Personifications of Evil in Early Modern Literature
Personifications of Evil in Early Modern Literature
Outline
Introduction
I. The devil as a personification of evil
1. The devil: definitions
2. Belief in Devils and Demons during the Early Modern Period
II. Early Modern Morality Plays
1. Morality Plays as a genre
2. Society in the fifteenth century
3. The Castle of Perseverance (ca 1400)
1. Appearance, number and hierarchy of the devil and the vices
2. Function of the devil
4. Wisdom, who is Christ (ca 1465)
3.1 Appearance, number and hierarchy of the devil and the vices
3.2 Function of the devil
5. Mankind (ca 1465)
4.1 Appearance, number and hierarchy of the devil and the vices
4.2 Function of the devil
III. Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus (1592)
1. Tragedy as a genre
2. Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus: A and B text
3. Society in the sixteenth century
4. Humanist World Picture and Protestantism
5. The Unholy Trinity: Lucifer, Belzebub and Mephostophilis
6. The relationship between Faustus and Mephostophilis
7. Hell and Mephostophilis’s suffering
IV. John Milton’s Paradise Lost (1674)
1. The Epic Genre
2. Milton and Criticism
3. Restoration, Arminism and Milton
4. Satan: Hero or Anti-hero?
5. Satan as tempter of the Angels
6. Satan as tempter of Eve
7. The Unholy Trinity: Satan, Sin and Death
8. God, Christ and Satan
9. Satan’s inner hell
Conclusion
V. Zusammenfassung auf deutsch
VI. Bibliography
Personifications of Evil in Early Modern Literature
Introduction
The purpose of my work is to give a survey of personifications of evil in the figure of the devil from the period of roughly 1400 to 1700. I am not going to include characters with devilish features like Richard III and Macbeth. I am going to examine how evil is depicted in the late English Morality Plays The Castle of Perseverance, Wisdom and Mankind in the figures of the devil and the vices. Then I am going to analyse the depiction of Mephostophilis, Lucifer and Belzebub in Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, and finally the depiction of Satan in Paradise Lost.
In the Early Modern Period one can observe huge changes in the depiction of evil, and I am going to show these changes and to try to find some reasons for them. For that purpose I am also going to give a survey about the historical background of societal changes, religious belief and superstitions.
The devil as a personification of evil
1 The devil: definitions
Interesting enough, the legend of the fall of Lucifer has no biblical basis. It can only be found in the apocrypha, and a similar legend of a war in heaven can be found in the Revelation of John. Yet it has some parallels with widespread Pagan sources of a rebellion within the family of gods:
“The opposition of Lucifer to the Lord has an analogy in that of Vrita to Indra in Hindu mythology, of Ahriman to Ormuzd in Persian mythology, of Set to Horus in Egyptian mythology, of Prometheus to Zeus in Greek mythology and of Loki to the gods of Asgardh in Scandinavian mythology.[1]
The analogy to Prometheus is especially striking: Prometheus evoked Zeus’s wrath by bringing fire to humanity; Lucifer means the lightbringer. The fire made the development of civilisation possible; Lucifer persuaded Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. Prometheus was chained to a rock in the Caucasus, and Lucifer was cast into hell. The difference is that Prometheus is a positive figure. The other gods mentioned in the quote above suffer a similar fate as Prometheus and Lucifer.
“In this manner, the Devil entered into human thought and has remained to this day. The Fiend is thus the incarnation of human frenzy. The human mind fell a prey to its own fear.”[2]
The devil can also be traced back to an animistic concept of nature, where the work of good and evil spirits were seen behind natural events. As this old thought concept developed, the benevolent spirits were seen as subordinated to a good god and the malevolent spirits as subordinated to an evil god.
In Hebrew religion Satan was an adjutant of God and only later became blended with the devil. Also the Phoenician God Baal-Zebub, or Belzebub, contributed to the concept of the devil. The blending of Satan with Lucifer followed a misinterpretation of a biblical passage.[3]
The legend of the fall of Lucifer, according to Jewish and Christian writers, is as follows:
“Lucifer was the chief of the Cherubs, the most beautiful, powerful and wise of the angels. But because his beauty, might and intelligence far surpassed all other beings he became proud and thought that he might as well take God’s place, since there was hardly any difference between them. So he started a rebellion in heaven, leading a third of the angels into war. In a fierce battle Lucifer and his followers were beaten and cast into hell.” [4]
The different records vary in details:
“In the medieval mysteries, Lucifer, as the governor of the heavens, is represented as seated next to the Eternal, who warns the high official of heaven: “Touch not my throne by none assent.” But as soon as the Lord leaves his seat, Lucifer, swelling with pride, sits down on the throne of heaven. The archangel Michael, indignant over the audacious act of Lucifer, takes up arms against him and finally succeeds in driving him out of heaven down into the dark and dismal dwelling reserved for him from all eternity.”[5]
According to the Talmud, Satan’s sin was not rivalry with God but his envy of man: he refused to bow before Adam after his creation as God had ordered. The Koran has a similar account about a rebellious angel: When Allah created man, he called his angels to bow to him, but Eblis refused and was banished from heaven for failing to obey the command of Allah.
The orthodox Christian teaching, however, says that the creation of man followed the fall of Lucifer in an attempt to refill the empty ranks in the lines of the angels.
The legend of Lucifer is an attempt to explain how evil came into the world, but it brings up the question of why an omnipotent and omniscient God created a being which would bring evil into the world. Either God did not know that Lucifer would turn evil, but then he is not omniscient, or he knew and created him anyway, but then he is not good.
Theologists of all times sought for solutions to that problem, and an interesting one is that of Dionysius, which is close to pantheism:
“Things truly exist because they exist in God. It is less true to say that God creates the world ex nihilo than to say that God produces it out of its own being. [...] All exists in God and of God’s love and knowledge. All is God in a sense, but God also surpasses all totally. God is transcendent as well as immanent.”[6]
The concept of evil is derived from this concept of God as follows:
“Evil cannot come from God, since it is a contradiction of God, and it cannot be an independent principle, since all that is comes from God. Evil is therefore literally nothing in itself. It is merely a deficiency, a lack, a privation in what is. Good comes from the one universal cause; evil from many partial deficiencies. Evil is a lack of good: it has no substantial being but only a shadow of being.”[7]
Dionysius worked out this highly sophisticated concept as early as 500 AD, but the general public preferred the picture of the devil with horns, cloven feet and a tail.
2 Belief in devils and demons
The belief in devils, ghosts and demons was widely spread during the Early Modern Period. Popular belief held that the air was swarming with invisible demons at all times.
Yet there were differences in the concept of the devil between Popular Religion and Protestant belief. In Popular books, the Devil was often depicted as funny, ridiculous, as a fool who could be tricked. Popular books of that time are abundant of stories in which simple people sign a contract with the devil, trick him to keep his part but then outwit him so that he does not get their soul in the end.
Protestants often told of devils visiting them at night to tempt and frighten them into renouncing their faith. Many records tell of the devil appearing in misshapen form in the depth of night while the believer was engaged in prayer and contemplation:
“At a psychological level, the visions experienced by godly protestants were probably an expression of the acute tensions imposed by the practice of godly religion. The intensely introspective nature of devout Protestantism, combined with its assumption that the human mind was innately wicked, could make individuals vulnerable to depression and attacks of mental anxiety. This danger was particularly marked at those times of solitary prayer and meditation when the devil’s appearances were most commonly reported.”[8]
Furthermore Oldrigde argues that the extensive fasting and lack of sleep might have deceived the senses of men, and that the absence of reliable spectacles for people with a poor eye-sight and a vivid imagination might have contributed to those visions.[9]
The belief in the devil’s power to insert sinful thoughts into the human mind also had its advantages, as it allowed the individuals to resolve themselves of the responsibility for unchristian ideas inside their own minds, as they could put the blame on Satan.
Renaissance records relate a lot about obsession or possession, the entering of evil spirits into human bodies. Even at school the exorcism was to be learned because every human being was believed to be prone to diabolical influences[10].
Thomas Spalding names interesting reasons for the persistency of the belief in obsession:
“The two signs by which the “learned physicion” recognised diabolic intervention were: first, the preternatural appearance of the disease from which the patient was suffering; and secondly, the inefficacy of the remedies applied. In other words, if the leech encountered any disease the symptoms of which were unknown to him, or if, through some unforeseen circumstances, the drug he prescribed failed to operate in its accustomed manner, a case of demonical possession was considered to be conclusively proved, and the medical man was merged in the magician.”[11]
Thus, the lack of medical knowledge did its part in the prevalence of the belief in possession, in a way that illnesses and diseases were attributed to diabolical influences. Yet, curiously enough, it was believed that the devil had no power to actually kill a person unless he or she had renounced God before[12]. Since most records of demoniac possession relate that the victim was cured in the end, the treatment of the exorcists must have been at least as successful as that of the later psychiatrists[13]. This can be explained by the Placebo-effect. Today studies show that patients who are given a fake medicament with the assurance that it helps against the illness, often get well within a span of time. This can be ascribed to the healing power of suggestion, and similarly the victims of possession during the Early Modern Period were cured because they believed in the effectiveness of the method.
Many cases of possession showed strong theatrical elements, in fact “it seemed that both the possessed and their spiritual doctors were acting out socially determined roles.”[14] The role of the victim bore many advantages: it provided the victim with a large audience, and for a while he or she was in the centre of attention[15]. It also served as an opportunity to utter thoughts and desires which were otherwise socially unacceptable[16]. Also, we know from the conduct books of the seventeenth century that household education was often repressive: games, stage plays, songs and love books were seen as the snares of the devil, so demoniac possession provided an outlet for rebellion[17], especially as possession most often happened to young people or women. These reasons might at least subconsciously have attributed to the high number of possessions.
An interesting form of possession was that of the succubi or incubi. Those spirits were thought to haunt people in their sleep and infect them with erotic dreams. This belief sprang up as a result of the suppression of sexuality in Christian Faith:
“From the very earliest period of the Christian era the affection of one sex for the other was considered to be under the special control of the devil. Marriage was tolerated; but celibacy was the state most conducive to the near intercourse with heaven that was so dearly sought after. [...] The futile attempt to imitate His [Christ’s] immaculate purity blinded their eyes to the fact that He never taught or encouraged celibacy among His followers, and this led them to the conclusion that the passion which, sublimed and brought under control, is the source of man’s noblest and holiest feelings, was a prompting proceeding from the author of all evil.”[18]
While possession and obsession were assaults by devils against the afflicted person’s will, the practice of witchcraft and magic was thought to be conducted only after a pact with the devil, in which the witch sold her soul for the exchange of superhuman powers[19]. The witches were thought to meet in congregations and celebrate a parody of the Holy Mass, in which the devil was personally present.
A modern theory about witchcraft is that the original witches were followers of a pre-Christian tradition. What speaks for it is that many Pagan Gods resemble our picture of Satan:
“From the Celtic religion, for example, came the “horned god of the west,” Cernunnos, lord of fertility, and hunt, and the underworld. Cernunnos, somewhat similar in traits and appearance to the Greco-Roman Pan, was assimilated to the Devil in much the same way as Pan.”[20]
Yet one must keep in mind that this theory is not proved yet, and that certainly most so-called witches were not members of an ancient religion, but they were rather old, mostly ugly women, who served as a scapegoat for crop failure and other disasters. Reginald Scott gives an overview over the characteristics of so-called witches:
“One sort of such as are said to bee witches, are women which be commonly old, lame, bleare-eied, pale, fowle, and full of wrinkles; poore, sullen, superstitious, and papists; or such as knowe no religion: in whose drousie minds the divell hath gotten a fine seat; so as, what mischeefe, mischance, calamitie, or slaughter is brought to passe, they are easilie persuaded the same is done by themselves; imprinting in their minds an earnest and constant imagination thereof. [...] in tract of time the witch wareth odious and tedious to hir neihbors; and they againe are despised and despited by hir: so as sometimes she curseth one, and sometimes another. [...] Thus in the processe of time they have all displeased hir, and she hath wished evill lucke unto them all”[21]
So when someone fell sick or a crop failure occurred, the weird old women were made to scapegoats.
The belief in the existence of fairies and elves survived from pre-Christian times, but their activities were reinterpreted as the work of Satan[22]. Fairies were held do be a sort of small devils, but less malevolent than demons were usually perceived.
Generally spoken, popular religion was a blend of Catholic and Protestant thought mixed up with traditional assumptions and relicts of Pagan times[23].
Any attempt to show a coherent survey of the beliefs of the Early Modern Period must bear in mind that it was a period of change and that many conflicting beliefs co-existed at the same time, and that different people held opposing views.
Early modern Morality Plays
1 Morality Plays as a genre
The English Morality Play is a genre that is predominant in England and does not exist to the same extent on the continent. It developed around the same time as the mystery plays and the miracle plays in the late fourteenth century, an era in which a growing secularisation took place. This secularisation shows in the shifting out of the ecclestial influence of the plays and in the replacement of Latin with English.
Morality Plays stage the struggle of good and evil forces for the human soul. The centre of the action is a human being with an allegorical name like mankind, humanum genus or everyman in order to show that this concerns virtually everyone. At the beginning of the play he is in harmony with God, but then the so-called vice figures, the World, The Fiend and the Flesh, the seven deadly sins and other vices lure him into sin. The play usually ends with mankind’s death, the repentance of his sins and the salvation of his soul through God’s mercy.
The plays follow a didactic end, to remind the audience of the everyday temptations, to teach them to avoid sinning, and to remind them to repent if they fall into sin anyway. The instruction of the audience is the major goal of these plays, but they also serve the purpose of entertainment. The writers of the plays knew well that they could only catch the audience’s attention if they entertained them and that moral instruction in a boring play that no one listened to was useless, thus these plays include a lot of slapstick-like humour.[24]
2 Society in the FIfteenth century
The fifteenth century was the threshold between the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. During the Middle Ages the society had been clearly divided into three estates: the Commons, the Chivalry and the Clerks[25]. This division remained, but social mutability set in, and it was both possible for citizens to climb upwards in the hierarchy or to sink down[26].
After the plague the population had shrunk. Yet with less mouths to feed, it was easier to maintain that there was enough food for the survivors. Also, the money supply was distributed to less people so that everyone had more of it. Because the demand for agricultural goods sank a lot of fields were turned into sheep pastures. This prepared the way for the later industrial revolution, though at that time it was not greeted cheerfully by all English[27]. The enclosure was to a huge part responsible for the social mutability:
“Out of these changes came the rise of the prosperous middle class, with its ambition for improved living conditions and the confidence in its own powers of attaining them. For the nobility there came the threat of having their places at Court and the attendant financial and social benefits usurped by these upstarts, plus the danger of losing their lands, which were the foundation of all they had. For the lower classes these things brought inspiration, in a measure, by showing that men’s estates can change, that there can be certain movements within the hierarchy of man.”[28]
The higher class saw these changes as threats and was very worried about it, while the lower and middle class hoped for an improvement of their situation.
After the hundred years war against France, the Rose Wars in England started, lasting thirty years from 1455 to 1485. The people longed for peace, which settled an ideal environment for the establishment of the Tudor Myth. In this, the struggles between the Houses of Lancaster and York are perceived as a part of the eternal struggle between Good and Evil Forces. Under Richard II the intact state crumbles, and the seizing of power by the House of Lancaster appears as a divine penance, taking its high point under the domination of Richard III, but ends following God’s divine plan with the reinstalment of order by the House of Tudor[29].
The wars of the fifteenths century were the reason why there were less literary achievements in England than on the continent. On the other hand, the loosening of feudalism led to an establishment of an early civil culture, showing in the mystery and in the morality plays of the guilds. From the point of the history of ideas, England stayed longer within the medieval world view.
3 The Castle of Perseverance
1 Appearance and number of the devils, hierarchy of devils and vices
It is difficult to say how exactly stage devils in the Middle Ages looked like, because plays of the time hardly had any stage directions. Wilhelm Bomke tried to reconstruct the costumes of stage devils by reading budget plans of the guilds of that time:
“Vom Material her sind die Gewänder durchaus verschieden. Neben den Federn Chesters verdienen die Haare Coventrys besondere Beachtung. Trotz der hohen Summe, die für sie 1572 bezahlt wurde, konnten rührige Produzenten dieses Material sicherlich kostenlos auftreiben. Beide Grundstoffe wurden vermutlich mit Leim oder Teer auf alltäglichen Kleidungsstücken befestigt.”[30]
Furthermore he assumes that the actors were wearing masks with horns.[31] Also he points out that one can assume that the stage devils looked similarly to the devils in painting:
“Dies gilt auch für die Wechselwirkung zwischen Bühne und bildender Kunst. Die Tatsache, daß gewisse Grundzüge über sehr lange Zeit allen Darstellungen der bösen Geister gemeinsam sind, läßt deren Verbindlichkeit auch für die Dramenfiguren gesichert erscheinen. Diese sind Hörner, eine animalische Fratze, eine schwarze oder seltener rote Farbe und oft eine fellartige, struppige Körperbehaarung. Der Spielraum bei der Verwirklichung solch relativ unspezifischer Vorgaben ist sehr groß.”[32]
The Castle of Perseverance differs from other plays in so far as the Folio 191 of the manuscript includes a stage diagram with stage directions. It says about Belyal, the devil:
“And he that schal pley Belyal loke that he have gunne-powdyr brennynge in pypys in hys handys and an hys erys and in hys ars whanne he gothe to batayl.”[33]
Thus we know that in this play some special effects to excite the audience were added to the devil’s costume. Fire was often seen as connected with the devil (fires of hell, e.g.). We do not know for certain the other aspects of the devil’s costume in The Castle of Perseverance, but we can assume that it was the usual one with horns, tail, and cloven feet.
[pic]
appearance of the devil, Oldridge p. 57
In the hierarchy of devils and vices Belyal is not on the highest position. The scheme is as follows:
Mundus Caro Belyal
- Voluptas - Gula - Superbia
- Stulticia - Luxuria - Ira
- Detraccio - Accidia - Invidia
Independent figures are Avaricia and Malus Angelus.
The distinction of the enemies of mankind into the world, the flesh and the fiend is traditional. Christian faith is inherently opposed to worldly and sexual pleasures, hence the world and the flesh are seen as roads to perdition. Submitted to the world are the vice figures Voluptas, Stulticia and Detraccio. Other than the servants of Caro and Belyal these are not parts of the seven deadly sins, but vices that lead to sin.
Submitted to the flesh are body-related sins like gluttony, lechery and sloth. The servants of Belyal are the sins for which he has fallen: pride, wrath and envy.
Malus Angelus is not submitted to Belyal, as he acts on his own: He wins Humanum Genus to the world and sinful life all by himself, and after Humanum Genus is rescued by the Seven Virtues, it is Malus Angelus who tells Backbyter to inform the World, the Flesh and the Fiend and to ask them to join him in the battle for the human soul.
