse attempt to get her to strike out at him, to stop "sitting on the fence" and make a full commitment to her real emotions; he wants to force her to feel and to have vital life. He calls her "Lady Pusillanimous" because he sees her as too cowardly to commit to anything. Jimmy is anxious to give a great deal and is deeply angry because no one seems interested enough to take from him, including his wife. He says, "My heart is so full, I feel illand she wants peace!"

Anger and Hatred

Jimmy Porter operates out of a deep well of anger. His anger is directed at those he loves because they refuse to have strong feelings, at a society that did not fulfill promises of opportunity, and at those who smugly assume their places in the social and power structure and who do not care for others. He lashes out in anger because of his deeply felt helplessness. One catalyst for his anger can be found in his experience as a ten year old of watching his idealist father dying from wounds received fighting for democracy in the Spanish Civil War, his father talking for hours, "pouring out all that was left of his life to one bewildered little boy." He says, "You see, I learnt at an early age what it was to be angryangry and helpless. And I can never forget it."

Apathy and Passivity

Although Alison is the direct target of Jimmy's invective, her apathy and passivity are attitudes that Jimmy sees as undermining the whole of society. It is the complacent blandness of society that infuriates Jimmy. When speaking of Alison's brother Nigel, he says, "You've never heard so many well-bred commonplaces coming from beneath the same bowler hat." The Church also comes under attack, in part because it has lost relevance to contemporary life. For Helena attending church is a safe habit, and one that defines right and wrong for her, although she seems perfectly willing to ignore its prohibition against adultery when it suits her. Jimmy

sees the church as providing an easy escape from facing the pain of living in the here and now, and thus precluding any real redemption. Of course, Jimmy has also slipped into a world of ritual as illustrated by the three Sunday evenings spent reading the newspapers and even the direct replacement of Alison at the ironing board with Helena. Habit is portrayed as insidious.

Class Conflict

Jimmy comes from the working class, and although some of his mother's relatives are "pretty posh," Cliff tells Alison that Jimmy hates them as much as he hates her family. It is the class system, with its built-in preferential treatment for those at the top and exclusion from all power for those at the bottom, that makes Jimmy's existence seem so meaningless. He has a university degree, but it is not from the "right" university. It is Nigel, the "straight-backed, chinless wonder" who went to Sandhurst, who Jimmy believes to be stupid and insensitive to the needs of others, to have no beliefs of his own, who is already a Member of Parliament, and will "make it to the top." Alison's father, Colonel Redfern, is not shown unsympathetically, but her mother is portrayed as a class-conscious monster who used every tactic she could to prevent Alison from marrying Jimmy. The only person for whom Jimmy's love is apparent is Hugh's working-class mother. Jimmy likes Cliff because, as Cliff himself says, "I'm common."

Identity Crisis

While Jimmy harangues everyone around him to open themselves to honest feeling, he is struggling with his own problems of identity. He doesn't seem to fit in anywhere in society. As Colonel Redfern points out, operating a sweet stall seems an odd occupation for an educated young man. Jimmy sees suffering the pain of life as the only way to find, or "earn," one's true identity. Alison, who seems immune to this, does finally suffer the immeasurable loss of her unborn child and comes back to Jimmy, who seems to embrace her. Helena discovers that she can be herself only if she lives according to her principles of right and wrong. Colonel Redfern is caught out of his time. The England he left as a young army officer no longer exists. Jimmy calls him "just one of those sturdy old plants left over from the Edwardian Wilderness that can't understand why the sun isn't shining anymore," and the Colonel agrees. Cliff does seem to have a strong sense of who he is, accepts that, and will move on with his life.

From among the plays you have read choose any One that you have liked giving reasons for your choice.

Faustus discovered that the promises of ultimate attainment and unwavering success eventually come face-to-face with the universal realities of what the Greeks called the Fates and Christians call powers and principalities and Faustus called Mephistopheles. The end knowledge--the ultimate knowledge--is that humankind is bound, hedged in, limited by the ultimate nature of the baryonic universe: all universal matter tends to decay and thus cannot limitlessly move forward. Newton proved that a circle is a straight line bent into an adjacent direction by an incoming impetus force. With each consecutive bump, energy has the potential of being spent at a rate greater than that at which new energy is gained from the bump, decayed so that eventually the circle has the potential to grow smaller and smaller. This is a neat metaphor for the limitations inherent in the nature of the baryonic universe (maybe dark matter and dark energy don't decay...) that is mentioned above.

