Sergio Osnaya-Prieto
Dr. Cuthbertson
ENG 241 British Literature 1
5 May 2018
Calvinist Despair in Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus
In John Aubrey’s compilation of 17th century biographies, “Brief Lives,” only two sentences are dedicated to Robert Burton, the Oxford scholar and theologian. Though Aubrey’s biologies were generally brief, it seems odd Burton’s would include a mere modicum of information, given the influence of his observational and theological classic, The Anatomy of Melancholy. Aubrey acknowledges Burton’s mastery of Astrology and his melancholy, yet not more. Burton’s melancholy—he was prone to depression and introverted tendencies—was not merely internal, though, but was amplified by theological contradictions that plagued the wider populace of his time:
Our indiscreet pastors, many of them, […] whilst in their ordinary sermons they speak so much of election, predestination, reprobation ab aeterno, […] they so rent, tear and wound men's consciences, that they are almost mad, and at their wits' end. (qtd. in Honderich 2)
Burton acknowledges a deeply-rooted and unsustainable problem within the theology of strict Calvinists: the clash of free will and the doctrine of predestination. How could the clergy dictate men to complete good deeds when their damnation was settled? Despair, the renouncement of all hope for salvation, seemed the obvious reaction to such logical fallacy. The contradiction would tacitly reach wider Elizabethan audiences through Christopher Marlowe’s play, The Tragic History of Doctor Faustus. Marlowe’s protagonist, a scholar, pridefully renounces Christian faith and Aristotelian logic, and sells away his soul to Lucifer in exchange for necromancy and petty sins. As Faustus’s damnation approaches, his repentance seems imminent; however, despair always distracts him away from achieving salvation. Faustus’s inability to repent stems from his renouncement of Aristotelian logic, as well as conflicting beliefs in predestination and free will, which ultimately create an uncertainty that leads him down a path of petty sins and spiritual damnation.
Criticism of Faustus’s motivations is “among the most contradictory and most rabidly contentious in Elizabethan drama” (1), as described by Barbara L. Parker, professor at Purdue University. However, given the intertwining of secularism and religion throughout the text, lines of reasoning should be drawn between philosophical readings and religious interpretations of the text. Analyses of the middle comedic acts unveil how the diminution of Faustus’s ambitions are uniquely tied to his logical illiteracy. Thus A. N. Okerlund’s The Intellectual Folly of
Dr. Faustus concludes from Faustus’s disdain for Aristotle’s Analytics, “[Faustus] rejects the traditional pursuits of scholarship to embrace magic as the proper study for his intellect. As we shall see, from this point on Faustus abandons the classical methods of ascertaining truth and knowledge” (264). Pauline Honderich sees such loss of knowledge as an appendage to Faustus’s conception of a wrathful God, who “deprives [Faustus] of all will and energy” (10) which in turn creates a cycle of despair that keeps him from repenting. Similarly, Alan Sinfield argues that “at some stage at least the play was written to embarrass protestant doctrine,” since it “exacerbates contrarieties in the protestant god so that divine purposes appear not just mysterious but incoherent” (qtd. in McDonald 843) That incoherence, James Ross Macdonald suggests, blurs all “boundaries of sin and forgiveness” (843) burying Faustus further into a pit of doubt from which he cannot escape. Thus, Faustus begins by bidding farewell to classical dialectics and knowledge, creating a conception of God which only enhances his inability to pursue knowledge.
Faustus’s renouncement of logic and scholasticism appears not only in the explicit declarations he makes regarding the many fields he has mastered, but in his broken syllogisms. Marlowe makes a point of ensuring the most overt fallacies in his reasoning are the ones dealing with Scripture, as Faustus willfully ignores lines describing the possibility of salvation:
Jerome's Bible, Faustus; view it well.
Stipendium peccati mors est: ha! Stipendium, etc.
The reward of sin is death? That's hard.
Si peccasse negamus, fallimur, Et nulla est in nobis veritas.
