Ambiguity and Atheism in Marlowe's Doctor Faustus

As most of us know, the burgeoning enterprise of science during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth-century brought forth many social implications to the people of Europe. These implications had lengthy reaches, and even had an impact on policy of non-socio-political institutions such as the Catholic Church and Church of England.

To that end, many aristocrats and leaders of the Church of England saw the Renaissance as an opportunity to promote and grow the church not only throughout the nation, but across Western Europe as well. In order to increase the spread of Protestantism, many English artists took it upon themselves to promote and sell anti-propaganda in the artwork they undertook. However, this enterprise was also opposed by even the most prominent of artists in England during the time, including English playwright, Christopher Marlowe.

Although his works have been historically less popular than the work of his Elizabethan heavyweight contemporaries William Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and others, Marlowe's work was well-liked by his contemporaries and well-received by Elizabethan audiences. His works were largely tragic and heavily centered on religion and spiritualism. Although it was never verified by himself or others, Marlowe was believed to be an atheist, which on social terms, would have juxtaposed him uncomfortably with the devout Protestant Queen Elizabeth. To that end, much of Marlowe's work avoids the direct handling of theism vs. atheism, but focuses more on character studies that illuminate detracting elements of the two predominant religions in Europe during the Renaissance: Christianity and Judaism. Furthermore, his criticism extended into more denominational strands of Christianity: namely, Catholicism and Protestantism, and much like the modern artists, Marlowe did not hesitate to mock institutional beliefs of the religions through the characterization of many of his protagonists of his dramas, and the main character in his Doctor Faustus (1592) is no exception. However, if Faustus is supposed to be a caricature of the diddling and dumb Christian and his relative buffoonery in the Age of the Enlightenment, Faustus's fate seems to contradict this rather smug view of Christianity that atheists like Marlowe seem to take in their ideology.

In order to see this in effect, let's look at a short chronology of examples scattered throughout the play that appear to first, suggest the thematic element of atheism, and then let's break them them down and see how they actually serve the opposite purpose.

Marlowe characterizes Faustus as a malcontent in act one, scene one where we learn that Faustus tells himself to "Be a physician, Faustus. Heap up gold ,/And be eternized for some wondrous cure" (D.F. i.15-6). Marlowe has characterized Faustus as a greedy, bored, and usurping individual who's only real desire is avarice for knowledge and wealth. However, Faustus is keenly aware of his attitude and the effect it will have on him, when he says: "The reward of sin is death. That's hard" (i.41). In that case, he is aware of the theistic belief of altruistic consequences and that he will be judged or served just compensation for his actions whether they be good or bad. This notion of judgment after death contradicts the fundamental principles of atheism in that when one dies, they just die. This mortal fear about his actions is later accentuated by Faustus in act one when he says: "This night I'll conjure, though I die therefore" (i. 168). This again supports the idea that Marlowe is painting the picture of judgement from God, and that his character is keenly aware of it. In doing so, Marlowe is giving credibility to the notion of a God who judges.

The support of theism is not only evident in Faustus's decision-making process, but in Marlowe's use of the traditional Biblical characters of Mephistopheles and Beelzebub. Faustus manifests his desire to conjure demons in scene three when he is able to conjure Mephistopheles. The appearance of this demon could be interpreted in one of two ways: first, it serves to invalidate theism because Faustus is able to subvert the laws of nature and make this being appear, or secondly, Marlowe is creating a clear delineation of the spiritual idea between evil (Mephistopheles here) and the Judeo-Christian belief in one, altruistic God. I would argue that it could be interpreted either except for the moral implications that follow this conjuring. Marlowe follows the thematics of traditional moralism the rest of the play in that Faustus is allowed to make moral or immoral decisions that ultimately decide his fate. Furthermore, he is also portrayed as a conflicted, conscious character who has conversations with his good and evil angels throughout the rest of the play, which again supports his immersion in the moralist view of their being a good and evil. This moral representation of Mephistopheles and the angels appears to be in direct contradiction to Marlowe's belief of atheism. If God does not exist, and, if we take a more modern interpretation of atheistic philosophy, we operate morally on the belief that we are good to one another for the survival of our species, then why does Marlowe incorporate these angels and devils at all? Why not just paint a picture of morality (or immorality) that exists independently of these spiritual beings? The only explanation is that Marlowe walks himself into a corner with his mockeries of God because he subsequently develops a character whose actions are heavily centered on moralism, and whose moralistic views are affected by spiritual beings.

Since this is more of a friendly discussion and not a research paper, I will close this discourse with a final thought about Marlowe's moral impact with his play Doctor Faustus. Since this play is widely accepted as a tragedy, it would be short-sighted to not discuss the moral implications of the play. Like any good "moral story," it is important to establish what the moral of Doctor Faustus was/is. Since we have illuminated the idea of good versus evil (that is, theism versus atheism) in the play, we must look at what the moral was. In order to understand the moral, let us first look at the outcome.

We discover that Faustus has withered away his time on all his worldly pleasures and since he made a deal with Mephistopheles to trade his soul for world delight, it is now his time to fulfill his end of the bargain. In other words, he must give Mephistopheles his soul. We learn that Faustus asks for mercy and pity and is very lamentable and regrets the deal. This is apparent when Faustus urges: "See where Christ's blood streams in the firmament! One drop would save my soul, half a drop! Ah, my Christ" (14.76)! This plea from Faustus again conflicts with Marlowe's preference for atheism. If atheism is the belief there is no God, why have your atheistic character plea to God? If atheists believe there is no moral law and final judgement, why does his soul need to be saved? Again, there can only be two different interpretations here. One: that Marlowe is mocking the idea of theists who pray for salvation and who fear judgement, or two: Marlowe has again portrayed his atheistic character operating within the ideology of there being a one, altruistic God who will judge.

Before I leave with you with some good things to ponder from this play, I hope you see the apparent incongruity with Marlowe's mockery of Christianity, or at least, the apparently contradictory nature of how his atheistic character would act if Marlowe was really supporting the idea of atheism. If you feel that this play is unique in it's incongruity of these philosophies you will find that this is not true. Any art where atheistic views are impressed upon the consumer, I always am able to find a loophole with it that almost proves the opposite of the desired atheistic effect. If you wish to hear more on that philosophy, I may have a discussion group on it, and at the very least, you will find some further writing on the subject from time to time in the future. Either way, if you have time, check out the formerly discussed: Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus. It's definitely a fun read.

Cheers,

Scott