“Flepyrgebet, ronne up-on a rasche:
Byd the Werld, the Fend, and the Flesche
That they com to fytyn fresche
To wynne ageyn Mankynde.”[34]
Thus he is hardly one of Belyal’s servants, but acts out of his own decision. At the death of Humanum Genus, Malus Angelus delights in the pain Humanum Genus will suffer in hell and drags him to Belyal’s staffold.
“I schal fonde the to greve
And putte the in pey[nn]ys plow.
Have this, and evyl mote thou scheve,
For thou seydst nevere ‘i-now, i-now’
Thus lache I thee thus lowe.
Thow thou kewe as a kat,
For thi coveytyse have thou that!
I schal the bunche wyth my bat
And rouge the on a rowe.”[35]
Malus Angelus is the bad angel that is put to Mankind’s side like the good angel, one to draw him to evil, the other to draw him to good. Some critics assume that they are allegories of conflicts of conscience, but I would not be too sure about that, as it is an assumption made out of our contemporary world picture, in which the spiritual world is perceived as superstition. Since the people at that time believed in the existence of Guardian Angels and in the presence of evil spirits who tempt human beings, Bonus Angelus and Malus Angelus might very well represent exactly what their names tell: a good angel and a bad angel or a devil.
Another figure independent of the hierarchy is Avarice, one of the seven deadly sins. Avarice is crucial on Humanum Genus’s second fall into sin: he argues that in old age poor people are badly off, and he should collect as much money as possible to lead a comfortable life. Humanum Genus believes in his – rational – arguments and follows his advice.
But why is avarice depicted as independent from the world, the flesh and the fiend?
One can assume that Greed prepositions the other sins: the sins of the flesh, greed for food and drink, greed for sexual pleasures and greed for comfort; then it leads to the sins of the devil, pride on what one achieved, envy for what other people achieved and anger, if one does not get what one desires.
Another unusual figure is Backbyter or Detraccio, as he subverts the hierarchy. He wilfully causes quarrel between the evil characters when he reports Humanum Genus’s retreat into the Castle of Perseverance. He utters joy at the opportunity of causing unrest:
“I go, I go on grounde glad,
Swyftyr thanne schyp wyth rodyr.
I make men masyd and mad,
And every man to kyllyn odyr
Wyth a sory chere.
I am glad, be Seynt Jamys of Galys,
Of schrwednes to telly talys
Bothyn in Ingelond and in Walys,
And feyth I have many a fere.”[36]
In these lines he informs the audience about his role and about his joy in causing trouble. When he informs Belyal, Caro and Mundus, Backbyter twists the truth in a way that manipulates them to punish their servants. For example, to Caro he says:
“Ya, for God, owt I crye
On thi too sonys and this dowtyr yynge:
Glotoun, Slawthe, and Lechery
Hath put me in gret mornynge.
They let Mankynd gon up hye
In-to yene castle at hys lykynge,
Ther-in for to leve and ye,
With tho ladys to make endynge,
Tho flourys fayre and fresche.”[37]
Other than the other vice-figures, he not only describes his vice verbally, he also shows through his actions which vice he represents. Also, Backbyter is seen as a specially contemporary vice:
“Wyth every wyth I walke and wende
And every man now lovyth me wele.”[38]
Special stress is to be put on “now”, meaning that now, at this moment, people in England and Wales are especially prone to backbyting. It was the time when the first glimpses of the Humanist World Picture set in, which put a special stress on rhetoric, yet the Church was still critical to this gift:
“Backbyter constitutes and is constituted by an Augustinian conception of evil that is inextricably bound up with ambivalence and, in turn, with the ambivalent nature of rhetoric.”[39]
To sum up, the devil Belyal is not at the highest place in the hierarchy, but shares this place with the world and the flesh. Malus Angelus and Avaricia are independent figures, while Backbyter subverts the hierarchy.
2 Function of the devil
Delectare and prodesse is an antique requirement on literature many medieval authors tried to fulfil, too.[40]
The function of instruction is fulfilled by the devils and vices by giving warnings of the eternal damnation that awaits the soul of the sinner. It is confusing for modern readers that Mankind’s soul is saved even though he persisted in sin until his dying hour, but Mankind’s cry for mercy in his last hour was for Medieval people enough to be salvaged:
“A corollary of this one-sided emphasis upon divine mercy was the implication that despair is a more serious sin than presumption. The sin of presumption is a great danger, but it at least can be amended. The man who despairs of God’s mercy, however, is like a sick man who refuses all medicine. He cannot be cured no matter how devoted the doctor.”[41]
The play carefully keeps the balance between reminding the audience that they can trust in God's mercy and warning them of sinning. The devil and vice figures give negative examples on how not to behave: They insult and offend the virtues, swear, and Backbyter even gives an example of causing disharmony between his equals. An example of the language they use is here:
“Ya, the Devyl spede you, al the packe!
For sorwe I morne on the mowle.
I carpe, I crye, I coure, I kacke,
I frete, I fart, I fesyl fowle.”[42]
In this, they also fulfil the second aspect of medieval drama: to entertain. Without doubt the bawdy speeches, the quarrelling among each other, the physical punishment of the vices, the intrigues between the vice figures had a very comical effect on a medieval audience. The devil and the vice figures were the only ones who could provide humorist moments in the play, as the virtues always had to keep their dignity. Most of the humour is slapstick-like, or it is gloating about the vices’ misfortune, or it is inherent in the ill-mannered talk of the vices.
I will now analyse the function of the devil figure Belyal. Belyal is comical in his self-introduction, but it is a comic that does not make us laugh with him, but about him:
“Now I sytte, Satanas, in my sad synne,
As deuyl dowty, in draf as a drake.
I champe and I cha[f]e, I choke on my chynne,
I am boystows and bold, as Belyal the blake.”[43]
In his speech pride and despair mix, he is both a fearsome and a pathetic figure. There is no possibility to identify with him or to feel with him, the audience laughs about him and thus overcomes their very real fear of the devil.
The descriptions of him by other stage characters serve as a lesson in theology:
“For whanne Lucyfer to helle fyl,
Pride, ther-of thou were chesun,
And thou, Devyl, wyth wyckyd wyl
In paradys trappyd us wyth tresun.
So thou us bond in balys ille,
This may I preve be ryth resun,
Tyl this duke that dyed on hylle
In hevene man myth nevere han sesun;
The gospel thus declaryt.”[44]
We can not know whether Belyal’s pyrotechnical entrance had the same grotesque-comical effect on a late medieval audience as it has on us. It is possible that at a time when people firmly believed in the threats of the devil this rather invoked fear than laughter. All included, Belyal’s role serves both as a reminder of the terrible fate of sinners, as an opportunity to laugh about ones own fears for a catharsis-like effect, and as an entertaining device.
[pic]
hell, Oldrigde, p. 67
4 Wisdom, who is christ
4.1 Appearance and number of the devils, hierarchy of devils and vices
Wisdom was composed around 1465-1470, more than half a century after The Castle of Perseverance.[45] It has an unusual high number of stage directions.
The entrance of Lucifer is announced as follows: “And aftyr the songe entreth Lucyfer in a devyllys aray wythowt and wythin as a prowde galonte, seynge thus on thys wyse”[46]. The devil’s costume is not further described, but we can assume that it is similar to the iconography of that time. Definitively it was hideously disfigured, as the stage direction for the entry of Anima after the successful temptation by Lucifer says: “Here Anima apperythe in the most horrible wyse, fowlere than a fende.”[47] (my emphasis)
Lucifer, who is hideous now, remembers the times when he was the most beautiful angel:
“I was an angell of lyghte;
Lucyfeer I hyght,
Presumynge in Godys syght,
Wherfor I am lowest in hell.”[48]
Other than in The Castle of Perseverance his reasons for corrupting mankind are more than just pure spite:
“For envy I lore.
My place to restore
God hath mad a man.
All cum they not thore,
Woode and they wore,
I shall tempte hem so sorre,
For I am he that syn begane.”[49]
The legend that Lucifer is envious of mankind for being created to fill the ranks of angels that Lucifer and his followers emptied comes into use here. Also Lucifer is depicted as the creator of sin, the reason for evil.
Like the vices in Perseverance Lucifer informs the audience about his plans:
“But, for to tempte man in my lyknes,
Yt wolde brynge hym to grett feerfullnes,
I wyll change me into bryghtnes,
And so hym to-begyle,”[50]
The audience is made to Lucifer’s accessory, a practise that is still of use in Shakespeare’s Richard III.
Lucifer first dazzles the three parts of the soul, Mind, Will and Understanding, by his appearance, then tempts them by clever arguments to leave the contemplative life and lead a vita mixta. He greatly overestimates the dangers of contemplative life[51], and argues that Christ himself led a Vita Mixta and that man should imitate him to get God’s grace:
“And all hys lyff was informacyon
Ande example to man.
Sumtyme wyth synners he had conversacyon;
Sumtyme wyth holy also comunycacyon;
Sumtyme he laboryde, preyde; sumtyme tribulacyon;
Thys was vita mixta that Gode here began;
Ande that lyff shulde ye here sewe.”[52]
Quite unusual is that Mind, Will and Understanding themselves become personifications of vices after the temptation by Lucifer: As Mayntennance, Perjury and Fornycacyon they sing and dance together with dump dancers, who personify sins related to them.
There are even more silent characters: seven small boys “in the lyknes of dewyllys”[53] who run out from under the disfigured Anima’s coat, signifying the seven deadly sins.
4.2 Function of the devil
The function of instruction is prevailed to Wisdom: he gives long speeches explaining religious concepts and instructions on how to behave, what to avoid by warning Anima of the temptations of the flesh[54] and of the soul’s three enemies, the world, the flesh and the fiend[55].
Like in Dionisius’s theology mentioned in II.1., evil is seen as a privation of good: “why lovyst that ys nought?”[56]
The function of Lucifer is filling the role of the tempter. He reminds the audience that even sins that seem small lead to the destruction of the soul, that one can argue in a way that makes sinning look reasonable, that one has to beware of false advice and that false friends are often disguised by a beautiful shell.
It is notable that Lucifer is in no way funny or grotesque like Belyal in The Castle of Perseverance. The humorist parts are played by Mind, Will and Understanding once they have turned to Maintenance, Fornication and Perjury. The dance of the vices both signifies the sinfulness of song and dance and serves as entertainment for the audience. Even more, it culminates into a social satire by many allusions on contemporary London.
“The ryche covetouse wo dare blame,
Off govell and symony thow he bere the name?
To be fals, men report yt game;
Yt ys clepyse wysdom, “Ware that” quod Ser Wyly.”[57]
Lucifer’s role in this play is a serious reminder of the everyday temptations.
5. Mankind
1 Appearance, number and hierarchy of the devil and the vices
Mankind, written about the same time as Wisdom, is very different from it with its emphasis on grotesque humour, but more to that later.
The only good figure in the play is Mercy, who says about the vice-figures in the play:
“Ye have thre adversaryis and he ys mayster of hem all:
That ys to sey, the Devell, the World, the Flesch and the Fell.
The New Gyse, Nowadayis, Nowgth, the World we may hem call;
And propyrly Titivillus sygnyfyth the Fend of helle;”[58]
Interesting is that in that speech the vice-figures are clearly defined as allegories, as the verb to signify states.
Titivillus’s costume is not further specified: “dressed as a devil with a net”[59]. The net is an allusion to his action of catching sinners.
For a medieval audience this name was more familiar, as it was also a name of a devil in a play of the Towneley Cycle[60], and as he was a popular figure in the medieval exempla-literature. In this he never was one of the lords among the devils but rather low in the hierarchy.[61]
He introduces himself as “Ego sum dominancium dominus and my name is Titivillus”[62], but neither legend nor the text give us any hint that he is an important devil, quite on the contrary. The author of Mankind did not choose one of the more important devils, as Satan, Lucifer or Belyal, but one who is lower in the hierarchy, the everyday-devil who tempts ordinary people.
He is called upon by the Vice-figures New Gyse, Nowadays and Nought, who collect money from the audience to lure him on stage. The Vice-figures then try to trick him by claiming that they have no pence, but Titivillus sees through their lies. Nevertheless he pretends to be falling for their lies to show the audience what tricksters they are. The tricksters are tricked by him.[63]
Though the Vice-figures signifying the world are not shown as servants to him, Titivillus is always superior to them. They ask him to avenge the beatings they have received by Mankind, and Titivillus asks them in return to go through the country and steal and sin[64]. He then tempts Mankind to leave his work, fall into idleness and give in to the temptations of the flesh. He offers no explanation why he wants to tempt Mankind to sin; he just does so because he is a devil, but he never says he wants to win souls to hell or that he is envious as the devil-figures in the plays above.
Titivillus has supernatural powers: he can turn invisible at will, as he does in the temptation scene, and he can turn the soil of Mankind’s field hard. The hexing of Mankind’s soil and his seed is reminiscent of the accusations that were made to witches. The fact that Titivillus whispers his temptations in Mankind’s ear is a result of the widespread belief or rather excuse that, when sinful thoughts enter a Christian mind, they were whispered to him by the devil.
Like Lucifer in Wisdom he informs the audience of his plans, first in a soliloquy, then in asides during the action: “Qwyst! Pesse! I shall go to hys ere and tytyll therin.”[65]
When Mankind is asleep, he whispers in his ear that Mercy has stolen a horse and is hanged for it, thus driving Mankind to despair of Mercy. As shown in the analysis of The Castle of Perseverance, despair was seen as a more serious sin than presumption.
As the devil often does in mystery and morality plays, he turns Christian rites upside down: To New Gyse, Nowadays and Nought he says: “I blysse yow wyth my lyfte honde: foull yow befall!”[66]
A blessing would have been done with the right hand as the left hand was seen as the devil’s hand; instead of blessing he curses them.
5.2 Function of the devil
The main function of this play is entertainment, as the stress on humour shows. Except of Mercy all figures are comical, even Mankind, who is not the brightest and easily gets overpowered by Titivillus, and Mankind’s beating up of the vices also had an amusing effect on the audience.
Titivillus is a comical character, but in contrast to Belyal in The Castle of Perseverance we do not laugh about him, but with him. When he sees through the betrayal of the vices but pretends not to, this certainly has an amusing effect. Also, in his sneaking up to Mankind, stealing his seeds and his spades he appears more as a joker than as a devil.
Similarly New Gyse, Nowadays and Nought are comical figures with their excessive jokes and their idle language. Yet they also serve as a negative example to the audience: it is made clear that their behaviour is far from being godly. They also serve as a reminder not to mix with people who are sinful, because they can tempt them to sinful behaviour themselves. This is especially drastically shown when they ask the audience to sing a song with them:
“Now I prey all the yemandry that ys here
To synge with us wyth mery chere:”
Nought offers, and the first line of the song is harmless enough:
“Yt ys wretyn wyth a coll, yt ys wretyn wyth a cole”
Nowadays and New Gyse repeat the line, and certainly a huge part of the audience was singing along. But already the next line is shocking in its drastic indecency:
“He that schytyth wyth hys hoyll, he that schytyth wyth hys hoyll”[67]
The audience was tempted to sing along a naughty song, and shown how easily one is tempted to sin.
Similarly Titivillus’s temptation of Mankind may be funny, but it also shows how attentive Christians must be not to fall into the devil’s snare. Titivillus is a very real danger in that Mankind does not even see him.
Christopher marlowe’s Doctor Faustus
1 Tragedy as a genre
Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus was written about 1592. Other than the Morality Plays it was staged by famous theatre companies in real theatre houses, not just by wandering groups. Though it resembles in the content of the struggle for a man’s soul the Morality Plays, the genre is classified as tragedy. Tragedy is defined as follows:
“a serious play [...] representing the disastrous downfall of a central character, the protagonist. [...] From the works of the Greek tragedians Aeschylus, Euripides, and Sophocles, the philosopher Aristotle arrived at the most influential definition of tragedy in his Poetics (4th century BC): the imitation of an action that is serious and complete, achieving a catharsis (‘purification’) through incidents arousing pity and terror. Aristotle also observed that the protagonist is led into a fatal calamity by a hamartia (‘error’) which often takes the form of hubris (excessive pride leading to divine retribution or nemesis). [...] English tragedy of Shakespeare’s time was not based directly on Greek examples, but drew instead upon the more rhetorical Roman precedent of Senecan tragedy.”[68]
The Renaissance concept of tragedy is also based on a medieval concept, which Chaucer defines as follows:
“Tragedy is to be seyn a certeyn storie,
As olde bookes maken us memorie,
Of hym that stood in great prosperitee,
And is yfallen out of heigh degree
Into myserie, and endeth wrecchedly.”[69]
Renaissance tragedy told of the fall of high rank persons, demonstrating how fickle fortune is. Usually the people who fall are guilty of some kind of crime, thus fortune is an instrument of divine justice.[70]
Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is a typical tragedy in so far as Faustus’s crime is trying to reach higher knowledge than is meant for human beings. For that he falls to the lowest place possible, namely eternal damnation. Other than in the Morality Plays, Faustus could not be saved.
2 Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus: A and B text
There are two versions of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus: the A version, which was printed in 1604, and the B version, which was printed in 1616. The B version, with 2121 lines, is considerably longer than the A text with 1517 lines.[71]
Though most student editions consist of the B version, most modern critics prefer the A version aesthetically. The B version is extended by comical scenes which parody the serious scenes of the play. It also includes some differences in the serious sections. Whenever the portrayal of the devils and of hell differs, I will compare the A to the B version. The A-version I use is edited by David Ormerod and Christopher Wortham and printed by University Western Australia Press, the B-version is edited by Sylvan Barnet and printed by Signet Classic.
Four pounds were paid in 1602 for the revision of Faustus, and one could argue that the comic scenes were added in order to make the play conform with the expectations of an Elizabethan audience: comedies, far more than tragedies, were the staple of Elizabethan and Jacobean theatre.[72]
Yet, the B version far more stresses the theatricality of Faustus, making the lines following Mephostophilis promise “And let see what magic can perform”[73] look much like a play within the play.
[pic]
Oldrigde, p. 20
3 Society in the sixteenth century
People were very religious in the Early Modern Period, but even the Religion was subjected to changes. In 1533 Henry VIII executed the separation from the Pope and the Catholic Church and instituted himself in the Act of Supremacy as the Supreme Head of the Church of England. England had not been strongly influenced by the Pope before the separation due to the high distance between Rome and London, still this change was a huge one.
During the reign of Mary Tudor, Protestants were cruelly persecuted and executed. Under Elisabeth I the situation changed: though Elizabeth was not hostile to Catholicism, Protestantism was installed as the state religion.
