Marlowe’s Ghost: The Second Report of Doctor John Faustus (1592)

[This essay was first published in Airy Nothings: Imagining the Otherworld of Faerie from the Middle Ages to the Age of Reason: Essays in Honour of Alasdair A. MacDonald, eds. Karin E. Olsen & Jan R. Veenstra (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1-24. I’m republishing it here, with permission, because it’s about a lost book, because the book in question is clearly fantastic, and because… well, because Kit Marlowe.]


  1. Afterlives in fact and fiction

Our story begins with two bad deaths. In September 1592 the poet, author and playwright Robert Greene succumbed to a sickness brought on by a surfeit of pickled herrings and Rhenish wine – or so his enemy Gabriel Harvey asserted. Eight months later, in May 1593, the poet and playwright Christopher Marlowe was murdered by Ingram Frizer at a boarding house in Deptford, stabbed through the eye in a quarrel over a bill or ‘reckoning’. Greene and Marlowe were hostile to each other; Greene, at least, did his best to make them so. But they had much in common, from their relatively humble origins to a university education and a life of mixing with, but never quite profiting by, some of the most powerful men and women in England.[1] They shared, too, a fascination with magic, metamorphoses and desire, as well as a mutual obsession with bad death and the possibility of averting it or putting it off. And immediately after Marlowe’s death their fates became entwined to an extent that neither could have predicted. From tellers of stories they found themselves transformed into the stories’ protagonists, and their ghosts continued to haunt the stage, the bookstalls and the streets of late Elizabethan London as if linked in a diabolic pact. This essay concerns the ghost of Marlowe; but ghosts are notoriously difficult to see clearly, and Greene’s frequent and prominent posthumous appearances will help bring Marlowe’s more elusive spirit into better focus.


Robert Greene in his Shroud

The details of Greene’s afterlife have long been familiar to us.[2] Besides the posthumous, quasi-autobiographical pamphlets attributed to Greene himself, such as The Repentance of Robert Greene and Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit (both 1592), he returns from the grave in Greene’s News Both from Heaven and Hell (1593), by Barnaby Rich, which contains tales purportedly collected by Greene’s spirit on a trip to Purgatory; Henry Chettle’s Kind-Heart’s Dream (1593), where Greene’s ghost urges the satirist Thomas Nashe to avenge him on his detractor, Harvey; and John Dickenson’s Greene in Conceit, New Raised from His Grave to Write the Tragic History of Valeria (1598), whose title page shows him vigorously scribbling fiction in his grave-clothes. Until recently, by contrast, the afterlife of Marlowe has been confined to some passing allusions, such as Peele’s proto-Dickensian reference to him as ‘Marley, the Muses darling for thy verse, / Fit to write passions for the souls below, / If any wretched souls in passion speak’ in his poem The Honour of the Garter, published only a month after his death;[3] William Webbe’s critical assessment of him in 1598 as ‘our best for Tragedie’; and Nashe’s eulogy in Lenten Stuff (1599), where he is a ‘rarer muse’ than the mythic poet Musaeus, whose tale of Hero and Leander he made his own.[4] On the stage, of course, he lived on in his plays, and could be said to have gone on writing well into the seventeenth century, as new scenes for Doctor Faustus kept appearing as if by magic in new productions of the tragedy.[5] In this essay, however, I shall suggest that Marlowe’s ghost also achieved a substantial presence (so to speak) on paper, in the form of an anonymous narrative printed less than a year after his murder, The Second Report of Doctor John Faustus (1594).[6] The publication of this pamphlet coincided with a revival of his most popular plays on the London stage.[7] It would seem that some of the details in it got mixed up with the theatrical legends surrounding his most scandalous play, Doctor Faustus, so that boundaries between truth and fiction, the theatre and the written page became blurred in a way that the author of the Second Report would no doubt have found deeply satisfying.

To return for a while, though, to the relationship between Greene and Marlowe, the story of their lifetime enmity comes to us largely through Greene’s references to it in print. Soon after the success of Marlowe’s first play for the public theatre, Tamburlaine the Great (1587), and the failure of Greene’s clumsy imitation of it, Alphonsus King of Aragon, Greene inaugurated what was to become a familiar rumour concerning Marlowe: that he shared his Scythian hero’s contempt for religion – that Tamburlaine was, in fact, an avatar of Marlowe himself. In the epistle to his romance Perimedes the Blacksmith (1588) Greene refers bitterly to two gentleman poets who had scoffed at Alphonsus because

I could not make my verses jet upon the stage in tragicall buskins […] daring God out of heaven with that Atheist Tamburlan, or blaspheming with the mad preest of the sonne [i.e. Giordano Bruno]: but let me rather openly pocket up the Asse at Diogenes hand [i.e. ignore the scholars’ insults] then wantonlye set out such impious instances of intolerable poetrie[.][8] Such mad and scoffing poets, that have propheticall spirits, as bred of Merlins race, if there be anye in England that set the end of scollarisme in an English blanck verse, I thinke either it is the humor of a novice that tickles them with self-love, or to much frequenting the hot house …[9]

The reference to ‘Merlins race’ here alongside Tamburlaine identifies one of Greene’s targets as Marlowe, who was known in his Cambridge days as Marlen,[10] a name that links him with the Arthurian prophet-magician – an apt connection for the playwright who dramatized the life of Faustus. Prophets had as bad a press as atheists in Tudor times – all the major insurrections in The Mirror for Magistrates, for instance, are supported by false prophesies – and the term ‘intolerable’ might well have been taken by Greene’s readers as a plea for the censorship of Marlowe’s ‘impious’ verse. After this Greene took to needling Marlowe whenever he had the chance, referring to him as ‘the cobbler’ who teaches actors to spout speeches like Julius Caesar, asserting that the ‘unsavorie papers’ of the first edition of Tamburlaine were used by pedlars to wrap their powders in, and most notoriously upbraiding him along with Shakespeare in his posthumously-published pamphlet Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit Bought With a Million of Repentance (1592):[11]

Wonder not […] thou famous gracer of Tragedians, that Greene, who hath said with thee like the foole in his heart, There is no God, should now give glorie unto his greatnesse: for […] his hand lies heavie upon me […] and I have felt he is a God that can punish enimies. Why should thy excellent wit, his gift, be so blinded, that thou shouldst give no glory to the giver? […] Defer not (with me) till this last point of extremitie; for little knowest thou how in the end thou shalt be visited.[12]

Printed so shortly after Greene’s death, and followed so soon by the death of Marlowe, these words would no doubt have had a major impact on any reader who recalled them in the aftermath of Marlowe’s assassination. Scholars now largely agree that they were not written by Greene but by Henry Chettle, who had a habit of ascribing his work to other people.[13] More interestingly, though, they tie Greene to Marlowe as an atheist, while separating him from his fellow playwright by stressing his repentance. In the process Marlowe becomes a second Faustus, just as Greene had identified him with his earlier protagonist Tamburlaine in the 1580s. Marlowe’s gift of ‘excellent wit’ is dangerously allied with the folly of religious blindness, and his fate is prophetically hinted at by the reference to an unexpected, and possibly ‘extreme’ end: ‘Defer not (with me) till this last point of extremitie; little knowest thou how in the end thou shalt be visited’. The process of fusing Marlowe with his characters was well advanced by the time this passage was composed, and anticipates the inventive fusion of allusions to his plays with some seeds of truth and much malicious gossip that constitutes the infamous Baines Note.