This drama should be regarded as a skeletal structure of the play written by Marlowe, for the surviving manuscripts are so interspersed with comic scenes and the lines themselves so often revised according to whims of the actors that the original writing must be culled out of the surviving version. Even so, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus is worth reading and study because of the many remaining examples of the poets skill it contains. In addition to the adulterated poetry in this play there is also the problem of the tainted characterization and symbolism; for a while the personality of Mephistophilis is often caricaturized and while the exploits of Faustus are frequently rendered pure low comedy, still the Marlowe version of the two principal characters is evident in the sober and more consistent moments of the play. As an added contribution to existing Faustian literature, MarlowesDoctor Faustus is an artistic effort, although not comparable in-depth or scope to the treatment given to this theme by Goethe. Eternal Significance There is evidently more than what meets the eye in Doctor Faustus,otherwise, its story-element which is too brief and simple, has not by itself the power of creating a lasting impression and an abiding appeal. The play may have had an immediate interest to the people of the Renaissance age because it was written in and for that age, and also because Faustus typifies the genuine Renaissance passion for infinite knowledge. The play, it is true, is a typical Renaissance rendering of the story upon which it is based. But the fact that it is still a favourite of every reader of English drama in spite of three-and-half centuries of changing tastes and temperaments, proves that Doctor Faustus has its greatness not as a mere typical Renaissance play but as a play embodying eternal significance. Central Figure of Dr. Faustus Faustus, the chief and central figure of Marlowes play, stands not for a character, not for a man, but for everyman. The grim tragedy that befalls him is not a personal tragedy, but one that overtakes all those who dare practise more than heavenly power permits. The terrible conflict that rages in his mind is not peculiar to him alone, but common to all who waver between truth and delusion. The play presents not the conflict between man and man, but the eternal battle between the world-old protagonistsMan and Spiritual Power. And the battle takes place not in any known battlefield but in the invisible and limitless region of the mind. And the object of fightnot sceptres and crowns, not kingdoms and empires, but the knowledge of mans final fate! Conflict in Dr. Faustus

The mystery of life is an alluring and impenetrable one. Innumerable have been the attempts of scholars and scientists, poets and prophets, to pluck out the heart of this mystery. Yet baffling one and all, it continues to be a mystery. Part at least of this mystery is due to the perpetual conflict between good and evila conflict without beginning and end. The conflict is terrible, but in that very terror there is an irresistible fascination. It is such a fascination that the play of Doctor Faustus exercises on its readers. Faustus, the Teutonic and medieval sceptic, personifies disbelief in all its strength and weakness. Tired of what he calls barren knowledge, he deliberately seeks to learn and practise magic, magic that has been practised since the beginning of the history of thought by those who have chosen the wrong road. Blind in his blind determination, Faustus becomes deaf to the counsels of good that are constantly whispered into his ears by the Good Angel. Such is the power of Evil that when once it takes a man by the throat, it will not leave him until it strangles him. This kind of crucifixion which carries with it its own moral, cannot but make an appeal to the mind of man in all ages and countries. Sin working out its own nemesis, brings the catastrophe of the play into vital relation with human conduct. And who can resist its appeal? Fascinating Appeal: The Attempt to Acquire Forbidden things and the Attempt to Secure Martyrdom And too, there is ever present in man an irrepressible temptation to reach that which is beyond his grasp, to conquer the infinite, to touch the impalpable, to see the invisible, to attain the impossible. In spite of examples from history, in spite of warnings and threats, man never gives up this instinct of his, never rests contented with what he has. He is forever eager to follow the dubious trail of some melting mirage of the mind and ready to stake his all, if necessary, in its pursuit. Doubtful though of his success, he still throws his red gauntlet in the face of fate, defies chance and circumstance, and hopes to reach his goal. May be the roses of reward will not be his, but his surely will be crown of martyrdom. And both the attemptsthe attempt to acquire forbidden things and the attempt to secure martyrdom have their fascinating appeal. And Faustus, as we know, is both the hero and martyr of forbidden knowledge. An Interesting Story The story of Doctor Faustus may be synoptically stated thus. There was once a German scholar, John Faustus by name. He was a Doctor of Divinityexcelling all whose sweet delight disputes in heavenly matters of theology. Not satisfied with learning golden gifts, he took to the study of cursed necromancy. He was convinced that a sound magician is a mighty god, and that if he became one, all things that move between the quiet poles will be at his command. So he decided to enlarge his sphere of knowledge by cultivating magic. He conjured up Mephistophilis, servant to great Luciferarch-regent and commander of all spirits. Mephistophilis told Faustus that he could not serve him without Lucifers permission. Faustus then voluntarily offered to surrender his soul after twenty-four years, if during that period Mephistophilis promised to be his slave and did his biddings. Lucifer agreed, and demanded a promise executed in Faustus blood. Faustus did so and set out in quest of knowledge and pleasure, travelling about invisible. He had an aerial flight seat in a chariot burning bright, and visited Trier, Paris,Naples, Campania, Venice, Padua, Rome. By way of demonstrating his power and superiority, Faustus fooled the Pope, called up the spirits of Alexander and his paramour, provided grapes to the Duchess of Vanholt in mid-winter and, at the request of his scholar-friends, summoned the spirit of Helen of TroyHelen whose face launched a thousand ships and burnt the topless towers of Ilium. At times Faustus was seized by the desire for repentance but the exhilaration of pleasure was too great, and the powers of Evil too strong. Finally, as the period of contract expired, Faustus made frantic appeals to God and Christ: but precisely at the stroke of twelve, he was borne away by the Devils to his everlasting doom. Plot of Doctor Faustus As already mentioned Doctor Faustus consists only of scenes, of fourteen short scenes. Marlowe never cared to arrange them in Acts and Scenes according to the traditional manner. Some of the recent editors, have, however, attempted to do so. According to this arrangement the First Act consists of the first four scenes. The next two scenes constitute the Second Act. The seventh, eight and nineth scenes, with the Chorus preceding it, is the Third Act. Scenes ten, eleventh and twelveth with Bologue are marked off as the Fourth Act. The last two scenes form the Fifth Act. Whatever argument we like and follow, the fact remains that the interest and appeal of the play does not in the least depend upon its division into Acts and Scenes, or Movements or Episodes. Lacking as it does structural unity and technical perfection, the play has the greater merit of unity of character. It is the dominating figure of Faustus that holds the play together and imparts to it such dramatic quality and emotional appeal as can never belong to it by any other method. As in Hamlet, so in this drama, the central personality himself is the play, a living play with living acts and scenes, and incidents and episodes. His adventure itself in the realm of knowledge is full of dramatic

