1
Joe Young
Dr John Gillies
LT201
Is Doctor Faustus better described as a warning against atheism or a subversion
of religious faith?
Christopher Marlowe, in his seminal work, The Jew of Malta professed in a
monologue through a representation of Machiavelli: “I count religion but a childish
toy, /And hold there is no sin but ignorance.”1 (i) Clearly Marlowe was concerned
with the basis of religion and of pursuing knowledge; this translates into his later and
widely celebrated play Doctor Faustus. Faustus, a well-respected academic and
teacher, follows a path of sin, damnation and in the end regret by making a pact with
Lucifer and “practis[ing] more than heavenly power permits.”2 (xiv) From then on
Faustus is irrevocably doomed and must face the consequence of his misdeed.
Marlowe, in the Jacobean era, was continually accused of atheism and so it is
interesting to explore whether the play can be seen as a cautionary tale against
atheism, or rather a distortion of religious faith. On the one hand, Faustus, who shows
“Despair in God, and trust in Belzebub” (v) falls from being a respected scholar, into
the depths of damnation, due to his lack of faith and “love of Belzebub.” (v)
However, the moral is not as palpable as this as the controversial depiction of God in
the play as unforgiving suggests that the representation of religious faith in the play is
quite ambivalent. Additionally, Marlowe’s approach to Calvinist doctrine at the time
could be interpreted as controversial, and Faustus is given supernatural abilities by
renouncing his faith.
It can be reasoned that Faustus, by rejecting God, ironically embarks on a
journey of spiritual discovery; at the denouement of the play during Scene Fourteen
he displays cathartic remorse at his actions and begins to demonstrate the faith that
was absent at the commencement of the play: “Faustus hath lost…. the seat of God,
1
Christopher Marlowe, The Jew of Malta, New York, Dover Publications, 2003
Christopher Marlowe, Dr. Faustus, New York, Dover Publications, 1994.
Subsequent page references in text.
2
2
the throne of the blessed, the kingdom of joy; and must remain in hell for ever, hell,
ah, hell, for ever!”. (xiv) The doomed protagonist’s diction illustrates his desperation,
as the semantic field of descriptive language is concerned with religious themes:
(“God”, “throne”, “blessed”, “kingdom”, “joy”.) and his repetition of “hell” towards
the end of the sentence reiterates his horror at his predicament. In contrast to
traditional tragic protagonists such as Oedipus Rex, who falls from grace into
oblivion, Faustus, although literally falling into Hell, genuinely accepts faith after
being exposed to the dark side of the coin and will “burn [his] books” (xiv) to be
accepted by God once again. As propositioned by Robert Ornstein, who compares
Faustus to Macbeth: “Faustus' tragic career is more paradoxical, because even as his
grand illusions fade and his intellectual powers dissipate in petty shows and
sensuality, his moral awareness grows.”3 While it could be interpreted that Faustus is
of a more morally ambiguous disposition by the conclusion of the play, due to his
deed with Lucifer and his unholy experiences, it is important to consider that actually
by the end Faustus is a more virtuous man. This is further exemplified through his
selflessness; he warns the scholars who are willing to pray for him to “Talk not of me,
but save yourselves, and depart.” (xiv) Dr Faustus, the cherished scholar, has a
“hellish fall” (xiv) into the pit of atheism. In line with the argument, the main basis of
the plot appears to suggest that atheism is a fruitless path to follow that will only end
in inevitable damnation.
On the other hand, the depiction of God as being unforgiving would be seen as
alarming and perhaps controversial in the Jacobean era as it was widely regarded that
God was a compassionate force who would accept any sin on the basis that they were
repented. As Ornstein proposes: “We cannot argue the theological reasons why
Faustus does not merit God's pity, when the audience is deeply moved, when the Old
Man pities Faustus, and even Mephistopheles was touched to momentary compassion.
Shall the audience and a fallen angel pity what God cannot?” (1382) Instead of a
merciful God that is willing to forgive the human nature of sin, the God portrayed in
the play is one that “wilt not have mercy on [Faustus’] soul” (xiv) and that will
impose a “heavy wrath” (xiv) upon the scorned professor. As opposed to the
3
Robert Ornstein, “Marlowe and God: The Tragic Theology of Dr. Faustus,” PMLA,
Vol. 83, No. 5 (Oct., 1968), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261310, 1382. Subsequent
page references in text.
3
customary, divine concepts of love, mercy and faith that are associated with God,
Marlowe has invoked a terrifying “fierce” (xiv) image of “wrath” and destruction.
