The early modern period was a time of particular change, anxiety
and uncertainty for England. With Henry VIII’s Act of Supremacy in 1534,
England had broken from Rome. She then became Protestant under Edward VI in
1547 only to become Roman Catholic again under Mary Tudor in 1553. Persecution
and bloodshed had accompanied both changes. The succession of Elizabeth in 1558
restored a more moderate form of Protestantism but there remained great anxiety
and uncertainty regarding religious and political stability until the end of
her reign in 1603 as the astute monarch avoided committing herself to the
all-important questions of a consort or an heir.
This sense of anxiety and irresolution in relation to religion is clearly discernible in much literature of the early modern period and none more so than The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus by Christopher Marlowe (circa 1592) and Hamlet (circa 1601) by William Shakespeare. I will demonstrate this lack of resolution in their final scenes with a religious analysis drawing on contemporary Calvinist and Lutheran Protestantism.
‘What doctrine call you this?’ (1:47) asks Faustus in the first scene. We see particularly strong anxiety in Doctor Faustus which contains, as did Marlowe’s life, overt and covert challenges to Christian doctrine. It will be argued that in the final scene, Marlowe challenges the theology of St Augustine of Hippo, St Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin on which he has drawn throughout the play. By poignantly questioning established beliefs about original sin, good and evil, the nature of God and the nature of man, Marlowe denies his audience any satisfying resolution.
The final scene of Hamlet also leaves many issues unresolved and contains strong religious themes surrounding Lutheranism. Hamlet, the Wittenberg student, says at the beginning of the last scene ‘in my heart there was a kind of fighting’ (5.2:4) before revealing a startling personality change. I will argue that by interpreting this line from the Lutheran perspective of the twofold nature of man, Hamlet’s change from a deeply thoughtful man trying to resolve everything perfectly to an impulsive one letting things resolve as they will actually constitutes a uniquely Lutheran resolution.
On a first reading of the 1604 ‘A’ text of Dr Faustus it seems that little is left unresolved in the last scene. In the first scene Faustus reads ‘The reward of sin is death’(1:40) from Romans 6:23 after which he sins against God by selling his soul to the devil and is ultimately damned. I would argue that the plot does develop from this verse and lead to Faustus’ damnation but that Marlow challenges the simple consequentialism of this Christian belief. Margaret Ann O’Brien argues that ‘Dr Faustus reflects the Christian doctrine as presented in the scripture and tradition and recorded by the Fathers of the Church especially St Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine and St Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica‘ (1970 p2.) These writings, particularly on the nature of good and evil, inform Calvinist Elizabethan doctrine which will be shown to be problematized in the last scene of Dr Faustus.
The scene begins with Faustus saying to his colleagues, ‘had I lived with thee, then had I still lived but now I die eternally’(13:3.) This is a different attitude to the one shown earlier when he had described hell as ‘a fable’(5:126) and torment as ‘mere old wives tales’(5:134.) By the final scene Faustus is in no doubt that the Christian god, and Hell, exist. By saying ‘The serpent that tempted Eve may be sav’d’ (13:16) Faustus evokes the original sin of forbidden knowledge of which he too is guilty.
Faustus is asked to remember that ‘God’s mercies are infinite’ (13-14.) He immediately denies this. ‘Faustus’ offences can never be pardoned’’ (15.) John McCloskey, writing in 1942, argued that this despair is the sin against the Holy Spirit by which he ‘denies to himself the grace and mercy of God’ (110-111.) However, despair is evident in Faustus’ even before he sells his soul. In the very first scene he reads ‘The reward of sin is death’ (40) and says ‘That’s hard. If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and there is no truth in us. Why then belike we must sin and so consequently die’(42-45.) Dollimore says of Faustus, ‘an insecurity verging on despair pre-exists his damnation’ and that he ‘registers a sense of human kind as miscreated’ (2010 pp112-113.) St Augustine and Thomas Aquinas both assert that God and all his works are perfectly good. ‘For evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name "evil."(City 11.9) John Calvin says ‘Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity (Institutes.3.22.8.)Humanity is miscreated and inherently evil.
In the final scene Faustus says ‘a surfeit of sin hath damn’d both body
and soul’ (11) and admits that he has sold his soul. When a scholar says he
will stay with him, he is told not ‘tempt not god’(48) This is exactly
what Faustus has done with his ‘surfeit’ of sin. O’Brien says that
Faustus’ ‘blasphemy is admirable in its completeness’ and that it ‘abolishes
every hallmark’ (1970 p4.) He defiles the name of God and the saints in his
rites. Ornstein argues that Faustus is an antichrist. As Christ became
human, Faustus wants to be a god. As Christ resisted Satan, Faustus
courts him. He even says ‘Consummatum est’ after he signs his soul away(1968.