The Protestants and especially the Puritans accused the Catholic Church to be a domain of the devil[74], mirroring how during the Christianisation of Europe Pagan Gods were turned into demons in order to denunciate the rivalling religion. Accusing followers of other faith systems to be devil-worshippers was a widespread practise in all Christian confessions, as it strengthens the own belief and serves as an assurance of being right. In a religion were the world is clearly divided into black and white, good and evil, it is necessary to make clear that one is on the side of light. Everyone who disagrees, thus, is on the side of Satan, even if he or she does not know it. Other religions were said to be founded by Satan in order to confuse people and lure them away from the right path.
At the same time, of course, Catholics accused protestants to be agents of the devil, just as during the Middle Ages any form of heresy was seen as the work of Satan.
4 Humanist world picture And Protestantism
If a world picture is the sum of the beliefs of an epoch about the structure of the world, then there was no world picture shared by everyone in the Early Modern Period. It was a phase of a paradigm shift between the medieval and the modern world view, with huge differences in how single individuals and groups perceived the world. Some believed in witchcraft and magic, some did not. Some asked astrologers for advice, some held them to be charlatans. Some chose a middle way. Some believed in the old geocentric world picture, some in the solar-centric model of Copernicus[75].
The world is seen as a frame of order. Everything, from the highest archangel to the lowest mineral is seen as hierarchically ordered in a chain of being. This world picture also is based on theology: The order is given by God, all parts of the creation are submitted to his divine plan[76]. The different parts of this chain of being are linked to each other by analogies: any creature mirrors aspects of the hierarchically lower in a purer form.
The main difference between the medieval and the Renaissance world view is the Renaissance focus on man. Man has a central place in the universe; above him God and the angels, beneath him animals, plants and minerals. In other words, above him the spiritual beings and beneath him the sensual beings. Man is the only creature who both has a body and a soul; this makes him subject to sin. Man is the link between the sensual and the intellectual world.[77]
Education shifted from the church to secular schools, more emphasis was given to classical authors like Horaz, Cicero and Ovid. Also education was available not only to the gentry, but to citizens as well. Public life was held in a more positive light than during the Middle Ages: “Learning, the humanists believed, must not be divorced from public life; the humanist regarded himself as a public servant. In this sense humanism can be regarded as a secularisation of learning.”[78]
It also was the time of the birth of literature as a profession. While Chaucer had been an amateur author who wrote after hours, Spencer, Shakespeare, Jonson, Milton and Marlowe were professional writers. None of them came from an aristocratic background, which proves that education was available to a wider audience[79].
Though the Elizabethans believed in a cosmic order, they did not believe in a perfect world: At the day of creation the world had been in a stable order, but it got shaken with the Fall of Angels and with Original Sin. Both added an element of mutability. Man often tries to overreach his place in the order. Also, man is subjected to the Wheel of Fortune: one can fall from the highest to the lowest place in the hierarchy[80].
Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus is the story of such an overreacher: Faustus tries to obtain knowledge than is beyond the reach of man, one of the conditions of his pact with the devil even is that Faustus will turn into “a spirit in form and substance”[81], thus he is trying to reach a place in the order that is not meant for him.
Protestant belief can be set out in a simplified form as follows: God created Adam, the first man, in his own image, as a stainless being who was free to perform his reason and will as he chose, and who was capable of absolute obedience to God. Even though God knew in his omniscience that Adam would fail the trial of obedience, he gave him full responsibility. Adam’s original sin, eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge even though God forbade it, has had catastrophic effects on the human race: Fallen man’s nature has become entirely depraved and corrupt, he became stained with sin from birth on. He preserves some of his reason, but the reason and will of fallen man are so spoilt that he can only choose to sin. Because of his sinfulness man is doomed to a double death, the mortality of the body and the eternal damnation of the soul. Without divine help man is incapable of goodness. He is justly condemned by God, because the corruption of his nature, which makes righteousness impracticable, is the consequence of Adam’s original sin.
God’s justice is equal to God’s mercy, yet his justice demands satisfaction. This is accomplished by Christ, the second Adam, whose sacrifice redeemed man from damnation, because Christ took on himself man’s sin. The insubordination of the first Adam brought man death, the obedience of the second Adam brought man eternal life. Though he himself is sinless, Christ takes on man’s sin and so asserts man to his righteousness, but man himself is not able to be righteous. God accepts Christ’s merits as man’s and therefore grants him salvation.
Hence, man’s salvation cannot be achieved by his own merits but only by God’s grace. He is justified by faith only, whereby faith is given by God solely to the elect. Only few are to be saved: because of sin, man deserves damnation, but God predestines a few to salvation, not because of their merit but because of his free grace. The elect cannot withstand God’s grace, nor can the reprobate escape from damnation.[82]
This Protestant view is also illustrated in the Faustus tragedy as Faustus does in a long end monologue repent from his sin, but unlike in the pre-Protestant Morality Plays he is not saved, but condemned.
“Quite significantly, the reprobate does experience remorse and sorrow for sin; this sorrow is not, however, true contrition, but merely the result of his fear, and its consequence is a further hardening of the heart. [...] The reprobate may confess his transgressions, but this occurs only when his soul is tormented by its fears of God’s anger. [...] He cannot appeal to his “father” as the elect one does.”[83]
Faustus says “My heart’s so hardened I cannot repent.”[84], which fits well to the Protestant belief that God hardens the hearts of the reprobate. Faustus is damned because he is not one of the elect, and nothing he can do can change God’s predestination. If God is so dreadful, what kind of creature is the devil?
5 The unholy trinity: Lucifer, Belzebub and Mephostophilis
A number of devils appear in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, but the most important ones are Lucifer, Belzebub and Mephostophilis. Mephostophilis refers to himself as “a servant of great Lucifer”[85], before he elaborates on the nature of Lucifer and the devils:
“Tell me, what is that Lucifer thy lord?
Mephostophilis. Arch-regent and commander of all spirits.
Faustus. Was not that Lucifer an angel once?
Mephostophilis. Yes Faustus, and most dearly loved of God.
Faustus. How comes it then that he is prince of devils?
Mephostophilis. O, by aspiring pride and insolence,
For which God threw him from the face of heaven.
Faustus. And what are you that live with Lucifer?
Mephostophilis. Unhappy spirits that fell with Lucifer,
Conspired against our God with Lucifer,
And are forever damned with Lucifer.”[86]
Mephostophilis gives a laconic account of the story of the fall of the angels, in which he speaks respectfully of Lucifer, calling him arch-regent and commander of all spirits, mentioning that before the fall Lucifer was “most dearly loved of God”. In the play Lucifer is frequently referred to as great Lucifer, and his beauty before the fall is described in a peculiar manner: Mephostophilis promises Faustus that he can bring him any courtesan he wishes for.
“Were she as chaste as was Penelope,
As wise as Saba, or as beautiful
As was bright Lucifer before his fall.”[87]
The gender barriers mix, and Lucifer even becomes something desirable.
Even more, Lucifer seems to blend with God throughout the play. In a moment of repentance Faustus cries out for Christ’s help:
“O Christ, my savior, my savior!
Help to save distressed Faustus’ soul!”[88]
But not God or Jesus enter the stage, but Lucifer, Belzebub and Mephostophilis, in a mockery of the holy trinity. In this scene the A text differs slightly from the B text, as in A Belzebub does not speak:
“LUCIFER
Christ cannot save thy soul, for he is just;
There’s none but I have interest in the same.
FAUSTUS
O, who art thou that lookst so terrible?
LUCIFER
I am Lucifer – and this is my companion
prince in hell.
FAUSTUS
O Faustus, they are come to fetch away thy soul.
LUCIFER
We come to tell thee thou dost injure us.
Thou talkst of Christ, contrary to thy promise.
Thou shouldst not think of God: think of the devil
And of his dam too.”[89]
With Mephostophilis and Belzebub watching silently, the A version focuses all the attention on the confrontation between Faustus and Lucifer, making it very understandable that Faustus is utterly cowered by the entrance of the Unholy Trinity in answer to his prayer. The B version is more farcical, with Belzebub speaking part of the lines that in A were reserved to Lucifer, thereby serving as a commentator:
“Faustus. O, what art thou that look’st so terribly?
Lucifer. I am Lucifer
And this is my companion prince in hell.
Faustus. O Faustus, they are come to fetch thy soul!
Belzebub. We are come to tell thee thou dost injure us.
Lucifer. Thou call’st on Christ contrary to thy promise.
Belzebub. Thou shoul’st not think on God.
Lucifer. Think on the Devil.
Belzebub. And his dam too.”[90]
In the notes to the text I found two different explanations to Lucifer’s dam: The notes to the A text insist that his dam is one of the numerous witches Lucifer was said to be sexually involved with, while the notes to the B text say his dam is his mother. From a theological view of course, Lucifer does not have a mother, but in farcical folk books the devil often has a tyrannical mother or a grand-mother. This meaning would even be more comic than mentioning Lucifer’s liaisons.
The fact that overall the B version is more farcical explains why Belzebub talks in the B version:
“Their mimicking, stichomythic exchange initiates the farcical mood which Marlowe so brilliantly exaggerates into the bizarre scenario of the Seven Deadly Sins. [...] At this turning-point, Faustus’ terrified reaction to the sudden arrival of Lucifer and Belzebub contrasts equally effectively with the tone of their mock-exhortation.”[91]
In both versions, Faustus repents of repenting:
“Faustus. Nor will Faustus henceforth. Pardon him for this,
And Faustus vows never to look to heaven!
Never to name God or to pray to Him,
To burn His Scriptures, slay His ministers,
And make my spirits pull His churches down.”[92]
Like a sinner asks God for forgiveness Faustus begs Lucifer to forgive his transgression, and Lucifer generously grants him absolution:
“Lucifer. So shalt thou show thyself an obedient servant,
And we will highly gratify thee for it.”[93]
Faustus reacts in an exaggerated way to the devils’ announcement of the show of the Seven Deadly Sins:
“Faustus. That sight will be as pleasant to me as Paradise
was to Adam the first day of his creation.”[94]
Again Faustus mistakes Lucifer with God: the bizarre show of the Seven Deadly Sins as created and staged by Lucifer for the entertainment of Faustus is equivalent for him with God’s creation of Paradise for Adam. This synonymy of God and Lucifer runs like a thread throughout the play.
Faustus briefly repents after the speech of the Old Man, but Mephostophilis exhorts him of his allegiance to Lucifer:
“Thou traitor Faustus, I arrest thy soul
For disobedience to my sovereign lord.
Revolt, or I’ll in piecemeal tear thy flesh.”[95]
Like above, Faustus repents of swaying from Lucifer, and his choice of words is even more of a parody of a Christian sinner who returns to God:
“I do repent I e’er offended him.
Sweet Mephostophilis, entreat thy lord
To pardon my unjust presumption,
And with my blood again I will confirm
The former vow I made to Lucifer.”[96]
Like a sinner might beg a saint or his Guardian Angel to ask for him for God’s absolution, Faustus begs Mephostophilis to ask for him for Lucifer’s forgiveness.
Also in Faustus’s end monologue Lucifer becomes mingled with God:
“See, see where Christ’s blood streams in the firmament!
One drop of blood will save me. O my Christ! –
Rend not my heart for the naming of my Christ!
Yet will I call on Him! O spare me, Lucifer! –“[97]
Faustus thinks on Christ’s blood which has redeemed Mankind, but ironically the spilling of Faustus’s own blood to sign the pact with the devil is what sealed the loss of his soul. The biggest irony is when Faustus exclaims that he will call on Him, and when the audience expects Faustus to call on Christ, he cries out Lucifer’s name. Once again Lucifer has taken God’s or Christ’s place.
The B-text differs from A in so far as it contains a short episode of the Unholy Trinity gloating about Faustus’ damnation. Also missing in A is Mephostophilis telling Faustus that it had been him from the beginning who led Faustus into doom:
“I do confess it Faustus, and rejoice.
‘Twas I, that when thou wert i’ the way to heaven
Dammed up thy passage. When thou took’st the book
To view the Scriptures, then I turned the leaves
And led thine eye.”[98]
Also, several stage directions in B mark that the devils are onstage, invisible to Faustus, even before their evocation. This omnipresence and omnipotence of the devils heighten the sense of predestination, or, as Birringer puts it, of an infernal conspiracy:
“B extends the impression of an elaborate infernal conspiracy against Faustus’ “distressed soule” and subordinates psychological realism to a more cynical, anti-mimetic orientation toward a macabre allegorisation of the evil protagonists from Hell. They appear to be omnipresent and vigilant, ready to trap the “glorious soule” they have an interest in.”[99]
Still open is the question why Belzebub is inserted in the action though he talks nothing in A, and little in B. Some critics say the “companion prince in hell” serves to show that evil is split, divided, but I think Belzebub is needed to form an Unholy Trinity in opposition to the Holy Trinity. As shown above, Lucifer blends with God in Faustus’s perspective. God is perceived as wrathful: “And see where God stretcheth out His arm and bends His ireful brows!”[100] Marlowe implicitly criticises Protestantism with his play: if God is so wrathful and merciless, is there any difference to Lucifer?
6 The relationship between Faustus and Mephostophilis
From the very beginning on, Faustus is deluded about his relationship to Mephostophilis: When Mephostophilis first enters the stage, Faustus thinks it was his magic that conjured him:
“I see there’s virtue in my heavenly words.
Who would not be proficient in this art?
How pliant is this Mephostophilis,
Full of obedience and humility,
Such is the force of magic and my spells.”[101]
Mephostophilis in an instant shatters this delusion:
“No, I came now hither of mine own accord.
[...]
For when we hear one rack the name of God,
Abjure the Scriptures and his savior Christ,
We fly in hope to get his glorious soul.”[102]
Faustus’s second delusion is that damnation does not terrify him:
“This word “damnation” terrifies not me
For I confound hell in Elysium:
My ghost be with the old philosophers!”[103]
He goes so far to deny the existence of hell while he is talking to a devil.[104] Even now Mephostophilis is telling him the truth, with the calm statement “Ay, think so still – till experience change thy mind!”[105] This is not the last time that Mephostophilis explicitly tells Faustus that eternal damnation is his fate.
Faustus is also delusional about what magic can perform and what Mephostophilis can give him:
“Had I as many souls as there be stars
I’d give them all for Mephostophilis.
By him I’ll be great emperor of the world,
And make a bridge through the moving air
To pass the ocean with a band of men;
I’ll join the hills that bind the Afric shore
And make that country continent to Spain,
And both contributory to my crown;”[106]
The powers of magic are the only thing Mephostophilis explicitly makes false promises about: “And then be thou as great as Lucifer!”[107] As the play shows, the tricks Faustus can perform with Mephostophilis’s help are shallow, and get more and more petty towards the end. Even more, most of the magic is performed by Mephostophilis, thereby Faustus is dependant on what Mephostophilis is willing to do. Mephostophilis’s powers are limited, as he cannot hurt those who are faithful.[108]
“In the course of the play, the performance of his “art and power” have never come anywhere near his initial visions of power and omnipotence; his dreams never become “substantial””[109]
Mephostophilis never gives Faustus what he really wants.
The contract commits Mephostophilis to be Faustus’s servant for 24 years. Four of the five points in the contract are dedicated to Mephostophilis’s obligations[110]. Yet Faustus sees more in Mephostophilis than a servant:
“When Mephostophilis shall stand by me
What power can hurt me?”[111]
In the A-text he even goes as far as to say:
“When Mephostophilis shall stand by me,
What God can hurt thee, Faustus?”[112]
Faustus sees Mephostophilis as his protector, and he deludes himself into thinking that Mephostophilis can virtually protect him from everything, even from God’s wrath. His anxiety to conceal the truth also shows the first time Mephostophilis enters, having taken on the shape of a fearful dragon, and Faustus asks him to return again as “an old Franciscan friar: That holy shape becomes a devil best.”[113]
Besides being a side-swipe on the Church, this scene presents Faustus’s tendency to deluding himself: by cladding evil into a holy shape, he conceals what Mephostophilis is and what his contract with the devil means for his soul. His delusions are not lifted even though Faustus cannot be satisfied by the magic Mephostophilis performs nor by his disputations with the devil. When Faustus asks questions about Astronomy, Mephostophilis’s answers are conform with the Ptolemy system[114], which puzzled many critics:
“Marlowe probably wrote the play in 1592-3, at a crucial moment in the acceptance of the heliocentric theory. The work of Dee; of John Feild; of Robert Recorde; of Dee’s pupil, Thomas Digges; and of Giordano Bruno, between the 1550s and 80s, all contributed to an incorporation of copernicanism into the discourse of English science. Yet Marlowe continues to write in terms of the old cosmology. [...] the disputation between Faustus and Mephostophilis about astronomy in Act II, Scene 2 [...] is made up entirely of precopernican notions.”[115]
The point is, Mephostophilis only gives unsatisfactory answers to Faustus’s questions and keeps as much to himself as possible, denying Faustus the new knowledge he strives for. Faustus gains nothing but the loss of his soul from this relationship.
There are a few moments when Faustus recognises the fatale effects of his relationship with Mephostophilis, as in act two, scene two, which starts with Faustus repenting. Curiously enough, his monologue is a reminiscence of Mephostophilis’s earlier description of the pains of damnation.[116] Yet each time Faustus quickly pushes away his doubts, represses his despair. He hides the truth from himself because he does not want to see it.
Mephostophilis does little to encourage or discourage Faustus’s delusions about their relationship, he just watches at an emotional distance as Faustus runs into his ruin. Only towards the end Mephostophilis shows his true face, though the B-version is more explicit about that. In both version Mephostophilis gives Faustus a dagger in a moment of despair[117] - suicide is a deadly sin and would ensure Faustus’s eternal damnation. The B-version also contains the lines:
“Twas I, that when thou wert i’ the way to heaven
Dammed up thy passage. When thou took’st the book
To view the Scriptures, then I turned the leaves
And led thine eye.”[118]
Mephostophilis is more active concerning Faustus’s damnation than in the A-version, where Mephostophilis does not much more than take the opportunity that was offered to him.
7 Hell and Mephostophilis’ suffering
One of the most famous scenes of the play is Faustus questioning Mephostophilis about hell:
“Faustus: Where are you damned?
Mephostophilis: In hell.
Faustus: How comes it then that thou art out of hell?
Mephostophilis: Why this is hell, nor am I out of it.
Think’st thou that I who saw the face of God
And tasted the eternal joys of heaven
Am not tormented with ten thousand hells
In being deprived of everlasting bliss?
O Faustus, leave these frivolous demands
Which strikes a terror to my fainting soul!”[119]
Hell is described as psychological, as a state of mind resulting from the separation from God. This rather modern view is much more impressive as medieval descriptions of hell as a place of torture, and one can even feel pity for Mephostophilis’s anguish. The idea of a repentant angel is not new[120], but it is unusual that it serves to make the audience feel sympathy with the devil.
Mephostophilis further describes hell in a later scene:
“Tell me, where is the place that men call hell?
Mephostophilis. Under the heavens.
Faustus. Ay, so are all things else, but whereabouts?
Mephostophilis. Within the bowels of these elements
Where we are tortured and remain forever.
Hell hath no limits nor is it circumscribed
In one self place, but where we are is hell,
And where hell is there must we ever be.
And to be short, when all the world dissolves
And every creature shall be purified
All places shall be hell that is not heaven!”[121]
This description is an odd mixture of the medieval view of hell and a more modernised view. On the one hand Mephostophilis says it is within the bowels of these elements, being congruent with the assumption that hell is in the centre of the earth. But then he also describes an unlimited hell that is wherever he goes. As Birringer puts it, hell is “[...] the awareness of negative infinity.”[122]
Both Mephostophilis’s longer speeches and his short answers show the air of a melancholic devil who appears to be suffering quietly. This calm assertion of his misery make Mephostophilis a sympathetic character the audience can feel with. Other than for example Belyal in The Castle of Perseverance, the characterisation of Mephostophilis is too deep to make him a laughing stock.
In the 1616 B-version, however, during the damnation scene, the text suddenly returns to the medieval picture of hell:
“Hell is discovered.
Bad Angel. Now Faustus, let thine eyes with horror stare
Into the vast perpetual torture-house.
There are the furies, tossing damned souls
On burning forks. Their bodies boil in lead.
There are live quarters broiling on the coals,
That ne’er can die: this ever-burning chair
Is for o’er-tortured souls to rest them in.”[123]
This is incongruent with Mephostophilis account of hell as a psychological state, and throws Marlowe’s text far back in sophistication, which suggests that this was added later to make it more spectacular.
John Milton’s Paradise Lost
1 The epic genre
An epic is defined as
“a long narrative poem celebrating the great deeds of one or more legendary heroes, in a grand ceremonious style. The hero, usually protected by or even descended from gods, performs superhuman exploits in battle or in marvellous voyages.”[124]
Renaissance poets and critics, being very fond of classical authors like Homer and Virgil, regarded the epic as “the best and most accomplished kind of poetry”[125]. Throughout his epic Milton is very conscious about his ambitious task to write an English epic and to make something new of the genre. He assumed the following epic features:
“the beginning in medias res (in “the midst of things,” as Milton’s Argument to Book 1 says), the invocation of a muse, the emphasis on aristocratic and martial themes, the legendary heroes and exploits, the epic journey, the use of long similes and epic catalogues, and the intermixing of the deeds of gods and men.”[126]
Yet Milton is very critical of classical heroic values: the character who embodies almost all of the martial values of the classical epic heroes is Satan. Milton’s task was to write a Christian epic displaying Christian, Protestant values like an interiority of faith and obedience to God. Milton took the genre of classical epic and made something completely new of it.
Of course the epic genre differs much from drama, as it is intended for a more sophisticated audience who can see behind the obvious. Also, an epic is read at home while a drama is staged in a noisy theatre. Yet there are some similarities between Milton’s epic and a drama; the style of the dialogue and the soliloquies put forward the assumption that Milton’s Paradise Lost was originally planned as a drama.
2 Milton and criticism
When it comes to God and Satan in Milton’s Paradise Lost, critics have been divided into two interpretative traditions: the one tradition, including Addison and C.S. Lewis, claims that the moral of the poem is simply that disobedience to God is the source of all evil and obedience to God brings happiness. The other tradition, which is strongly influenced by Blake’s declaration that Milton was “ of the Devil’s party without knowing it”[127] and Shelley’s judgement that “Nothing can exceed the energy and magnificence of the character of Satan”[128], including A.J.A. Waldock and William Empson, declares that disobedience to God frees mankind of the shackles of God, who tyrannically tries to keep mankind ignorant. These two positions disagree on whether God or Satan is the true hero of Paradise Lost.
Critics of both traditions are biased in their reading of the epic by their own religious feeling, or lack of the same. Christian critics accuse the “Satanists” along with John S. Diekhoff that “Those who do not find him [Satan] abhorrent have misread the poem. They will do well to ask whether their liking for Satan does not spring from enmity to God.”[129] True, but critics like Diekhoff would do well to ask themselves whether their outrage at Blake and Shelley does not spring from their own suppressed feelings of guilt at subconsciously admiring Satan. Stanley Fish tried to combine both strains by declaring that Milton wanted to put the reader on a test whether he is strong enough to withstand the devil’s temptations.
If this controversy shows one thing then it is how careful one must be not to let oneself be influenced by one’s own position about the Christian faith when reading and interpreting Paradise Lost, neither if one believes in it nor if one disapproves of it. It is important to keep in mind that the audience of the seventeenth century might have responded differently to certain points of the story than a contemporary audience. For example today a huge stress is put on values like individualism, search for knowledge, criticism of authority, while in the seventeenth century these values were not necessary seen as values at all.
3 restoration, Arminism and Milton
On 30 January 1649 King Charles I was beheaded after a dictatorial reign, and a republic was founded under Cromwell. Beginning in March 1649, Milton worked as Cromwell’s Latin secretary. During the years of 1641 to 1660 he wrote numerous “controversial prose works passionately defending ecclesiastical, domestic, and civil liberty, and attacking forms of ecclesiastical and political tyranny and idolatry.”[130] In the Civil War years he witnessed “the abolition of kingship and the House of Lords, as well as the execution of King Charles I and the establishment of the Commonwealth.”[131]
Milton was a great adversary of Royalism and an advocate of democracy. Yet by the closing years of the 1650s even ardent republicans had realised the fact that the experiment of the Commonwealth had failed. After Oliver Cromwell’s death Richard Cromwell had briefly replaced his father, but soon afterwards he was forced to resign and Charles II, after twelve years of exile, was crowned the new king.
During the following years the republicans were persecuted, many of them killed. Milton only survived through the help and influence of his friends.[132]
“Milton was still writing political tracts opposing the restoration of Stuart power and completed when the earthly monarchy had been restored and Milton’s political ideals had been shattered. And with the Restoration came the return of the Anglican Church, the persecution of the Dissenting sects, and the resumption of strict censorship;”[133]
Milton sees himself as
“fall’n on evil days,
On evil days though fall’n, and evil tongues;
In darkness, and with dangers compast round,
And solitude.”[134]
He also differed in his religious view of that of his contemporaries: As stated above, most Puritan sects, especially Calvinism, stressed the predestination: Man has no free will in regard to God, God predestines man’s fate, and God decided at the beginning of times who would be the chosen ones and who the reprobates. Milton’s view on free will was less bleak:
“Milton had read the Dutch theologian, Jacobus Arminius (d. 1609), who had posited a more Pelagian challenge to Calvinism by stressing that individuals were free to accept or reject the divine grace needed for salvation – in contrast to Calvinism’s intensely negative view of human agency and will. [...] Believing that we are not mere puppets when it comes to matters of salvation and not wholly dependant on God’s irresistible grace, Milton was especially attracted to the notion that humans act freely, [...] not at all compatible with the stricter Calvinist theology dominating English Protestantism in the early seventeenth century.”[135]
When Milton announces in Book I that he is going to “justify the ways of God to men”[136], he means to promote the Arminian picture of a God who has foreknowledge, who knows what will happen but leaves men the free choice. Other than the Calvinist God, e.g. the God in Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, the Arminian God does not predestine the fate of man in so far as he gives him independence in the form of the free will to stand or fall. The Calvinist God indeed would be harder to defend than the Arminian God.
4 satan: Hero or anti-hero?
In the first two books of Paradise Lost we watch Satan rising from the burning lake God has hurled him into, raising his army with a courage-enthusing speech, leading a debate about how to proceed from now on, volunteering for a dangerous, possibly fatale task, facing death and fighting his way from hell through chaos and night towards the earth. Heroic deeds, or so it seems, and the reader cannot help but feel a more or less unwilling admiration for Satan. This admiration is even spurned on by Satan’s flamboyant speeches. Stanley Fish found a convincing explanation of why Milton made Satan so magnificent, his rhetoric so persuasive:
“The reader who falls before the lures of Satanic rhetoric displays again the weakness of Adam, and his inability to avoid repeating that fall throughout indicates the extent to which Adam’s lapse has made the reassertion of right reason impossible. Rhetoric is thus simultaneously the sign of the reader’s infirmity and the means by which he is brought first to self-knowledge, and then to contrition, and finally, perhaps, to grace and everlasting bliss.”[137]
In other words, the poem is a test for the reader whether he is able to withstand the devil’s temptations. In order to see through these lures, the reader has to read closely.
Satan’s first introduction is not a pleasant one:
“The infernal Serpent; he it was whose guile,
Stirred up with envy and revenge, deceived
The mother of mankind, what time his pride
Had cast him out from Heaven, with all his host
Of rebel Angels, by whose aid aspiring
To set himself in glory above his peers,
He trusted to have equalled the Most High,
If he opposed, and with ambitious aim
Against the throne and monarchy of God
Raised impious war in Heaven and battle proud,
With vain attempt.”[138]
Words of negative connotation like “guile”, “envy”, “revenge”, “deceive” predominate in this paragraph, put soon the stress shifts to Satan’s suffering:
“but his doom
Reserved him to more wrath, for now the thought
Both of lost happiness and lasting pain
Torments him: round he throws his baleful eyes,
That witnesses huge affliction and dismay,
Mixed with obdurate pride and steadfast hate;”[139]
The perspective moves from the outside to his own perspective when he looks at the fallen angels:
“There the companions of his fall, o’erwhelmed
With floods and whirlwinds of tempestuous fire,
He soon discerns, and, weltering by his side
One next himself in power, and next in crime,
Long after known in Palestine, and named
Beelzebub.”[140]
We look at them as if over Satan’s shoulder and thereby unwittingly identify with Satan. Satan next “with bold words/ Breaking the horrid silence”[141] utters a speech that starts as a lamentation but then turns into self-defence and finally self-assertion:
“If thou beest he – but oh, how fallen! How changed
From him who, in the happy realms of light,
clothed with transcendent brightness, didst outshine
Myriads, though bright! [...]
Thou changed in outward lustre, that fixed mind,
And high disdain from sense or injured merit,
That with the Mightiest raised me to contend,
And to fierce contention brought along
Innumerable force of Spirits armed
That durst dislike his reign, and, me preferring,
His utmost power with adverse power opposed
In dubious battle on the plains of Heaven,
And shook his throne.”[142]
Satan does not yet explicitly call God a tyrant, but he stresses that disliking God’s reign, the fallen angels preferred Satan as a leader. He also makes it appear as if it was a narrow victory for God, that they had shaken his throne, which later proves to be a misjudgement of the situation.
Furthermore Satan asserts that, though this battle is lost, not all is lost:
“All is not lost – the unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield”[143]
Unconquerable will and courage never to submit have perfectly positive connotations, and one almost overlooks the line in between – study of revenge, immortal hate. Satan uses his will and courage, positive character traits, for revenge and hatred, for evil ends, which perverts his foremost good character.
Satan asserts his pride “to bow and sue for grace with suppliant knee [...] that were low indeed”[144] and encourages himself to keep on opposing God:
“Since, through experience of this great event,
In arms not worse, in foresight much advanced,
We may with more successful hope resolve
To wage by force or guile eternal war
Irreconcible, to our grand Foe,
Who now triumphs, and in the excess of joy
Sole reigning holds the tyranny of Heaven.”[145]
This moving speech, though directed to Beelzebub, also serves the purpose to uplift Satan’s own spirits, to encourage himself to go on despite all obstacles. As Peter Weston observed, he needs to build up a Persona, a public face in order to be able to lead the other fallen angels on. In order to persuade them he may not show his secret fears and doubts.[146] Before he can convince others, he first has to convince himself, and he nearly convinced the reader as well. But if one looks closely at his words, eternal war irreconcible does not seem desirable to us, and there is a discrepancy between excess of joy and tyranny of heaven.
That Satan speaks mostly to encourage himself is also implied by the following lines:
“So spake the apostate Angel, though in pain,
Vaunting aloud, but racked with deep despair;”[147]
In the following dialogue with Beelzebub he further strengthens his determination not to give up his opposition to God. Perseverance in a goal, of course, is admirable, but his intentions are far from benign:
“To do aught good never will be our task,
But ever to do ill our sole delight,”[148]
William Empson notes that at this stage Satan can not really know what to do ill means:
“Thus one may regard this act of verbal defiance as pathetically innocent, though terrible, because Satan when he makes it does not know what doing ill feels like, though God will make him learn. He was technically not ignorant of good and evil before his fall, as Adam and Eve were (XI. 85), but comparatively ignorant one would expect.”[149]
He is right as Satan so far has only waged a war in heaven between spirits who cannot die and whose wounds heal quickly, so he does not exactly know what inflicting suffering is. Curiously enough, God at this point knows, as he has inflicted pain on the rebellious angels by hurling them to hell, but on the other hand Satan is explicitly called the “author of all evil” and the war in heaven, instigated by him, was the first destructive act in the creation. In so far he knows what to do ill means, but he does not yet know its full extend, as he has not yet reached the height of his destructive potential.
Satan defiantly asserts his independence from God and his sole reliance on his mind in the famous Heaven and Hell speech:
„Farewell, happy fields,
Where joy for ever dwells! Hail, horrors! Hail,
Infernal World! And thou, profoundest Hell,
Receive thy new possessor – one who brings
A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
And what I should be, all but less than he
Whom thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; the Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence;
Here we may reign secure, and, in my choice
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.“[150]
Only on second glance one notices the contradiction that on the one hand he disapproves of God’s rule as a rule above equals, but wants to rule himself. What more, the speech seems to be an assertion that Satan can have inner peace, an inner heaven in his mind wherever he goes. But later books show that Satan carries his inner hell with him even in Paradise.
Soon afterwards Satan awakes the fallen angels, who are far from repellent:
“godlike Shapes, and Forms
Excelling human; princely Dignities;
And Powers that erst in Heaven sat on thrones”[151]
Though awe-inspiring, Satan’s appearance, too, is far from abhorrent:
"his form had yet not lost
All her original brightness, nor appeared
Less than Archangel ruined, and the excess
Of glory obscured - as when the sun new-risen
Looks through the horizontal misty air
Shorn of his beams, or, from behind the moon,
In dim eclipse, disastrous twilight sheds
On half the nations, and with fear of change
Perplexes monarchs.”[152]
Satan and the rebels remind the readers on warriors of an old epic: When he awakes them with a speech dripping of sarcasm, they rise in a Phalanx:
“They heard and were abashed, and up they sprung
Upon the wing, as when men wont to watch
On duty, sleeping found by whom they dread,
Rouse and bestir themselves ere well awake.”[153]
As stated above, an epic is a long poem about the deeds of one or more legendary heroes, and so far Satan and his angels have much in common with classical heroes: courage, strong will, a stoic refusal to admit defeat, rhetoric abilities (as e.g. Odysseus), brilliance of mind and bodily strength. This has lead many readers to see them as heroes, but, as Stanley Fish observes, there is a difference between Classical and Christian heroism:
“In an important way epic heroism, of which Satan is a noteworthy instance, is the antithesis of Christian heroism, and a large part of the poem is devoted to distinguishing between the two and showing the superiority of the latter.” [154]
Furthermore Fish notes that by fashioning the devils like the epic heroes of Pagan times Milton leaves on the epic, Pagan heroes the taint of Satanism.[155] This is congruent with the fact that Milton calls many of the devils by the names of Pagan Gods, saying that they let themselves be adored as idols to confuse men and lead them away from Christianity.
Similarly, when reading Satan’s elaborate speeches one must keep in mind that in the seventeenth century elaborate language was distrusted as being deceitful.
Yet that does not mean that Milton completely deprives the devils from all good character traits: the narrator not only says that “neither do Spirits damned/ Lose all their virtue”[156] he also stresses that they are morally far superior to depraved mortals:
“O shame to men! Devil with devil damned
Firm concord holds; men only disagree
Of creatures rational, though under hope
Of heavenly grace, and God proclaiming peace,
Yet live in hatred, enmity, and strife”[157]
Satan excels in courage, fearlessness, rhetoric and strength. He volunteers for the dangerous task of crossing the gulf between hell and earth, he fearlessly faces death:
“The undaunted Fiend what this might be admired –
Admired, not feared; God and his Son except,
Created thing naught valued he nor shunned;”[158]
His perseverance, brilliance of mind, courage and strong will are all character traits that may be admired, but the tragedy of Satan is that he uses his qualities for evil ends.
[pic]
Gleichung 1
5 Satan as tempter of the angels
God in book III discriminates between the fallen angels and fallen man:
“The first sort by their own suggestion fell,
Self-tempted, self-depraved; Man falls, deceived
By the other first: Man, therefore, shall find grace,
the other, none;”[159]
But are the angels really self-depraved? Are they not, too, tempted, persuaded by Satan to disobey? Did not Satan’s rhetorical brilliance blind their minds?
For an assessment of the temptation scenes it is important to keep in mind the Puritan dislike of ornate language:
“Plain language, because it is innocent of the artificial adornment of rhetoric and metaphor, is more spiritually pure and religiously appropriate than ornate language which, of course, offers more opportunity for deception and is therefore of the devil.”[160]
Accordingly God’s language is plain, unadorned:
“Hear, all ye Angels, Progeny of Light,
Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers,
Hear my decree, which unrevoked shall stand.
This day I have begot whom I declare
My only Son, and on this holy hill
Him have anointed, whom ye now behold
At my right hand. Your head I him appoint,
And by myself have sworn to him shall bow
All knees in Heaven, and shall confess him Lord:
Under his great viceregent reign abide,
United as one individual soul,
Forever happy; him who disobeys,
Me disobeys, breaks union, and, that day,
Cast out from God and blessed vision, falls
Into utter darkness, deep engulfed, his place
Ordained without redemption, without end.”[161]
The last five lines have often been interpreted as threats, but they are mere matters of fact. The whole speech is held emotionless and informative, not as an attempt to persuade the angels of his position, or as Leonard Mustazza noted “the speech is neither a harsh appeal to emotion nor an attempt at persuasion, despite the announcement of the reward for obedience and the punishment for disobedience. [...] not to believe that his position is logically superior to another position (there is no other)”[162].
