Although Faustus is eventually punished, the play is essentially a celebration of sin rather than a morality tale - Discuss
Popular in the 15th and 16th centuries, morality plays are a type of allegory in which the protagonist (most commonly an “everyman”) encounters personifications of various moral attributes that attempt to persuade him towards a Godly life rather than giving into the temptations of hell. Christopher Marlowe's Faustus exists paradoxically as both the epitome of secular morality theatre and yet also its antithesis. Indeed while on one hand it is clear that the “hell [that] hath no limits” is a hell that succeeds in (albeit through fear) aligning the audience's moral compass with Christian beliefs, there exists the possibility that in Marlowe's visual feast comes an excitement in hell. Though on the surface it is a morality play, through indulging the audience's imagination and challenging the limits of time and space, Dr Faustus temps its audience into sin. Primarily, it can be argued that the play is a “celebration of sin” through nomenclature. Morality plays traditionally feature characters with allegorical names, representative of their single-faceted personalities, simply used as a plot device. In Dr Faustus however, names of the characters are, with the exception of the good angel and the bad angel, not entirely representative of their moral standing. Lucifer is perhaps the best example of this. Meaning “light bearer” or “morning star,” this name was that given, in the King James Bible, to Satan before his fall. The fact that this term was used rather than the more commonly recognised “Satan” contradicts with the single faceted depiction of evil. There exists, simply through this nomenclature, a depth to “evil” that questions its very nature. By drawing attention to the pre fall Satan, it is plausible that Marlowe is suggesting that there is goodness behind evil. These devils have flaws indeed, but are not evil to the core. Rather they are “forever damned” for a single action that determined their future. Not simply this but the evil in morality plays exists as a comic counterpart to good, a ridiculed side that bears no gravitas or importance in the climax. Mephistopheles’ maelstromic mind set - one that jumps between hellish excitement in the temptation of Faustus and a deep sadness and despair at his own situation – is far removed from morality play simplicity. Here is a character whose anguish we comprehend and whose placement in the plot is of equal importance as the protagonist. The lack of a “good” character that holds the same status as Mephistopheles suggest a somewhat skewed narration. The character, it seems, that holds the most intelligence and who is able to orchestrate the action of the plot is one who is not entirely “good.” Despite the pain and suffering of Mephistopheles mind (whose hell “hath no limits”), he is the character we value the most: a narrative choice that does not abide in any way to morality conventions. Though it is of course argued that the pain that Mephistopheles feels – that being the “torment[t] of ten thousand hells” – is sufficient to depict hell in a traditional sense, the development of Mephistopheles’ character is so complex that it cannot be applied to a morality setting. Rather our appreciation of him leads us to celebrate sin – a hell that has produced the single character we value. Morality plays hinge on a sense of community and shared belief; the protagonist acts as a depiction of the “everyman”: a background upon which two forces compete. Faustus on the other hand subverts this characterisation by appearing constantly in an impasse, fluctuating between good and evil, existing on the liminal between the two opposites. The good and bad angel as a result, appear as figments of his imagination and an example of an inner turmoil rather than a universally applicable conflict. It has been argued that the psychological layers to Faustus render the entire drama in fact a psychology: it is often viewed as “primarily a study of the mind of Faustus himself” (Bradbrook). His play therefore, while displaying clear awareness of theatrical tradition, blurs conventional models and does not abide by the simple and rigid moral framework of early Elizabethan drama. Explicitly deemed “tragical,” the play is inextricably connected to Aristotelian definitions of drama in which the characters are of secondary importance to the events of the piece. Alongside this, the use of the chorus and the early allusions to the Icarus myth (“waxen wings”) aim to present the play as a classic tragedy who’s tracing of the “form of Faustus’ fortunes good or bad” mirror Aristotle’s focus on the precise accumulation of occurrences, driving high status persons low. Marlowe constructs his protagonist as a paradigm – the tragic hero rather than the morality plays simply characterised “man” as a plot device. While it could be argued that morality plays do focus typically on arguments – the fight existing between the forces of good and evil – these arguments occur between the two sides alone and concern the protagonist only through the way he is swayed to either side. Dr Faustus on the other hand explored the psychological bounds of this through soliloquys; his mental torment fitting far more strongly with a proto-freudian study of the human mind. It is, in this sense, not either a morality play or a celebration of sin but rather a traditional tragedy.