P1383.) Calvin says of God ‘He does not …leave no hope of pardon to voluntary
sins, but … God is inexorably rigorous in punishing sacrilegious contempt thus
shown to himself’(Institutes 3.3.20.) The one sin God will not forgive is a
challenge to his authority.
It is hard to imagine how Faustus could have ‘tempted’ God more
thoroughly and perhaps Aquinas provides an explanation for his doing so, ‘man
is said to tempt, sometimes indeed merely for the sake of knowing something;
and for this reason it is a sin to tempt God; for man, being uncertain as it
were, presumes to make an experiment of God's power’(1.114:2.) John
Cox argues ‘Traditionally, damnation had been understood as a logical necessity
of divine love yet the defining characteristic of God in Dr Faustus is not love
but overwhelming power’(2000. p112.) We see this most strongly in the last
scene. In addition to one scholar warning another not to tempt God, Faustus
tells his friends ‘Gentlemen, away lest you perish with me’(44-45!) Is this a
just and loving God whom they fear will damn the good along with the evil?
Is Faustus really evil if even in his terror, he cares more about the
innocent than God does? Ornstein argues that the final scene is very different
from the earlier parody because now ‘Faustus death is a
sacrifice which, like Christ’s, reveals the divine will’ of God’s law (1968.
p1384.)
God’s
divine will in making a sacrifice of Faustus may have been in play almost from
the start according to established theology. Speaking of demons attacking man,
Aquinas says ‘The assault itself is due to the malice of the demons. But the
ordering of the assault is from God’(1.114:2.) Calvin also held this view
‘Calvin asserts that in addition to Satan’s perverted nature, his perverted
actions require God’s will and assent …sometimes he even says ‘god does not
permit but governs by his power’’ (Partee 2008 p74.) This view is
supported by Marlowe’s first chorus stating ‘Heaven conspired his
overthrow’(1:23) and Mephistopheles being rather oblique on whether he was
summoned by Faustus’ conjuration. ‘That was the cause but per
accidens’ (not the ultimate cause) (3:46.)
Interestingly, Aquinal doctrine could even explain why the middle
of the play is rather disappointing when Faustus uses his powers merely for
party tricks. ‘(D)emons cannot work miracles, nor can any creature, but God
alone’ but ‘sometimes miracle may be taken in a wide sense, for …things
which rouse man's astonishment’(1.114:4.) Demons have some showy skills but
real power belongs to God and we see the difference in the final scene.
If Faustus’ pact with Lucifer was orchestrated by God, what was his sin?
Before the advent of Mephistopheles, Faustus had determined to seek forbidden
knowledge. This is man’s ‘original sin,’ again related to power. Augustine says
to ‘warn studious and able young men…not to venture heedlessly upon the pursuit
of the branches of learning that are …beyond the pale of the Church’ (Doctrine
39.58.) Aquinas says ‘it is vicious and sinful, as being contrary to the
natural order, that any one should assume to do what is above his power’
(1.21:2) and Calvin ‘he who leans on the divine… will not, in the pursuit of
those things which men are wont most eagerly to desire, employ wicked arts
(Christian life 2.9.)
Having sold his soul at God’s instigation, could Faustus have saved
himself by repenting? McClosky argues that he could even at the end and that
his demons are simply his own despair (1942 p113) when he says ‘My God, I would
weep but the devil draws in my tears. Oh he stays my tongue. I would lift up my
hands, but see, they hold them’(30-31.) However, Faustus feels physically
prevented from repenting as soon as he has sold his soul. ‘My heart is so
hardened I cannot repent. …fearful echoes thunder in my ears’ (5:194-6) This
sounds like a Calvinist representation of God. ‘God by renewing those
whom he wills not to perish, gives them a sign of paternal favour…on the other
hand, by hardening the reprobate, whose impiety is not to be forgiven, he
thunders against them’(institutes 3.3.22.)
