©copyright 1999 _MW_ All Rights Reserved

All original material has been Copyrighted and may not be published copied or duplicated in any media except by Michael Williams holder of the copyrights.

Marlowe and Christian Free Will

During the Renaissance there were developing debates about the concept of free will and how it fit in with Christian doctrine. The most influential debate of the 16th century was between Erasmus and Martin Luther, which pits the idea of free choice against the notion of divine grace. Another stance on the issue of free will and salvation was that of the Calvinists. Looking at Marlowe’s Tamburlaine parts 1 and 2 as well as Doctor Faustus we can see the influence that such debates had on the literature of the time. In these three plays Marlowe plays with the idea of free will found in Erasmus and others, and the sense of fatalism that is inherent in Calvin’s writings. By the end of Dr. Faustus Marlowe has been able to present the audience with the conflicting notions of Man’s free will and predestination.

In his piece about the subject Erasmus asserts that there is most certainly a human will. He also believes that there is a sense of reliance on divine grace. What he does not follow is the idea that Man acts out of necessity. This is to say that that Man is free to act even though there is the need for divine grace. He sites many biblical instances where it is clear that man does have a choice in how to live. Eramsus also tries to reconcile divine grace with this notion of free will (Erasmus 54-59).

Using passages from Scripture, Erasmus develops his support for Free will in the face of God’s own will. His idea of free will is concerned with the concept that Man does indeed have a will and can assert it. He has trouble when he tries to make a claim that it is possible for Man to choose or act in order to gain salvation. The main argument he was up against makes the claim that Man can do nothing on his own when it comes to obtaining salvation.

Focusing in on the basic concept of free will we can see that Erasmus supports Man’s will. He believed that "from the time of the Apostles down to the present day, no writer has yet emerged who has totally taken away the power of freedom of choice." (Erasmus, 43) However he does acknowledge that there have been a few writers who have disputed Man’s freedom, but that they are not supported by Scripture. His main defence against those who eliminate free will is the difference in interpretation of the Holy Scripture.

He goes into deep detail about how these interpretations have been manipulated by many. He also tries to make a claim that if we take Scripture at its’ face value then we can argue successfully in favour of Man’s freedom. Erasmus believes that he has just as much right to interpret the Scripture as any other scholar. He says that he has the desire to learn the truth and then goes on to assert what he believes to be the truth.

Using the Holy Scripture he defends his belief that man has free will. Citing Ecclesasticus, Ch. 15 (14-17) he shows that there is clear support for free will. "God made man from the beginning, and left him in the hand of his own counsel." This passage goes on to claim that God has set forth what is right and wrong before Man, and has given him the choice to act. (Erasmus, 47) He goes on to site many references from the Old and New Testament in support of free will.

He also acknowledges that there are passages in Scripture that do not support free will. These are the points were Luther and he differ. Although Luther grants freedom of choice, he does not grant Man’s use of free will in order to gain salvation. In Scripture there are passages that support the claim "thus the will of God, since it is the principal cause of all things that take place, seems to impose necessity on our will." (Erasmus, 67)

The main issue in support of opposition to free will is that God’s will and foreknowledge implies the necessity of Man’s action. Erasmus sites the instance that God knew that Judas would betray Jesus as a prime example of how God’s foreknowledge precludes Man’s necessity. He also uses the parable of the potter and the clay to illustrate Man in relation to God.

The claim that God knew that Judas would betray Jesus means, to many, that Judas acted out of necessity. Since God knew he was going to act in such a way then it was inevitable that he would betray Jesus. But Erasmus claims that "some necessity can also be posited of human affairs which nonetheless does not exclude a liberty of our will." (Erasmus, 68) He would like to believe that Judas could have acted differently, but that it was the "perverse will" of Judas that led to his betrayal.

In the parable of the potter and the clay Erasmus tries his hand again at interpreting Scripture. The parable is used to show the power that God has over Man. We are to submit to God just as clay does in the hands of the potter. It also is used to show that Man is powerless in front of the will of God. But Erasmus does not like this claim because it renders other statements in Scripture that seem to empower Man to act.

He uses the example of the clay to illustrate his point. What sense does it make for God to create a pot (man) and then damn it because of the defects that are in it? Yet there are many passages in Scripture that claim that Man is capable of purifying himself. For what sort of demented being would create Man, tell him that he can purify himself when he really can not, and then damn him because of his impurities? The danger here is that if Erasmus were to come out and say this up front he would be labelled a blasphemer. He however implies this in what he says in order to make his claim for free will a rational claim.

Now to shift to issue of salvation and free will. Erasmus’ argument proceeds towards the main debate of whether or not Man has the ability to gain salvation through his own actions. In his remarks towards Scripture Erasmus states the absurdity of a contradiction in the texts.

If man does nothing, there is no room for merits; where there is no room for merits; there is no room for punishments or rewards. If Man does all, there is no room for grace, which Paul urges so many times…. Both sides embrace and acknowledge the inviolable majesty of Scripture, but an interpretation must be found which will unravel this knot. (Erasmus, 73)

He recognises the need for an explanation of how both ideas can be existent at the same time.

On the other side of the argument stands Luther. He asserts that Man can not gain salvation through his own will but must rely on the grace of God. Erasmus tries to counter this claim by quoting Scripture and showing how Scripture supports Man’s will along side of God’s grace. This is the same issue that confronts the reader when he sees that Tamburlaine is subject to Fate, and yet he is able to control it. It is the same dilemma that is presented to Faustus in the scenes with the angel and devil.

Erasmus grants that our will attains nothing that it seeks without the help of grace. But for him this does not eliminate or will. In interpreting a passage from John 6 (44) where it says "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" Erasmus asserts that this term draw is not a forceful act, but merely gives Man the alternative to be drawn or to lean toward evil. Just as a sheep may be drawn by a green twig; so to Man may be drawn my God towards salvation. This does not mean that Man acts out of necessity, but that even though he needs the drawing from God he will also need to follow what is good. (Erasmus, 82-84)

God gives us the ability to do what is right, but in order for there to be some sort of merit in our actions we must have some sort of will no matter how tiny it might be. For it would be strange for God to ask us to follow his commandments when we have no choice in the matter. And so it would be absurd for the Angel to taunt Faustus with salvation if there were no chance that he could gain it through repentance. So to make sense of the dispute among Scripture scholars, Erasmus has laid down a claim that admits God’s grace as a part of salvation, but also leaves room for Man to willingly obtain this salvation. For why else would there be commandments or punishments if Man were unable to act.

The converse argument concerning free will comes mainly from the writings of Calvin. This argument asserts that Man can do nothing for his own salvation. "Calvin would have it that God is the ‘author’ of all that happens." (Battenhouse, 91) This is to say that if Man is able to gain salvation it is through the grace of God that he would be able to do so. These people would like to take away the ability of Man to repent or act rightly without it being an act of necessity.

It is said that Man can only gain this salvation if God has willed it or planned it. "God does not merely permit bad people, they are ‘instruments of Divine Providence’."(Sinfield, 107) This is like the story of how God hardened the heart of the Pharaoh in the Old Testament. It is God who has willed the Pharaoh to be so cruel and to act so fiendishly. God intends for these people to be damned and there is nothing that they can do about it. There is no way for them to go against the will of God.

This is the conflict that is played out in the dramas of Marlowe. We are presented with the conflict between Man’s will and God’s will. One side of the argument would have us believe that Marlowe’s characters are the agents of God and have no will of their own. The other side would have us believe that they are not just agents of God, but can act on their own volition. Whether it is to fulfil the destiny of being the ‘Scourge of God’ or to be damned to hell Marlowe’s characters can be viewed either as agents of God or as independent beings that can act without necessity.

Marlowe is not asserting anything here. He is presenting two conflicting ideas to an audience who would be well aware of the debate concerning free will and predestination. The idea of predestination was imbedded in the theology of the time, and it could not have been far from many members of Marlowe’s audience. What he is doing is presenting the conflicts of freedom with the idea of predestination in order to get his audience to consider the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, and whether or not it seems just, or believable. To do this he presents his audience with two characters who seem to have free will, but who also appear to be destined for a prescribed fate.

In Tamburlaine there is a push for the assertion of Man’s free will. This is contrasted by the idea of fate, and its’ role in Tamburlaine’s reign of terror. Tamburlaine is a figure who is controlled by fate, and yet he holds fate by the reigns. He asserts his own control over his fate by acknowledging it and empowering himself towards fulfilling it. This is clearly seen in part one of the two-part play. It is in the second part that we see Tamburlaine losing control over his fate, and the loss of his independent volition.

