Intelectual Curiosity Comparison

Throughout both plays, Prebble and Marlowe frequently explore the concept of intellectual curiosity and the capabilities of the human mind by questioning whether it should be celebrated or cautioned. Both playwrights present their protagonists as characters with intellectual curiosity that allows them the ability for innovation and transcendence. However, both Skilling’s and Faustus’ intellect becomes destructive once detached from moral responsibilities and reality.

In Dr Faustus, Marlowe could be presenting Faustus’ intellect as the main cause for his downfall and tragic arc from hubris to nemesis, therefore critiquing intellectual curiosity and the potential of the human mind when it reaches beyond pre-determined human limitations. At the beginning of the play, Marlowe illustrates Faustus as being torn between his desire for more knowledge and religion, ‘necromantic books are heavenly’. The juxtapositional language reflects Faustus’ inner turmoil because something which is ‘necromantic’ relates to witchcraft and black magic, the antithesis of God and religion, and consequently cannot be ‘heavenly’. Marlowe may be demonstrating to his audience how the ambition for knowledge, which apparent in the Renaissance era with the rise in science and academic advancement, struggles to co-exist with religion, therefore demonstrating how Faustus’ damnation is as a result of his overreaching desire for knowledge. Additionally, towards the end of the play, Marlowe back a cyclical link to emphasise Faustus’ tragic arc from hubris to nemesis: ‘for he was a scholar, once admir’d’. The cyclical link back to exposition of the play effectively demonstrates how Faustus is praised and valued for his academic intellect and had he respected the pre-determined human limitations of knowledge, he could’ve continued to be acknowledged and respected for his knowledge instead of becoming ‘the wonder of the world for magic art’ that Faustus actually has little power for in comparison to Mephostophilis who has all of the power and performing for the aristocracy because he wanted to delve into dark magic and reach beyond his limits. Therefore, Marlowe uses Faustus as a vehicle to caution his audience against the consequences of intellectual curiosity beyond what is humanly acceptable and is possibly critiquing the potential of the human mind.

In contrast, Prebble, unlike Marlowe, consistently presents Skilling’s intellectual curiosity through a modern 21st century lens in terms of innovation and visionary ideas for the future. At the beginning of the play, Prebble describes Skilling, through stage directions, as ‘outside the party’. The liminal imagery immediately allows Prebble to present Skilling as different and unique, which is further evident when Skilling tries to demonstrate his intellect as ‘there are people at this party who don’t understand the idea’ of his introduction to the idea of mark-to-market. By putting Skilling in a position where he understands more than the people around him and the use of liminal imagery allows Prebble to effectively present Skilling as a protagonist who is set aside from his peers because of his intellect and willingness to be innovative and explore new ideas that aren’t yet well known. Moreover, towards the middle of the play, Prebble highlights how Skilling’s intellect and innovative ideas are praised when Enron is described as the world's ‘most innovative company’ whilst the photographer is stood ‘beneath’ Skilling, making him look ‘impressive’ and ‘god-like’. The use of physical staging conveys figuratively, and literally on stage, how Skilling’s intellectual curiosity and innovation is highly praised by others and allows Skilling to appear powerful and important. Skilling being praised for his intellect and innovation is reflective of how this was rewarded and sought after by investors in the 1990s corporate world who wanted to invest in companies that were trying to do something new and different.

Alternatively, it could be argued that Marlowe presents Faustus as a protagonist who’s intelligence is undermined by his misuse of his intellect and rejection of ideas, critical thinking, and warnings because they don’t align with his desires, despite his academic potential. The critic, Taine, observes that Faustus is ‘a primitive and genuine man’ who is a ‘the slave of his passions’. Marlowe’s presentation of Faustus supports Taine’s commentary as, throughout the play, Marlowe features language of greed, ‘glutted’ ‘profit’, alongside Faustus’ materialistic ‘fly to India for gold’ and sensual desires ‘let me have a wife’, to illustrate how Faustus’ intellect is undermined by his greed and selfish desires. Faustus’ greed could be a way for Marlowe to criticise the greed of Elizabethan society as a whole and how materialistic gain is still seen as more valuable and important than intellect, despite the advancements in academia in the Renaissance. Additionally, Marlowe also suggests Faustus’ misuse of intellect through his constant rejection of evidence that doesn’t support his ideals: ‘The reward of sin is death’. By misquoting the Bible, Marlowe indicates that Faustus is delusional and self-serving and ignores information that isn’t helpful to him. Therefore, Marlowe could be ultimately suggesting that the potential of the human mind isn’t something to be criticised but instead the misuse of knowledge and intellect when faced with material gain and lack of morality. Furthermore, Marlowe uses the allegorical characters of the good and bad angel to further illustrate Faustus’ ignorance of the consequences of his actions, demonstrating how, despite his intelligence, Faustus is unwilling to accept his own fate. Faustus’ biggest chance to repent is when the Good Angel has the final word towards the middle of the play, which is unusual as the Bad Angel usually has the last word and most influence over Faustus, and asks Faustus to ‘repent and they shall never raze thy skin’. However, Faustus ultimately ignores the Good Angel’s warnings and that is what ultimately leads to his downfall through his misuse of intellect and lack of critical thinking when it doesn’t serve him.

Similarly, Prebble, like Marlowe, consistently undermines Skilling’s intellect and innovation through Skilling’s greed and materialistic desires, illustrating how his intellect is destructive once combined with his lack of moral responsibility and understand of reality. Throughout the play, Prebble makes use of physical metaphors, including the ‘tiny box’ that ‘glows red and throbs’. The physical manifestation of risk foreshadows Skilling’s own downfall and the box could be a metaphor for the heart of Enron and how it is like a bomb ticking, waiting to go off and destroy everything that Skilling has built. However, due to Skilling’s greed for money and power, he ignored his inevitable downfall until it was too late, undermining his intellect through his ignorance and hubris. Skilling’s ignorance allows Prebble to criticise the corporate ignorance of both the 1990s corporate world and the present day corporate world and how economists and businessmen were unable to notice the financial crash of 2008 due to their ignorance of the consequences of lending loans to people who wouldn’t be capable of repaying them. Additionally, near the ending of the play, Skilling’s intelligence is further undermined by Prebble as despite his downfall, satirically and physically represented by Skilling entering ‘in his robe, drinking a diet coke, and eating a Twinkie’, Skilling is still lacking in self-knowledge and is unaware of his own tragedy. ‘I told my daughter I was innocent, I believe I am innocent’. ‘Won’t even apologise’. The lack of recognition of his immoral actions ultimately undermines Skilling's innovation and intellect, allowing Prebble to critique the 90s American corporate world and expose their corruption to her audience and how intelligence can become destructive when combined with greed and hubris, acting as a warning.

In conclusion, whilst both Faustus and Skilling are presented as characters with a profound sense of intellectual curiosity and a celebration of the potential of the human mind. However, both playwrights ultimately undermine their protagonists’ intelligence through greed and hubris and warn of the consequences of the misuses of intellect.