Marlowe appears to be in line with the Calvinist view of God, that he is an
unrelenting deity, as Pauline Honderich suggests: “The God whom Faustus thus at last
confronts is, it soon becomes apparent, a God cast in an uncompromisingly Calvinist
mould.”4 Marlowe contradicts the widely held belief of a merciful God in favour of a
Calvinist view that God is ruthless and “fierce”. (xiv)
In line with this argument, it also is significant to consider the Calvinist theory
of predestination and whether the play challenges or supports the doctrine, which
would have been a contentious issue at the time of writing. John Calvin, in his
seminal work of protestant theology, surmised that “eternal life is foreordained for
some and eternal death for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the
other of these ends, we say he is predestinated either to life or to death."5 From a
Calvinist view point Faustus would have been inevitably condemned from the start of
the play, as he was predestined to go to Hell regardless of any of his sins or exploits.
An anti-Calvinist would endeavour that due to his immorality and renunciation of
God, Faustus personally brought upon his fate. Faustus himself addresses the cruel
theology of predestination: “What doctrine call you this? Che sera, sera,/What will
be, shall be"? Divinity, adieu!” (i) It could be interpreted that Marlowe is providing a
critique of the theory, as it would suggest that there is no purpose to being faithful or
virtuous, as everyone’s fate has already been decided, regardless of his or her sin.
However, Faustus does consider falling back to God on several occasions, suggesting
that he does not consider himself to be damned from the start: “Be I a devil, yet God
may pity me;/Ay, God will pity me, if I repent.” (vi) Similarly the Good Angel that
appears to Faustus, a symbol of divinity, continually assures Faustus that “God will
pity thee” if he “leave[s] that execrable art.” (v) As David K. Anderson postulates:
“In Doctor Faustus Marlowe is neither preaching predestination nor preaching against
it, but rather is manipulating a population of theatergoers who are already wrestling
with its doctrines in order to intensify their response to his protagonist, the most
4
Pauline Honderich, “John Calvin and Doctor Faustus,” The Modern Language
Review, Vol. 68, No. 1 (Jan., 1973), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3726198, 9
5
Henry Beveridge, trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion (Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 2007)
4
thoroughgoing of sinners who nevertheless provokes enormous pity.” 6 Marlowe
appears to not be tied to one side of the debate and his position on it is rather
ambiguous, serving as subversion in part depending on what beliefs the audience
held.
The embodiment of damnation as opposed to divinity, Mephistopheles, and
also Faustus, talk of how they have been “depriv’d of the joys of heaven.” (xiv)
Initially this statement is a cautioning to Faustus by the demon: “Why this is hell, nor
am I out of it./ Think’st thou that I, who saw the face of God,/ And tasted the eternal
joys of heaven, /Am not tormented with ten thousand hells /In being deprived of
everlasting bliss?/” (iii) The demon, an embodiment of damnation whose primary
goal is to similarly lead Faustus to condemnation, contrarily acts as a warning to him
in both his appearance and his speech for what will happen if he renounces God. He
invokes images of heaven that suggest infinite contentment, such as “the eternal joys
of heaven” and “everlasting bliss” in contrast to the images of Hell which evoke
interminable suffering of being “deprived” and being “tormented with ten thousand
hells.” While it could be argued that Marlowe conjures an almost sympathetic
portrayal of a demon, as Kenneth Golden suggests: “Mephistophilis...is a
compensatory element, the opposing side of Faustus' ego. Against Faustus, the power
hungry, prideful, caustic, sensation-oriented skeptic, we see Mephistophilis, in some
major speeches as, in tone at least, the humble, totally sincere, feeling-oriented
Christian.” 7 He represents what will happen upon the rejection of God: deep
resentment and anguish. Similar to Faustus, Mephistopheles also gave into his hubris,
denounced God and is damned for eternity due to his sin. Due to this connection,
Mephistopheles attempts in vain to drive him away from his terrible fate. This
warning comes full circle towards the end of the play when Faustus similarly utters
the lines: “Faustus, cure thyself, curse Lucifer/That hath depriv’d thee of the joys of
heaven.” (xiv) Now instead of a warning to Faustus, this speech can be interpreted as
6
David K. Anderson. "The Theater of the Damned: Religion and the Audience in the
Tragedy of Christopher Marlowe." Texas Studies in Literature and Language 54, no.
1 (2012): 79-109. http://muse.jhu.edu/
7
Kenneth L. Golden, “Myth, Psychology, and Marlowe's Doctor Faustus” College
Literature Vol. 12, No. 3 (1985), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111667, 206
5
a warning to the Jacobean audience not to pursue a lack of faith and to “wonder at
unlawful things.” (xiv)
However, Faustus is given “unlawful” powers beyond an ordinary human by
Lucifer and for twenty-four years takes the role of a supernatural being; he is able to
summon the spirit of Helen of Troy in Scene Twelve and “dwell, for heaven be in
these lips.” (xii) While most of his use of magic is questionable and absurd, there is
still the point that he actually has been granted the magic to extend the capabilities of
a human through the acceptance of Lucifer as a God. This could be seen as a criticism
of religious faith, in that Christian theology speaks much of miracles, but humans are
limited by the nature that has been passed to them by their creator.