Marlowe undermines the doctrine which claims that all good comes from God
and all evil from the absence of God most strongly at the end of the final
scene. God’s will is shown to be identical to that of the devils and he is
present (albeit offstage) with them. Dollimore says ‘God and Lucifer seem
equally responsible in his final destruction … temporarily co-operating in his
demise’ (2010 p111.) When Faustus says ‘Oh I’ll leap up to my God! Who pulls me
down? See, see where Christ’s blood streams in the firmament!’ (69-70) he
is in the presence of both Christ and Lucifer’s demons. His addresses go back
and forth between God and Christ and Lucifer and his demons. ‘Ah my Christ. Ah,
rend not my heart for naming of my Christ’(73) and ‘I will call on him
(Christ:) Oh, spare me Lucifer!’ (74) Faustus says he can see God ‘s ‘ireful
brows’ (75) and desperately wishes to be swallowed by the earth or evaporated
and begs for some end to his eternal torture. His terror is described as
‘poignant and disturbing’ by Ornstein (1968 p1382.) As Faustus cries ‘My God!
My God! Look not so fierce upon me’(110) the devils enter, presumably at God’s
command.
Faustus’ last words are ‘I’ll burn my books’ (113) before he is taken
away and the chorus beseeches the audience ‘only to wonder at unlawful things’
(6) and not to be enticed to ‘practice more than heavenly power admits’(8.) The
ultimate evil of seeking forbidden knowledge is here contrasted against the
absolute good of eternally torturing a sympathetic human being. The play ends
abruptly without further explanation or attempt to justify Faustus’ damnation.
This is not the satisfying resolution of a morality play in which a good,
loving God triumphs over a clearly evil sinner but a deeply unsettling one in
which good and evil cannot be so traditionally allotted.
Another early modern play, fascinating in its ambiguity, is
Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Hamlet has been argued by many critics
to be so contradictory and problematic that any resolution of its issues is impossible
whilst others find deep thematic consistencies or patterns of symbolism or
metaphor from which to draw widely diverse final resolutions. I would offer one
such resolution. Hamlet has been a student in Wittenberg, the home of Martin
Luther and the play contains strong Lutheran elements. I will argue that
many things are left unresolved in his last scene but that Hamlet’s decision to
stop trying to resolve the situation perfectly constitutes a very Lutheran
resolution. It will be demonstrated that issues raised in each of Hamlet’s
soliloquys are resolved in the last scene.
Hamlet’s personality undergoes a marked change at the beginning of the
final scene which begins with his words ‘In my heart there was a kind of
fighting’ (5.2:4.) Luther writes of a form of dualism in man which is very fitting
here. ‘Man is composed of a twofold nature, a spiritual and a bodily…; as
regards the bodily nature, which they name the flesh... It is certain that
absolutely none among outward things...has any influence in producing Christian
righteousness’ (1520 CCL.)
Chris Hassel, centring his argument on Hamlet’s soliloquy in which he said ’Oh
that this too, too solid flesh should melt’(1.2:129-58) draws on a Lutheran
understanding of the flesh. To Luther, he argues, Hamlet’s agonised attempts to
resolve the situation perfectly would be evidence of his being caught in the
trap of the ‘prudence of the flesh’( 1994 p610.) To try to do the right thing
as a Christian from one’s own reasoning is doomed to failure as reason is part
of the ‘fleshly nature.’ Christian righteousness is achieved through the
‘spiritual nature’ which only comes from faith and is independent of merit or
worthiness (CCL.) Within the ‘spiritual nature’, Luther identifies a further
duality in the form of two types of righteousness. The first is external – it
comes from Christ once faith has been reposed in him and this then produces the
second, ‘Christ’s righteousness becomes our righteousness’ (1518 2KR) and only
then do good works and intentions become truly righteous and can matters be
resolved according to gods will.
After this ‘fighting,’ Hamlet’s ‘compulsion to do and know perfectly’ (Hassel
1994 p616) is gone. The next two actions of Hamlet’s are impulsive and
have positive outcomes. The opening of the letter and the boarding
the pirate ship result in his becoming aware of the plot and escaping it.
Hassel argues that Hamlet has overthrown ‘sovereign reason in favour of
God’s grace’ and we see a move in the final scene ‘from the mind of the
flesh to the prudence of the spirit’ and that the most drastic change
here is Hamlet’s ‘letting be’ and being guided by God’s will (1994 p621.)
Hamlet’s words support this ‘Praised be rashness …when our deep plots do pall:
and that should teach us there’s a divinity that shapes our ends.’ Elizabeth
Watson argues that this ‘acceptance of providence’ could be problematic as it
is an apparent shift from Lutheranism to Calvinism (2004 p489.) I would argue
that Hamlet does not speak of God directly affecting the physical world as
Calvinistic providence is understood but rather describes a Lutheran ‘miracle
of faith’ occurring in himself. That opening the letter was
an uncharacteristic decision of his is emphasised when Hamlet uses the words
‘making so bold’ and ‘forgetting my manners’ to describe it (5.2. 14-15.)