If we say that we have no sin,
We deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us. (1.1.36-43)
Faustus blatantly neglects the following Scriptural line which contradicts his argument—"but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord"—and ironically claims that those who ignore their sins are those who abandon truth, when he will soon follow a similar pattern. Okerlund distinguishes this willful ignorance of premises as a secundum quid ad simpliciter, a form of informal fallacy which relies on insisting that a partial truth constitutes the whole truth. A scholar of Faustus’ knowledge had to know not only the missing Scripture, as well as the Aristotelian fallacy he was committing. As Okerlund concludes, “Faustus profanes the intellectual process by selecting only those data which substantiate conclusions predetermined by desire. […] Here is the consummate intellect willfully forfeiting the power to reason; here is rational man suborning his logical being in the quest for immortality” (261). Faustus’ error is only worsened when his logical fallacy directly ties him to a despairing conclusion through which he claims man has no control over his salvation:
Why, then, belike we must sin,
And so consequently die:
Ay, we must die an everlasting death.
What doctrine call you this, Che sera, sera,
What will be, shall be? Divinity, adieu! (1.44-48)
Though based on faulty logic, Faustus embraces a strictly Calvinist interpretation of fate, free will, and predestination. Moreover, his interpretation makes no distinction between those who are saved and those who are not; his syllogism is universal, extending to “we” and not only a few. Thus, in this soliloquy, Faustus renounces any classical Aristotelian logic, and places himself amongst the reprobates—unleashing the despair that will separate him from repentance.
Throughout Faustus’s tragedy, a vein of separation emerges between his grandiose ambitions and his petty actions. This descent from demi-god-to-be to a mere prankster muddles his motivations to choose damnation. In his analysis of the comedic scenes for The Modern Language Review, Warren D. Smith infers a Christian lesson from Faustus’s pettiness: “Even without the terrible consequences involved, sin is really not worth the effort.” Beyond this lesson, Marlowe’s theological preference for a moderate Anglicanism can also be deduced from the middle scenes. As aforementioned, Marlowe initially suggests Calvinism is associated with poor syllogisms and illogical reasoning. The scene in the Pope’s chamber exemplifies not only Faustus’ doltish irreverence—which no longer aligns with his initial ambitions—but also the futility of Catholic rituals: The Pope’s crossing is useless against Faustus’s subversive pranks.
POPE: […] Friars, prepare a dirge to lay the fury of this ghost. […]
FAUSTUS: Aware the third [crossing]! I give you fair warning.
[POPE crosses again, and FAUSTUS hits him a box
of the ear and they all run away.] (7. 74,78-80)
Marlowe mocks both the strict Calvinism that leads Faustus to engage in such behavior, as well as Catholic authority. Professor Barbara Parker suggests Marlowe’s mockery extends even further, as their rituals are comparable to Faustus’ initial covenant with Mephastophilis: “The papal ritual, in short, with its crossings, incantations, invocation of saints, and Latin behests, replicates almost exactly Faustus’s conjuration” (66). By ostracizing Catholicism and strict Calvinism, Marlowe implies a moderate middle-ground between both may be possible and beneficial, and would allow for repentance. Marlowe does so by including the Old Man, who provides an alternative to Calvinist or Catholic conceptions of God. Till Faustus’s damnation, the Old Man sees “an angel hover over [Faustus’s] soul” (12. 46), an iota of goodness Faustus cannot perceive, and thus offers a simple cure to Faustus’s despair: “Call for mercy, and avoid despair” (12. 46). Critic Pauline Honderich characterizes the Old Man’s God as “moderate Anglican and even pre-Reformation Catholic rather than Calvinist” (11).
Such possibility for repentance, however, is annihilated by Faustus’s internalized despair, initiated by his syllogism for predestination. Repeatedly, Faustus approaches the idea of repentance, yet he always retreats before truly delivering himself to Christ. He falters in his evil convictions early in the play, exposing only a conviction in an unforgiving God:
Despair in God, and trust in Belzebub:
Now go not backward: no, Faustus, be resolute:
Why waver'st thou? O, something soundeth in mine ears:
"Abjure this magic, turn to God again!"