GroatsworthIf Chettle did write Greene’s Groatsworth, he had a firm grasp of one of Greene’s most disarming characteristics: his tendency to put things off, which is referred to in the title of one of his ‘autobiographies’, Greene’s Never Too Late (1590).[14] One of the texts whose publication Greene deferred till after his death was an entertaining pamphlet called Greene’s Vision, written in 1590 but not published till 1592. In it, the spirit of the biblical King Solomon finally persuades the prolific author to give up his practice of penning romances – though not before Geoffrey Chaucer has warmly congratulated him on their literary quality – and take up theology instead. Greene’s motive for putting off the publication of this Chaucerian retraction seems clear enough: he was not yet ready to take up religious studies full time. But when it did appear, the pamphlet included a wonderfully desperate piece of prose that brings Greene as close to Faustus as Marlowe seemed in the Groatsworth:

When with a strict insight, I […] take a straight accompt what the deedes of my youth have beene […] oh then what a fearefull terror dooth torture my minde, what a dungeon of dollours lyes open to swallow me? As the Scorpion stings deadly, and the Vipers bites [sic] mortally, so dooth the worme of my conscience grype without ceasing. And yet O Lord, a deeper miserie, for when with a foreseeing consideration I looke into the time to come, wherein the secret conjecture of my faults and offences, shall be manifested and laid to my charge, and that I know Stipendium peccati mors, Oh then whether shall I flie from thy presence? shall I take the wings of the morning and absent my selfe? can the hideous mountaines hide me, can wealth redeeme sinne, can beautie countervaile my faults, or the whole world counterpoyse the ballance of mine offences? oh no, and therefore am I at my wits end, wishing for death, and the end of my miserable dayes, and yet then the remembrance of hell, and the torments thereof drive me to wish the contrarie.[15]

Here the first and last speeches of Marlowe’s protagonist – whose adventures may well have been staged a year or so before this passage was written, in 1589[16] – run together, as the curtailed reference to St Paul’s letter to the Romans from Doctor Faustus I.i.39 (‘Stipendium, etc. / The reward of sin is death’) collides with the wild desire for escape, metamorphosis or oblivion from V.ii.104-23. Greene does not identify himself here with Faustus/Marlowe’s supposed atheism – he is guilty only of ‘vanitie, and fond conceited fancies’ – and once again his repentance is implied at the end of the pamphlet. But his willingness to mimic Faustus indicates Greene’s keen perception that the drama of his own life might profitably (and indeed daringly) be made the subject of his fiction, just as Marlowe’s life had got mixed up with his dramatic fabrications. Greene worked out this perception in his cony-catching pamphlets as well as his autobiographies. In these pamphlets his bad behaviour in London – the reason for his need for repentance – supplies him with the raw material for an exposition of the seamier side of London life; while the very act of exposition puts him in danger of retaliation from the men and women whose crimes he exposes, so that each new cony-catching pamphlet becomes an instalment in an ongoing game of cat-and-mouse, played out (Greene would have us believe) between the London mafia and the intrepid pamphleteer. Paper becomes a kind of theatre, implicitly stirring up frantic action in the underworld each time it leaves the press, and whipping its audience into frenzied anticipation of the next instalment as each pamphlet ends. One wonders how far Greene’s brilliant staging of this drama in his final publications was inspired by his inclination to link Marlowe with his own quasi-historical overreachers, Tamburlaine and Faustus?


Eugene Delacroix, Mephistopheles

Characteristically, Greene deferred the last instalment of his cony-catching pamphlets – the Black Book, which he announced in two pamphlets published in 1592 – until it was too late, advertising it as forthcoming when he was already in the grip of his final illness. The Black Book was to have been the climax of his one-man war on the London underworld, naming and shaming all the principal criminals operating in the capital. Greene’s death cut short this climax; and when at last a Black Book came out in 1604, it was written by Thomas Middleton, and took the form of a sequel to Tom Nashe’s celebrated satire Pierce Penniless his Supplication to the Devil (1592) rather than to anything written by Greene – though the title clearly links it with Greene’s promised pamphlet. The book was printed in a black letter font that associated it with the early 1590s, when Nashe and Greene were active, and is full of references to the stage, including two to Marlowe.[17] When the devil visits Pierce Penniless in the pamphlet he finds him in a bed surrounded by cobwebs, spun by ‘spindle-shank spiders’ which ‘went stalking over his head as if they had been conning of Tamburlaine’ (p. 213). And a pimp is described as having a head of hair ‘like one of my devils in Doctor Faustus when the old Theatre cracked and frighted the audience’ (p. 209). The Oxford Middleton glosses this line as an allusion to the supernatural events that were rumoured to attend productions of Marlowe’s tragedy, as performed, perhaps, in the old Theatre playhouse in Shoreditch before its demolition in 1597. But Eric Rasmussen sees it instead as a reference to an incident in the Second Report of Doctor Faustus, when Faustus’s tragedy is re-enacted by his ghost and a cast of devils in an ‘excellent faire Theator’ (sig. E2v) in the sky above Wittenberg.[18] This supernatural spectacle ends when the stage collapses into the river ‘with a most monstrous thundering crack’ (sig. F1r), to the horror of the watching citizens. Rasmussen strengthens his case by pointing out that the chief actor-devil in the Second Report is remarkable for his haircut: he makes his subordinate devils tremble by stamping his foot and ‘shaking his great bushe of hair’ (sig. C3r), which helps explain the reference to the pimp’s ‘head of hair’ in Middleton’s Black Book. The difficulty with Rasmussen’s argument is the reference to the ‘old Theatre’, since ‘old’ seems an inappropriate epithet for a temporary aerial playhouse. Could it be, then, that the incident in the Second Report has been elided in Middleton’s mind with an actual incident that took place in the Shoreditch Theatre? As Rasmussen points out, the London stages were always creaking, cracking, even collapsing, and Middleton need not have had in mind the collapse of a stage during a performance of Doctor Faustus in particular; after all, for the theatre-haters all dramatic performances were devilish. In the Black Book, fact and fiction merge – rather as the appearance of the book itself, with its old-fashioned typeface, links it both physically and fictitiously, as it were, with the satiric fictions of the early 1590s.

Middleton’s Black Book poses as a kind of literary ghost, recalling its readers to a decade when the supernatural stalked the streets of London, both in the shape of pamphlets about Purgatory, dead writers and the devil, such as Pierce Penniless, and in the form of necromantic plays such as Doctor Faustus (performed in September 1594) and Greene’s Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay (performed in February 1592 and April 1594). The two plays were also linked to successful works of prose fiction: The History of the Damned Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus, translated from the German Faustbuch in about 1588, and The Famous History of Friar Bacon, an English imitation of the former.[19] The cross-fertilization of fact and fiction, prose and drama at this time coincided with a special interest among writers and their audiences or readers in the interaction between spirits and ordinary mortals; an interest testified to by the revival of the ghosts of Robert Greene and the clown Dick Tarleton in prose narratives written after their deaths (the latter featured in Tarleton’s News Out of Purgatory, 1590, and the popular jestbook Tarleton’s Jests).[20] The Second Report of Doctor John Faustus shares many features with the other supernatural narratives of the early 1590s; but the games it plays with the relationship between fact and fiction, page and stage, and the living and the dead are very much more sophisticated than those of its rivals – a fact which, together with its anonymity, may have contributed to its relative obscurity in the annals of English fiction. The book may simply have been too clever to be readily assimilated into any of the categories by which scholars have sought to taxonomize Tudor prose fiction. The games begin in the preface or prologue of the first edition, and a close analysis of this prologue will give a good indication of the pamphlet’s unique relationship to the interwoven legends of Dr Faustus and Christopher Marlowe.


2. Authenticity and charlatanism in the prologue to the Second Report


Faust’s house in Wittenberg

The first game with ‘fact’ played in the prologue is the notion that the Second Report is a translation from the German. Although a German sequel to the original Faustbuch was in print by 1594 – the so-called Wagner Book – the Second Report has nothing to do with it, as Harold Jantz pointed out in the 1950s.[21] Instead, it purports to be based on information translated from second-hand testimony by an English gentleman student in Faustus’s hometown of Wittenberg; and it boosts its claims to authenticity by questioning the accuracy of the English translation of the original Faustbuch. ‘I have talked with the man that first wrote [it]’, claims the student, ‘wherein he saith manie thinges are corrupted [in the translation], some added de novo, some canceld and taken awaie, and many were augmented’ (sig. A4r). In recent years John Henry Jones has demonstrated the extent to which these accusations would hold true of P.F., the Faustbuch’s translator, who inserted passages freely, enlarged the sections that interested him and omitted offensive material; and anyone who knew this would have been impressed by the Second Report’s apparent concern for textual accuracy.[22] This pose of scholarly scrupulousness is reinforced by a meticulous description of three tourist sites in Wittenberg offering physical evidence that Faustus existed, ‘which is generally a thing not beleeved’ (sig. A4r). The ruins of Faustus’s house, says the student, can still be seen, as can the tree where he ‘used to reade Nigromancy to his Scholers’, and his tomb, marked by a stone on which his epitaph is roughly carved ‘by his owne hand’ (sig. A4v). The first two sites were seen by the traveller Fynes Morrison in 1591, which lends force to the student’s statement that ‘Germany [is not] so unknowen but that the trueth of these thinges… may be founde if any suspect’ (sig. A4r).[23] Later, when the gentleman student reveals his view of the Germans as a nation of fantasizing drunkards, the ambiguity of this last sentence becomes apparent; but on first reading one could take it as a firm assurance that the remains give material proof of Faustus’s existence.

Having erected his imaginative stage, as it were, and implied the identity of one of his sources – a man who got his facts ‘from Wagner’s very friend’ (sig. A4r) – the student ends his prologue with some tantalizing snippets on Faustus from a well-known work of scholarship. Dr Johann Weyer, he tells us, gives an account of one of Faustus’s ‘knaveries’ in his book on witchcraft, De praestigiis daemonum (1563), where­by the magician promised to depilate a grown man permanently, but succeeded only in scorching off his victim’s skin ‘causing such inflammations in his face that it burned all over cruelly’ (sig. B1r). Dr Weyer gives a gruesome account, too, of Faustus’s end, in which he is found ‘by his bed side starke dead, and his face turnde backewards’ (sig. B1r). But if the painfully physical nature of both accounts seems to drive home their authenticity – who, after all, would invent such lurid details if they were not true? – they cast serious doubt on the credibility of the Faustbuch. Dr Weyer may support the notion that Faustus existed, but he also insists that he was a charlatan ‘who could doe nothing’ (sig. B1r). Indeed, Weyer’s chief fame rests on his scepticism concerning magic and witchcraft, which made him an invaluable source for the English sceptic Reginald Scot, whose refutation of the myths concerning witches, The Discovery of Witchcraft (1584), cites Weyer frequently, as the student points out (sig. B1v). Every detail Weyer gives of Faustus’s life, in fact, from the place of his birth to the manner of his death, contradicts a detail in the Faustbuch. Not only was the translation ‘meere lies’ (sig. A4r), then, but so was the original. The legend of Doctor Faustus is an artificial fog of rumour, gossip and brazen fabrication, and the book that follows proceeds to document the means by which that fog was generated.

800px-Faustus-tragedyIf the prologue of the first edition of the Second Report presents the book as a kind of litmus test of its readers’ intelligence, the second (published in the same year) presents it as a playful intellectual exchange between young scholars in England and Germany. Two prefatory letters were added to this second edition: ‘To the Reader’ and ‘Unto the Christian Reader’. Both imply that the first edition had disturbed the ‘bitter natures’ of some of its less intelligent readers (sig. A3r) – in part because of its stylistic plainness (‘Here is wanting the great Chaos of Similes, which build themselves over a Booke like Colosses’, sig. A3r); and in part because it had been taken literally. ‘This is a Booke’, the writer insists, ‘and so take it, and if you take it otherwise you are to blame, and if you trie your worst, you can term it but wast paper’ (sig. A3r). It would seem, then, that some readers had taken it as more than a book – that is, as a report of actual devilish goings-on in early modern Germany, and as capable perhaps of stimulating similar incidents in its adoptive country. And when the writer goes on to state that ‘I have delivered it to you from them of whome I took it for truth’, and that ‘if you could be as credulous as some are newfangled, I know this might serve to be the recorded [recorde?] of Faustus’ (sig. A3r-A3v), the impression that some credulous readers have been taken in by the seeming ‘realism’ of the first edition is confirmed. The writer goes on to imply that the text was delivered to the press against his will by the Oxford friends to whom he sent it; that he penned the two new epistles to explain this; and that ‘my vaine in this booke, is nothing’, since it is ‘but a bare translation of as bare mater of the gestes and actes of one Faustus a great Magitian’, a subject of such ‘unworthynes’ that no-one should read it (sig. A3v). The first of the new epistles, then, presents the Second Report as a double prank played by two sets of scholars: the gentleman student, who sent the manuscript to his Oxford friends as a humanist jeu d’esprit; and the ‘injurious’ Oxford friends themselves, who gave it uncorrected to the printer, so that other men might ‘laugh at the rude phrase’ – that is, mock its crude style – and thus embarrass their Wittenberg correspondent (sig. A3v). Those who detract from the book for something more than its stylistic defects expose themselves as ‘fools’ like the common players, since they make themselves what they wish to make others: the butt of laughter.