Indeed Satan is “the first creature to use language for his own ends, [...] to exploit the power inherent in words.”[163] This shows already when after the feast for Christ’s exaltation he awakes the sleeping Beelzebub with words that resemble those of a love sonnet:
“Sleep’st thou, companion dear? What sleep can close
Thy eyelids? And rememberest what decree
Of yesterday, so late hath passes the lips
Of Heaven’s Almighty? Thou to me thy thoughts
Wast wont, I mine to thee was wont, to impart;
Both waking we were one; how then can now
Thy sleep dissent?” [164]
Satan flatters Beelzebub by asserting that, used to sharing their thoughts, both waking they were almost one person, but at the same moment he stirs guilt in Beelzebub by implying that his sleeping while Satan is awake pondering God’s new decree is a sign of dissent. He thus makes Beelzebub receptive for his argument:
“New laws thou seest imposed;
New laws from him who reigns new minds may raise
In us who serve, new counsels, to debate
What doubtful may ensue. More in this place
To utter is not safe.”[165]
Satan calls God “him who reigns”, by this diminishing his power as if he was just a mortal king, and he rouses Beelzebub’s suspect by claiming that to utter more in this place is not safe. Further he orders Beelzebub to assemble the angels who are under their command in the quarters in the North, “there to prepare/ Fit entertainment to receive our King”[166]. Satan is the first to use ambivalent language, or language that conceals the truth instead of stating facts.
The influence these words have is clearly indicated:
“So spake the false Archangel, and infused
Bad influence into the unwary breast
Of his associate.”[167]
Beelzebub is clearly defined as unwary, as tempted and persuaded by Satan. The other angels, too, are described as allured:
“But all obeyed
The wonted signal and superior voice
Of their great Potentate, for great indeed
His name and high was his degree in Heaven:
His countenance, as the morning-star that guides
The starry flock, allured them, and with lies
Drew after him the third part of Heaven’s host.”[168]
The angels are lulled by his high degree, his superior voice, meaning his eloquence, and deceived by his lies, which makes it incomprehensible why God calls them self-depraved. In his speech Satan first repeats the titles God has given the angels, but then sets in doubt whether these titles are still valid:
“Thrones, Dominations, Princedoms, Virtues, Powers,
If these magnific titles yet remain
Not merely titular, since by decree
Another now hath to himself engrossed
All power, and us eclipsed under the name
Of King Anointed”[169]
Satan plays on their pride and awakes their fear of losing their rights through the exaltation of the Son. Next he styles the Son’s exaltation to an emergency situation:
“for whom all this haste
Of midnight march, and hurried meeting here,
This only to consult, how we may best,
With what may be devised of honours new,
Receive him coming to receive from us
Knee-tribute yet unpaid, prostration vile,
Too much to one, but double how endured,
To one and to his image now proclaimed?”[170]
Though the reader until now never had the impression that the service the angels pay to God is hard or unloved, Satan calls it “prostration vile,/ Too much to one”, thereby evoking his audience’s discontent with the situation. To this point, the angels only knew a language used to utter pure facts, so even through they are beings of pure intellect, they cannot recognise untruths, because they only know truths. Satan’s persuasive tricks include rhetorical questions, flattering of his audience (“Natives and Sons of Heaven”[171]) and an assertion that they are all free and equal.
“Who can in reason, then, or right, assume
Monarchy over such as live by right
His equals – if in power and splendour less,
In freedom equal? Or can introduce
Law and edict on us, who without law
Err not? Much less for this to be our Lord,
And look for adoration, to the abuse
Of those imperial titles which assert
Our being ordained to govern, not to serve!”[172]
We know that Milton himself opposed monarchy and supported republican ideals, so what are we to make of Satan “talking standard republican theory”[173] as Empson put it? The difference between Satan’s rebellion and the establishing of a republic is that God or Christ is not an earthly king who is fallible, but the creator who is infallible. Or, as Abdiel puts it:
“Unjustly thou deprav’st it with the name
Of servitude, to serve whom God ordains,
Or Nature; God and Nature bid the same”[174]
Disobeying God is equalled with disobeying nature, and thus Satan’s rebellion is in essence unnatural. Accordingly, Satan’s rebellion leads to a senseless war in heaven between spirits who cannot be vanquished. Heaven is turned upside down when cannons are build by the bad angels and mountains thrown by the good angels. Satan indeed turns “this Heaven itself into the Hell”[175] until Christ intervenes.
I have not yet found a solution to the problem why the angels are called self-depraved. Michael defines Satan as “Author of Evil, unknown till thy revolt”[176] and accuses him of having “instilled/ Thy malice into thousands, once upright/ And faithful, now proved false!”[177]
Maybe the special guilt of the fallen angels can be shown in a comparison to the fall of man.
6 Satan as tempter of eve
Satan’s temptation of Eve starts with Eve’s dream in Book IV:
“Squat like a toad, at the ear of Eve,
Assaying by his devilish art to reach
The organs of her fancy, and with them forge
Illusions as he list, phantasms and dreams;
Or if, inspiring venom, he might taint
The animal spirits, that from pure blood arise
Like gentle breaths from rivers pure, thence raise,
At least distempered, discontented thoughts,
Vain hopes, vain aims, inordinate desires,
Blown up with high conceits engendering pride.”[178]
Significant is that already at this point he uses language, “his devilish art”, to create illusions (lies) in her mind and to raise wrong thoughts. Satan knows that the best way he can reach his victims is through the ear, by art of his deceptive, persuasive language.
Eve later relates her dream to Adam:
“Close at mine ear one called me forth to walk
With gentle voice; I thought it thine: it said,
“Why sleep’st thou, Eve? Now is the pleasant time,
The cool, the silent, save where silence yields
To the night-warbling bird, that now awake
Tunes sweetest his love-laboured song”[179]
Satan creates a feeling of intimacy and inspires trust by using Adam’s voice, lures her into the night by praising the night birds “love-laboured song”. His addressing her with “Why sleep’st thou, Eve” is reminiscent of Satan’s waking Beelzebub at the beginning of the rebellion with “Sleep’st thou, companion dear?” His style is reminiscent of courtly love sonnets:
“Heaven wakes with all his eyes;
Whom to behold but thee, Nature’s desire,
In whose sight all things joy, with ravishment
Attracted by thy beauty still to gaze?”[180]
Here as in the real temptation in Book IX Milton puts side by side the real, pure love Adam and Eve share before the fall and the false, artificial courtly love of the Renaissance poetry:
“In contrast to the sexually fulfilled Adam and Eve is “the starved Lover” of the popular Petrarchan literary tradition who is “quitted with disdain” by his “proud” mistress. Significantly, Satan later begins his temptation of Eve with the lavish rhetoric of Petrarchan love poetry (9.532ff). Such contemporary love poetry, in addition to the Cavalier society Milton associates with it, prevents or debases the natural sexual intimacy which Milton’s poem unabashedly celebrates.”[181]
It also is significant that Satan obviously has, listening to her earlier conversation with Adam, picked up her sole weakness, her vanity, and found means to use it against her.
In the dream instilled by Satan Eve goes to the Tree of Knowledge and sees an angel standing beside it, who by asking rhetorical questions puts in doubt whether it is rightfully forbidden to eat of the tree. To Eve’s honour she is horrified when she sees him eat of the tree, but he turns to her and persuades her to eat and “be henceforth among the gods/ Thyself a goddess”.[182] Later he uses the same argument in the real temptation scene.
William Empson[183] noted an oddity in the text. Later in the same chapter God sends Raphael to warn Adam and Eve of Satan’s fraud, but some of the things he tells them may have convinced Eve that God actually wants them to eat of the Tree of Knowledge and become Gods:
“Time may come when Men
With Angels may participate, and find
No inconvenient diet, nor too light fare,
And from these corporeal nutriments, perhaps,
Your bodies may at last turn all to spirit,
Improved by tract of time, and winged ascend
Ethereal, as we, or may at choice
Here or in heavenly paradises dwell”[184]
Satan’s claim that men will turn to Gods if they eat of the tree sounds logical, if one forgets the next line of Raphael’s statement: “If ye be found obedient”[185]. Raphael’s warning is not misleading as it reminds Adam and Eve of the necessity and of the reward of obedience.
Satan slips into the body of a snake in order to tempt Eve, but before he approaches her, he is temporarily disarmed by her beauty:
“That space the Evil One abstracted stood
From his own evil, and for the time remained
Stupidly good, of enmity disarmed,
Of guile, of hate, of envy, of revenge.
But the hot hell that always in him burns,
Though in mid Heaven, soon ended his delight,
And tortures him now more the more he sees
Of pleasure not for him ordained: then soon
Fierce hate he recollects, and all his thoughts
Of mischief, gratulating, thus excites:”[186]
Here Satan uses languages to persuade himself to do what he has planned, first rebuking his thoughts for leading him away from his plan, reminding himself that he came to destroy, not to taste pleasure, and finally deciding to go on with his task.
“Hate stronger under show of love well feigned,
the way which to her ruin now I tend.”[187]
As Peter Weston pointed out, Satan’s approach to Eve has sexually aggressive undertones[188]:
“With burnished neck of verdant gold, erect
Amidst his circling spires, that on the grass
Floated rebundant. Pleasing was his shape”[189]
As in Eve’s dream, he speaks to her in fashion of courtly love-language:
“Wonder not, sovran mistress, if perhaps
Thou canst who art sole wonder, much less arm
Thy looks, the heaven of mildness, with disdain,
Displeased that I approach thee thus, and gaze
Insatiate, I thus single, nor have feared
Thy awful brow, more awful thus retired.
Fairest resemblance of thy Maker fair,
Thee all things living gaze on, all things thine
By gift, and thy celestial beauty adore”[190]
His appeal at her vanity is successful:
“Into the heart of Eve his words made way,
Though at the voice much marvelling”[191]
Like weapons Satan’s words pierce into Eve’s heart, even though he has not yet said something meaningful. The mere fact that a snake can speak serves as a hook for Eve’s attention.[192] On her question how it comes that an animal can speak, Satan answers, still dispersing flattering words in-between his speech, that he achieved a human mind by eating from a certain tree and that he is so fond of Eve “universal Dame”[193] that his first thought was to show her the tree so that she may partake of its blessings.
Though Eve is in doubt she lets the snake lead her to the tree, and Satan “swiftly rolled/ In tangles, made intricate seem straight”[194]. His movement as a snake is congruent to his deceptive language and he is compared to a wandering fire, a will-o’-the-wisp, that leads wanderers astray.
When they reach the tree Eve tells the snake that God has forbidden them to eat from it, but he, in the fashion of an antique orator[195], again uses language as his weapon against mankind:
“Those rigid threats of death; ye shall not die.
How should ye? By the fruit? It gives you life
To knowledge; by the Threatener? Look on me,
Me who have touched and tasted, yet both live
And life more perfect have attained than Fate
Meant me, by venturing higher than my lot.
Shall that be shut to Man which to the beast
Is open? Or will God incense his ire
For such a petty trespass, and not praise
Rather your dauntless virtue, whom the pain
Of death denounced, whatever thing Death be,
Deterred not from achieving what might lead
To happier life, knowledge of good and evil?
Of good, how just? Of evil, if what is evil
Be real, why not known, since easier shunned?
God, therefore, cannot hurt ye, and be just”[196]
His arguments, so far, are logical: since the snake is still alive though claiming to have eaten from the tree, the fruits will not kill Eve. Even more, Satan as the snake tells Eve that it has attained a happier life by eating. Further he argues, if God is just, he will not punish Eve with Death, whatever Death until now unknown to Paradise may be, but rather praise her courage for trying to attain a better life. His argument is that God wants Eve to eat the fruit and that the forbidding was a test of her courage rather than her obedience.
He then seems to contradict his own arguments:
“Why, then, was this forbid? Why but to awe?
Why but to keep you low and ignorant,
His worshippers? He knows that in the day
Ye eat thereof your eyes, that seem so clear
Yet are but dim, shall perfectly be then
Opened and cleared, and ye shall be as Gods,
Knowing both good and evil, as they know.”[197]
Satan’s own hatred towards God slips in when he accuses God of envy, of wanting to keep Adam and Eve ignorant and small. This seems a contradiction to his first line of arguing, but it also serves as an assurance that, if his assumption that God wants Eve to eat of the fruit is wrong, then God is not a just God and that disobedience to an unjust God is the right choice.
“That ye should be as Gods, since I as Man,
Internal Man, is but proportion meet;
I, of brute, human; ye, of human, Gods
So ye shall die perhaps, by putting off
Human, to put on Gods”[198]
This argument that death might just mean putting off human to put on Gods is especially striking since Eve cannot know yet what death is. To summarise, Satan’s arguments in his artful seduction of Eve are (1) since the snake did not die when eating the fruit, Eve will not die, (2) if God is just, he wants her to eat and improve her social standing, (3) if he does not want her to eat, he is not just and therefore does not need to be obeyed and (4) she will become a Goddess is she eats.
Satan’s temptation is successful and special stress is put on the power of his deceptive words:
“He ended, and his words, replete with guile,
Into her heart too easy entrance won:
[...] and into her ears the sound
Yet rung of his persuasive words, impregned
With reason, to her seeming, and with truth.”[199]
When even one third of the angels fell for Satan’s rhetoric, how can God expect Eve to stand the temptation? Even Uriel was deceived by Satan when he asked entrance into Paradise, “For neither man nor angel can discern/ Hypocrisy, the only evil that walks/ Invisible, except to God alone”[200]. The Angels are beings of superior intelligence and even they can not realise Satan’s frauds. The difference is that as a compensation to their lower intellect Adam and Eve have been warned by Raphael.
The Fallen Angels have not been warned even though God, as an omniscient being, knew that Satan would tempt them. One could argue that he did not warn them because of their superior intellect they were more sufficient to stand the tempting words. Yet, until Satan’s revolt, they did not know that language can be deceptive, that one can lie. If God would have warned them, less of them would have fallen. One can argue in this case that God did not warn them, because he wanted it to be their free choice to stand or fall, and he wanted to leave Satan the free choice to rebel, which would have been inhibited if the Angels had been warned of fraud.
Still there is no explanation why the angels are self-depraved when they, just as Eve, were persuaded by Satan’s words. The difference in the two temptations is that his deception of Eve was more complete: he approached her in the guise of a snake, dissembling to be someone else, while to his angels he spoke in his own shape. Yet this dissembling was necessary because Eve knew of his fall. But he told her open lies, while when speaking to the angels he was just turning the truth upside down, reinterpreting the facts. Thus, Satan lied more completely to Eve.
Another difference lies in their reactions to the fall: Adam and Eve almost instantly repent, while the Fallen Angels bemoan their fall, but not that they tried to overthrow the order. Spurned on by pride they actively decline any grace that might be offered to them if they asked God for forgiveness.
7 The unholy trinity: Satan, Sin and death
Sin and Death are the guardians of the hell gates, and one wonders why an omniscient God appointed such disreputable guards – except if he wanted Satan to pass through the gates of hell.
Sin is described as following:
“The one seemed woman to the waist, and fair,
But ended foul in many a scaly fold,
Voluminous and vast, a serpent armed
With mortal sting.”[201]
This is both an allusion to a monster called Errour in Spencer’s The Faerie Queene[202], and an anticipation of Satan himself turning into a snake later.
Death is not portrayed in the usual iconography of a skeleton with a scythe, but as a shapeless shadow:
“The other Shape-
If shape it might be called that shape had none
Distinguishable in member, joint, or limb,
Or substance might be called that shadow seemed,
For each seemed either – black it stood as Night,
Fierce as ten Furies, terrible as Hell,
And shook a dreadful dart; what seemed his head
The likeness of a kingly crown had on.”[203]
Satan is not scared by this monster but heroically faces it, and their meeting is depicted in the likeness of two epic heroes:
“So frowned the mighty combatants, that Hell
Grew darker at their frown; so matched they stood;
For never but once more was either like
To meet so great a foe: and now great deeds
Had been achieved, whereof all Hell had rung,
Had not the snaky Sorceress [...]
rushed between.”[204]
Satan either does not remember Sin or does not recognise her, so she tells him the story of her birth:
“In Heaven, when at the assembly, and in sight
Of all the Seraphim with thee combined
In bold conspiracy against Heaven’s King,
All on a sudden miserable pain
Surprised thee, dim thine eyes, and dizzy swum
In darkness, while thy head flames thick and fast
Threw forth, till on the left side opening wide,
Likest to thee in shape and countenance bright,
Then shining heavenly fair, a goddess armed,
Out of thy head I sprung.”[205]
The story of Sin’s birth has parallels to Athena’s birth, who sprung, in full armour, out of Zeus’s head.[206] Athena is the Greek Goddess of wisdom, wisdom springing from the head of the highest God Zeus. Sin was born from Satan’s thoughts as a product of his imagination. With “attractive graces”[207] Sin wins the favour of the rebel angels and especially of Satan , who sees his own image in Sin.
“Thyself in me thy perfect image viewing,
Becam’st enamoured, and such joy thou took’st
With me in secret that my womb conceived
A growing burden.”[208]
Sin as the image of Satan is a parody of God creating man in his image, but Satan narcissistically falls in love with his own image and begins an incestuous relationship with his daughter, of which Death is the progeny. Death, then, rapes his own mother and barking hell-hounds are the offspring, which “into the womb/ That bred them they return, and howl, and gnaw/ My bowels”[209]. This strange episode with the hell-hounds might be an allegory to the pains of guilt and fear which attend sin.[210]
The infernal family is a parody of the Holy Trinity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit: the father is Satan, Sin the daughter and the shapeless Death both Satan’s son and grandson. Sin even says she “shall reign/ At thy right hand voluptuous, as beseems/ Thy daughter and thy darling”.[211]
Moreover, this episode serves to compare Satanic sexuality with the pure sexuality later witnessed in Eden.
“And so the sexual relations in Satan’s family are characterised by rape, incest, internal violation, endless narcissism, shame, and unnatural pain – in striking contrast to the healthy prelapsarian sexuality of our first parents.”[212]
Satan uses his best weapon, his language, to persuade Sin to open the gates of hell: First he flatters Sin and Death, who he’d been insulting earlier:
“Dear daughter, since thou claim’st me for thy sire,
And my fair son here show’st me, the dear pledge
Of dalliance had with thee in Heaven, and joys
Then sweet, now sad to mention[...] know
I come no enemy, but to set free
From out this dark and dismal house of pain
Both him and thee, and all heavenly host
Of Spirits that, in our just pretences armed,
Fell with us from on high.”[213]
He then goes on promising Sin and Death the world, and Mankind as their prey. Since Satan did not know until then that Sin and Death were guarding the hell gates, he must have improvised here, instinctively feeling how he could bait them.
Sin’s reason for opening the door to Satan is essentially the same reason Abdiel named for obeying God:
“Thou art my father, thou my author, thou
My being gav’st me; whom should I obey
But thee?”[214]
It is ironic that Sin shows filial obedience to her father when Satan failed to obey his creator.