[…] To God? he loves thee not. (5. 5-8, 10)
Faustus rejects any idea of God’s love of his own accord, without any indication of proof. Furthermore, the pattern of intrusive sounds “in mine ears” is repeated later, in the “fearful echoes that thunder in mine ears” (5.196). These personal, sonic descriptions of repentance can be interpreted as Marlowe’s figurative descriptions of the direct covenant between men and God, characteristic of Protestantism. Such interpretation would be consistent with the antitheses described previously during Faustus’s first soliloquy, saying God does not love him, while He speaks thunderously to him in his ear. Nevertheless, Faustus does not heed this call or that of the Old Man, concluding instead: “I do repent, and yet I do despair” (12.54) Similarly, Honderich argued an innate perception of impending damnation, void of any possibility for Faustus’s will to save him: “He is damned because he believes he has always been so, and in that belief lies the experience of damnation” (13).
The role of free will and predestination in Marlowe’s writing is ambiguous, and Faustus’s reaction to his actions—which stem from his will—is even more ambivalent. He assumes he is destined to damnation despite all signs for potential forgiveness; he believes there is no willful act he can complete to regain God’s love; yet, he revels in hedonism, pranks, and the product of his necromancy. If by his free will he could choose damnation, why not achieve salvation by his own will? It is an inconsistency of character that could easily be quelled if Faustus had stronger motivations to stray from God and towards Lucifer. However, as has been noted, he lacks substantial reasoning to pursue this path, misusing dialectic models to fulfill his initial delusions of grandeur, thus abusing classical methods for knowledge. If Marlowe is indeed favoring a less Calvinistic theology, then Faustus’s struggle to do good deeds is exemplary of the conflict Robert Burton noted in The Anatomy of Melancholy. Scholars would be at their wits’ end attempting to convince the public that, despite their predestined fate, they ought not despair and instead complete good deeds, which somehow would still imperative to achieve salvation. It was not a theological conflict which could be brushed aside—not without dismissing Aristotelian logic systems—and would inevitably breed despair in the souls of scholars and believers alike. After all, the second sentence in John Aubrey’s biography of Robert Burton, the man who attempted to cure religious despair, reads: “non- obstante all his astrologie and his booke of Melancholie, he ended his dayes in [his] chamber by hanging him selfe.”
Works Cited
Honderich, Pauline. “John Calvin and Doctor Faustus.” The Modern Language Review, vol. 68, no. 1, January 1973, pp. 1-13. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3726198 Parker, Barbara L. “‘Cursèd Necromancy’: Marlowe's Faustus as Anti-Catholic Satire.” Marlowe Studies, vol.1, 2011, pp. 59-77. ProQuest Central, https://login.proxy189.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/137144 0792?accountid=15152
McDonald, James Ross. “Calvinist Theology and ‘Country Divinity’ in Marlowe's Doctor Faustus.” Studies in Philology, vol. 111, no. 4, 2014, pp. 821-844. ProQuest Central, https://login.proxy189.nclive.org/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/160937 5111?accountid=15152
Smith, Warren. “The Nature of Evil in "Doctor Faustus.” The Modern Language Review, vol. 60, no. 2, April 1965, pp. 171-175. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3720056
Okerlund, A. N. “The Intellectual Folly of Dr. Faustus.” Studies in Philology, vol. 74, no. 3, July 1977, pp. 258-278. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4173939
Marlowe, Christopher. “Doctor Faustus.” The Norton Anthology of British Literature, general editor, Julia Reidhead, 10th ed., vol. B, W.W. Norton, 2012, pp. 1128-1165.
Jones, Aubrey. “Aubrey’s Brief Lives.” Project Gutenberg, vol.1, 2014. Project Gutenberg, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/47787/47787-h/47787-h.htm