On the contrary, Faustus completely misuses his powers whilst losing himself
in an illusion. Traditional scholarly opinion suggests that the inartistic middle half of
the book is ineffectual; filled with Faustus’ impotent acts, he is deemed nothing more
than a jester, a far cry from the ambitious character that was present at the beginning
of the play. For example, Una Ellis-Fermor suggests in her book on Marlowe that he
has been “foolish and frivolous, but never criminal.”8However these acts of triviality
serve the purpose of illustrating the negligibility of immorality. As Warren D Smith
stipulates: “through emphasizing the essential pettiness of evil, Marlowe has
established what is probably a psychological truth, if not a Christian message: even
without the terrible consequences involved, sin is really not worth the effort.”9 Upon
Faustus’ descent into damnation in Scene One he declares that, “Philisophy is odious
and obscure;/ Both law and physic are for petty wits” (i) and that he will “be great
emperor of the world” (iii). These bold, dramatic statements are in contrast to
Faustus’ actions in the middle portion of the play, where he is reduced from being a
respected scholar into being an aimless trickster. Rather than serving no purpose
whatsoever and being wholly underwhelming, Marlowe encapsulates the frivolity of
8
9
Ellis-Fermor, Una, Christopher Marlowe, Routledge, 1927, 78.
Warren D. Smith, “The Nature of Evil in "Doctor Faustus””, The Modern Language
Review, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Apr., 1965), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3720056, 175
6
sin through Faustus’ limited trajectory. The audience would view the effects of sin in
Faustus and be appalled by his insignificant behaviour and capabilities.
In Marlowe’s Dr Faustus the tragic protagonist yields his soul to Lucifer,
“falls” into the pit of atheism and invokes the “wrath” of an unforgiving God.
Faustus, on the surface, can clearly be viewed as a warning against atheism as his
downward trajectory and eventual fate are undesirable; by the conclusion he has
spiralled into a remorseful, grief stricken character who will “live in hell a thousand
years,/A hundred thousand” as long as he has “the joys of heaven” to look forward to
and “at last be sav’d!”. (xiv) Rather than being made an “emperor” he is rather
metamorphosed into a comic figure of an undesirable standing, due to his senseless
acts. The idleness of sin is emphasised by his frivolous actions; it appears to be a clear
moral that the path of atheism is unfulfilling compared to the satisfaction of faith.
However there are points of contention that suggest Marlowe was not entirely in line
with religion, such as the portrayal of God, his ambivalent approach towards the
teachings of Calvinism and the fact that Faustus is granted some supernatural ability.
However, the clear moral of the play is that atheism is an “execrable art” (v) in
contrast to the “eternal joys of heaven” (iii).
7
Bibliography
Anderson, David K. "The Theater of the Damned: Religion and the Audience in the
Tragedy of Christopher Marlowe." Texas Studies in Literature and Language 54, no.
1 (2012) http://muse.jhu.edu/
Ann O'Brien, Margaret “Christian Belief in Doctor Faustus”, ELH, Vol. 37, No. 1
(Mar., 1970), http://www.jstor.org/stable/2872271
Beveridge, Henry trans., Institutes of the Christian Religion (Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers Inc, 2007)
Ellis-Fermor, Una, Christopher Marlowe, Routledge, 1927
Golden, Kenneth L. “Myth, Psychology, and Marlowe's Doctor Faustus” College
Literature Vol. 12, No. 3 (1985), http://www.jstor.org/stable/25111667
Honderich, Pauline “John Calvin and Doctor Faustus,” The Modern Language
Review, Vol. 68, No. 1 (1973), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3726198
Marlowe, Christopher The Jew of Malta, New York, Dover Publications, 2003
Marlowe, Christopher Dr. Faustus, New York, Dover Publications, 1994
McAlindon, T., “Classical Mythology and Christian Tradition in Marlowe's Doctor
Faustus”, PMLA, Vol. 81, No. 3 (1966), http://www.jstor.org/stable/460807
Ornstein, Robert “Marlowe and God: The Tragic Theology of Dr. Faustus,” PMLA,
Vol. 83, No. 5 (1968), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261310
Smith, Warren D. “The Nature of Evil in Doctor Faustus”, The Modern Language
Review, Vol. 60, No. 2 (1965), http://www.jstor.org/stable/3720056