possibilities; and the conflict in his mind between his allegiance to the Devil and his desire to repent for it and seek Gods pardon is, of course, dramatic in the extreme. Characterisation of Doctor Faustus Characterization in Doctor Faustus is, in general, weak and shadowy. Marlowe concentrates all his power of character delineation on Faustus. Mephistophilis too, gets his share, though to a much less degree. But all the other characters are faint and feeble. In fact, Marlowe seems to have designed these minor characters, Valdes and Cornelius, the scholars, the Old Man, the Good and the Evil Angels, in such a manner as to heighten the character of Faustus by contrast. Each and all of these subordinate characters are dedicated to the one main purpose of expressing the psychological condition of Faustus from various points of viewthe perplexities of his divided spirits, his waverings of anguish and remorse, the flickerings of hope extinguished in the smoke of self-abandonment to fear, the pungent pricks of conscience soothed by transient visions of delight, the prying curiosity which lulls his torment, at one moment, the souls defiance yielding to despair, and from despair recovering fresh strength. To this vivisection of a ruined man, all details in gloomy scene contribute. Even the pitiful distractionspitiful in their leaden dullness and blunt edge of drollerywith which Faustus amuses his worse than Promethean leisure until the last hour of his contract sounds, heighten the infernal effect. Conclusion Despite defects Doctor Faustus is a great play and a great tragedy. A close examination will reveal to us how wonderfully Marlowe has succeeded in producing a work of art from the chaotic Northern and Teutonic Faustiad. The most striking thing that endows the play with a tragic unity is the character of the herowhose mind is a battleground between the forces of curiosity and conscience. Marlowes indisputable merit consists in delineating with great tragic power the figure of a great tragic hero. Marlowes Faustus, scholarly and sceptical, defiant and desperate, combines in himself the characteristics of a medieval rebel and a Renaissance adventurer. It is the psychological study of this character that Marlowe draws with great mastery, and it is this that makes Doctor Faustus more a dramatic poem than a drama proper. The mental conflict of Faustus is presented with great tragic intensity, enhanced every now and then by the whispers of the Good and Bad Angels. We witness the course of this conflict with alternating moods of fear, pity, sympathy, and awe, till in the final scene when Faustus cries out his very soul, we just watch incapable of having any one particular feeling. Plot or no plot, Doctor Faustus engulfs the reader in the waves of tragedy that fret and foam in its serious scenes

