Marlowe’s “Dr Faustus” and “Tamburlaine”: Theological and Theatrical Perspectives by Johannes H. Birringer (review)

Reviews 95 behalf) is certainly defensible as well. Whether this peculiarly conflictless drama of a man bom to serve signifies tragedy or comedy is debatable. At the very least, in Laurence Senelick’s very capable hands Shchepkin is freed from any possible historical emploi which would seek to neutral­ ize the irony and dispel the ambiguity of his condition. SPENCER GOLUB University of Virginia Johannes H. Birringer. Marlowe’s “Dr Faustus” and "Tamburlaine”: Theo­ logical and Theatrical Perspectives. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag Peter Lang, 1984. Pp. 402. Of the two most frequent critical reactions to Marlowe’s plays, the romantic and the Christian, Professor Birringer develops numerous strate­ gies for supporting the former—for seeing Marlowe as heterodox, exciting, and original both in form and content. Indeed, the numerous references from his own time focus on the disturbing in Marlowe’s life, ideas, and dramaturgy. Of the theological and theatrical perspectives mentioned in the subtitle, both are thoroughly researched, but the theatrical are rather less convincing (perhaps inescapably so since the most diverse productions can be successful on the stage, which can accommodate Hamlet as ideal prince or as neurotic Mama’s boy). Nonetheless, Professor Birringer makes a good case theologically and theatrically for the iconoclastic Tamburlaine and the Calvinist Doctor Faustus. According to this view, Tamburlaine’s un-limiting metaphors sweep aside such theocentric perspectives as “natural and cosmic order, de casibus morality, [and] divine retribution.” Marlowe manipulates audience expectation by having Tamburlaine’s enemies predict his downfall in con­ ventional terms and for conventional reasons, but showing him defying “all traditional assumptions with his successful, unpunished hubris.” In Part II Tamburlaine not only comes up against mortality, but also against the repetitive nature of the universe he has willed—a repetitiveness reflected by the literalization of the metaphors. Thus Marlowe “had begun to integrate the problems of tragic necessity and mortality into a dramatic world that seemed infinitely malleable by the willful imagining of the overreaching hero.” Faustus and Tamburlaine are similar in that both take a self-determin­ ing stance, but Faustus is further limited by a Calvinist world view. This Faustus, caught in a Calvinist universe, is more comprehensible than the frequently described figure caught in a morality play. For a non-Calvinist Christian reader, Faustus often seems ignorant of basic tenets. “Why doesn’t he read the whole verse?” the reader wonders. However, if Faustus is reprobate, if he is caught in Calvinist determinism, if he cannot believe that the promise of salvation is for him, then the play makes tragic sense. The hero’s only freedom in a determinist universe is to embrace his own damnation, but the very circle in which he glories also damns him; Faustus “is in submission to the values (liberation, self damnation) that he himself sets up and creates.” Since the A text gives a stronger Calvinist reading, supporters of the B text may not be happy with this interpretation. 96 Comparative Drama Despite the controversial thesis and wide-ranging reading evident in this book, its style and printing make it unreasonably difficult. The piling up of prepositional phrases, elaborate diction (“diabolonian dramaturgy,” “dialogical style”), and occasional problems with syntax are hindrance enough, but combined with poor proofreading (numerous misspellings, one page reversal) and format (no paragraph indentation with a double spaced unjustified line) seriously discourage the reader. The presentation is unfortunate since the content supplies good ammunition against too moralistic a reading of Marlowe’s works. CECILE WILLIAMSON CARY Wright State University ...