Sin instinctively knows that Satan was successful in Paradise and asks Death to help her building a bridge over the gulf of Chaos between earth and hell to allow easier trespass. Sin and Death need to always be together “For Death from Sin no power can separate.”[215] This is a demonstration of the belief that Sin (the sin of disobedience) brought Death into the world, hence Death will always be Sin’s shadow. Satan, as the creator of evil, also is united in “fatal consequence”[216] to Sin and Death. Sin addresses Satan like a citizen would address his king:
“Thine now is all this World; thy virtue hath won
What thy hands builded not; thy wisdom gained,
With odds, what war hath lost, and fully avenged
Our foil in Heaven. Here thou shalt monarch reign”[217]
Satan is now the lord of the world, a title he often has in legend and literature, sharing his kingdom with Sin and Death.
8 God, Christ and satan
G.K. Hunter and several other noticed that the “move from the politics of Book II to the politics of Book III looks like a move from democracy to tyranny.”[218] In Book II we observe the fallen angels debate about what to do next, while in Book III God decrees, and all that is left to do for the assembled angels is to sing hallelujah.
Satan sits exalted above his peers, but he listens to Moloch’s vote for open war, to Belial’s advice to sit and wait and do nothing, to Mammon’s suggestion to build a second kingdom out of hell and to Beelzebub’s plan of corrupting mankind in order to spite God. Beelzebub opens his speech addressing the assembly with the same titles as Satan usually does: “Thrones and Imperial Powers, Offspring of Heaven,/ Ethereal Virtues!”[219] And indeed we are told by the narrator that Beelzebub held this speech following Satan’s instructions:
“Thus Beelzebub
Pleaded his devilish counsel, first devised
By Satan, and in part proposed – for whence
But from the author of ill could spring
So deep a malice”[220]
Thus Satan has ordered Beelzebub to tell forth his plan so that it looks as if Satan were merely doing what the majority wants. Still, he does what the majority wants, he only makes it look as if it had not been his idea in the first place in order to make his sacrifice of volunteering to destroy God’s plan for mankind look even more heroic. A democracy? Certainly, but one in which the politicians are corrupt and use deception to manipulate the masses. When Satan asks the assembly who volunteers for the mission, his choice of words clearly serves to scare them off:
“who shall tempt with wandering feet
The dark, unbottomed, infinite abyss,
And through the palpable obscure find out
His uncouth way, or spread his aery flight,
Upborne with defatigable wings
Over the wast abrupt, [...]
What strength, what art, can then
Suffice, [...] on whom we send
The weight of all, and our last hope, relies.”[221]
Satan vividly describes the dangers that will await the volunteer and stresses that all hope depends on his success. It turns out just as Satan wanted to: given his description of the dangers, no one volunteers, and he can offer his sacrifice and look especially heroic while doing so.
“Thus saying, rose
The Monarch, and prevented all reply;
Prudent, lest, from his resolution raised,
Others among the chief might offer now,
Certain to be refused, what erst they feared,
And, so refused, might in opinion stand
His rivals, winning cheap the high repute
Which he through hazard huge must earn.”[222]
Satan’s self-sacrifice parallels Christ’s offer of self-sacrifice for the salvation of man in Book III. God declares that man must die forever unless someone else dies for him and asks whether “Dwells in all Heaven charity so dear?”[223] Just as in hell the fallen angels were mute none of the angels volunteers:
“on Man’s behalf
Patron or intercessor none appeared,
Much less that durst upon his own head draw
The deadly forfeiture and ransom set.
And now without redemption all mankind
Must have been lost, adjudged to Death and Hell
By doom severe, had not the Son of God,
In whom the fulness dwells of love divine,
His dearest mediation thus renewed”[224]
Christ’s self-sacrifice is in this story a heroic counterpart to Satan’s, but, given the circumstances, Satan and his fallen angels are in a more positive light. Satan manipulates his followers in a way that no one volunteers and then hurriedly goes on his mission so that none of them will spoil his plan by offering to do the work, while in heaven the angels are not manipulated into not volunteering, but clearly do not want to sacrifice themselves. Also Christ’s sacrifice carries less dramatic charge than Satan’s, because he knows that his death will not last:
“that debt paid,
Thou wilt not leave me in the loathsome grave
His prey, nor suffer my unspotted soul
Forever with corruption there to dwell,
But I shall rise victorious”[225]
Satan on the other hand does not have the gift of foreknowledge; he does not know whether he will win or lose and thus takes more danger onto his shoulders. Milton faced difficulties in making Christ appear nobler than Satan, but it is even more difficult to make God appear good.
In its attempt to justify the ways of God to men, Milton’s epic deals with the question how an omniscient and benevolent God could create evil, or, how Weston summarised it:
“Even more difficult is the old theological problem of an ‘omnipotent’ being, who by definition could produce any world he chose, actually producing a world in which evil appears, and then punishing it with human death in the name of ‘justice’.”[226]
Such a God would seem quite neurotic and would fit Empson’s definition of “the wickedest thing yet invented by the black heart of man.”[227]
But what a world would it be in which no possibility of evil exists? God’s creatures would not be free anymore, free to choose or refuse goodness. God, in his first monologue, says about Adam’s and Eve’s pending fall:
“I made him just and right,
Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall.
Such I created all the Ethereal Powers
And Spirits, both them who stood and them who failed;
Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.
Not free, what proof could they have given sincere
Of true allegiance, constant faith, or love,
Where only what they needs must do appeared,
Not what they would?”[228]
Milton here clearly prefers the Arminian view of a God leaving his creatures the free will instead of the common Puritan view of predestination, which makes God’s creatures to his puppets.
When God seems pettish to the reader in his self-justification, Milton actually wanted to disassociate foreknowledge from predestination:
“If I foreknew,
Foreknowledge had no influence on their fault,
Which had no less proved certain unforeknown.”[229]
So God had to create the possibility for evil in order to leave the free will open to his creatures, but his foreknowledge does not mean he predestines everything.
Yet God seems cruel in his treatment of Satan:
“And high permission of all-ruling Heaven
Left him at large to his own dark designs,
That with reiterated crimes he might
Heap on himself damnation”[230]
God does not actively lead Satan into further evil, but he does not hinder him. Of course, if he stopped Satan, he would destroy his free will. For the same reason God did not prevent the rebellion in heaven: if he had destroyed the rebel angels, where would have been their freedom?
Many critics wondered why God did not end the war before three days had passed, Empson even assumed that God waited for three days so that the rebel angels felt that they had a chance to win, and thus drive them into further evil[231]. One can just as easily argue that he was giving the rebel angels time to realise their mistake, to see that a war between spirits is futile. Milton’s God, however, says different:
“Two days are, therefore, passed, and thus far
Have suffered that the glory may be thine [Christ’s]
Of ending this great war.”[232]
The reason is neither making the rebels heap more evil onto their heads nor leaving them a chance to repent, but to make the Son look more heroic; not one of God’s best sides.
Nevertheless, the fallen angels are created with the same free will, as Satan himself admits on the Niphates soliloquy:
“Hadst thou the same free will and power to stand?
Thou hadst. Whom hadst thou then, or what, to accuse,
But Heaven’s free love dealt equally to all?”[233]
Satan is not forgiven, but not because God refuses to offer him grace, but because out of pride Satan refuses God’s grace:
“O, then, at last relent; is there no place
Left for repentance, none for pardon left?
None left but by submission; and that word
Disdain forbids me, and my dread of shame
Among the Spirits beneath, whom I seduced
With other promises and other vaunts
Than to submit, boasting I could subdue
The Omnipotent.”[234]
Satan clearly says he would not accept God’s forgiveness because it would hurt his pride and he is afraid of the negative light it might cast on him in the eyes of his followers. His courage suffices to fight an invincible enemy, but his courage does not suffice to ask for forgiveness. It is his free choice to be God’s adversary and thereby to heap more damnation onto his head.
So far, God’s behaviour towards Satan can be explained by his respect to Satan’s free will, yet there is one scene where God is pointlessly cruel towards him. Returning triumphant from his mission, Satan expects his fellow rebels to cheer at his report of the fall of man, but instead a dreadful transformation takes place:
“So having said, a while he stood, expecting
Their universal shout and high applause
To fill his ear, when, contrary, he hears,
On all sides, from innumerable tongues
A dismal universal hiss, the sound
Of public scorn; he wondered, but not long
Had leisure, wondering at himself now more;
His visage drawn he felt to sharp and spare,
His arm clung to his ribs, his legs entwining
Each other, till, supplanted, down he fell,
A monstrous serpent on his belly prone,
Reluctant, but in vain; [...]
He would have spoke,
But hiss for hiss returned with forked tongue
To forked tongue; for now were all transformed
Alike, to serpents all”[235]
This long passage has no biblical basis, it is fully Milton’s invention. It describes a pointless humiliation of being turned to snakes “some say”[236] annually. It is reminiscent of typical Restoration punishments:
“In the context of Restoration politics, the most urgently felt analogy is that strange commutation of sentence inflicted on some of the regicides who escaped execution and who were obliged to turn up, annually, to be carried on a hurdle to the place where they would have been executed;”[237]
What is most painful for the reader who willingly or unwillingly admires Satan’s rhetoric is that God also takes away his best weapon: his language. There is no explanation for this punishment except that God wants to prove “that point which Satan has declined fully to accept, namely, that God’s power over him is utterly transcendent.”[238] God chose this punishment to demonstrate his power.
9 Satan’s inner hell
Satan holds several soliloquies in the tradition of the Elizabethan stage heroes. In those he reveals his inner torment. His first and longest soliloquy is held after he has crossed the abyss in the prospect of Eden. His inner torments are reminiscent of the inner hell Mephostophilis in Faustus described:
“horror and doubt distract
His troubled thoughts, and from the bottom stir
The Hell within him, for within him Hell
He brings, and round about him, nor from Hell
One step, no more than from himself, can fly”[239]
Satan’s despair by far surpasses Mephostophilis:
“Me miserable! Which way shall I fly
Infinite wrath and infinite despair?
Which way I fly is Hell; myself am Hell;
And, in the lowest deep, a lower deep
Still threatening to devour me opens wide,
To which the Hell I suffer seems a Heaven.”[240]
But before that he addresses the Sun:
“O thou that, with surpassing glory crowned,
Look’st from thy sole dominion like the god
Of this new World, at whose sight all the stars
Hide their diminished heads, to thee I call,
But with no friendly voice, and add thy name,
O Sun, to tell thee how I hate thy beams,
That bring to my remembrance from what state
I fell”[241]
There is an obvious pun between Sun and Son, the sun whom Satan hates because it does not shine in hell and the Son who is the reason for his revolt and who is the one who hurled him into hell. Satan and the Son were opponents from the beginning.[242]
Satan for the first time is honest to himself and admits that his revolt was unjust:
“Ah wherefore? He deserved no such return
From me, whom he created what I was
In that bright eminence, and with his good
Upbraided none; nor was his service hard.
[...] lifted up so high,
I’sdained subjection and thought one step higher
Would set me highest, and in a moment quit
The debt immense of endless gratitude,”[243]
Satan clearly admits that God created him, which he denied at other occasions, and that he did not rebel because God was unjust, but because his ambition made him want to overreach his place. Furthermore, he admits that he was free to choose and that his pride forbids him to repent. Even more, if he would repent, soon his ambition would again lead to a rebellion and an even heavier fall for “never can true reconcilement grow/ Where wounds of deadly hate have pierced so deep.”[244] For the first time in the poem we see Satan without the mask he wears in public, without the persona he has to create in order to be able to lead the rebel angels.
“they little know
How dearly I abide that boast so vain,
Under what torments inwardly I groan;
While they adore me on the throne of Hell,
With diadem and sceptre high advanced,
The lower still I fall, only supreme
In misery – such joy ambition finds!”[245]
Even alone, Satan uses language to convince someone: himself:
“So farewell hope, and with hope, farewell fear,
Farewell remorse! All good to me is lost;
Evil, be thou my Good: by thee at least
Divided empire with Heaven’s King I hold,
By thee, and more than half perhaps will reign;
As Man erelong, and this new World, shall know.”[246]
Satan defines himself as the adversary, as the opposite of God: what God defined as good Satan defines as evil and what God defined as evil Satan declares to his good. Satan at first has difficulties following his new self-definition, especially when he sees Adam and Eve for the first time:
“O Hell! What do mine eyes with grief behold?
Into our room of bliss thus high advanced
Creatures of other mould – Earth-born perhaps,
Not Spirits, yet to Heavenly Spirits bright
Little inferior – whom my thoughts pursue
With wonder, and could love, so lively shines
In them divine resemblance, and such grace
The hand that formed them on their shape has poured.”[247]
Satan obviously did not expect them to be so similar to angels, and he is momentarily disarmed, realising that he could love them and pity them. Interestingly enough, the reason why he could love them is their resemblance to the creator, whom Satan claims to hate. Satan is torn between contradictory feelings; love and hate, courage and despair seem to blur. In order to be able to fulfil his task Satan deludes himself into thinking that he has friendly aims towards them, that his evil will be good for them:
“League with you I seek
And mutual amity, so strait, so close,
That I with you must dwell, or you with me,
Henceforth. [...] Hell shall unfold,
To entertain you two, her widest gates,
And send forth all her kings; there will be room,
Not like these narrow limits, to receive
Your numerous offspring”[248]
After he thus “excused his devilish deeds”[249] his character is steadfastly deteriorating.
In voyeuristic fashion he watches Adam and Eve’s innocent love, while he is innerly eaten up by envy, then he concentrates on what he heard them talking about, hoping he can use it against them:
“One fatal tree there stands, of Knowledge called,
Forbidden them to taste. Knowledge forbidden?
Suspicious, reasonless. Why should their Lord
Envy them that? Can it be sin to know?
Can it be death? And do they only stand
By ignorance? Is that their happy state,
The proof of their obedience and their faith?”[250]
Satan, himself having many features of a scholar, is honestly outraged about a God who wants to keep Adam and Eve ignorant. For a moment he seems to assert his goodwill to them:
“Hence I will excite their minds
With more desire to know, and to reject
Envious commands, invented with design
To keep them low, whom knowledge might exalt
Equal with gods.”[251]
But at the end of his soliloquy he reveals that he knows well that his mission will result in “long woes”[252] for them.
His deterioration also is made visible by the image of him whispering into the sleeping Eve’s ear “Squat like a toad”[253], a change from the highest archangel to an amphibian. Returning to his own shape, he is at first outraged that the angels who found him do not recognise him, then abashed when they tell him that his shape is not anymore that of undiminished brightness, but resembling his sin.
The next form he takes on is that of a serpent, in which he holds his next soliloquy. Satan sees the beauty of the new created world, but is unable to partake in it: “the more I see/ Pleasure about me, so much more I feel/ Torment within me”[254]. Especially noteworthy is the structure of Pleasure without/ Torment within. Even if Satan is in Paradise he carries along his inner hell.
Satan admits that the only reason he is here is to make others as miserable as himself, “For only in destroying I find ease”[255]. Satan has by now convinced himself that the angels were not created by God after all[256], thus Satan is not only capable of deluding others, but also of deluding himself.
Satan is still aware of his self-debasement:
“O foul descent! That I, who erst contended
With Gods to sit the highest, am now constrained
Into a beast, and, mixed with bestial slime,
This essence to incarnate and imbrute,
That to the height of deity aspired;
But what will not ambition and revenge
Descend to?”[257]
Far from the heroic figure in Book I and II, Satan chooses Eve as his victim, because she seems an easier prey than the stronger and more intelligent Adam.
“So much hath Hell debased and pain
Enfeebled me to what I was in Heaven.”[258]
Thus it is “the hot hell that always in him burns”[259], his own tormented mind that debases and deteriorates him. Abdiel was right when he told Satan that he is “to thyself enthralled”[260], Satan is imprisoned in his own inner hell.
We get a puzzling description of the geographical hell in book one:
“A dungeon horrible, on all sides round,
As one great furnace flamed, yet from those flames
No light, but rather darkness visible
Served only to discover sights of woe”[261]
The darkness made visible by the flames is chiefly the darkness of Satan’s thoughts and passions. In retrospect, the lines “The mind is its own place, and in itself/ Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven”[262] conveys not that Satan can with effort of his mind make a Heaven of Hell, but that his perverted mind is hell, that he himself made hell out of his imaginations.
To sum up the position of Satan in the epic, I will quote a very good passage by Thomas Corns:
“For certainly what we have here, nested within the divine comedy of earth and its inhabitants, is the tragedy of Satan. In part it narrates the fall of one from high degree to the lowest depths. But it also ponders the sadness of lost potential and explores with peculiar attention to the minutiae of the character’s responses the horror of being damned.”[263]
conclusion
There is a huge step from the grotesque-comical Belyal of The Castle of Perseverance to Satan in John Milton’s Paradise Lost. There are various reasons for this change: life became more complicated, during the sixteenth century for the first time in English history a woman had been Queen, social mutability had set in and made it possible to rise or fall in the social order and the seventeenth century had seen a republic rising and falling. Since life had become more complicated and insecure, more power was transferred to demonic forces.
Another reason for the change in the depiction of Satan was the change from Catholicism to Protestantism. Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus, which was written by an atheist but in Protestant times, shows a Lucifer who is almost as powerful as God, who is an absent God and does not show mercy as he did in the Morality Plays. Satan in John Milton’s Paradise Lost has heroic qualities and is in power only surpassed by God and Christ.
In the Middle Ages people believed they could protect themselves against the devil with holy water, candles and Latin prayers. These Catholic practises, that were close to magic rituals, were in Protestant times condemned as superstitious, even as demonic in themselves. The only protection against the devil accepted by the Protestants was faith. Thus, if one did not have enough faith, he was inevitably a victim of the devil.
Protestant ideas of the devil made it impossible to laugh at him. In comparison to the Middle Ages the devil had gained immense power, was too fearful to be a comic figure in literature, as no rituals could protect people against him.[264]
The devils in Marlowe’s and Milton’s works are more deep, more complicated characters, also more tragic than in the Morality Plays. Yet they are also darker characters who have considerably more power.
Of course, there must also be considered the difference between Marlowe, Milton and the anonymous writers of Morality Plays: only from the sixteenth century on it became possible to be a professional writer: while the authors of the Morality Plays were maybe monks, most certainly writing in their spare time, Marlowe and Milton were doing it for a living, thus one can expect a more sophisticated work from a professional.
To sum up, various circumstances, namely changes in society, Protestant belief and a Humanist revaluation of learning, led to a more and more complicated, deeper depiction of evil during the Early Modern Period.
Zusammenfassung auf deutsch
I. Einleitung
Das Ziel der Arbeit: eine Übersicht über Personifikationen des Böses in der Figur des Teufels zu geben in der Zeit von ungefähr 1400 bis 1700. Zu diesem Zweck werden die spätmittelalterlichen Moralitäten The Castle of Perseverance, Wisdom und Mankind analysiert. Anschließend eine Untersuchung der Darstellung von Mephistopholis, Luzifer und Belzebub in Christopher Marlowes Dr. Faustus und von Satan in John Miltons Paradise Lost.