Richard Burton as Faustus

This account of the book’s genesis is supported by the second epistle, ‘Unto the Christian Reader’. The letter purports to have been written by the friends of the gentleman student, and confirms the origins of this ‘novel’ or ‘news’ (think of the news Tarlton brought from Purgatory, which were ‘novels’ – literally ‘new things’ – or short stories) in a private game among the educated gentry. ‘These newes here raised out of auncient copies’, it declares, ‘a Gentleman friend of ours translated for our private intelligence amongest our selves, and sent them from Wittenberge to Oxenford’ (sig. A4r). The playfulness of the supposed translation is evident in the notion of something new being generated from ancient copies – a seemingly absurd proposition which is in any case undermined by the gentleman student’s statement that he ‘acquired these pages piecemeal from students at Wittenberg’ (Accepi ego has chartulas sparsim a studiosis Wittenbergensibus), a source that scarcely guarantees their antiquity.[24] And the playfulness continues in the penultimate sentence of the second epistle. ‘The truth is’, it concludes, ‘that these [new stories or ancient copies] are commonly carried about for very certainty, yea and some are secretly laide up in grave men’s studyes for great reliques’ (sig. A4r). The balance here implied between ‘very certainty’ – incontrovertible truths – and ‘great reliques’, the hallmark of papist superstition, tells us exactly what we should think about the grave men who take such nonsense literally. The narrative to follow is no ‘truthe’ but a fiction, and should be read as nothing more. Those who accept it as fact and denounce it as dangerous are merely adding to its entertainment value by making a spectacle, for cleverer readers, of their own gullibility.

An intriguing aspect of the two new epistles is the dates appended to them. The first, from the gentleman student, is dated May 1590. The second incorporates a Latin letter from the same student, dated July 1589, in which he commends his ‘trivial’ translation of Wagner’s adventures to the attention of his Oxford colleagues. The implication is that the Second Report was first printed between these dates. There is no evidence of a first edition of the Second Report before 1594, though of course it could well have been lost, like the first edition of the Damnable History. But it is equally possible that the dates in the epistles were fabricated, for some special purpose of the writer or printer. The Second Report was entered in the Stationers’ Register for November 16, 1593; and the fact that the first known edition of 1594 does not contain the two epistles, while the second contains them, suggests that they were composed between the two editions as a means of defusing the controversy to which the first gave rise. In support of this hypothesis is the fact that the printer of both editions, Abel Jeffes, had been in trouble with the authorities in 1592 for printing books whose copyright belonged to another printer; and that he continued to court controversy till it ended his career (in 1595 he published Giovanni Cipriano’s ‘lewd’ book A Wonderful Prophecy upon this Troublesome World, which led to the destruction of his press and letters by the Stationers’ Company).[25] He therefore had a motive both for reassuring the authorities that the Second Report was not another blot on his publishing record – that is, for adding the explanatory letters to the second edition when the first proved scandalous – and for continuing to excite the frisson in his readers that the Wonderful Prophecy later provided, in such unfortunate measure that it ruined him.

DoctorFaustus_New2_smallFurther indications that the dates were fabricated might be cited. The German sequel to the Faustbuch, the Wagnerbuch – which may well have inspired the Second Report, despite the fact that the book is no translation – was not published until 1593. And Chapter Nine of the Second Report contains a few verses in ‘Ari[o]stos vein’ (sig. F2r) that form a prologue to the Ariosto-esque second half, a link with Orlando Furioso which could have been suggested by the success of Sir John Harington’s translation, first published in 1591. Neither piece of evidence is conclusive, of course, but they lend additional weight to my conjecture. Why, then, would the claim that the Second Report had been first published in 1589-90 make things easier for its printer and author than the admission that it was new in 1594? The answer may lie in the perceived connection between the text and that playful scholar Christopher Marlowe, whose death in 1593 may have prompted Jeffes to register the Second Report a few months later. The Second Report is a ghost story, like the posthumous adventures of Greene and Tarleton. In it, the most famous creation of the notorious ‘atheist’ Marlowe (as Greene called him) returns from the dead to lend his services to the Doctor’s former houseboy, Wagner; and we have already seen how Faustus had been linked with his creator by Greene. In this book, too, the houseboy Wagner (whose nickname here is the same as Marlowe’s, Kit – in the Famous History he is always Christopher), takes on his master’s mantle not just as conjurer but playwright: it is he who stages the production of Faustus’s trial in the sky above Wittenberg. And in it – unlike the Faustbuch – neither Faustus nor Wagner gets punished for meddling with magic. If this narrative had been taken on its first appearance as a half-blasphemous vindication of the notorious atheist playwright, and if this is what made it controversial, then both writer and printer may have deemed it prudent to claim that it originated several years before the playwright’s murder. It remains to be seen, then, how far the text can be read as I’ve suggested; how far, in fact, the Second Report of Doctor John Faustus might have given its early readers a second report on Marlowe, to set alongside the infamous calumnies of the Baines Note.


3. Fictions of fiction in the Second Report

The narrative of the Second Report is divided into two neat halves, each of which derives its tone and content from one of Marlowe’s plays. The first half takes place in Wittenberg, and tells the story of Faustus’s former houseboy Wagner as he takes on his master’s mantle as a great magician. This part culminates in the supernatural performance of the Tragedy of Doctor Faustus in the air above the town, which ends with the thunderous collapse of the stage into the river Elbe. The second half takes place at a fictionalized Siege of Vienna (1529), and derives its delight in spectacular conflict both from the Orlando Furioso and from Marlowe’s first stage triumph, Tamburlaine the Great. In this section Wagner uses magic to assist the Duke of Austria in his wars against the Turks, executing a series of practical jokes on the Great Turk himself designed to humiliate and baffle the unfortunate sultan. The jokes resemble the tricks Faustus plays both in the Faustbuch and in Marlowe’s play, but being directed against a monarch they also recall the humiliating practices of Tamburlaine, who liked to cage his royal captives and use them as entertainment at mealtimes, as well as forcing a team of kings to draw his chariot like ‘pampered jades’.