Our first impression of Tamburlaine comes from Mycetes and his court. To them he is "misled by dreaming prophecies, to reign in Asia and with barbarous arms to make himself the monarch of the East." (1.1, 41-43) Meander and Theridamus regard him and his group as "that tartarian rout." (1.1, 71) To them he is a foolish leader of a band of thieves that believes that he will be able to conquer Asia. We get a contrasting image of him when Tamburlaine apprehends Zenocrate. It is here that we see Tamburlaines strength of will. His disregard for Zenocrate’s letters of passage shows the confidence he has in his own authority. The letters are meaningless to him because they are in his land now, and need permission from him. This is the first instance of Tamburlaine's assertion of his power and will. (1.2, 20-24)

This empowerment gives Tamburlaine the ability to gain "possession of the Persian crown." (1.2, 91) From the second scene onwards we can see they way Marlowe is able to mix fate and free will in the character of Tamburlaine. Even though Tamburlaine is fated for such things he is also able to have a choice in how he will obtain his fate. He does not sit idly by and wait for things to happen, but knows that his fate will not be fulfilled unless he acts.

It is in the first part of Tamburaline that we catch a glimpse at Marlowe's ideas about fate and free will. Even though it might be that Tamburlaine is destined for greatness there is the feeling that he is able to control or influence this fate. Marlowe is playing with the idea that Man has free will, but it is a will that can only be asserted towards or away from a divine plan. This falls in line with Erasmus’ concept of will.

Even though he is destined to be the ruler of Persia, Tamburlaine would never reach this end if he sat back an expected to be handed the crown in the way that Cosroe is. The language throughout the first part shows that Tamburlaine is a man of actions and of deeds. His destiny is not set except that whatever he undertakes it will be great. "For fates and oracles of heaven have sworn to royalize the deeds of Tamburlaine." (2.3 7-8) This implies that Tamburlaine has his own will and that his deeds can have merits, which is contrary to any idea of predestination. For in predestination Man’s actions carry no weight compared with the will of God.

If we look at the language of Tamburlaine we can see that there is much said about the worthiness of the man and his actions. Such remarks as "well his merits show him to be made" (2.1 35) and "I speak it, and my words are oracles" (3.3 102) imply that Tamburlaine is indeed capable of action, and that there is force behind those actions. His resolution is all powerful, and the reader can not help but feel that Tamburlaine is the master of his own fate in part one of the plays.

Along with the idea of free will in Tamburlaine there is the idea of fate. This idea of Tamburlaine as the ‘Scourge of God’ comes directly from the sources that Marlowe used for the play. In the sources of the play we are presented with the idea that Tamburlaine is acting out God's will and that his role are ‘Ire of God’ explains his terrible deeds. This reduces Marlowe’s hero to an agent of necessity and eliminates his will.

Tamburlaine as the ‘Scourge of God’ is played out best in the action between Sigismund, Orcanes, and Tamburlaine. It is here that we see Tamburlaine as the punisher of those whom have gone against God. In Act two we see that Sigismund is willing to break his word with Orcanes in order to take the "opportunity that God hath given to venge our Christains’ death and scourge their foul blasphemous paganism." (2.1 50-52) It is this betrayal of his word that leads to his defeat at the hands of the Turks. It also shows how Tamburlaine is used as a means for others to exact their revenge, for it is Tamburaline who has caused Orcanes forces to be so depleted.

In Sigismunds defeat that is a sense of Justice that he recognises himself. God has brought down his vengeance on him because of his "accurst and hateful perjury." (2.3 3) Here God is seen as the just punisher of the evil doings of a sinner. But this is a form of justice that can be expected because of the baseness of Sigismund's act. The kind of vengeance that is shown through in the acts of Tamburlaine is completely different and has nothing to do with punishing the misdeeds of a Christian sinner.

When Tamburlaine confronts the Turks he is acting as an agent of God. He is there to punish the people who do not believe in God. If Sigismund had left well enough alone he would have been avenged by Tamburaline. Instead he tries to exact his own form of punishment, and dies as a result. But Tamburlaine is acting on behalf of "a God full of revenging wrath, from the thunder and the lightning breaks, whose scourge I am and him will I obey." (5.1 184) This is by far the boldest statement he makes on behalf of acknowledging that he is the agent of God. It is an opposing view to what he states in the first part where he claims that the God’s fear his power because he is a threat to them. (5.1 448-54) In the second part he is fully acknowledging that he is an agent of God, which would be a Calvinistic view, and also a view presented in the sources for the play.

The idea that Tamburlaine is an agent of God’s will is manipulated by Marlowe so that he is given some responsibility for his actions. For it is Tamburlaine who has control of his fate. But is he really in control. This is what Marlowe would like his audience to think about. There is a constant push for both sides of the free will argument, and Marlowe does not attempt to resolve this issue. He presents Tamburlaine as a man with his own will, but as a man who must fulfil his fate and accept that he is the ‘scourge of God.’