II. Der teufel als personifikation des bösen
II.1. der teufel: definitionen
Die Legende von Luzifers Fall hat keinerlei biblische Basis; eine Legende von einem Krieg der Engel kann nur in der Offenbarung des Johannes gefunden werden.
Man kann jedoch Parallelen in Heidnischen Mythen finden: Vritas Rebellion in der Hinduistischen Mythologie, Ahriman in der Persischen Mythologie, Set in der Ägyptischen, Prometheus in der Griechischen und Loki in der Nordischen Mythologie. Der Phoenizische Baal-Zebub trug ebenfalls zum Konzept des Teufels bei.
Die Legende von Luzifers Fall ist folgende: Luzifer war der schönste, intelligenteste und mächtigste der Engel. Deswegen wurde er stolz und glaubte, ein weiterer Schritt würde ihn gottgleich machen. Also begann er gegen Gott zu rebellieren indem er ein Drittel der Engel in den Krieg führte. Luzifer und seine Anhänger wurden im Kampf geschlagen und in die Hölle gestürzt.
Mittelalterliche Legenden berichten, dass es Luzifers Sünde war, sich auf Gottes Thron zu setzen, während der Talmud und der Koran berichten, dass Luzifer sich geweigert hat, sich vor Adam zu verbeugen. Orthodoxe Christliche Lehre besagt jedoch dass die Menschen geschaffen wurden, um die durch die Rebellion geleerten Plätze in den Reihen der Engel zu schliessen.
Die Legende Luzifers ist ein Versuch zu erklären wie das Böse in die Welt kam. Allerdings wirft sie die Frage auf, warum ein allmächtiger und allwissender Gott einen Engel erschaffen sollte, der das Böse in die Welt bringt: entweder wusste Gott nicht, dass Luzifer böse werden würde, doch dann ist er nicht allwissend, oder er wusste es und hat ihn dennoch erschaffend, doch dann ist er nicht gut.
Dionysius erklärte es 500 AD damit, dass Gott überall ist, sogar in jedem Staubkorn, und dass das Böse eine Verneinung Gottes und damit essentiell Nichts ist. Das Böse ist demnach ein Fehlen des Guten, oder Gottes.
II.2. Der glaube an teufel und dämonen
Der Glaube an Teufel, Geister und Dämonen war weit verbreitet in der Frühen Neuzeit. Allerdings gab es Unterschiede in der Darstellung des Teufels zwischen Volksglauben und Protestantismus. Zum Beispiel wurde der Teufel in Volksbüchern oft als Witzfigur dargestellt, der leicht von einfachen Leuten ausgetrickst werden konnte, wogegen der Protestantismus ein düstereres Bild des Teufels zeichnete.
Protestanten erzählten oft, dass sie in der Nacht vom Teufel heimgesucht wurden und dass er versucht habe, sie zu erschrecken oder zu versuchen. Auch wenn Protestanten sündhafte Gedanken hatten, haben sie oftmals behauptet, der Teufel habe ihnen diese Gedanken eingeflüstert und sich so von der Schuld losgesprochen.
Besessenheit war ein weitverbreitetes Phänomen während der Renaissance. Man vermutet heute, dass viele Geisteskrankheiten als Fälle von Besessenheit gedeutet wurden. Dass der Exorzismus oftmals erfolgreich war kann man auf den Plazebo-Effekt zurückführen. Eine weitere Erklärung für Besessenheit ist, dass es den Opfern die Möglichkeit gab, sich auf eine Art und Weise zu verhalten, die unter normalen Umständen sozial inakzeptabel war.
Die Frühe Neuzeit war auch die Zeit der Hexenverbrennung: Man glaubte, Hexen würden einen Pakt mit dem Teufel schliessen und sich in Hexenzirkeln treffen, wo sie eine Parodie der Heiligen Messe feiern würden. Eine relativ moderne Theorie über Hexen besagt, dass manche Hexen die Anhänger eines alten Keltischen Kultes waren. Dazu würde passen, dass der Keltische Waldgott Cernunnos optische Ähnlichkeiten mit dem Teufelsbild hat. Allerdings gibt es für diese Theorie keine eindeutigen Beweise, und es ist wahrscheinlich, dass die meisten sogenannten Hexen alte, meistens hässliche Frauen waren, die bei ihren Nachbarn unbeliebt waren und die im Falle von einer Missernte oder von Krankheiten als Sündenbock dienten.
Der Glaube an Elfen aus vorchristlichen Zeiten überlebte, wurde jedoch auf das Wirken von Satan zurückgeführt, insofern dass Elfen für eine Art Minidämonen gehalten wurden, die jedoch weniger bösartig als andere Dämonen waren.
Zusammenfassend lässt sich sagen, dass der Volksglaube eine Mischung aus Katholischem und Protestantischen Gedankengut mit Relikten aus Heidnischen Zeiten war.
III. FRÜHNEUZEITLICHE MORALITÄTEN
III.1. DAS GENRE DER MORALITÄT
Das Englische Morality Play existiert nicht im selben Umfang auf dem Kontinent. Es entwickelte sich zur selben Zeit wie die Mysterien- und Mirakelspiele im späten vierzehnten Jahrhundert, als eine zunehmende Säkularisation stattfand. Die Lateinische Literatursprache wurde durch Englisch ersetzt.
Moralitäten stellen den Kampf von guten gegen bösen Kräften um die menschliche Seele dar. Der Protagonist ist ein Charakter mit einem allegorischen Namen wie Mankind, humanum genus oder Everyman. Am Anfang des Stückes verhält er sich meist gottgefällig, wird dann jedoch von den sogenannten Vice-Figuren zum Bösen verführt. Am Ende des Stückes bereut er gewöhnlich und wird von Gottes Gnade gerettet.
Der Sinn dieser Stücke war es, das Publikum zu belehren, dass es nicht in Sünde leben solle. Gleichzeitig dienten die Stücke zur Unterhaltung und beinhalteten eine Menge slapstickartigen Humor.
III.2. DIE GESELLSCHAFT IM FÜNFZEHNTEN JAHRHUNDERT
Das Fünfzehnte Jahrhundert war die Schwelle zwischen Mittelalter und Renaissance. Die klare Aufteilung der Gesellschaft in Arbeiter, Adelige und Priesterschaft lockerte sich und es wurde möglich, in der Hierarchie aufzusteigen oder zu sinken.
Nach der Pest war die Bevölkerungsanzahl gesunken, was auch zur Folge hatte, dass es mehr Nahrungsmittel für die Überlebenden gab und dass die Geldmenge auf weniger Menschen verteilt werden musste. Viele Felder wurden in Schafweiden umgewandelt, eine Voraussetzung für die spätere industrielle Revolution. Die Mittelklasse gewann Reichtum und an Einfluss.
Nach dem 100-jährigen Krieg gegen Frankreich setzten die Rosenkriege in England ein, die von 1455 bis 1485 dauerten. Die Menschen sehnten sich nach Frieden, was eine perfekte Grundlage für den Tudor-Mythos gab.
Die Kriege des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts waren der Grund, aus dem es in England zu dieser Zeit weniger literarische Errungenschaften gab als auf dem Kontinent, und warum die Renaissance später einsetzte. Andererseits hat der Feudalismus an Einfluss verloren und zu einem Establishment von einer frühen Bürgerkultur geführt.
III.3. THE CASTLE OF PERSEVERANCE
III.3.1. ERSCHEINUNGSBILD, Anzahl und Hierarchie der Teufels und Vice-Figuren
Es ist schwer zu sagen, wie genau die Bühnenteufel der Moralitäten aussahen, aber aus Kassenbüchern und der Ikonographie der Zeit lässt sich schliessen, dass sie Hörner hatten, eine animalische Fratze, eine schwarze oder rote Farbe und eine fellartige, struppige Körperbehaarung.
Im Unterschied zu anderen Moralitäten ist zum Castle of Perseverance ein Bühnendiagramm mit Regieanweisungen erhalten, das besagt, dass der Teufel Belyal mit pyrotechnischen Spezialeffekten ausgestattet sein soll.
In der Hierarchie der Vice-Figuren steht Belyal nicht an oberster Stelle sondern teil sich diese Position mit der Welt und dem Fleisch in der klassischen Aufteilung von der Teufel, die Welt und das Fleisch. Jeder davon hat je drei Sünden oder Vice-Figuren unter sich stehen. Ausserhalb der Hierarchie stehen Avaricia und Malus Angelus.
Malus Angelus ist der böse Engel, der neben dem guten Engel der Seele zugeordnet ist, und sie ins Verderben führen soll. Avaricia führt die Menschheits-Figur Humanum Genus zurück in die Sünde, nachdem er sich bereits in die Burg der Beharrlichkeit zurückgezogen hat.
Ungewöhnlich ist die Figur Backbyter, weil er die Hierarchie unterwandert und Streit zwischen den anderen Vice-Figuren stiftet.
III.3.2 FUNKTION DER TEUFELSFIGUR
Der Zweck der Instruktion wird von den Teufels-und Vicefiguren erfüllt, indem sie die Zuschauer vor der ewigen Verdammnis warnen. Besonders Backbyter gibt negative Beispiele, wie man sich nicht verhalten solle. Sie erfüllen ausserdem den Zweck der Unterhaltung, da ihre unanständigen Reden und ihre Intrigen untereinander sicherlich amüsant auf ein spätmittelalterliches Publikum wirkten.
Belyal wirkt krotesk-komisch in seiner Selbstvorstellung, da sich in seinen Reden Stolz und Verzweiflung vermischen und sein pyrotechnischer Auftritt wirkt bizarr. Die Erklärungen wer er ist dienen ausserdem als eine Lektion in Theologie. Belyals Rolle dient als eine Warnung vor Sünde und bietet gleichzeitig die Möglichkeit, über die eigenen Ängste zu lachen.
III.4. WISDOM, WHO IS CHRIST
III.4.1. ERSCHEINUNGSBILD, Anzahl und Hierarchie der Teufels und Vice-Figuren
Wisdom wurde circa 1456-1470 verfasst.
Lucifer tritt zuerst im Teufelskostüm auf, informiert das Publikum über seine Pläne und versucht dann die Seelenteile Mind, Will und Understanding im Kostüm eines vornehmen Edelmannes.
Der Grund für seinen Versuch die Menschen zu korrumpieren ist Neid. Um Mind, Will und Understanding zu verführen argumentiert er, dass Christus ein Vita Mixta gelebt hat und die Menschen es ihm gleichtun sollten und übertreibt die Gefahren des Vita Contemplativa.
Nach der gelungenen Verführung werden Mind, Will und Understanding selber zu Vice-Figuren mit den Namen Mayntennance, Perjury and Fornycacyon.
III.4.2 FUNKTION DER TEUFELSFIGUR
Die Funktion der Instruktion erfüllt die Figur Wisdom, die vor der Welt, dem Fleisch und dem Teufel warnt.
Lucifer erfüllt die Rolle des Versuchers und erinnert damit das Publikum dass sogar kleine Sünden zur ewigen Verdammnis führen können, und dass man sich vor falschen Freunden hüten soll, die für das Sündigen rationale Argumente hervorbringen können.
Lucifer ist keineswegs lustig oder grotesk wie Belyal im Castle. Die humoristischen Stücke werden von Maintenance, Perjury und Fornication gespielt, zusammen mit stummen Tänzern, welche die Namen von weiteren Sünden haben. Lucifers Rolle ist es, das Publikum ernsthaft an die Gefahr der täglichen kleinen Sünden zu erinnern.
III.5. MANKIND
III.5.1. ERSCHEINUNGSBILD, ANZAHL UND HIERARCHIE DER TEUFELS- UND VICE-FIGUREN
Mankind wurde etwa zur selben Zeit geschrieben wie Wisdom.
Die einzige gute Figur in dem Stück ist Mercy, die Vice-figuren New Gyse, Nowadays und Naught unterstehen dem Teufel Tittivillus. Tittivillus war dem Publikum aus anderen Stücken und aus der mittelalterlichen Exempla-Literatur als niedrigrangiger Teufel bekannt. In diesem Stück wurde absichtlich ein weniger wichtiger Teufel gewählt als Verkörperung der alltäglichen Versuchungen.
Die Vice-figuren versuchen ihn auszutricksen, aber Tittivillus durchschaut sie. Trotzdem erklärt er sich bereit Mankind in Versuchung zu führen. Der Grund dafür wird nicht näher erläutert.
Tittivillus hindert Mankind bei der Arbeit indem er den Boden verhärtet und die Samen versteckt. Weiterhin flüstert er ihm Versuchungen ins Ohr.
III.5.2 FUNKTION DER TEUFELSFIGUR
Die Hauptfunktion dieses Stückes ist die Unterhaltung; ausser Mercy sind alle Figuren komisch.
Im Gegensatz zu Belyal im Castle of Perseverance lachen wir nicht über Tittivillus, sondern mit ihm. Gegenüber New Gyse, Nowadays und Naught wirkt er überlegen, und sein Verhalten Mankind gegenüber erinnert mehr an einen Joker als an einen Teufel.
New Gyse, Nowadays und Naught amüsieren das Publikum mit ihren groben Scherzen und ihrer unanständigen Redeweise. Sie dienen auch als negatives Beispiel und als Warnung wie leicht man in sündhaftes Verhalten fallen kann, indem sie das Publikum auffordern, mit ihnen ein Lied zu singen, das sich als unanständig herausstellt.
IV. CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE’S DOCTOR FAUSTUS
IV.1. DAS GENRE DER TRAGÖDIE
Eine Tragödie ist ein ernstes Stück über den katastrophalen Untergang des Protagonisten. Die ersten Tragödien waren Griechische Tragöden, doch die Renaissance Tragödien berufen sich mehr auf die Römische Rachetragödien nach Seneca.
Marlowes Protagonist Faustus versucht, höheres Wissen zu erlangen als für Menschen bestimmt ist und fällt als Strafe an die tiefstmögliche Stelle der Ordnung, nämlich die ewige Verdammnis.
IV.2. A UND B TEXT
Von Christopher Marlowes Doctor Faustus sind zwei Versionen erhalten: der um 1604 gedruckte A Text und der 1616 gedruckte B Text, der um mehr als 500 Zeilen länger ist. Die B Version ist mit parodistischen Szenen erweitert, enthält jedoch auch Veränderungen in den ernsten Szenen. Wenn die Darstellung des Teufels unterschiedlich ist, werde ich beide Versionen miteinander vergleichen.
IV.3. DIE GESELLSCHAFT IM SECHSZEHNTEN JAHRHUNDERT
In der frühen Neuzeit waren die Menschen sehr religiös, jedoch war sogar die Religion Veränderungen unterworfen. 1533 vollzog Heinrich VIII die Trennung von der Katholischen Kirche und ernannte sich selbst zum Oberhaupt der Anglikanischen Kirche. Unter der Regierung von Mary Tudor dagegen wurden Protestanten verfolgt, während Elisabeth I Protestantismus als Staatsreligion einführte.
Protestanten und besonders Puritaner beschuldigten die Katholiken eine Domäne des Teufels zu sein und vice versa.
IV.4. DAS HUMANISTISCHE WELTBILD UND PROTESTANTISMUS
Die Frühe Neuzeit war eine Epoche des Paradigmawechsels zwischen mittelalterlichen und modernem Weltbild. Es bestanden große Unterschiede darin, wie Individuen und Gruppen die Welt betrachteten. Manche glaubten an Hexerei und Magie, manche nicht, manche glaubten an das geozentrische Weltbild, manche an das solarzentrische von Kopernikus.
Allgemein wurde die Welt als streng hierarchisch geordnet betrachtet: Alles, vom obersten Erzengel bis zum niedrigsten Mineral hatte seinen fest vorgeschriebenen Platz in der göttlichen Ordnung. Im Gegensatz zum Mittelalter wurde der Mensch als das Zentrum der Ordnung gesehen: über ihm die Engel, unter ihm die Tiere und Pflanzen. Er hat eine Sonderstellung, da er das einzige Wesen ist, das sowohl einen Körper als auch eine Seele besitzt. Somit ist er das Verbindungsglied zwischen der sinnlichen und der spirituellen Welt.
Schulbildung war nicht länger den Kirchen vorbehalten und den klassischen Autoren wie Horaz, Cicero und Ovid wurde größere Bedeutung zugemessen. Bildung war nun auch für die Mittelklasse erreichbar: weder Shakespeare, noch Jonson, noch Milton, noch Marlowe stammten aus einem aristokratischen Hintergrund. Ausserdem war es zum ersten Mal möglich, vom Schreiben zu leben.
Obwohl die Menschen an eine kosmische Ordnung glaubten, glaubten sie nicht an eine perfekte Welt: die Welt war direkt nach der Schöpfung perfekt gewesen, aber diese perfekte Ordnung wurde durch den Fall der Engel und die Erbsünde umgestossen. Oft versuchen Menschen, ihren vorgesehenen Platz in der Ordnung zu verlassen.
Vereinfacht kann man den Protestantistischen Glauben folgendermassen zusammenfassen: Gott erschuf Adam nach seinem Bild als ein perfektes Wesen, das fähig zur totalen Gehorsamkeit Gott gegenüber war. Gott wusste in seiner Allwissenheit, dass Adam den Test der Gehorsamkeit nicht bestehen würde, dennoch gab er ihm die volle Verantwortung. Die Erbsünde, nämlich dass Adam vom Baum des Lebens gegessen hat trotz Gottes Verbot, hatte katastrophale Folgen für die Menschheit: die Natur des Menschen wurde komplett korrumpiert, von Geburt an ist er mit Sünde befleckt. Ohne Gottes Hilfe ist der Mensch unfähig zum Guten und zur ewigen Verdammnis verurteilt.
Gottes Gnade wird durch Jesus personifiziert, der, um den Menschen von der Verdammnis freizukaufen, sich selbst am Kreuz geopfert und die Sünde des Menschen auf sich genommen hat.
Gott hat einige wenige Menschen erwählt, um ihre Seelen zu retten, doch die Menschen selber können nichts zur Rettung ihrer Seele beitragen, da Gott von Anbeginn der Zeit alles vorherbestimmt hat, auch wer gerettet und wer verdammt werden soll. Der Glaube wurde den Erwählten von Gott gegeben, den Verdammten wird jede Möglichkeit zur Besserung verwehrt.
IV. 5. DIE UNHEILIGE DREIFALTIGKEIT: LUCIFER, BELZEBUB UND MEPHOSTOPHILIS
Die wichtigsten Teufelsfiguren in Christopher Marlowes Doctor Faustus sind Lucifer, Belzebub und Mephostophilies. Mephostophilis spricht respektvoll von Lucifer, dem Arch-Regenten und Kommandant aller Geistwesen. Lucifers Schönheit vor dem Fall wird besonders betont.
