Mountfort took as his raw material Marlowe's great tragedy and for that reason "Dr. Faustus" may be to some extent thought of as a burlesque. The Restoration audience delighted in Marlowe's Faustus; the Elizabethan tragedy had been played in 1662, and there was a performance at the Duke's Theater in September, 1675. Edward Phillips wrote in his Theatrum Poetarum, that "of all that [Marlowe] hath written to the Stage his Dr. Faustus hath made the greatest noise with its Devils and such like Tragical sport."[10] Here lies the suggestion that Mountfort was to take up, for as Borgman notes, Marlowe's tragedy has two distinct lines: the mighty verse which makes up the tragedy of an heroic overreacher, and a comic line of farcical lazzi. Mountfort has trimmed away the poetry of Marlowe and, for the most part, retained the farcical elements of the earlier play.[11]
Mountfort keeps the compact with Mephostopholis, the appearance of good and bad angels, the visit of Lucifer and Beelzebub, the pageant of the seven deadly sins, the cheating of the horse-courser, the admonitions of the Old Man, the summoning of the spirits of Alexander and Darius, the tricking of Benvolio, the final moments of remorse before Faustus is dragged down to hell, and finally, the discovery of Faustus's limbs in his study. Mountfort's purpose, as Borgman notes, was not to convert an Elizabethan tragedy into a Restoration one, but to affix additional farcical materials to a work that already contained scenes of slapstick.
Mountfort's unique contribution to his source was the introduction of the commedia dell'arte figures which had become well-known to London theatergoers because of several visits to London by Italian actors since the Restoration. Probably, as Borgman notes (p. 36), the first Englishmen to play Scaramouche and Harlequin were Griffin and Haynes who had in 1677 appeared with the King's Company in Ravenscroft's Scaramouch a Philosopher, Harlequin a School-Boy, Bravo, Merchant, and Magician. When Aphra Behn's The Emperor of the Moon appeared in March, 1687, Leigh played Scaramouche and Harlequin was taken by Jevon. It seems probable that in order that these two actors might have a further opportunity to appear as these popular characters, a place was found for Scaramouche and Harlequin in Mountfort's farce.
The text of Mountfort's "Dr. Faustus" reveals that his farce, like any, must depend to a great extent on its farceurs. In Jevon and Leigh he had talented players and much of the script can be regarded merely as an improvisational chart allowing the two famed comics to maneuver. Jevon, as Leo Hughes points out, built up a considerable reputation, chiefly in low comedy roles since his first notice as Osric in a revival of Hamlet in 1673.[12] Having a slight, thin figure, he was noted for his grace of movement and agility on the stage; he played Harlequin. Although Jevon could play such straight roles as Young Bellair in The Man of Mode, he, along with Nokes, Underhill, and Leigh, made his reputation in the boisterous farce of which "Dr. Faustus" is an excellent example.
Anthony Leigh played Scaramouche. Of his acting Cibber says:
In Humour, he lov'd to take a full Career, but was careful enough to stop short, when just upon the Precipice: He had great Variety, in his manner, and was famous in very different Characters.... But no wonder Leigh arriv'd to such Fame, in what was so completely written for him; when Characters that would make the Reader yawn, in the Closet, have by the Strength of his Action, been lifted into the lowdest Laughter, on the Stage (Apology, p. 85-86).
That Jevon and Leigh played well together is evident, and one can see great possibilities in their improvisation of such lazzi as the episode of the "dead body," Act I, Scene i, or in the elaborate show of compliment which ends the first act.
The presence of Scaramouche and Harlequin in Mountfort's adaptation suggests the influence of the Italian and French commedia on the Restoration stage, although, as Leo Hughes points out, the native tradition of farce is paramount (pp. 134-141). Hughes notes that although the commedia influence is obvious, Italian farce is different in style from the English, and that although there were four or five tours by commedia troops between 1660 and 1700, these visits were not enough to influence significantly English farce writing. Furthermore, the Italian's art was improvisational—they used no printed texts, and the English would therefore have even less chance to copy from the commedia. Readers of "Dr. Faustus" will find little trace of commedia influence apart from the conventional names. Hughes acknowledges (p. 141) the greater influence of the French stage in the Restoration, owing chiefly to the great popularity of Molière, whose influence on farce, especially on the afterpiece which became a staple on the English stage after 1695, was long-lived. His prestige was great; he appealed to English taste, and such characters as M. Jourdain, M. Pourceaugnac, and Sganarelle appear repeatedly in English adaptations.
The action of farce is typically a string of blow-ups, stage business highly dependent on fast pacing. Characteristically on the English stage there is a great deal of stage-effect; "Dr. Faustus," produced at the Dorset Garden Theater where farce was often produced in order to take advantage of the elaborate stage machinery available there, makes use of rising tables, a giant which divides in two, good and bad angels which rise and descend, fireworks, a vanishing feast, a view of hell, and even more. Indeed, the often hilarious stage directions give us good insight into the capabilities of the Restoration stage. The finale is typical: "Scene discovers Faustus's Limbs." After the Old Man piously hopes that this "May ... a fair Example be to all, / To avoid such Ways which brought poor Faustus's Fall," the "Scene changes to Hell. Faustus Limbs come together. A Dance, and Song."
Farce often verges on satire, and, as he was to demonstrate in Greenwich Park, Mountfort had an eye for contemporary foibles. At the end of Act I, Harlequin and Scaramouche engage in dialogue which suggests similar passages of rough satire in Wycherley. Asked what practice his master, a doctor, has, Harlequin replies: