The legend of Dr. Faustus, the German who sold his soul to the devil has filtered down to us in several forms. Probably the most well known are Goethes Faust and Christopher Marlowes Faustus.

Before taking a closer look at the characterization of Marlowes Faust, Id like to sketch, briefly, the background of the early Renaissance, when the play was written. It is important to keep in mind, that the very first folio of the play was written, not to be read but to be performed, and therefore, we must allow for several nuances and shades of character that might not be part of the, to use a colloquial term, shooting script, but could, very well have been brought out by the extremely talented crop of Renaissance actors- for, we have to remember, that there was no background or scenery, and that the creation of any atmosphere at all, depended, partly on costume, and largely on the prowess of the actor himself. Even allowing for certain later modifications on the part of editors, we must assume that a large amount of the understanding of character in action has already been lost. Therefore, we’re working slightly blind- for, due to the availability of more than one manuscript; we can’t take the printed text before us as gospel truth. Even the slightest change in syntax can alter meaning perceptibly. The literary historian, who chooses to sketch character, therefore, has a tough job at hand, especially, if the character is a conscious act of creation.

Centuries of criticism have denounced Faust as an overreacher, and in this, they choose to lump Faustus along with the other one man plays that Marlowe wrote- the Jew of Malta, and, more importantly, Tamburlaine in both its parts. This categorization is to a degree acceptable- yes the most important character is that of Faust, yes the other characters remain no more than types. Faust is not, however the same as Tamburlaine or Barrabas. Both the Scythian shepherd and the Jew are amoral characters, exulting in the spoils of their triumph, showing no concern at all for the plight of their conquered. Imagine Tamburlaine chariot, drawn by conquered kings, and I’m sure you get the picture. Both of them die, unrepentant, Barrabas disappointed because h has not been able to do more evil, and Tamburlaine, defeated only by death.

And now, spare a glance at the shrunken figure of Faustus, dreading the arrival of the hour that must take him to his doom. He dreads his fate in a way that neither Tamburlaine nor Barrabas did. Faustus is not amoral, he has a conscience that he conveniently put on the back burner, so to speak, and it only pricks him when it is almost too late to save himself. For surely, had he not possessed a conscience, he could not have spoken these lines of the finest poetry in the play-
“Christ’s blood streams in the firmament...one drop would save my soul…�

The question here is not why Faustus allows himself to fall prey to the darkest sin of despair, because of which his redemption becomes impossible. Christian notions of redemption, and grace were much stronger back in the early Renaissance when the play was written and performed. We must keep in mind that the renaissance was preceded by what we call the ‘dark ages’- the reformation, the splitting of the Catholic church, the inquisition, all in all a great age of religious upheaval had just passed by. And the earlier drama of the age (the morality plays) all had one recurrent theme- sin and salvation. In its personified vices and devils, Faustus is very much like a morality play, and yet, in a way transcends the conventions of the morality pattern. We see here, conflict. Conflict between the thirst for knowledge and the conscience- the voice of the moral soul.

A point to be noted here- Faustus does not desire knowledge for any other reason apart from its accumulation. Apart from the brief scene in which he summons Helen of Troy, what does Marlowe do to show us what Faustus has done with his unimaginable wealth of knowledge? Faust does not overthrow the ruling classes or fill his coffers with wealth. In this, he is the embodiment of the Renaissance thirst for ‘Virtu’- a great desire for knowledge for its own sake. In a way, every Renaissance man was an overreacher, because he strained beyond the boundaries of ordinary thought. Were it not for the challenging of extant norms and traditions, might we still not have believed that the earth was the centre of the universe and that it was as flat as a pancake? Any sort of advancement begins with doubt and questioning, and this is true also of art and culture. Art (particularly painting and literature) moved away from the celestial to the more mundane. This was the age of the glorification of man. A subtle shift had started to take place in the existing paradigm, and man suddenly, shared space with his God in the centre of his own universe.

However, with change too, too much too soon, can lead to disaster. Why did Faustus remain so dissatisfied with the reigning sciences of his time and turn to necromancy and magic the way a child turns from gems to coloured paper? (This thought is not original. I first came upon it in Long’s History of English Literature). Too much knowledge, too soon, without the time that knowledge needs to translate itself into wisdom. And the result- Faust sells his soul to Mephistopheles. Arrogantly, perhaps, but I see in it a childlike joy, and a dangerous naiveté- he says “had I a dozen souls to give, I’d give them all to Mephistopheles’. Indeed. And when that all too short time span granted him is up- can any of hi accrued knowledge save him? No, because he has not bothered to wait till he distils some wisdom from all the wealth of knowledge he has garnered. And he falls prey to despair- and so wreaks upon himself his own doom.

Not totally an overreacher, definitely not an apt symbol for Virtu. Faustus remains a tragic character, deluded till the end, because he lacks what all the knowledge in the world cannot give him- wisdom.