Lucifer wird im Laufe der Tragödie oft auch indirekt mit Gott gleichgesetzt, so gibt es zum Beispiel eine Szene im ersten Akt, in der Faustus bereut und Gott anruft, jedoch betritt nicht Gott die Bühne sondern Lucifer, Belzebub und Mephostophilis in einer Parodie auf die heilige Dreifaltigkeit. Faustus bereut, dass er bereut hat und bittet Lucifer um Vergebung, woraufhin dieser ihm die Absolution erteilt. Die B Version dieser Szene wirkt komödiantischer. Um Faustus abzulenken, führt Lucifer ihm die Sieben Todsünden vor, und Faustus hält diese Show für so erfreulich wie das Paradies für Adam war.
Die Gleichsetzung von Gott und Lucifer läuft wie ein roter Faden durch das Stück. Auch in weiteren Szenen bereut Faustus vorübergehend aber bittet dann Lucifer für seine Unstetigkeit um Vergebung. Sogar im Endmonolog vor seiner Höllenfahrt verwechselt Faustus Gott mit Lucifer.
Die B Version unterscheidet sich von der A Version insofern, dass Lucifer, Mephostophilis und andere Teufelsfiguren schon vor dem Pakt, unsichtbar für Faustus, auf der Bühne anwesend sind. Dies verstärkt den Eindruck einer infernalen Verschwörung und von Faustus Machtlosigkeit gegen die höllischen Kräfte.
IV.6. DIE BEZIEHUNG ZWISCHEN FAUSTUS UND MEPHOSTOPHILIS
Faustus missversteht seine Beziehung zu Mephostophilis von Anfang an. So glaubt er, dass es seine magischen Fähigkeiten waren, die Mephostophilis beschworen haben, wogegen Mephostophilis sagt, dass Teufel immer erscheinen wenn sie jemanden den Namen Gottes missbrauchen hören, weil sie hoffen, seine Seele zu erlangen.
Faustus glaubt weiterhin, dass die ewige Verdammnis ihn nicht erschrecken kann, beziehungsweise dass es keine Hölle gibt. Zusätzlich macht er sich zu hohe Versprechungen darüber, was Mephostophilis und seine Magie ihm geben können. Jedoch sind die Tricks die Mephostophilis vorführen kann eher schal und seine Antworten auf Fragen unbefriedigend.
Der Pakt verpflichtet Mephostophilis, für 24 Jahre Faustus Diener zu sein, doch Faustus sieht in Mephostophilis mehr einen Schutz, der ihn vor allem, sogar vor dem Zorn Gottes schützen soll.
In der A Version versucht Mephostophilis weder, Faustus Illusionen zu zerstören noch ihn darin zu bestärken, er nimmt nur die Gelegenheit wahr, die sich ihm bietet. In der B Version ist Mephostophilis nur geringfügig aktiver, was Faustus Verdammnis angeht.
IV. 7. DIE HÖLLE UND DAS LEIDEN DES MEPHOSTOPHILIS
Eine der berühmtesten Szenen der Tragödie ist die, in der Faustus Mephostophilis nach der Hölle fragt. Mephostophilis beschreibt die Hölle als einen mentalen Zustand der Qual der auf der Entfernung zu Gott beruht. Mephostophilis leidet selber unter den Folgen des Falles.
Weiterhin beschreibt er die Hölle als einen Ort ohne Grenzen, der bei ihm ist, wo auch immer er hingeht.
Anders als Belyal in The Castle of Perseverance, Mephostophilis ist ein Charakter, mit dem das Publikum mitfühlen kann. Seine Qual wirkt nicht lächerlich, sondern tragisch.
Am Ende der Tragödie unterscheidet sich die B Version von der A Version, indem sie zum mittelalterlichen Bild der Hölle als ein Ort von körperlichen Qualen zurückkehrt.
V. JOHN MILTONS PARADISE LOST
V.1. DAS EPISCHE GENRE
Ein Epos ist ein langes, ehrzählerisches Gedicht, das von den Heldentaten eines oder mehrerer epischer Helden berichtet. Der Held, der oft von Göttern beschützt wird oder sogar von Göttern abstammt, erlebt seine Abenteuer meist auf einer langen, abenteuerlichen Reise.
Milton übernimmt viele Aspekte des klassischen Epos, aber der Charakter, der fast alle Qualitäten epischer Helden verkörpert ist Satan. Somit stellt er klassisches Heldentum und Christliches Heldentum einander gegenüber.
V.2. MILTON UND DIE KRITIK
Es gibt zwei verschiedene Hauptströmungen im der Literaturkritik zu Milton: die eine Richtung sieht Satan als den wahren Helden des Epos an, die andere Richtung sieht Paradise Lost als Warnung vor Ungehorsam gegenüber Gott. Kritiker beider Strömungen sind in ihrem Urteil beeinflusst von ihren persönlichen religiösen Gefühlen.
V.3. Die Restauration, Arminismus und Milton
Am 30. Januar wurde Charles I geköpft, nach einer diktatorischen Herrschaft, und unter Cromwell wurde eine Republik gegründet. Ab März 1649 arbeitete Milton für Cromwell und schrieb Pamphlets. Milton war ein großer Gegner der Royalisten und eine Befürworter der Republik.
Gegen Ende der 1650er Jahre was es deutlich geworden, dass die Republik gescheitert war, und Charles der II wurde König. In den folgenden Jahren wurden die Republikaner verfolgt und Milton konnte nur durch die Hilfe und Fürsprache seiner Freunde überleben.
Auch in seiner Religiösen Einstellung unterschied sich Milton von seinen Zeitgenossen. Milton war ein Anhänger des Arminismus, einer Protestantischen Strömung die weniger düster ist als der Puritanismus. Im Arminismus ist der Mensch frei sich für gut oder böse zu Entscheiden; Gott hat zwar alles was geschieht von Anbeginn der Zeit vorausgesehen, aber er hat es nicht vorbestimmt, sondern dem Menschen den freien Willen gelassen.
V.4. SATAN: HELD ODER ANTI-HELD?
In den ersten Büchern von Paradise Lost beobachten wir Satan, wie er sich von dem brennenden See aufrafft, in den Gott ihn gestoßen hat, wie er seine Armee mit einer muteinflössenden Rede aufmuntert, wie er eine Debatte darüber führt, was als nächstes zu tun sei, und wie er sich freiwillig meldet für eine gefährliche, möglicherweise tödliche Mission.
Zweifelsohne sind das alles heroische Taten, doch bei genauerer Untersuchung stellt man fest, dass Satan seine Qualitäten wie Mut, Eloquenz und Willensstärke für üble Zwecke einsetzt und somit seine vormals positiven Eigenschaften korrumpiert.
Das äußere Erscheinungsbild Satans und der gefallenen Engel ist beeindruckend und durchaus ästhetisch ansprechen geschildert. Satans eloquente Reden wirken sehr beeindruckend auf den Leser, der die Reden sehr genau lesen muss, um nicht, wie die gefallenen Engel, sich von ihm blenden zu lassen.
V.5. SATAN ALS VERSUCHER DER ENGEL
Gott unterscheidet zwischen den Engel, die selbstverschuldet gefallen sind, und Adam und Eva, die durch Satans Korruption gefallen sind. Doch warum bezeichnet Gott die gefallenen Engel als selbstverschuldet und selbstkorrumpiert, wo doch Satan auch die Engel durch seine brillanten Reden versucht hat?
Puritaner mochten ausgeschmückte Reden nicht, da Rhetorik als Falle Satans galt. Satans Reden sind, verglichen mit Gottes Aussagen, sehr ausgeschmückt und voll von rhetorischen Tricks.
Satan überzeugt die gefallenen Engel, indem er ihnen schmeichelt und an ihren Stolz appelliert. Weiterhin verdreht er die Wahrheit, aber da die Engel bis dahin keine Lügen kannten, können sie die Unwahrheit nicht erkennen.
Viele Kritiker waren der Meinung, dass Satans Reden republikanische Ideale verkörpern, und haben sich gefragt, warum ausgerechnet Satan Miltons eigene Position in der Politik vertritt. Der Unterschied zwischen Miltons anti-royalistischer Position und Satans Polemik ist der, dass Satan einen Gott bekämpft, der im Gegensatz zu einem menschlichen König tatsächlich unfehlbar ist. Rebellion gegen Gott wird deshalb als essentiell unnatürlich angesehen.
V.6. SATAN ALS EVAS VERSUCHER
Satans Versuchung Evas beginnt mit einem Traum, den er ihr einflüstert. In diesem, wie auch in der späteren realen Versuchung, benutzt er die Sprache der höfischen Liebe, die in ihrer Geziertheit im Kontrast zur echten Liebe Adams und Evas steht. Sowohl im Traum als auch in der echten Versuchung appelliert er an ihre Eitelkeit.
Adam und Eva sind von Raphael vor Satans Schlichen gewarnt worden, aber man fragt sich, ob Raphaels Wortwahl nicht versehentlich dazu beigetragen hat, dass Eva fällt: Satan argumentiert dass sie, wenn sie vom Baum ist, eine Göttin wird, und dass Gott in Wirklichkeit nicht ihren Gehorsam, sondern ihren Mut testen will, wobei man Raphaels Warnung unter Umständen genauso interpretieren könnte.
Weiterhin argumentiert Satan dass Gott, wenn er nicht will dass sie vom Baum des Lebens essen, kein guter Gott ist und Eva ihm deshalb nicht gehorchen muss.
Besonders betont wird die Wirkung Satans Worte, die wie Waffen in Evas Herz eindringen. In beidem Fällen ist es Satans Rhetorik, die den Erfolg seiner Versuchungen ausmacht. Eva wurde ausführlicher als die Engel hintergangen, denn Satan hat ihr direkte Lügen erzählt, während er gegenüber den Engeln die Wahrheit nur verdreht hat. Ein weiterer Unterschied liegt in der Reaktion Adam und Evas beziehungsweise der Engel auf den Fall: während Adam und Eva beinahe sofort bereuen, beharren die gefallenen Engel auf ihrer Opposition gegenüber Gott.
V.7. DIE UNHEILIGE DREIFALTIGKEIT: SATAN, SÜNDE UND TOD
Die Sünde und der Tod, die Wächter des Höllentores, sind die Kinder Satans: die Sünde entstand während seiner Rebellion im Himmel und ist ihm, wie die griechische Athene, aus dem Kopf entsprungen: ein Produkt seiner Imagination.
In einer Parodie auf Gott, der den Menschen nach seinem Abbild erschaffen hat, sah Satan sein eigenes Abbild in der Sünde und verliebte sich in sie, beziehungsweise in sein Ebenbild. Das Produkt dieser Verbindung war der Tod, der daraufhin seine eigene Mutter vergewaltigt hat.
Satan, die Sünde und der Tod sind eine Parodie auf die Heilige Dreifaltigkeit. Gleichzeitig dient Satans Familie dazu, satanische Sexualität mit der reinen Sexualität Adams und Evas in Eden zu vergleichen: Narzissmus, Inzest und Vergewaltigung wird der schuldlosen Sexualität Adam und Evas gegenübergestellt.
Wieder einmal benutzt Satan seine rhetorische Gabe um sein Ziel zu erreichen als er die Sünde überredet, ihm das Höllentor zu öffnen. Der Grund für ihren Gehorsam ist die Folgsamkeit einer Tochter ihrem Schöpfer gegenüber. Ironischerweise verwendet sie dieselben Argumente die der rechtschaffene Engel Abdiel angeführt hat, warum Satan Gott gehorchen sollte.
V.8. GOTT, CHRISTUS UND SATAN
Der Wechsel von der Versammlung in der Hölle zum Decree im Himmel mutet wie ein Wechsel von Demokratie zur Tyrannei an.
Während der Debatte in die Hölle sitzt Satan zwar erhöht über seinen Anhängern, aber er hört sich die Argumente der verschiedenen Redner an. Alle stimmen für Beelzebubs Plan, und Satan meldet sich freiwillig für die gefährliche Mission, durch das Chaos zur Erde zur reisen, um dort Adam und Eva vom rechten Weg abzubringen. Jedoch hat Beelzebub diese Idee im Auftrag Satans vorgetragen, damit es so aussieht, als würde Satan sich der Mehrheit fügen. In der Hölle herrscht zwar eine Form von Demokratie, aber ihre Politiker sind korrupt.
Satans Opfer formt eine Parallele zu Christus’ Opfer, der sich bereit erklärt, die Sünde der Menschheit auf sich zu nehmen, damit nicht alle die ewige Verdammnis erleiden müssen. Während Satan aufpassen und verschiedene rhetorische Tricks anwenden musste, damit sich niemand anderes freiwillig meldet, ist es deutlich, dass sich im Himmel niemand außer Christus opfern will, somit wirken die gefallenen Engel heldenhafter. Auch wirkt Christus Opfer weniger dramatisch, da er weiss dass sein Tod nicht von Dauer sein wird, während Satan nicht wissen kann, ob er gewinnen oder verlieren will.
Milton behandelt ausserdem das alte, theologische Problem wie es sein kann dass ein allmächtiger und allwissender Gott ein Wesen geschaffen hat, das das Böse in die Welt bringt, und der anschliessend das Böse im Namen von Gerechtigkeit bestraft. Die Erklärung liegt im freien Willen: hätten die Engel und die Menschen nicht die freie Wahl gehabt, sich für das Böse zu entscheiden, wären sie nur Marionetten in Gottes Hand. Satans Sünden können nicht vergeben werden, weil Satan aus Stolz Gottes Gnade nicht annehmen würde.
V.9. SATANS INNERE HÖLLE
Satan hält mehrere Soliloquies in der Tradition Elisabethanischer Bühnenhelden. Sein erstes Soliloquie hält er, nachdem er das Chaos durchquert hat und Eden betrachtet. In diesem gibt Satan zu, dass Gott ihn geschaffen hat, was er an anderen Stellen verneint. Auch gibt er zu, dass seine Rebellion ungerechtfertigt war, jedoch ist er zu stolz um um Vergebung zu bitten. Besonders betont wird, dass Satan seine innere Hölle mit sich trägt, wo immer er hingeht. Dieses Motiv der inneren Hölle zieht sich durch Satans gesamten Aufenthalt in Eden. Auch benutzt er immer wieder seine Rhetorik, um sich selber zu überreden seine Mission weiter zu verfolgen, obwohl er Mitgefühl für Adam und Eva empfindet, und sogar um sich selbst zu betrügen.
Die innere Hölle, die Satan mit sich trägt, korrumpiert in zusehends und degradiert im vom höchsten Erzengel bis zur Schlange.
VI. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG
Es besteht ein großer Unterschied zwischen dem grotesk-komischen Belyal aus The Castle of Perseverance und dem tragischen Satan aus John Miltons Paradise lost. Die Gründe sind verschiedenartig: Das Leben wurde komplizierter, soziale und politische Veränderungen fanden statt, die das Gefühl von Sicherheit zerstörten, weswegen mehr Macht auf dämonische Kräfte transferiert wurde.
Der Protestantische Glaube sprach dem Teufel mehr Macht zu als der Katholische Glaube, was auch die Wandlung von der Witzfigur zu einer düstereren Gestalt begründet.
Ausserdem ermöglichte die humanistische Aufwertung der Bildung es nicht nur, dass auch Menschen aus der Mittelklasse eine hohe Bildung erreichen konnten, sondern auch, dass professionelle Schriftsteller vom Schreiben leben konnten, was sicherlich auch zur tieferen Charakterisation Mephostophilis und Satans beigetragen hat.
Bibliography
Primary Sources:
1) Coldewey, John C. (ed.): Early English Drama. An Anthology.Garland Publishing, Inc., New York & London, 1993
2) Happé, Peter (ed.): Four Morality Plays. Penguin Books, 1929
3) Marlowe, Christopher: Doctor Faustus. Signet Classic 2001
4) Marlowe, Christopher: Dr. Faustus: The A-Text. ed. Ormerod, David and Wortham, Christopher, University of Western Australia Press, 1985
5) Milton, John: Paradise Lost. Penguin Popular Classics, Edinburgh 1996
Secondary Sources to The Devil as a personification of evil
1) Brown, Dorothy H.: Christian Humanism in the Late English Morality Plays. University Press of Florida, 1999
2) Keen, Maurice: English Society in the Later Middle Ages. 1348-15.00. Allen Lane, The Penguin Press 1990
3) Oldrigde, Darren: The devil in Early Modern England. Sutton Publishing 2000
4) Rudwin, Maximilian: The Devil in Legend and Literature. AMS Press, New York 1970
5) Russel, Jeffrey Burton: Lucifer. The Devil in the Middle Ages. Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London 1984
6) Scot, Reginald: The Discouverie of Witchcraft. Da Capo Press, Amsterdam 1971 (first printed in 1584)
7) Spalding, Thomas Alfred: Elizabethan Demonology. Chattus and Windus, London 1970 (first printed in 1880
8) Suerbaum, Ulrich: Das Elisabethanische Zeitalter. Philipp Reclam Jun. Stuttgart, 1989
Secondary Sources to Late English Morality Plays
1) Bomke, Wilhelm: Die Teufelsfiguren der mittelenglischen Dramen. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main 1990
2) Ettinger-Hengstebeck: Identitätsprobleme der dramatischen Personen in den frühen englischen Moralitäten. Hänsel-Hohenhausen, Egelsbach, 1972
3) Hayes, Douglas W.: Backbiter and the Rhetoric of Detraction. In: Comparative Drama. Western Michigan University, Volume 34, No. 1. Spring 2000
4) Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Ars Poetics, In Quintus Horatius Flaccus, Opera, ed. D.R: Shackleton Bailey, Stuttgart, Teubner, 1985
5) Rendall, Thomas: The Times of Mercy and Judgement in Mankind, Everyman, and the Castle of Perseverance. In: English studies in Canada. 1981 Fall; 7 (3)
Secondary Sources to Christopher Marlowe’s Dr. Faustus
1) Baldick, Chris (ed.): The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. Oxford University Press, 1996
2) Baumann, Uwe: Shakespeare und seine Zeit. Ernst Klett Verlag, Stuttgart Düsseldorf Leipzig, 1998
3) Birringer, Johannes H.: Marlowe’s >>Dr Faustus>TamburlaineDr Faustus>Tamburlaine ................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- the complete list of named hostas in the hostalibrary as
- zusammenfassung wichtiger
- az eurÓpai irodalom tÖrtÉnete
- yuma visitors bureau
- personifications of evil in early modern literature
- cast of the 2013 kansas city renaissance festival
- hbo copy home box office
- idyllwild arts boarding arts high school summer program
- faeries
- halle saale 19