The Faust in Ahab: Moby-Dick and the Voyage of Destruction
In ways, characters in literature resemble people; they make decisions that affect the
outcomes of their stories and must also accept the consequences of their judgments. Readers may
only see portions of these fictional lives, but between literary pages, stories unfold based on the
choices and passions of each character. In Herman Melville’s Moby-Dick Ahab is a character
who uses his own passions to make a decision to seek knowledge but only as a medium to
deliver retribution to a whale that took a piece of him, his leg. Like Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus,
Ahab’s life is exchanged for his desire to obtain knowledge, knowledge meant to be applied to a
personal agenda. When evaluating the actions of Ahab during his search for this knowledge, the
reader can perceive how there is Faustian nature enclosed throughout Ahab’s motives. Much like
Faustus, Ahab abuses biblical principles and looks towards ineffable concepts to achieve his
personal ambitions. By considering Moby-Dick Faustian-like literature, the audience can view
Ahab’s vengeful voyage with an intention to establish analysis of how man’s search for
knowledge is a free choice that, if under passion-filled and selfish intentions, can damn him.
Faustian works focus largely on characters that have a developed understanding of their
trade, and an intelligence that mirrors Faustus. Like Faustus, these characters choose to chase a
deeper, god-like comprehension and control of the world. This comprehension is often presented
as an “otherness” that is not “accessible to human understanding” and then molds into “a world
empty of meaning” (Van Cromphout). Ahab’s development into a Faustian character is greatly
cultivated by this need to find the otherness. Sought through Ahab’s pact to find and kill Moby
Dick, and from his eventual damnation, this path leads Ahab through a sea of “boundless
aspirations” where eventually there is an “identification of knowledge with power” with an
attempt to “subdue nature” (Van Comphout). This power over nature would then, as is traditional
in Faustian literature, be used to obtain knowledge for “mastery over the forces perceived” (Van
Comphout). Through this knowledge, the Faustian character seeks what they desire before
entering into their final scenes of damnation.
The knowledge that Faustus initially seeks does not come from the desire to know but
from being discontent in his achievements and current understanding. Faustus became “glutted
more with learning golden gifts” (Marlowe Prologue.24), beginning his damned road that
focuses on new interpretations of knowledge. After using his philosophical and theological
knowledge, Faustus decides that “all men are doomed to die an everlasting death” (Marlowe,
1.1.40-5) and develops a thirst for power, honor, and omnipotence. Here there is new obsession
with the boundaries between the natural and the supernatural; his mastery of law, logic, and
medicine are no longer sufficient and Faustus chooses to seek otherness where “only in the
metaphysics of the magicians can find true and significant knowledge” (Brown). For Marlowe’s
Faustus, the damning knowledge is the character’s desire to master “the concealed arts” to gain
“a God-like understanding of the world” through what he sees as significant knowledge (Brown).
Upon deciding his obtained knowledge is no longer good enough, Faustus freely decides to
become a magician and a “mighty god” (Marlowe 1.1.62) by summoning the demon
Mephistopheles to grant him the means to learn and practice magic.
In Moby-Dick the knowledge sought does not begin with dark magic, but it does begin
with otherness in Ahab’s obsession with an experience only the sea and its landlessness can
offer. Ahab seeks knowledge of the sea, knowledge that Ishmael paints through the world of
whaling. According to Ishmael, whaling is seen as access to the limitless space that mirrors a
sailor’s desire for the alien worlds beyond, or below, the sea (Van Cromphout). Ahab’s
observance of the whale’s head in “The Sphinx” gives support to the vastness and intelligence
that is in the sea when Ahab interacts with the whale the crew killed and hoisted to the side of the
ship. Alone, Ahab leans over to look directly into the black eyes of the whale, “attentively fixed
on the head.” He lowers himself so that his own eyes are level with those of the whale and
commands the whale to “speak...and tell us the secret thing that is in thee.” Ahab continues and
exclaims that the whale has “been where bell or diver never went” (Melville 372),
acknowledging that the whale has seen more in the sea than man ever could solidifies that the sea
is a place of otherness; this demand for the whale to give him knowledge gives Ahab Faustian
qualities because he is seeking knowledge and understanding that is unreachable.
When viewing the sea as a source of insurmountable knowledge, the reader can analyze
the crew on the Pequod who were completely submerged in the knowledge and omniscient
nature of the sea. The most submerged in this knowledge would be Pip, the boy who was
abandoned in the water for fearing the unknown. When submerged in the water, Pip is “carried
down alive to wondrous depths, where strange shapes of the unwarped primal world glided to
and fro before his passive eyes; and the miser-merman, Wisdom, revealed his horded heaps.”
During his journey in the sea, Pip is shown “multitudinous, God-omnipresent, coral insects”
(Melville 483). When Pip is returned to the ship after this encounter he is deemed insane by the
crew and, later, God-knowing by Ishmael. It is only after surviving the depths of the water, Pip
has knowledge that makes his insanity “heaven’s sense,” now having “celestial thought”
(Melville 483). These thoughts are what make him seem mad, but, in reality, he sees the world
more clearly. Pip’s interaction with the water is more than an experience; it is a full submersion
into divine understanding. It is this understanding that creates a bond between him and his
captain, Ahab. Pip can now comprehend more of the sea’s knowledge than Ahab. It is Ahab who
wishes to have and overcome the sea, much how Faustus wishes to try concurring god-like
knowledge.
Each Faustian character’s knowledge is similar, but the parallelism in searching for
knowledge should also be juxtaposed with the choice each man made to pursue this knowledge.
For Doctor Faustus, there is a choice to sign his life away to the devil using the blood from his
own veins. Comparably, Ahab uses blood to sign a contract to search for what he has chosen to
call his devil: Moby Dick. Though Ahab’s contract is not an actual document, he still uses blood.
For Ahab, his pact is between him and his crewmembers through a poorly performed a
communion. Before the men sip from a common harpoon, Ahab insists “God hunt us hunt us all,
if we do not hunt Moby Dick to his death” (Melville 211). After this conclusion, Ahab requires a
communion where all must agree to participate in the hunt for Moby Dick. It is during this
communion where Ahab’s objective is specified but it is also where Ahab verbalizes and
solidifies his choice for the ship to go after, and sink for, Moby Dick.
This decision to hunt the whale was made in vengeance, but the captain claims that he
had no free will in this choice. Evan Brown’s article argues that Ahab’s attempts “strike through
he mask” and discover supernatural knowledge is a willful surrender to lunacy. Ahab was once
just a whaler, but now he is an obsessive captain who does not claim responsibility for his own
actions. To Starbuck, Ahab states his concern of free choice in his search for the whale. “Is
Ahab, Ahab? Is it I, God, or who, that lifts this arm? ... By heaven, man, we are turned round and
round in this world, like yonder windlass, and fate is the handspike” (Melville 621). During this
scene Ahab claims no control or responsibility for his action, even when he seems to regret that
he has left on shore a “widow with her husband alive” (Melville 620). If the reader chooses to
sympathize with Ahab and believe that his choices are not his own they can be directed back to
the chapter where Ishmael addresses the same topic. Ishmael muses, “here, thought I, with my
own hand I ply my own shuttle and weave my own destiny into these unalterable threads”
(Melville 267). The mats that Ishmael and Queequg are making are allegorized into destiny and
free will, also giving an understanding of how decisions are “all interweavingly working
together” (Melville 268). Decisions and actions belong to the hands making them, much like
Ishmael makes his mat. With this allegory in mind, it is difficult to view the actions of Ahab as
anyone’s but his own.
If the free will of Ahab is still questioned the reader can return to parallels between Ahab
and the Faust story. During his time with Mephistopheles, Faustus inquires about Lucifer’s status
as the fallen angel. Mephistopheles is honest and tells Faustus that Lucifer was removed from
heaven “by aspiring pride and insolence, / For which God threw him from the face of heaven”
(Marlowe 2.1.66-67). Directly following this conversation, Faustus ignores what could happen to
him and “[makes] a bridge through the moving air” (Marlowe 1.3.105). This bridge is the
beginning of the travels that separate Faustus from those in his world. When returning from his
travels, when damnation is lingering, Faustus mimes the words of Ahab, claiming that the wrath
of God is sending him to hell and not his lack of faith or refusal to repent. While it is Faustus’
failure to ask for forgiveness that send him to hell, he, like Ahab, blames the hand of God and
not his own choices.
David K. Anderson recognizes in his article, “The Theater of the Damned: Religion and
the Audience in the Tragedy of Christopher Marlow,” how it is possible to argue Faustus’
ignorance to God. Anderson refutes that Faustus himself disproves his ignorance when he
questions Mephistopheles, requesting for the demon to tell him who made the world. When
Mephistopheles refuses to answer Faustus answers his own question, speaking the name of the
creator, God. “[Faustus] has not been denied grace,” it is that “he cannot recognize his peril”
(Anderson). Acknowledgment of God aside, Faustus has angels instructing him—the good angel
telling him to repent and another, the evil angel, instructing him to continue on the path of
damnation and hell. Faustus is given options to acknowledge God, his own mistakes, and to
become redeemed, and he denies them, begging others to take responsibility of his actions and
“pray for [him], pray for [him]...for nothing can rescue [him]” (Marlowe 5.2.55-56).