Mephisto_by_Mark_Antokolski,_marble_(GTG,_after_1883)_by_shakko_08The amoral tone of the narrative, too, may owe something to Marlowe. P. F., the translator of the Faustbuch, toned down the moral comments of the German original, but retained enough didactic touches to soothe the consciences of his Christian readers. The conclusion, for example, exhorts them to ‘fear God and to be careful of their vocation and to be at defiance with all devilish works, as God hath most precisely forbidden’.[26] The Second Report follows a quite different moral trajectory. The first half pays careful lip service to the qualms about pacts with the devil – even imagined ones – which get articulated both in the Damnable History and in Doctor Faustus. But the second half abandons these qualms altogether, and permits Wagner to enlist the help of the devil in the ongoing Christian struggle against the heathen. The first half takes care to establish the historical and geographical context of Wagner’s adventures in his hometown of Wittenberg. The second throws historical accuracy to the winds and represents the Siege of Vienna as an orientalist extravaganza, with giant horses and elephants. The narrative, then, journeys from a state of profound uncertainty regarding the relationship between the imagination and real life – implying the very real dangers of succumbing to the allure of imagined power – to an unabashed celebration of fiction, unalloyed by any fear about confusing the factual and the fantastic. The book looks like a conscious effort to move prose fiction forward from the old-fashioned view of it as a form of pedagogy, in tune with the agendas of religious reformers, to a proto-modern celebration of imaginative writing for its own sake. In this it shares its attitude with the books that narrate the afterlives of Greene and Tarleton, tracing the paths of the two celebrities through such controversial posthumous environments as Purgatory and the Shades of classical myth, and transforming these spaces in the process from sites of religious controversy into treasuries of narrative: inexhaustible repositories of gossip, tale, secret history and anecdote. Like Marlowe’s drama, these ghostly texts (Tarleton’s News out of Purgatory, Greene’s News Both from Heaven and Hell, Greene in Conceit) mark a major step on the road from post-medieval didactic literature to ‘pure’ literature as it is understood today; and the Second Report seems to be particularly frank about its ambition to take part in the contemporary reinvention of theatrical and literary fiction.[27]

Within the two-part structure sketched out above, the Second Report is organized into a varied sequence of chapters, each of which constitutes a rhetorical tour de force, an exuberant experiment in some new style or generic convention. These include a philosophical-theological disquisition by Mephistopheles; the theatrical performance by devils in the sky; a disastrous incident involving some Wittenberg students, Faustus’ stolen books of magic, and a bunch of sadistic devils; and a spectacular single combat between the Duke of Austria, mounted on a giant horse, and the Great Turk, mounted on an elephant. Each set piece is treated in a quasi-theatrical manner, and repeatedly has recourse to the language of the theatre – a tendency that distinguishes the Second Report from the Damnable Life. Even the epistle ‘To the Reader’ in the second edition adopts this language, describing the gentleman student as going ‘personate’ (i.e. masked, anonymous) like a Roman actor and as fearful for his reputation ‘if my maske shall fall’ – that is, if his identity should be unveiled (sig. A3v). In response to these theatrical touches, one nineteenth-century critic went so far as to conjecture that the Second Report might be based on a German play about the life of Wagner.[28] The book is a kind of comedy on paper, pervaded by the spirit of the experimental mid-Elizabethan drama of which Marlowe was the leading exponent.

Harlequin Doctor Faustus, 18th Century Pantomime

Harlequin Doctor Faustus, 18th Century Pantomime

The link with the theatre is established in the opening chapter. Wagner strays into the hall where ‘his Maisters latest Tragedy was perfourmed’ (sig. B2v) – that is, where he died – while thinking about the great magician’s ‘former meriments, sports and delights’ (all terms connected with plays in early modern England) and the various ‘comicall journeis’ he accomplished with the devil’s assistance (sig. B2r). This inspires the young man to think about calling up Faustus’s ghost to act as his familiar. At this point the doors fly open and a pageant enters, like a version of the pageant of the Seven Deadly Sins in Marlowe’s Faustus. First ‘entred as it were the prologue of a Comedy, a fellow so short and litle as if hee should be of one year, and yet not so briefe as ill favored’ (sig. B2v). He is followed by a boy with rusty metal wings ‘like an Angell of Hell’; a king dressed in rags; Lucifer ‘king of the Orient’; and Faustus himself, drawn in a cart by a pair of giant spaniels. The doctor is crowned by the spirits, accompanied by a ‘huge tumult and ecchoing of trumpets’ (sig. B3r). Then the performers vanish. Impressed by this ‘merry Enterlude’ (sig. B3r), Wagner decides that he merits crowning even more than Faustus; a reaction that would have confirmed the fears of any devout reader concerning the pernicious effects of Marlovian drama on the minds of its spectators. But such fears are undermined by the style of the narrative, which makes use of a quasi-Brechtian Verfremdungseffekt to emphasize the fictional status of the reported performance, and the correspondingly fictional status of Wagner’s reaction to it. The doors of the hall fly open ‘Sodainly’, we are told, because ‘alwaies such haps are sodain’ – a phrase that reduces the dramatic entrance to a well-worn cliché (sig. B2v). The winged boy holds in his hands a flaming torch like an extra in a play ‘to give light to the after-commers and beholders’; and one beholder, Wagner, is intensely conscious that the person he takes for Faustus is not the man himself, despite the impulse he has to greet him as his former master (‘so naturall was his semblaunce, so lively his countenaunce, as if it had eyther beene a new Faustus, or not the olde murthered Faustus’). Finally, after the pageant is over Wagner is quick to dismiss it as a baseless mirage: ‘an illusion[,] dream, or a temptation, or else some conceite proceeding from his moiste and melancholicke fantasie, overprest with too many vapors, raised up by continuall thought into his Pores’ (sig. B3r). He looks back on the ‘comicall jest’ as ‘meere fansie’ (sig. B3r), and tells it to his companions as ‘a matter of great truth and litle moment’ (i.e. small importance) (sig. B3v). In doing so he implicitly dismisses the fears of the student’s own readers as to the damaging effect on their minds of the devilish book they are perusing.

This section of the narrative, then, partakes of the playful interweaving of mimetic realism and reflexive fictionality that characterizes the prologue of the first edition and the two epistles of the second. And the rest of the narrative is filled with a similar blend of realism and self-conscious fictionality. The next chapter, for instance, tells of a similar ‘illusion’ involving a group of travelling merchants who come across a dance of ‘countrey maids servants, and other of the female sexe’, known as ‘Phogels’, in a place called the ‘Phogelwald’ not far from Wittenberg (sig. B3v-B4r). The dance assumes a supernatural dimension when they see Faustus’s ghost dancing cheerfully among the women. He greets them and leads them away to a Land of Cockaigne full of beer-mugs that grow like flowers, ‘wherin as they seemed they dwelt many daies with great mirth and pleasure’ (sig. B4r-B4v), till devils shatter their idyll and they wake to find themselves half-buried in mud by the river. Once again, however, the veracity of the story is undermined – not this time by the possible ‘melancholy’ of the witnesses, but by their habitual drunkenness, a condition that afflicts all Germans, the student tells us. The beer of Germany is so thick, he claims, that the vapour rising from it ‘clambering up and spreading it selfe so universally in the fantasie, maketh it to conceave no other impression, but that which the minde afore it came to be overpressed was conversant about’ (sig. B4v). The subject of the merchants’ conversation when they met the Phogels was ‘Faustus merriments’; so it is scarcely surprising when they started to drink that a brand new ‘merriment’ should have been the result. In this way the student suggests that every appearance of Faustus’s ghost since his tragic demise was engendered by the addled imaginations of a beer-swilling nation – though the inclusion of two English merchants in the Phogelwald episode suggests that the English, too, are quite capable of having lascivious visions of their own through excessive drinking.

