(Sorry if this doesn't fit in with the Arc of the Rainforest discussion; thought I'd publish the backlog of posts I needed to make up for.)
One of the aspects that
makes the Faust Legend so intriguing is that the story does not belong to any
singular author. Rather, countless poets
and playwrights have contributed to the story of Faust, adding their own distinctive
interpretations to the growing mythology of Faust. What this presents is a unique opportunity to
compare these different interpretations of Faust in order to construct a view
of what the world was like for its authors.
Perhaps the best examples are Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus and
Goethe’s Faust, two works published
over 200 years apart from each other.
Thought they share the same subject, it’s clear that the two works are
worlds apart.
 |
| A unique take on the Faust Legend |
In Marlowe’s version of
the legend, dating back to the 16th century, there’s a tone of
condemnation for Doctor Faustus; rather than admirable, his pursuit of knowledge
is seen as a sign of hubris. Marlowe
even goes as far as comparing the tale of Faustus to that of Icarus, the Greek
Hero who flew too close to the sun and plummeted to his death as a result. This all boils down to the strong church
influence during the period; the clergy still had a stranglehold on the arts
and sciences during the 1500’s, and it shows quite clearly in Marlowe’s
work. The knowledge that Faust seeks is
portrayed as black magic rather than scientific discovery. Anything beyond the scope the Church’s approval
is condemned as Satanic in origin. By seeking
knowledge beyond Church control, Marlowe portrays Faustus ad sacrificing his
sanctity.
This is hardly the only
method of portraying Faust, however.
Upon comparing it to Gothe’s version, we see an entirely new perspective
on the legend. For example, Faust’s
pursuit of knowledge is never demonized, and in fact is not the driving force
behind the play. Instead, the agreement
is existential in origin, with Faust wanting more out of life, not
knowledge. This reflects two clear
changes from the time of Faustus. The
first is the liberalization of scientific purist; in 1808, science was no
longer curtailed by the Church. Those
who sought after knowledge no longer had to fear being accused of having a pact
with the devil; in fact, Faust, an Alchemist, has the respect and admiration of
the town. The second change is the Romanticism
of the story; Faust is a Romantic Hero, swayed and driven by emotion, compared
to Faustus’s hubris. These differences
not only greatly alter the tone of the piece, but reflect the highly different
times in which the stories were published.
I definitely think that Faust was trying to do the right thing. But that it also because of the version that we read in class. It does depend on what perspective one writes from in how Faust's intentions are portrayed. I certainly see Faust's intentions as honorable throughout most of the story. Although I do see a bit of lust in his intentions as well, I feel that the over all good in him, the part where he wants to help his town from dieing overtakes his humanly lust. And of course it is only human to lust after a girl if she has beauty.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely a personal conclusion on whether or not you consider Faust's motives sympathetic, though I do feel the more modern approach we read was leaning far more towards that sympathetic side than the "traditional" interpretation of the legend. Just goes to show how much opinions have changed over the centuries.
Delete