Ahab is given the opportunity to choose another path, but like Faustus refuses the
responsibility for his own life. This opportunity comes in the form of a prophecy that tells Ahab
just how he will meet his end. Fedallah, a harpooner who Ahab smuggles onto the ship as part of
the second crew, gives this prophecy to Ahab. Fedallah tells Ahab of a prophetic dream that
divulges that “two hearses must verily be seen by thee on the sea; the first not made by mortal
hands; and the visible wood of the last one must be grown in America” (Melville 572). Denying
his potential death, Ahab explicitly vocalizes how he has “two pledges that [he] shall yet slay
Moby Dick and survive” (Melville 573). The captain is presented with two prophecies and Ahab
freely chooses which to believe. Not allowing Ahab to continue living with false hope,
Fedallah’s is more explicit and tells the captain not just what he must see before death, but also
will kill him: hemp. Upon hearing that a rope will be his demise he does not choose to become
more careful but, instead, Ahab concludes that he cannot die at sea but only on land. It was not
the prophecy that killed Ahab but his refusal to heed the warnings that were given to him. Ahab
molded his prophesy into self-fulfillment, affecting every single member of this voyage.
When looking at how each choice affects every character it is essential to look closely at
Ishmael and Queequg in “The Monkey Rope.” In this scene is it Queequeg’s job as the
harpooner to place himself on top of a whale, in the ocean, and place a hook in this whale. Still
on the boat, Ishmael becomes Queequeg’s “inseparable twin brother,” connecting himself to
Queequeg by a “monkey rope” on their waists. During this scene, Queequeg “occasionally
[falls], from the incessant swaying of [the whale and ship]” (Melville 381) and Ishmael is pulled
around with Queequeg’s movement. The rope ties the men together and connects them both to
the safety of the ship and the danger of the ocean. When Ishmael pulls on the monkey rope
Queequeg also moves, demonstrating how Ishmaels actions effect Queequeg. This relationship
exists and they control one another’s fate, but each man only controls his side of the rope. It is
Ahab’s choice to go after the whale, but his damnation was on a grander scale than the
damnation of Faustus. Doctor Faustus’s choices were for the sake of his own knowledge and
done with one companion, Mephistopheles, and putting only himself on the front line of
damnation. In contrast, Ahab pulled too hard on a monkey rope and drowning three ships and
nearly every member of his own crew.
In regards to making decisions about the voyage, Ahab is the focus of the novel, but the
story is told from the point of view of Ishmael, the only man to have survived Ahab’s voyage to
destroy Moby Dick. In this point of view, pieces of the story do allude to Job. These images
cannot be ignored when looking at how Ishmael is the one telling of Ahab’s voyage; Ishmael’s
account moves past the dichotomy established in the problem of evil. Ahab’s experience has
given Moby Dick the devilish persona displayed in the problem of evil. As a result, the whale
and the voyage becomes an obsession for Ahab whereas Ishmael looks at the sea as marvelous
and describes the world as neutral. This neutralness is “neither good nor evil but sheerly
marvelous” (Wright). Ishmael tells of the knowledge and divinity that is contained in the ocean;
because Moby Dick is inside the ocean he too is marvelous and can be neither good nor evil.
Moby Dick marvelous in the eyes of the narrator. By distinguishing between Ahab and Ishmael’s
understanding of Moby Dick, Melville is able to show that the leviathan, the aquatic enemy of
God, is full of more than one meaning and cannot be made into either a devil or a god. Boren
expands on this concept when explaining how the whale is positioned as a devil or god but
“sprouts too much meaning and [escapes interpretive] nets.”
Perhaps by the end of the novel Ahab’s choice to hunt Moby Dick is removed from him;
when Ahab passes Moby Dick in the night the tides change and the hunter became the hunted.
With Moby Dick behind the ship, with his almost omnipotence, Ahab’s free will is relinquished
and it is now nearly impossible for Ahab to escape. Eventually, the whale creates a whirlpool,
destroys the ship, and all but one member of the crew is lost at sea. By willfully surrendering to
the monomaniacal focus on Moby Dick Ahab dies, unable to choose to redeem himself—on his
last leg, Ahab is damned not by land, not by the sea, but by the knowledge that he chose to
pursue out of vengeance.
Works Cited
Anderson, David K.1. "The Theater Of The Damned: Religion And The Audience In The
Tragedy Of Christopher Marlowe." Texas Studies In Literature & Language 54.1 (2012):
79-109. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W. Wilson). Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
Boren, Mark Edelman. "What's Eating Ahab? The Logic Of Ingestion And The Performance Of
Meaning In Moby-Dick." Style 34.1 (2000): 1-24. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W.
Wilson). Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
Brown, Evan. “Salvation/Damnation: The Ambiguous Faust in Melville’s Moby-Dick”. Verso
(2009): 23-29.
Marlowe, Christopher. Doctor Faustus;. New York: W.W. Norton and Company;. 2005. Print.
Melville, Herman. Moby-Dick;. San Francisco;. 2011. Print.
Van Cromphout, Gustaaf. “Moby-dick: The Transformation of the Faustian Ethos”. American
Literature 51.1 (1979): 17–32. Web.
Winters, Dana. "Hermetic/Cabalistic Ritual In Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustu." Journal
For Academic Study Of Magic 5 (2008): 69-101. OmniFile Full Text Select (H.W.
Wilson). Web. 9 Dec. 2015.
Wright, Nathalia. “Moby Dick: Jonah's or Job's Whale?”. American Literature 37.2 (1965): 190–
195. Web.