The fascinating thing about Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is that it can be interpreted, with equal persuasiveness, as deeply orthodox or as defiantly heterodox in its treatment of its central character’s aspirations.’ Discuss.
In Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, there is an emphasis on both deeply orthodox Christian ideas and defiantly heterodox ideas that lead to a conflicted interpretation of the play, thus mirroring the ambiguous nature of Reformation theology. Elizabethan England was embroiled in religious conflict as there was a divide between Protestant and Catholic ideas after the break from Rome, and resultingly, debates emerged over religion and, more specifically, the nature of the afterlife as there was a departure from the medieval system of good works and a shift towards the Calvinist idea of predestination. Whilst there is potential for a dual interpretation, Doctor Faustus’ aspirations of supernatural knowledge and power are that outside of the Christian paradigm and should thus be mainly be read as heterodox as well as a reaction against orthodoxy, paralleling Marlowe’s discontent towards Calvinism; furthermore, it is this theological conflict that causes Faustus to despair and lose hope in theology, as Sachs rightly puts it, ‘he is so fearful of God’s wrath and justice that he cannot accept the comfort of God’s Love and Mercy’ and thus rejects it completely. Therefore, it is also through Faustus’ despair that causes him to reject and rebuke God and Christianity, largely enabling a heterodox reading of his aspirations.
Doctor Faustus’ aspiration for knowledge can be interpreted as largely heterodox as Marlowe emphasises education outside the traditional secular bounds, openly portraying ideas of necromancy and magic that inherently clash with the more orthodox ideas set forth by the church. This is seen from the outset of the play where the Chorus states how ‘nothing so sweet as magic is to him’ and how ‘he prefers [it] before his chiefest bliss’, thus emphasising its importance as he prioritises this over his salvation. Furthermore, according to Susan Snyder, the prologue begins the ‘parody to sainthood’ as Faustus’ early devotion to divinity is later abandoned. This is advanced in Faustus’ first soliloquy where he justifies his endeavour into black magic by dismissing biblical scripture as he reads ‘Stipendium peccati mors est’, translated as ‘the wages of sin are death’. His deliberately truncated reading ignores the more positive interpretation that the Bible offers, rather, Faustus adopts a fatalistic outlook that allows himself to justify his digression into black magic, of which is largely unorthodox as his misinterpretation of scripture leads him to lose his faith. If one considers the idea that ‘perversion of Scripture was generally considered a specialty of the devil’, it is perhaps more accurate to read Faustus’ digression not only as a momentary lapse from Christianity but as a devotion to diabolical thoughts fuelled by his despair. Furthermore, the act of Faustus put[ting] Bible down and pick[ing] up book of magic is physically emblematic of his spiritual transgression as we get an uncomfortable conflation of biblical and supernatural ideas, emphasised where Faustus states how these ‘necromantic books are heavenly.’ This linguistic incongruity highlights the ambiguity of Reformation England, but it may also be a comment from the playwright where the boundary between religion and superstition lies, thus emphasising the heterodox aspirations of Faustus. Therefore, Faustus’ aspiration for knowledge is tainted by a diabolical perversion of scripture, coupled with the inappropriate use of secular language, this highlights the unorthodox aspirations of Faustus.
The characterisation of Faustus such as his excess of pride and ambition adds to the heterodox interpretation as this can be seen as a subversive rebellion against God’s power. This is mainly seen through the motif of gluttony and appetite that transcends throughout the play. This is first evident in the prologue where Faustus becomes ‘glutted […] with learning’s golden gifts’ and shifts his focus from divinity to necromancy. Marlowe’s apt use of the eating metaphor not only links Faustus’ intellectual abilities with his excess ambition, but it introduces the audience to his hamartia early on. This idea is developed through the classical allusion of Icarus where ‘His waxen wings did mount above his reach’, Faustus’ excess ambition is thus paralleled. Whilst the didactic element of the Chorus does add an orthodox note to the play, making it seem like a cautionary tale that rebukes sin, this element is overshadowed by the perpetuality of the main character’s conceit. This idea of excess pride is compounded by analysis Sachs provides, stating that ‘all sin may be traced to self-assertion and rebellion against God’s will’. This is directly seen in 2.1 where Faustus states that ‘The god thou serv’st is thine own appetite’, furthering this motif of gluttony as well as highlighting the independence of man over God, thus reiterating the heterodox ideas of pride and the individual. Faustus’ preoccupation with gluttony and pride may also demonstrate ‘contemporary acquisitive traits’ character of Elizabethan England, this is supported by Jonathan Dollimore who writes that Faustus’ split psyche is ‘heightened by the elaboration of him as in thrall to imperialistic ambitions.’ This shifts our focus to the interplay of conquest and excess ambition, seen in act 1.1 where he enumerates his aspirations:
I’ll have them fly to India for gold,
Ransack the ocean for orient pearl,
And search all corners of the new-found world
For pleasant fruits and princely delicates
Faustus’ emphasis on precious items in this catalogue not only reflect the greed associated with his character, but also exaggerates his motivation for power of which is emphasised in the last line with the alternation of plosive and fricative sounds, denoting a burst of excitement through this sonic and perhaps dissonant phrase. This is an unsurprising addition as Marlowe’s revised B-text emphasises Anglican imperial ideas. However, there is potential for an orthodox interpretation as this is comparable to the Medieval morality play, where in The Summoning of Everyman, Death is offered a bribe of ‘a thousand pound’ in exchange for more time on earth, much like Marlowe’s use of mercantile imagery and, perhaps more prominently, the exchange of his soul in 2.1. Yet, unlike the morality play, Marlowe is not led on a path of redemption thus highlighting the tragic elements that run parallel to the heterodox interpretation. Additionally, the lines in the passage above regularly begin with an ‘I’ or an ‘I’ll’ formulation, which constitutes ideas of narcissism and reinforce ideas of pride. If we consider the Calvinist idea of ‘the total depravity of man since the Fall’, Marlowe is perhaps reflecting this idea of man’s innate inclination to sin as he is aware of his inability to repent, and thus follows this natural path. Therefore, it is more convincing to read Faustus’ desire to sin as a criticism of orthodox Calvinist ideas as well as a result of his excess ambition, and thus as a transgression into heterodoxy.
Whilst there is potential for a more orthodox interpretation of Faustus’ ambitions, seen through his repentance, this is undermined by his own ego and despair as he views himself as a victim of fatalistic theology and thus chides God for this, allowing a more heterodox interpretation. His initial rejection of repentance is seen early in the play where the Good Angel emphasises Faustus’ salvation through ‘Contrition, prayer, repentance’ to which Faustus replies ‘illusions, fruits of lunacy’. The bounding rejoinders which Faustus employs in this scene not only displays his wit, but also his conviction to necromancy as he reduces repentance to ‘lunacy’. As repentance was clouded in ambiguity due to the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, Faustus’ immoral rejection is unsurprising; Pauline Honderich notes that priests were struggling to provide an ‘incentive for good moral conduct’ due to ideas of the Elect, of which is reflected in Faustus’ rejection of secularity and despair throughout the play. Furthermore, Faustus’ internal dilemma can be seen as a rejection of the orthodox Christian paradigm, so much so that he contemplates turning to suicide stating how ‘My heart is hardened; I cannot repent’ and later wishes to turn to ‘Swords, poison, halters, and envenomed steel […] to dispatch [himself]’. When considering Faustus’ inability to repent, a dual interpretation is evident; not only is Faustus unable to repent due to his own fallibility and pride, the passive construction is suggestive of an external force preventing him from doing so, of which raises significant theological dilemmas that contribute to one’s unorthodox understanding. Additionally, the latter implication that he would rather commit suicide than repent furthers the fatalistic sentiment put forth by him, according to Snyder he is committing ‘spiritual suicide’ that makes him unable to do so, of which can be translated to his literal aspirations. This idea is eminent throughout the text, where Faustus meditates on his subscribed fate, stating ‘What art thou, Faustus, but a man condemned to die?’ Faustus’ sudden awareness of the realities of his agreement is stressed by the rolling monosyllables and dual polysyllables of this plaintive line. The feelings of hopelessness that emerge from Calvinist ideas of the reprobate and the elect are additions from Marlowe and add to the continued despair and subsequent heresy in the play, this is comparable to the original Faustbuch where moments of penitence are contrastingly described as ‘incidental and episodic’. Faustus’ confusion is prominently evidenced through his interaction with the Old Man, where he states, ‘I do repent, and yet I do despair’. The portrayal of two diametric opposites, one of hope and one lacking it, is indicative of Faustus’ conflicted mindset, however, we later get a parody of the traditional repentance where Faustus repents to Lucifer, stating ‘Sweet Mephistopheles, entreat thy Lord / To pardon my unjust presumption’. Much like Snyder’s idea of the ‘inverted saint’, we get a subversion of penitence. The instance where we get a brief moment of repentance is in Faustus’ last soliloquy, laden with temporal markers, it is indicative that Faustus’ time is running out and he has no option but to repent, seen through his imploring epithet ‘O, my Christ’. Thus, whilst Faustus does attempt to repent that casts an element of orthodoxy to the play, this is merely seen as a moment of desperation, and is arguably undercut by his consistent despair that leads him to reject theology.