Doctor-Faustus-with-the-DevilThe third chapter describes an encounter between Wagner and Faustus, which takes up the theme of Faustus’s posthumous existence from the pageant episode in Chapter One. Faustus appears to Wagner (‘sodainely like as all such chaunces happe’) in a secluded grove, suspended (as the ensuing conversation reveals) in mid-air, yet seemingly flesh and blood like Wagner himself (sig. C1r). There ensues a lengthy dispute between master and student concerning the possibility or otherwise of a material body hovering above the earth without succumbing to the force of gravity. The dispute culminates in Faustus filling a cup with his own hot blood to prove his body substantial. He invites Wagner to inspect the cup, then grabs the youth by the hand and beats him ‘miserably’ to clinch his point, leaving him ‘halfe dead’ on the ground, with the final injunction ‘hereafter… either to be more wary or lesse mistrustfull’ (sig. C3r). Once again the episode is intensely self-reflexive. In addition to the comment on the cliché of Faustus’s ‘sodaine’ appearance, the translator notes the long-windedness of Wagner’s part in the disputation (‘I wondred when I read this discourse, with what patience the Doctor could endure so long an argument’, sig. C2r), and concludes with a brusque dismissal of the chapter’s quality as fiction. It is typical, he observes, of the gross ‘lies’ that the Germans like to ‘father’ on Faustus, ‘new children’ (in the form of stories) who ‘cost very litle nursing and bringing uppe’ (sig. C3r). In this chapter, then, a discussion between Wagner and Faustus concerning substance and insubstantiality is identified as a thing of no substance – which is no surprise, the narrator adds, when you ‘consider from whose braines [it] proceede[s]’, since ‘witte for the most part [the Germans] have very little’ (sig. C3v). By this stage in the narrative, the relationship between substance and the insubstantial, nature and the supernatural, has been identified as a matter of psychology. The brain conceives as real what it wishes to conceive as real, and lends it substance through the force of its own credulity. Magic is a product of the imagination, and can do no harm to those who recognize its fanciful nature. And the point is underlined by the role played in the disputation by a cup full of blood.

Presented to Wagner by Faustus as proof of his corporeality, the blood in the cup undergoes a perverse transubstantiation after the doctor’s disappearance: it changes into a ‘Cap full of pisse’, a filthy item from his own wardrobe. This is only the first of a series of gibes linking magic to papist superstition throughout the text. In Chapter Ten, for instance, ‘A lamentable history of the death of sundry students of Wittenberg’, the students’ doom is sealed when they seek to protect themselves while working magic with the useless clutter of Catholicism: ‘the surplesses, the stoles, pall, miters, holy water pots broken, their periapts, seats, signes of the Angels of the seaven daies, with infinite like trash and damnable rogg[u]ery, the fruites of the Divels rancke fansie’ (sig. F4v). The inefficacy of these Catholic symbols, like the revolting transformation of a cup to a piss-filled cap, reminds the readers of the Second Report that they inhabit a world where ‘fansie’ has long run rampant in the form of mistaken or perverse religions. But it also affirms the readers’ capacity, as responsible and intelligent adults, to appreciate the obvious differences between reality and illusion, substance and shadow, true faith and false; a skill that permits them to see fictions like the Second Report for what they are, harmless ‘merriments’ of the sort that made Marlowe famous.

The third episode that concerns itself with illusory posthumous presences occurs in Chapter Six, which contains ‘A long discourse betwixt the Divell and Wagner’ on the question of whether the spirits of the damned may return to life in corporeal form. Resurrection of this kind is regularly practised by writers and actors, of course, so that mimetically speaking, at least, it is perfectly possible; and although the discussion that follows engages with the theology of resurrection – in particular, the controversy over Purgatory which had been humorously taken up in the ‘posthumous’ prose fiction of the early 1590s (think of Tarleton’s News Out of Purgatory) – it is equally preoccupied with the question of fictional representations both of resurrection and of theology. The discussion begins uneasily, with Wagner drawing attention to a problematic aspect of the Faustbuch and Marlowe’s Faustus. Both these narratives affirm that the devils became enraged when the doctor tried to ask them questions about theology; and Wagner begs Mephistopheles to have patience if he does the same, ‘for what hurt can redound to you’, he asks reasonably, ‘by aunswering of a question?’ The point could also apply, of course, to those severe Elizabethans who objected to the presence of theological questions in light fiction; and the reasonable response to Wagner’s inquiry – that engaging with such questions, in itself, can do no harm – is pointed up by the self-evidently fantastic context of the disputation that follows.

Mephistopheles reacts to Wagner’s cautious inquiry by flying into a rage, rushing in and out of the room and striking the table (in another anti-Catholic touch, the mark he leaves in the wood is later made into a relic). After that ‘he takes me one booke and hurls it against a Cupboorde, and then he takes the Cupboord and hurls it against the wall, and then he takes the wall and throwes it against the house, and the house out at the Window’ (sig. D1r). Only then does he calm down, at which point he ‘sate down further off, and thus quietly spake with a lowde voice’ (sig. D1r). This sequence of impossible reactions, culminating in a house being flung out of its own window and a loud voice speaking quietly, confirms the ironic spirit in which the ensuing disputation should be received. Mephistopheles lends his support to orthodox Calvinist doctrine, insisting that there are only two states following death, salvation and damnation, with ‘no place left for a third’ – that is, for Purgatory (sig. D2v); but the gentleman student clearly anticipates Protestant as well as Catholic objections to this section of the narrative. He observes that Puritans or ‘precisians’ – ‘they that have their consciences of the more precise cut’ – will be horrified by Mephistopheles’s intervention in a matter of divinity, but that ‘they which have right mindes’ will remain immune to the devil’s influence, or, by extension, to anything written about him (sig. D3r). On the contrary, he insists, it is the ‘precise’ Puritans who lead the more feeble-minded Christian astray with ‘vayn reasonings and questions’ (sig. D3r). Like Milton in Areopagitica, the student assumes that his readers are grown-up enough to distinguish between sense and nonsense, good and bad arguments – that is, until some Puritan succeeds in confusing them. The problem lies not in fiction but its recipients; it is a position thoroughly familiar from defences of poetry. Once again, stories and plays come across as a kind of intelligence test, and also as a measure of orthodoxy, distinguishing Catholic and Protestant extremists from the more moderate adherents of the Elizabethan religious settlement.

doctor-faustus-mephistophelesMephistopheles reinforces this implicit defence of fiction by acknowledging the ultimate uselessness of his own rhetoric. ‘I can’, he admits, ‘largely discourse of al divine and humaine propositions, but as the unlearned Parrat who speaketh oft and much, and understandeth never any thing to profite himselfe’ (sig. D3v). In other words, his ability to talk theology has no effect on his own damned condition; and by extension, it should have no effect on those who hear it. Mephistopheles urges Wagner, too, to dismiss the devil’s discourse as empty noise: ‘Knowest thou not (quoth he) that all the Rhetorickes are the servaunts of my tongue, or that we can move pitty or hatred when we please[?] Foole as thou art forget these vaine conferences, perswade thy selfe that they are but the effect of speach’ (sig. D4r). Instead he encourages the boy to immerse himself in pleasures of the flesh; and the chapter closes with a passage of sheer self-indulgence. Mephistopheles summons an Italian lady into Wagner’s chamber; she is described in lascivious detail (though the description is ‘farre more copious in the Dutch Coppy’, the student informs us), and Wagner himself is given the appearance of ‘Armisverio the Ladies Lorde’ so that he can have his way with her (sig. D4v). The rest of the night, we are told, passed for Wagner ‘in such pleasure as I could find in my heart to enjoy or any man (unless an Euenuch) beside’ (sig. E1r). And this sentence marks the beginning of the end of moralising in this cheeky narrative. By encouraging the male reader to join him in imaginative complicity with his youthful protagonist, the student adds the final touch to his case for the relative harmlessness of taking pleasure in fiction. This is a book for men who acknowledge that they are no eunuchs, who can see no sin in indulging in imaginative pleasures, who know they have both souls and bodies, both hearts and minds (‘I could find it in my heart’, the student admits, to share Wagner’s enjoyment). The discussion of Faustus’s corporeality in Chapter Three takes on a new significance: precisians ask more of the flesh than it can very well deliver. Human bodies contain blood, and blood demands the satisfaction of its sexual as well as its nutritional requirements. The position seems far more compatible with Marlowe’s sympathetic treatment of Faustus than with the moralistic stance of the Faustbuch, or even the Damnable History.

Conventional morality continues to assert itself from time to time in the chapters that follow – without it, after all, where would be the frisson in composing a satanic narrative? – but it gets increasingly overshadowed by the delights experienced by Wagner, and vicariously by narrator and reader, as he plunges ever more exuberantly into the practice of necromancy. In Chapter Seven, for instance, the narrator praises Wagner’s good looks, and the moral note is sounded with seeming reluctance at the end of the eulogy: ‘ther was nothing wanting in the man but a godly minde’ (sig. E1v). In Chapter Eight, the ‘Tragedy of Doctor Faustus seene in the Ayre’ shows how the doctor’s overthrow is accomplished after he has rejected the assistance of a ‘Legion of bright Angels ridinge uppon milke white Chariots’ in his final fight against the forces of darkness – a clear statement of Faustus’s guilt in rejecting God’s aid (E3r). But the fictiveness of the narrative is again stressed when the student refuses to describe the devilish theatre in detail, since this would run contrary ‘to the nature of the whole History’, with its fast pace and impish tone (sig. E2v); and he goes on to quote from the ultimate Renaissance text on writing fiction, the first seven lines of the Art of Poetry by Horace (sig. E2r), in support of his decision to use a plain rhetorical style for a modest subject. The stress in this chapter, then, is on artistry, both in the devils’ production of ‘The Tragedy of Doctor Faustus’ and in the narrator’s skilful description of it. The moral lesson is decidedly secondary. And in case we haven’t got the point, the chapter soon veers away from the performance altogether, to describe a physician’s fantastic voyage to Arabia Felix on a winged horse in search of a cure for one of the performance’s traumatized spectators, a young girl. The digression has a similar tone to the satirical digression concerning Mercury and the maid in Marlowe’s Hero and Leander; and like that digression it serves to underline the philosophy that informs the work as a whole. The physician’s journey represents a wholly benign use of magic – deployed for the purpose of curing an innocent patient; and it ends by demonstrating the fictional nature of the performance in the air, and its consequent harmlessness. The parents of the traumatized girl healed by the physician decide to erase all traces of the satanic performance that induced her trauma. They ‘for ever after caused the place wherein their daughter was thus scared’ (that is, the meadow above which the tragedy of Faustus was performed) ‘to bee unaccessable for man or beast, compassing it in with a high wall, and overthrowing the banckes, so that now there is no mention of the medow nor of the wall’ (sig. E4v). In other words, not only has the location of the aerial tragedy been removed from public sight, but so has the means of its removal – the high wall that blocked it from view. It would be as easy to overlook this piece of chop-logic (how could a wall be the cause of its own disappearance from the historical record?) as to miss the illogicality of the earlier statement that Mephistopheles ‘quietly spake with a lowde voice’. But to do so would be to confirm that one is not sophisticated enough to read comic prose in the proper spirit; that one is, in fact, an incompetent reader, incapable of appreciating the ironic, slippery tone of contemporary fiction.

German basse Rene Pape (R) as Mephistopheles and French tenor Roberto Alagna as Faust perform, on July 31, 2008, in Gounod's Opera "Faust" directed by Nicolas Joel and assisted by musical director Michel Plasson, at the "Theatre antique" in Orange, southern France, during the Choregies of Orange. AFP PHOTO ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT (Photo credit should read ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP/Getty Images)

Rene Pape and Roberto Alagna in Gounod’s Opera Faust

The mockery of didacticism, and of Elizabethan paranoia concerning the ill effects of fiction on its readers, reaches its climax in the story’s second half. Here Wagner is assisted by damned spirits, including the ghost of his former master, in the laudable business of playing a string of cruel tricks on the Sultan of Turkey, thus helping to foil his plot to overthrow Christendom. The notion of devils defending Christendom may be unexpected, but it builds on Mephistopheles’s staunch defence of Protestant orthodoxy in Chapter Six. And it could also be taken as a robust defence of the most celebrated English chronicler of Faustus’s adventures, the late Kit Marlowe, against charges of atheism based on his work. If Marlowe could conjure up devils this did not make him a devil; if he could imagine Tamburlaine this did not make him a heathen. As many have pointed out, nothing happens to Faustus – or Tamburlaine, Barabas, Edward II or the Guise – that contravenes Calvinist doctrine; all come to a sticky end (with the notable exception of Tamburlaine in Part One) which ought to satisfy the fiercest of moralists. And the point is driven home in the Report by Mephistopheles’s orthodoxy. His behaviour is in many ways impeccable, his theology sound, his defence of Christendom resolute; and the student author could have pointed this out to any would-be detractors. At the same time, his Mephistopheles, like Marlowe’s, is immensely sympathetic – in fact the Second Report elicits more sympathy for its damned characters, and grants them a happier ending, than any play by Marlowe. It is composed of the same explosive mixture of conformity and controversy, humour and horror, that made the dead man’s work so attractive.