By the end of the second part of Tamburlaine we are presented with a Tamburlaine who seems to be resigned to fate, and yet he still comes across as being a man who is able to act on his own. When he asserts that he is doing what he is because he is the "Scourge of God" we get a sense that he is merely using that as an excuse for his actions. This shows through when he shows an outward contempt towards Mohamet, and calls him out of heaven. Does he do this because he knows that he is destined to be the scourge or is it because he feels that the God/Gods can do nothing to stop him?

It presents a dilemma to the reader. For Tamburlaine does not suffer for what he has done. In fact he dies as an old man. So is he merely an agent of God or is he an independent agent acting on his own? It would seem that Marlowe presents him in such a light that you can not confidently claim either, but must admit both sides. Like Erasmus’ idea of free will it looks as though Tamburlaine is both subject to God’s will, but also has the ability to act. Marlowe does not make this claim, but rather plants the seed so that his audience will come away from the play asking themselves whether or not predestination is such a pleasant idea. For it would seem rather strange if God would will the existence of such a scourge, and yet this was an idea that was present when Marlowe wrote the play. Indeed it is a theme that is recurrent in the list of possible sources for the plays.

Shifting our attention for a moment on to Dr. Faustus we can see that Marlowe has developed a deeper understanding of the conflicts involved in the issue of free will and salvation. In this play we see the horrible conflict between the sense of predestination, and eternal damnation. Faustus’ early exclamation that "we must sin, and so consequently die an everlasting death" (1.1 46-8) shows the theology that confronts Marlowe’s audience. It is this idea of theology that Marlowe uses as a catalyst to air the unpleasant nature of Calvinist doctrine.

The audience would have been familiar with the concept of original sin, which is what Faustus’ statement implies. For we are all born to sin, and therefore through our sin we are damned unless God grants us his grace, and eternal salvation. This is a very Calvinistic view and one that would also have been widely known. Before we can take a closer look at the text itself we must consider that Marlowe was familiar with some of the religious doctrine of the times.

It would appear that Marlowe would have been knowledgeable of Calvinist theory because of his studies at Cambridge. It appears that Marlowe was enrolled to pursue the Holy Orders, which would have meant that he would certainly have been exposed to Calvin. "Theology as taught at Cambridge in the 1580’s was scholastic in form and orthodoxly Protestant in doctrine, with Calvinism the prevailing point of view." (Honderich, 5) Marlowe’s education would have been developed around the contemporary debates of theology, the main ones being free will, and predestination, and would have fostered a deep understanding of both the Calvinist view, and the less extreme views of others. (Honderich, 5)

Considering that Marlowe would have been exposed to both sides of the scholastic debates of theology we can see how it would influence his writings. There is the issue that many theatregoers would not have had such a deep understanding of these issues. They would have a grasp of the basic ideas about predestination, and the grace of God as a way towards salvation, but they would not have been as well versed as Marlowe.

Marlowe plays on the common conceptions of these theological issues and presents the audience with both the idea of predestination, and Man’s ability to choose his fate. From one standpoint "Faustus is not damned because he makes a pact with the devil, he makes the pact with the devil because he is damned." (Sinfield, 116) Of course the other view is that he is damned because of the pact. This is the major issue behind almost any theological debate that would have been going on at this time. For it questions whether or not Man has the freedom to gain his own salvation, or if he must rely on the grace of God?

It seems that Faustus makes a conscious choice to embrace magic, and Mephistopheles. But this can be attributed to his hardened heart. The temptations of Magic are strong and for Faustus he does not seem to consider any other option. He dreams of the material life where he will obtain gold, fruits, and power supreme. He is not interested in salvation, but would rather sign his soul away to the devil in order to gain these pleasures of the flesh (1.1 80-101).

From the first instance when he is willing to sign his soul away to the devil we can see that Faustus thinks he is making a conscious choice. Yet when it comes to obtaining salvation he does not seem to think that he can save himself. If we look at the scenes where the good and bad angel appear we can see that Faustus does not give much deliberation to obtaining his own salvation. He is a Calvinist who does not think he can obtain his own salvation.

In the first scene when Faustus is glancing through the magic book and he calls forth the magicians the Angles first appear. This is the first time that the Angels appear. Faustus does not seem to acknowledge them. The Good Angel beckons him to "lay that damned book aside" while the Evil Angel prompts him to go forward. (1.1 72-79) Is it Faustus hardened heart that prevents him to hear the good angel, or is it a conscious choice on his part?

Like the Pharaoh of Scripture, we can look at Faustus as having had his heart hardened by God. We can also look at that from the two main standpoints on free will. According to Erasmus Faustus would be able to make some choices. Even though his heart is hardened he still has the options laid before him, and he must choose. But according to Calvin, Faustus would not have much of a choice. This is the dilemma that Marlowe presents to his reader from the very beginning of the text. There is the question of whether or not Faustus is damned by his actions or if he is damned by predestination.

Throughout the text it appears that Faustus is most assuredly in control of his actions. But this is not contrary to Calvinist doctrine. It is not that Man is not free to act, but that Man is not able to gain salvation purely through his actions. I argue that Marlowe inserts the pleading of the Good Angel to torment Faustus and the reader with the idea that Man is capable of salvation if he is willing to accept God’s grace. Any other claim seems to take away any hope of salvation for those not favoured by God.

Calvinists would view the Good Angels appearances as being a sort of warning to Faustus, and not really a means for his salvation. But this does not make the reader feel very secure. At first we do not feel any sympathy for Faustus. Time and again he rejects the bidding of the Good Angel. Then again, what do we have to feel sorry for if he does not have a choice? He is damned and can do nothing to save himself.

For those who do believe in Faustus’ ability to gain salvation, the scenes with the Angel are of vital importance. Each time the Angel appears it looks as though Faustus has the chance to repent and to save himself. In this case, Faustus is a rather terrible character. As he puts it himself the word damnation does not terrify him. (1.3 59) Most people during Marlowe’s time would have been terrified at the concept of eternal damnation, and yet Faustus declares that it does not bother him. This makes him look as though he has turned his heart away from God, which in and of itself would deserve damnation.

It is this turning from God that has caused Mephistopheles to appear, and not his conjuring (1.3 46-54). Once again we must ask ourselves, has Faustus turned away from God? Or has God hardened his heart? Marlowe is presenting the possibility of Faustus turning away from God, and also the need for God’s grace in order to gain his salvation. For what other reason would he put out the option of repentance, and redemption? He does not take any sort of dogmatic stance on the issue, but makes sure the audience is aware of the torment that Faustus faces whenever he goes through the issue of repentance in his mind.

If we are to take the standpoint of Erasmus, and other supporters of salvation through our own actions, we lose any sense of pity for Faustus. Even if God has hardened his heart it does not mean that Faustus must, out of necessity, turn away from God. With this stance the Good Angel’s calling for Faustus’ repentance is where he has the chance to save himself. But at every opportunity to do so we see how quickly he turns back to Mephistopheles. His heart may be hardened, but it is his own will that rejects the grace of God that would lead to his salvation.

This is most pointedly shown in his treatment of the Old Man. In the first scene of Act Five the Old Man appears in place of the Good Angel. His role is to bring Faustus back to God. He lets Faustus know that he has sinned, but that he can also hope for forgiveness of his sins through the blood of Christ. (5.1 35-46) And at this beckoning Faustus is overcome with despair, and is willing to perform suicide in order to punish his own sins. Yet the act is staid a while by the intervention of the Old Man. He declares that he "sees an angel hovers o’er (Faustus’) head" that is ready to pour a vial full of grace over Faustus if he but calls for Mercy.

If no other scene causes the audience to feel that Faustus is capable of repentance then he is indeed not able to save himself. But he is able to make the choice, and puts off the choice in order to deliberate over his sins. Faustus damns himself, and plays the part of judge on God’s behalf. For if he were to repent here what sort of God would not grant him mercy? And that is just what Marlowe is proposing to the audience. This is the beginning of Faustus’ utter despair.

When the old man leaves, Faustus does not hesitate to solidify his damnation by reconfirming his vow to the devil by signing the agreement in blood again. Then he loses all of the audience’s compassion when he makes love to the devil, and calls on Mephistopheles to torment the Old Man. It is the Old Man’s statement about Faustus that gives the reader a glimpse at the miserable nature of Faustus’ actions. "Accurse’d Faustus, miserable man, That from thy soul exclud’st the grace of heaven and fliest the throne of His tribunal seat!" (5.1 110-13)

As the Man says it is Faustus who has willingly turned away from God’s grace? This implies that even though grace is needed there also needs to be some sort of acceptance of grace by Faustus. A little further on Faustus claims that his hands are being held down and that is why he can not call on God for salvation. But just a few moments earlier he had an Angel full of grace poised over his head ready to grant mercy, and he did nothing to obtain that mercy. The audience can see that Faustus is not taking responsibility for his damnation or his salvation.

Now let me shift to the Calvinist approach to this. For Calvin Faustus would not be capable of repentance, and can do nothing on his own to gain salvation. According to a Calvinist " repentance is not something the Christian does for and of herself or himself… It is a gift from God, and if Faustus does not have it there is nothing he can do." (Sinfield, 117) According to this stance Faustus is damned because God does not give him the gift of repentance.

But if this is true, then what is the purpose of the Good Angel’s entreaties, and the appearance of the Old Man. For these things portend to the presence of God’s grace. Of course the Calvinist response would be that Faustus can not repent because God has hardened his heart. Then why is Faustus so tormented by his sins; the very sins that he accepts as a part of life in the start of the play? Sinfield claims that the good angel scenes are put into the action so that Faustus can not claim ignorance when he must account for his sins. (118) But what does it matter if he is ignorant or not.

This view of God is presented by the Calvinists and represented in Dr. Faustus. There is also a view of a God who is willing to give Faustus mercy if he is willing to ask for it. The Calvinist God is not very user friendly, while the merciful God is more pleasing to the appetite of those who are concerned with salvation. Marlowe has taken special care to develop both ideas about salvation in this play. At the end the audience will come away questioning his or her belief on the issue. It is hard to believe that there is a God who would not give a person the chance to gain salvation through his own actions. But it is equally difficult to see someone so hardened, and bent on securing his own damnation as Faustus is.

Marlowe first played with the idea of free will and fate in Tamburaline. In these two plays we see the development from the idea that Tamburlaine is both an agent of God, and has his own free will. His control over his fate is contrasted with the idea that he is the ‘scourge of God.’ Marlowe is attempting to show that even if there is such a thing as providence, or fate, that there seems to be room for free will. Tamburlaine is capable of acting on his own choices. However Marlowe develops these ideas in the two part play, and we are left with a Tamburlaine who, even though he is "the scourge of God, (he) must die." (5.3 248)

With Dr. Faustus, Marlowe has matured and come to grips with how to portray the inner struggle of a man who is not only concerned with free will, but also in his own salvation. In this play we see the ideas of free will and fate that were developed in Tamburlaine take on starker theological implications. Marlowe was able to combine the struggle between the concepts that he played with in his earlier works, and create a work that presents the conflict and the torment of Faustus to the audience.

Marlowe was able to bring to a large audience the debate concerning free will and predestination. In Dr. Faustus he goes a step further in introducing the audience to the conflicting dogmas of free will and the need for God’s grace to gain salvation. He does not propose a resolution between the two. Instead he has brought the debate from the scholars to the stage. And it is on the stage that the audience can see the conflicts being played out and in turn question the theological issues that surround them.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

Luther and Erasmus : Free Will and Salvation. Ed. E. Gordon Rupp, and

others. London, SCM Press. 1969.

Battenhouse, R. W. Marlowe's Tamburlaine: A Study in Renaissance Moral

Philosophy. Nashville, Vanderbilt. 1964.

Honderich, P. "John Calvin and Doctor Faustus." Modern Language Review

68(1): 1-13. 1974.

Marlowe, C. Dr. Faustus and Other Plays. Ed. D. Bevington and E. Ramussen.

Oxford, OUP. 1998.

Sinfield, A. Literature in Protestant England: 1560-1660. London, Croom

Helm. 1983.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Cassirer, E. The Individual and the Cosmos in Renaissance Philosophy.

Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press. 1972

Fieler, F. B. Tamburlaine, Part I and its Audience. Gainesville, University of

Florida Press. 1961

Heller, Á. Renaissance Man. London, Routledge & K. Paul. 1978

Mahood, M. M. Marlowe's Heroes. Elizabethan Drama: Modern Essays in

Criticism. R. Kaufmann. New York, Oxford University Press: 95-122. 1961.

Ribner, I. The Idea of History in Malowe's Tamburlaine. Elizabethan Drama:

Modern Essays in Criticism. R. Kaufmann. New York, Oxford University Press: 81-94. 1961

Taylor, A. B. "Tamburlaine's Doctrine of Strife and John Calvin." English

Language Notes 27(1): 30-31. 1989.

Thomas, V. Christopher Marlowe : the Plays and Their Sources. London,

Routledge. 1994.

Back