The personified abstractions that are typical of the Medieval morality play arguably add an orthodox note to Faustus’ aspirations, however, this is largely undercut by Faustus’ conceits and personal failings. The main orthodox interpretation is seen through the existence of psychomachias that draw close parallel to the morality play tradition, most notably the Good Angel and the Old Man who embody hope for penitence and are arguably seen as a ‘moderate Anglican and even pre-Reformation Catholic’ embodiments of God. This is seen through the Good Angel’s benevolent temperament as he states ‘Sweet Faustus, think of heaven and heavenly things’ and ‘Repent, and they shall never raze thy skin.’ The emphasis on penitence detracts from the Calvinist ideas of the elect that initially caused Faustus to despair, rather this can be seen as a theological ambiguity as he provides the audience with another conception of God. However, whilst this is undoubtedly orthodox in its representation, it is Faustus’ reaction to such sentiment that informs the heterodox argument as he is clouded by his own ambition, unsurprisingly so as the Old Man acts as Faustus’ foil. This is more accurately seen through the existence of the Bad Angel whose ideas align themselves with Faustus’. He states ‘No, Faustus, think of honour and of wealth’, values of which mirror Faustus’ desires ‘of power, of honour and omnipotence’. The parallel between the Good and Bad Angels’ statements and Faustus’ internal dilemmas suggest that these are but semi-allegories that display a projection of Faustus’ thought and thus has no real connection with the morality play. Furthermore, there is arguably a closer alignment between the Bad Angel’s statements and that of Mephistopheles where the Bad Angel initially states that ‘If thou repent, devils will tear thee in pieces’, of which is later paralleled by Mephistopheles as he states ‘Revolt, or I’ll in piecemeal tear thy flesh’. This is indicative of Faustus’ commitment to the Calvinist conception of God that causes him to blaspheme, furthermore, the legalistic phrase employed by Mephistopheles indicates the extent of the contract and how Faustus’ heresy pervades throughout the entire play. Thus, whilst the existence of allegorical characters add an orthodox note to Faustus’ ambitions as he can be seen to be guided by the Good Angel, this is undercut by the persuasiveness of the Bad Angel and the existence of Mephistopheles to whom he parallels.
The culmination of Faustus’ heterodox ambitions is most notably seen through his interaction with Helen of Troy as this physically displays the seduction that triggers his destruction. Faustus’ physical encounters with Helen can be considered heterodox on two main grounds. Firstly, the physical joining with a succubus most notably would cause eternal damnation, it is thus ironic that Helen is seen as a mortal representation of salvation to Faustus rather than God as he states how ‘heaven is in these lips’ and ‘Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss’. Once again, the audience is met with a linguistic dissonance as Faustus states how there is ‘heaven’ in the lips of a devil. Furthermore, the use of Marlowe’s mighty line in the latter quotation makes this idea more pertinent through the addition of an extra syllable. Secondly, there is a homoerotic charge in Faustus’ speech that adds to the heterodox interpretation of the play as Graham Hammill notes that Doctor Faustus is linked to the ‘representational logic of sodomy’. This is evidenced through the ambiguous gendering of Helen as she is a male devil disguised as a female, and is even seen earlier in the play where Faustus describes Lucifer as ‘bright’ during his soliloquy on courtesans. Whilst there may be evidence of the playwright’s personal motivation seeping in as Marlowe was allegedly considered homosexual, this significant as it can be considered the finale of Faustus’ sin. Thus, Faustus’ ambitions are largely heterodox in this instance as his physical joining with a devil embodies largely anti-Christian ideas.
In conclusion, the aspirations of Doctor Faustus in Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus should largely be considered heterodox. This is best seen through the argument put forward by Susan Snyder where the character of Doctor Faustus can be read as an ‘inverted saint’, subverting the original premise of the morality play and, by implication, casting a heterodox mode of interpretation as Marlowe espouses sacrilegious ideas through parody. This is seen through Faustus’ unsuccessful penitence as well as the subversion of semi-allegorical characters. Furthermore, Faustus’ emphasis on power through magic as well as his excess of pride draws away from the orthodox ideas of Christian humility as seen in plays such as Everyman, where there is contrastingly an emphasis on good works and a devotion to God, which Faustus fails to successfully achieve. Thus, whilst Faustus’ aspirations are not defiantly heterodox as there is potential for orthodox interpretation through the adopted tropes taken from the morality play, it is more convincing to read his character’s aspirations as heterodox as Faustus’ emphasis on education outside the secular bounds, as well as his pursuit of power, his excess of ambition and lack of humility contribute to this reading.