In his soliloquy in Act two Scene two Hamlet had continued to doubt
himself and rage at his own inaction ‘I am pigeon livered and lack gall’(532
-90.) Luther says of ‘those who have been placed in a responsible office
by God. It is their necessary function to punish and judge evil men…because it
is not they but God who does this (1518 2KR) In the final scene we see this new
godlike authority in Hamlet when he speaks of sentencing Guildenstern and
Rosencrantz to death with ‘no shriving time allowed’ (47) because ‘their defeat
does by their own insinuation grow… tis dangerous when the baser nature comes
between…mighty opposites’(59-62.) Hamlet further confirms his
position as rightful king and agent of God when he mentions for the first time
his uncle’s usurpation of his crown saying he ‘popp’d in between the election
and my hopes’ (65) and defends his decision to kill him. The words he
uses to do this, ‘Is’t not perfect conscience to quit him with this arm? ‘Is’t
not to be damn’d to let this canker of our nature come in further evil?’(69-70)
are strongly Lutheran. In his address to princes during the Peasants Rebellion
Luther says ‘For a prince and lord must remember in this case that he is God's
minister and the servant of his wrath (Romans XIII) …If he can punish and does
not - even though the punishment consist in the taking of life and the shedding
of blood - then he is guilty of all the murder and all the evil which these
fellows commit’(1525 ARMHP.)
Hamlet is now confident in his kingly authority under God and following
his verbal duel with the poorly armed Osric, we see further evidence he has
moved away from the prudence of the flesh in his newfound readiness to accept
death. In his soliloquy of Act 3 scene 1 Hamlet had said ‘To be or not to be:
that is the question’ (56-89) and fearfully pondered his options. Hassel says ‘
Two of Luther’s clearest symptoms of the enslaving prudence of the flesh are
also two of Hamlet’s most widely acknowledged problems, his fear of death and
his dread of Judgement’ (1994 p612.) There is no sign of these in the final
scene. ‘Thou wouldst not think how ill all’s around my heart: but it is
no matter.’ (My emphasis 197-8) ‘If it be now, tis not to come; if it
be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the
readiness is all’ (205-7.) The implication is that that Hamlet is
ready. He has received grace and is in God’s hands.
Hamlets final soliloquy before his marked change is in Act 4 Scene
4. Becoming aware of Fortinbras fighting a much smaller cause he again
bemoans his indecision and accuses himself of doing
nothing but ‘sleep and feed’ (35.) ‘Whether it be bestial oblivion or
some craven scruple of thinking too precisely on the event (40-41)…from this
point on all my thoughts be bloody’(66.) Again we have two types of
prudence of the flesh; bodily needs and human scruples. Again his words echo
Luther’s address to Princes ‘Here, then, there is no time for sleeping; no
place for patience or mercy. It is the time of the sword’(1925 ARMHP.)At this
point Hamlet commits himself to the duel which will result in the death of his
uncle, mother, Laertes and himself. Hamlet apologises to Laertes but,
significantly, distances himself from his previous actions before he had received
God’s grace ‘Was’t Hamlet wrong’d Laertes? Never Hamlet’ (218 -9.)
In the
fight which follows the queen dies from drinking from Hamlet’s poisoned cup,
Laertes and Hamlet mortally wound each other, ask each other forgiveness and
grant it and Hamlet finally slays his uncle using both methods by which he had
tried to ensure Hamlet’s death. Can this be considered a resolution of all
issues and can justice be considered to have been served? By Lutheran standards
it can. We may not know if Gertrude was involved in her husband’s death, if
Ophelia committed suicide or if the ghost of old Hamlet is now at peace but God
does. Watson argues ‘To reformers the dead need not be remembered or long
mourned but simply left to God’ (2004 p482.) Luther said ‘vigils and requiem
masses and yearly celebrations of requiems are useless, and are merely the
devil’s annual fair’ (LW p369) To try to influence God on behalf of the
dead or even to worry about the souls of the dead was to doubt God’s justice.
Claudius himself says ‘To persever in obstinate condolement is a course of
impious stubbornness…it shows a will most incorrect to heaven’(1.2:93-97.)
Throughout the conversation with Horatio in the final scene, the change
in Hamlet is emphasised by Horatio’s surprised responses. Before this the men
had understood each other well. Perhaps when Hamlet, dying, says ‘Had I but time…Oh,
I could tell you’ (329-330) he is speaking of his shift from fleshly to
spiritual nature? This would make of his final request to tell Fortinbras ’ the
occurrents more or less…the rest is silence’(350-51) an acknowledgement that
Horatio can relate the events but not the spiritual significance of them
because he has not made the shift to a spiritual nature? This would be borne
out by Horatio’s very ‘fleshly’ words to Fortinbras ‘So shall you hear of
carnal, bloody and unnatural acts’(373-4.)