In 1531, two years before the birth of Elizabeth I, the skies over Western Europe exploded in atmospheric chaos. A yellow tailed comet crossed the sky followed by flags, fireballs, and flaming crosses. For the incredulous onlookers, "God and Satan were once again in mortal conflict, and, as never before, men's souls stood in jeopardy" (Smith 92). Calvin and Loyola sparked the flames of the reformation that led to a permanent schism in Western Christendom. Erasmus and More helped advance the humanist movement, and by the time Henry VIII was declared "Supreme Head on Earth," the English Renaissance was in full swing. The gloom of the medieval past gave way to an energized, exciting and experimental period that proclaimed "all in doubt" (Smith 12). The early modern period is distinguished by its zest for life, its desire for knowledge, and its celebration of the individual.While medieval citizens saw government as a necessary evil, by the 16th century, it had become a living organism with every section of society occupying their rightful place in the body politic. But had things really changed? Had the Elizabethans shed the anxiety and conflict of their medieval past? The heroic tragedies of Marlowe and Shakespeare suggest that the cost of challenging the limits of human possibility often exacted a medieval price and the celebration of the self-fashioning man also resulted in social tension. The pursuit of wealth and knowledge changed the delicate class structure of Elizabethan England. Merchants and traders became wealthier and more powerful than the

aristocracy; the guild system broke down, and masterless men lost their place in the social order. It is in this changing world that Marlowe's morality tale of Dr. Faustus is told. Marlowe's hero, Dr. Faustus, is the quintessential Renaissance man; a lover of knowledge, beauty, and power, operating in a society that had not yet released its grip on the medieval contempt for the world. The 15th century's obsession with death, fear of devils and damnation are played out in Marlowe's tragedy, revealing the underlying misgivings of an excessive and immoderate age. When first introduced to Faustus he is contemplating the wealth of his knowledge: from the philosophy of Aristotle, to Galen's medicine, Justinian law, and the Bible, Faustus dismisses them all. In a parody of this insatiable desire for new, practical knowledge, Faustus instead turns to magic as his new pursuit. And with true Renaissance conceit, claims "A sound magician is a demigod"(I.i.62). Faustus is confronted with two opposing forces, one representing the exciting, experimental and forward-looking world, the other embodying the fear and melancholy of the medieval past. The Good Angel attempts to instill the old morals of contrition, prayer and repentance on Faustus while the bad angel speaks for the spirit of the age: "No, Faustus, think of honour and of wealth" (II.i.22). Without a second thought, Faustus chooses magic and muses on the wealth he might conjure: "Indian for gold, ocean for orient pearl...pleasant fruits and princely delicates" (I.i.84-85).

READ THIS NEXT

Doctor Faustus: An Analysis Into Scene 13, Lines 15-25 Analysis of Christopher Marlowe's Dr Faustus Step Forward the Real Shakespeare: The Case for Marlowe

The capricious and petty magic that Faustus practices is the paradox of the play. Why, with all his power, and a finite number of years in which to yield it, does he waste time gathering grapes? It is simply to consume knowledge and them dismiss it? It seems that Faustus's magic has no purpose except to provide pleasure. Despite his fantasies of accumulated wealth, Faustus does nothing with his power except spend his time in "pleasure and dalliance", followed by periods of fear and doubt. Although he is at heart, a good man, Faustus has made the conscious choice to sell his soul and therefore, must pay God's price. "Where is mercy now?" he asks. Full of repentance and despair, Faustus calls for Helen "Whose sweet embracings may extinguish clear / Those thoughts that do dissuade me from my vow, / And keep mine oath I made to Lucifer" (V.i.94-96). Given one last chance at redemption, his passion for beauty seals his fate: "Come, Helen, come, give me my soul again. / Here will I dwell, for heaven is in these lips" (V.i.103-104). Renaissance man would have empathized with Faustus but would have agreed that he went too far. The desire for new, practical knowledge, and the lust for riches and beauty did not include the complete denial of salvation and heaven. Orthodox Christianity still prevailed. Faustus threatened both social and religious structures; although he seemed to want to repent, he had passed the point of no return. In the end of the play, Faustus is back in his study, having come full circle. He awaits the chosen hour but with his power gone, he cannot stop the march of time which is now his only hope: "Fair

nature's eye, rise, rise again, and make / Perpetual day; or let this hour be but / A year, a month, a week, a natural day, / That Faustus may repent and save his soul" (V.i. 139-142). In his last hour, Faustus tries to find God but cannot make the spiritual leap necessary for redemption. He has lost his faith and once again turns to the classical knowledge he once dismissed: "Ah, Pythagoras' metempsychosis, were that true, this soul should fly from me, and I be chang'd / Unto some brutish beast" (V.ii.175-177). For Faustus, as with Marlowe's other heros, it is the belief that the human potential to possess, own, use and destroy with liberty will eventually exact a heavy price. Marlowe's overreaching stars have no faith, and therefore, must fall victim to the medieval anxiety and ambivalence that lay just below the surface of their modern age.