Talk:Doctor Faustus (play)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Faustus is definitely not "studying". He is in the process of conjuring up the Devil. In addition, there is no evidence that this illustration depicts the demon rising up from "a trap door in the stage". Idesofmontreal (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting the rubbish about Agatha Christie at the start? It seems to appear from the edit on 6 April 2007 to the current version, but I can't find it anywhere in the editing text or edit/difference summaries. Anyone know where this has come from? WA Burdett (talk) 10:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the response Faustus recieved to "per inoequalem motum respectu totius." This is consistent with the text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.67.4.11 (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied up a lot of syntax and grammar here, but found some sections (the one titled "Wasting his skills" - seriously) onwards too depressing to sort out. If anyone's got the time it'd probably be a good idea not to leave it as it is - it looks like the kind of essays I wrote aged seventeen. Stratpod (talk) 00:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

the GIF of the front page is way too large, 1.25Mbytes. can someone pls substitute an appropriately scaled version?

Coughinink (talk) 03:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why this is in the article. Unfortunately, I don't know what's right either. Project Gutenberg (links in External Links) has "MEPHISTOPHILIS" in both the A and the B texts. Perseus (http://old.perseus.tufts.edu/Texts/faustus.html) has "Mephostophilis" in the original-spelling versions of both the A and the B texts.

Not surprisingly, the only results returned in a Google search for "Masturtophilis" are from Wikipedia and its clones. Prignillius (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. It was already old when you found it, so sorry for the delay! --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mephistopheles' "Per inoequalem motum respectu totius" is not as meaningless as the summary claims, although it is extremely terse. Faustus has just asked why eclipses are rare, and Mephistopheles replies "because of the unequal motions" -- in other words, the bodies do not return to their original configurations at the end of a month because their periods are not in sync. That is not only meaningful, but is correct even from the viewpoint of modern science. CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This page sites very few sources and has a lot of editorilization of debatable plot points. Really in need of clean-up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.193.103 (talk) 21:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)