If Shakespeare can be considered to have resolved all issues in Hamlet from
a Lutheran perspective, it remains uncertain whether he considered this
resolution a positive or negative one. To Edward Oakes, Hamlet is
Shakespeare’s secretly Catholic criticism of Lutheranism which ends in Hamlet’s
damnation (2010 p 13) whilst to Hassel it is a spiritual journey which ends
with his salvation (1994 p622.) The ambiguity is unlikely to be an accident and
the ability of the play to be nuanced in either direction in performance may
well be a cautious playwright’s protection in such uncertain times.
Bibliography
Aquinas. St
Thomas. (1225-1274) Summa Theologica. Christian
Classics Ethereal Library [Online] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.html (Accessed
11th December 2012)
Augustine.
Saint (354-430) City of God. Christian
Classics Ethereal Library [Online] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.toc.html (Accessed 19th December 2012)
Augustine.
Saint (354 -430) On Christian Doctrine.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library [Online] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/a/augustine/doctrine/ (Accessed 19th December 2012)
Calvin. J
(1536) Institutes of the Christian
Religion. Christian Classics Ethereal Library
[Online] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes (Accessed 14th December 2012)
Calvin. J
(1509-1564) On the Christian life.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library
[Online] Available at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/chr_life (Accessed 14th December 2012)
Cox. D.
(2000) The Devil and the Sacred in
English Drama 1350-1642. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Dollimore.J.
(2010) Radical Tragedy: Religion,
Ideology and Power in the Drama of Shakespeare and his Contemporaries. Reissued
3rd Edition. Hampshire. Palgrave Macmillan.
Hassel. C
(1994) ‘Hamlet’s too, too solid flesh.’ The
Sixteenth Century Journal. 25 (3) pp 609-622 JSTOR [Online] Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2542637 (Accessed 16th Dec 2012)
Luther. M
(1525) ‘Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants.’ [Online]
Available at: http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwardsk/hist310/reader/lutheragainst.pdf (Accessed 23rd November 2012)
(Referenced as ARMHP)
Luther. M
(1518) ‘Two kinds of Righteousness.’ Sermon. [Online] Available at: http://www.mcm.edu/~eppleyd/luther.html (Accessed 23rd November 2012)
(Referenced as 2KR)
Luther. M.
(1483 -1546) Luther’s Works, Vol. 37:
Word and Sacrament III. Philadelphia.
Fortress Press. (1999)
Luther. M.
(1520) ‘Beginning of the Treatise. Part Two’ Concerning Christian Liberty. Project
Wittenberg. [Online] Available at: http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/cclib-2.html
(Accessed 15th November 2012) (Referenced as CCL)
Marlowe. C.
(1604 Quarto) The Tragical History of
Doctor Faustus. Roma Gill’s edition based on the A text. in The Norton Anthology of English Literature:
The Sixteenth Century/ The Early Seventeenth Century: Volume B. New York.
Norton. (2006)
McCloskey.J
(1942) The Theme of Despair in Marlowe’s
Faustus. College English. 4(2) pp110-113. JSTOR. [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/370338 ( Accessed 2nd December 2012)
O’Brien. M.
(1970) ‘Christian Belief in Doctor Faustus.’ ELH 37(1) pp1-11. JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2872271 (Accessed
18th December 2012)
Oakes.
E. (2010) ‘Hamlet and
the Reformation: The Prince of Denmark as “Young Man Luther”’ Logos: A
Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 13 (1) pp. 53-78 Project Muse. Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/logos/v013/13.1.oakes.html (Accessed 19th Dec 2012)
Ornstein. O.
(1968) ‘Marlowe and God: The Tragic Theology of Dr Faustus.’ PMLA 83(5) pp1378-1385 JSTOR
[Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1261310 (Accessed 5th December 2012)
Partee. C.
(2008) The Theology of John Calvin. Google Books.[Online] Available at: http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_Theology_of_John_Calvin.html?id=O9dwNotog3gC&redir_esc=y (Accessed 17th November
2012)
Shakespeare.
W. (Circa 1601) Hamlet. Hertfordshire.
Wordsworth Editions Limited (1992)
Watson. E
(2004) ‘Old King, New King, Eclipsed Sons and Abandoned Alters in Hamlet’ The Sixteenth Century Journal. 35 (2)
pp475-491 JSTOR [Online] Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20476945 (Accessed 16th Dec 2012)