Throughout the second half, for instance, the tone of the narrative continues to veer from solemnity to silliness, from the didactic to the daft, until it becomes effectively impossible to paint a coherent picture of the writer’s moral outlook. A portrayal of the Christian leader, Duke Alphonsus of Vienna, as the ideal prince and defender of the faith, is followed by the lurid account of an orgy thrown by Wagner before he sets off to fight on the Duke’s behalf. The tricks Wagner plays on the Great Turk end with the poor man’s death – swiftly followed by a magical resurrection, as if to underline the peculiar fusion of the comic and the serious that make this narrative so hard to pin down – after which he is soundly buffeted and plastered with mud, a treatment that might well have delighted the book’s more aggressive Christian readers. But the chivalrous Duke expresses his horror that so great a monarch should be treated so shamefully, thus rebuking any reader who took pleasure in the man’s humiliation. And Wagner’s response is to restore the Great Turk to his former condition, and to wipe from his mind all remembrance of his ordeal. Resurrection, restoration, the eradication of unhappy memories – all these imply that there is nothing to be feared from playing the devil in fiction. The temptation to see this as a justification of Marlowe’s treatment of the Turkish Emperor Bajazeth in Tamburlaine the Great is irresistible; Tamburlaine’s cruelty on stage, it implies, has no more serious consequences than Wagner’s cruelty to the Great Turk, and takes no more permanent purchase on the viewer’s brain. And Wagner’s obedience to the Christian Duke recalls Faustus’s service to the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, in Doctor Faustus. Tamburlaine, Faustus, the Duke, Wagner, even Mephistopheles, are all made champions of the new mimesis in this narrative, which represents the strangeness of the human mind in all its complexity, liberated from the need to conform to the simplistic patterns of cause and effect laid down by the moralists. And the point would seem to be clinched in the final section, when Wagner and Faustus are made honorary Englishmen.

MarloweThe last battle against the Great Turk sees the German magicians and their team of familiars take their places among the ‘English archers’ in the Christian army (sig. K1r). Here they show an expertise in the tactical uses of the ‘eughen bow’ (sig. K1v) – instrumental in the English victories at Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt – to match their skills in necromancy. And in return for their patriotism, their inevitable fate as damned spirits is replaced by celebration, a triumphal party that embraces the whole of continental Europe. The concluding sentence of the book tells how the Duke and his fellow Christian princes ‘with great joy caused generall feasts and triumphs to be performed in all theyr kingdomes, provinces, and territories whatsoever’ (sig. K2r). And this lapse into the language of official proclamations seems to cast a retrospective benison on the man who brought Faustus to the English stage. If Faustus could be reinvented as an English hero, then Marlowe could be a hero too, and his ghost re-imagined as a vigorous participant in the retrospective celebration of his achievements that took place, on stage and in print, in the wake of his murder. Clearly The Second Report must be seen as among the wittiest and most inventive contributions to this celebration.



[1] See Park Honan, Christopher Marlowe: Poet and Spy (Oxford, 2005), and Lori Humphrey Newcomb, ‘Robert Greene’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (, accessed 2.8.2011).

[2] See e.g. Lori Humphrey Newcomb, ‘Ghosts’, Reading Popular Romance in Early Modern England (New York, 2002), pp. 70-76.

[3]The Works of George Peele, ed. A. H. Bullen, 2 (London, 1888), p. 320.

[4] For literary responses to Marlowe’s death, see Honan, Christopher Marlowe (see above, n. 1), pp. 355-67.

[5] See David Bevington and Eric Rasmussen, eds., Doctor Faustus: A- and B-Texts, The Revels Plays (Manchester and New York, 1993), ‘The B-text’, pp. 72-77. All references to Doctor Faustus are to this edition.

[6] STC 10715; 2nd ed. STC 10715.3 (online available through EEBO).

[7] See Honan, Christopher Marlowe, p. 361.

[8] Greene explains his reference to Diogenes more fully in his Farewell to Folly (1591): ‘Diogenes hath taught me, that to kicke an asse when he strikes, were to smell of the asse for meddling with the asse’; Life and Works of Robert Greene, ed. A. B. Grosart (London and Aylesbury, 1881-83), 9, p. 230.

[9]Life and Works of Robert Greene, ed. Grosart, 7, pp. 7-8.

[10] Honan, Christopher Marlowe (see above, n. 1), p. 184.

[11] For these attacks, see Honan, Christopher Marlowe (see above, n. 1), pp. 184-85.

[12]Life and Works of Robert Greene, ed. Grosart (see above, n. 8), 12, pp. 141-43.

[13] See John Jowett, ‘Notes on Henry Chettle [pt 1]’, Review of English Studies, n.s., 45 (1994), 384-88.

[14] On Greene’s habit of deferral, see R. W. Maslen, ‘Robert Greene and the Uses of Time’, Writing Robert Greene, ed. Kirk Melnikoff and Edward Gieskes (Aldershot and Burlington, VT, 2008), pp. 157-88.

[15]Life and Works of Robert Greene, ed. Grosart (see above, n. 8), 12, p. 207.

[16] See ‘Faust in England: Dating the English Faust Book and Doctor Faustus’, The English Faust Book, ed. John Henry Jones (Cambridge, 1994), pp. 52-72.

[17] See The Black Book, ed. G. B. Shand, Thomas Middleton: The Collected Works, ed. Gary Taylor and John Lavagnino (Oxford, 2007), pp. 204-6. All references are to this edition.

[18] Eric Rasmussen, ‘The Black Book and the Date of Doctor Faustus’, Notes and Queries 235, n.s., 37 (1990), pp. 168-70.

[19] For the dates of both texts see The English Faust Book, ed. Jones (see above, n. 16), pp. 52-72.

[20] See R. W. Maslen, ‘Dreams, Freedom of Speech, and the Demonic Affiliations of Robin Goodfellow’, Journal of the Northern Renaissance, Issue 1.1 (March, 2009), pp. 129-44. (, accessed 2.8.2011).

[21] Harold Jantz, ‘An Elizabethan Statement on the Origin of the German Faust Book’, Journal of English and German Philology, vol. 15, no. 2 (April, 1952), pp. 137-53.

[22] See The English Faust Book, ed. Jones (see above, n. 16), p. 10 ff. Interestingly, Jantz proposes that the translation referred to in the passage is the German translation (the Faustbuch) from a lost Latin original, whose existence was surmised by Robert Petsch in his edition of the Faustbuch, Das Volksbuch vom Doktor Faust (Halle, 1911). See Jantz, ‘An Elizabethan Statement’ (see above, n. 21).

[23] See Fynes Morison, An Itinerary Containing His Ten Years’ Travel (1617), 4 (Glasgow, 1907-8), p. 16.

[24] My thanks to Robert Cummings for furnishing me with a translation of the Latin in the second epistle.

[25] For a summary of Jeffes’s career, see The English Faust Book, ed. Jones (see above, n. 16), pp. 45-50.

[26]The English Faust Book, ed. Jones (see above, n. 16), p. 181.

[27] This passage builds on arguments I developed (in relation to other texts) in Elizabethan Fictions (Oxford, 1997), and ‘Dreams, Freedom of Speech, and the Demonic Affiliations of Robin Goodfellow’ (see above, n. 20).

[28] Richard Stralik, ‘Doktor Faust und die erste Türkenbelagerung Wiens’, Zeit­schrift für Allgemeine Geschichte, ed. Hans von Zwiedineck-Südenhorst, 1 (Stutt­gart, 1884), pp. 401-6.

This entry was posted in Books, Early Modern. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *