His is a chaos of will and impotence in light of this critics view, compare and contrast Faustus and Hamlets tragic downfall

‘His is a chaos of will and impotence’ in light of this critics view, compare and contrast Faustus’ and Hamlet’s tragic downfall

The quote by J.B. Steane seems contradicting as it suggests that Faustus’s downfall is represented by his conscious choice, while being powerless about it. Faustus always has a choice of which path to take in his life right from the beginning act, yet his natural thirst for knowledge and power can make his downfall seem inevitable, as if he was powerless - he was always destined to take the path to hell.

Barbara F. McManus who wrote ‘outline of Aristotle’s theory of tragedy in the poetics’ says that a tragedy must contain a ‘katharsis’ which is a pinnacle of emotions that is meant to purge excess pity and fear. Both plays contain this - when Hamlet fights his uncle and dies, and when Faustus is sent to hell after his twenty four years has been completed, both of these end scenes are when most sympathy and pity is felt. Aristotle also states that ‘The protagonist should be renowned and prosperous...This change should come about as the result, not of vice, but of some great error or frailty in the character’ Hamlet, who is the heir of Denmark is both famous and a respected prince, while Faustus is only an ordinary man yet he is very intelligent who has high ambitions and promises that could be put to good use, so both characters have started in a high position with a lot to lose, although I believe because Faustus worked his way into his position his downfall is more tragic in that aspect compared to Hamlet’s who was born into power, as Faustus worked hard yet loses it all. The latter statement means that their downfall is their own doing due to a mistake that they made; this is most obvious with Faustus when he strikes a deal with the devil which ensures his own damnation for eternity, not listening to his good angel or the old man which could have meant he repented earlier and finally due to his natural quest for a higher level of understanding. Hamlet’s downfall could be his fault for a number of reasons – deciding to listen and act on what his father’s ghost had said which caused Hamlet to fight his uncle which ultimately ended his life, staying in Denmark and not returning to school when there were signs it may be best if he left, agreeing to the match with Laertes (it is purely Hamlet's vanity that he agrees to this) and killing Polonius.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Both characters are intellectuals who seek further knowledge, although Faustus’ pursuit for knowledge is more noticeable than Hamlet’s. Faustus sells his soul to the Devil so that he can acquire all the knowledge that he could want and Hamlet gets pieces of information formerly unknown to him from the ghost of his father who visits him from the afterlife, resulting in his retributional state leading to his death. Either way, knowledge seems to be the reason for both of their tragic downfalls. Both protagonists also seem to have an inner conflict with their conscience that continues throughout the play. In Doctor Faustus this is represented by the good and evil angel influencing him whether to repent or not. In Hamlet this is shown by Hamlet’s procrastination and soliloquies, as he contemplates between good and evil – whether to kill his uncle or not which causes him to slip into despair. Hamlet mistrusts the world and in his confusion he even admits to going mad ‘Hath made me mad’ showing his internal state of mind – Hamlet’s madness could also be said to have led to Polonius’ tragic death causing Claudius to fear his own life, Ophelia to go mad and Laertes to seek his revenge, therefore leading to the duel and Hamlet’s downfall.

Hamlet has more internal influences which are shown in his soliloquy ‘to be, or not to be, that is the question’ representing his philosophical approach on life due to his questioning of life and also his depressed and gloomy nature, while Faustus’ influences are more external with encouragement from Mephistopheles and threats from Lucifer and Beelzebub such as ‘Thou should’st not think of God; think of the devil’ and ‘Do so, and we will highly gratify thee’ which are imperatives showing that Hamlet has little choice and their authority over him, Lucifer uses the word ‘interest’ when talking about Faustus’ soul which can represent a financial interest and a legal claim implying that Faustus is in his possession. Faustus’ downfall isn’t entirely dependent on his will because when he tries to repent he is influenced from the fear of Lucifer.

Faustus’ downfall could be seen as more tragic than Hamlet’s because Faustus aspires to be at the highest of the chain of being ‘try thy brains to gain a deity’ yet ends up at the lowest rung of the chain when he desperately offers to be transformed into ‘some brutish beast’ implying that an unintelligent, primitive animal is the lowest of the chain. This can also relate to the wheel of fortune which was a concept of medieval philosophy stating that the goddess Fortuna spins a wheel which decides the fates of others – some have great gain, while others have great misfortune. Both of the protagonists downfall’s could relate to fate although I believe Hamlet’s more specifically as he was heir to the throne of Denmark yet lost that privilege through no fault of his own. Faustus is more rash than Hamlet who over thinks everything, Faustus (despite his intelligence) doesn’t reflect on his actions – the characters are at different extremes in the terms of procrastination. This may make Faustus’ downfall seem less tragic because Faustus does not think about his actions and so is more likely to make mistakes. However, Hamlet has more to lose than Faustus with Ophelia, his girlfriend and the chance to be King of Denmark which could make his downfall more tragic as he is falling from a higher position than Faustus, yet Hamlet thinks that he is already in hell on Earth so can be seen as more of a release to him to die.

Both plays contain numerous contextual references to hell which would have been far more horrific during the time that these plays were written compared to a modern audience, for instance Faustus being dragged to hell and Hamlet wishing for his uncle (the king) to be sent to hell would have been more shocking punishments, probably the worst fate that anyone could receive, during the time that these plays were written – the prospect of Hell would seem a lot weaker to a modern audience who are less religious. At the beginning of both plays the audience would have more sympathy for Hamlet because the events leading up to the start of the play He has a vision of an angry God. He pleads with different aspects of nature to help him, but they can't (his father dying and his mother marrying his uncle) are not his own doing and he does not deserve the suffering he is going through – this is shown in the first soliloquy ‘But break, my heart, for I must hold my tongue’ representing Hamlet’s sorrow with the words ‘break’ and ‘heart’ inferring a deep emotional pain which is worsened by the way that he has to keep his anguish to himself causing the audience to feel sympathetic towards him, the line is also in iambic pentameter which only higher class characters speak in, reinforcing his high position throughout the play resulting in a greater tragedy. On the other hand Faustus is acting in an arrogant manner ‘all things that move between the quiet poles shall be at my command’ meaning that he wants to be in control of the world (the two poles meaning the North Pole and South Pole) which shows his aspirational characteristics and motives. The audience may feel more sympathy for Faustus at the end when he begs for forgiveness and realises his flaw ‘my god look not so fierce on me’ implying a vision of an angry, ‘fierce’ god, also ‘now body, turn to air’ and ‘soul be changed into little water droplets’ shows his sheer desperation, as he begs for help from both from naturalistic elements ‘air’, ‘water’ and God. The audience may feel sympathy for Faustus at this point due to his ignorance, desperation and doomed fate - he could have been destined to a much greater path considering his intelligence and ambitions. ‘Come, I think hell’s a fable’ means that Faustus does not believe in hell so does not truly believe he will be sent to it, this shows his ignorance and his Renaissance views.

Some critics such as Farnham state that ‘Mephistopheles does not search for men to corrupt, but comes to serve and ultimately collect the souls of those who are already damned’ which implies that Faustus has no hope and that he was already damned as soon as he started summoning the devil. Faustus’ downfall was planned from the start and it would have been almost impossible for him to avert from its natural course. Mephistopheles may sense the corruptness of Faustus and see him as a lost soul, he even warns Faustus of the dangers but he chooses to ignore the servant of Lucifer –Faustus seems to think he is above Mephistopheles which is shown when he says ‘Learn thou of Faustus manly fortitude’ representing masculine confidence. Faustus also uses imperatives such as ‘fetch me one, for I will have one’ after he signs the contract showing his haughtiness and how self centred he is making the audience feel less pity for him once his downfall occurs and therefore seem less tragic (people do not generally sympathise with a character who shows little generosity or empathy).

Another critic – Roma Gill says that ‘Helen’s lips ‘suck forth’ his soul in more than metaphor. The kiss signals the ultimate sin, demoniality, the bodily intercourse with spirits’. This suggests that Faustus is damned as soon as he kisses Helen of Troy. The old man is seen to give up hope after seeing this happen. The old man may represent God’s patience and chances of repentance, yet because the kiss causes the old man to give up on Faustus this may also represent the moment when God also does. Roma Gill says that it is the ‘ultimate sin’ which is another explanation for why he could be damned from then on - the ultimate sin cannot be forgiven. It could be argued that Faustus is damned when he signs his soul to the devil, but God still give signs for repentance and forgiveness after Faustus’ soul is signed, such as the old man. Faustus’ inner conflict (the good and evil angel) also cease from appearing after the kiss. Faustus keeps on condemning himself over and over, getting further into the point of no return which builds on Faustus’ impotence, although the way that Faustus barely attempts to save himself despite his impotence may give the effect that he does not truly care about the warnings he is being given or his actions which weakens the tragic downfall.

Overall I believe that Dr Faustus has a higher contrast between tragedy and good fortune than Hamlet. Both protagonists are damned by the first few scenes of the play (Hamlet seeing his father’s ghost and Faustus summoning Mephistopheles), but Hamlet had already suffered from a great deal of misfortune right at the beginning of the play and continued to throughout, while Faustus continued to be getting stronger until the end - resulting in the katharsis being stronger in Dr Faustus than in Hamlet. The audience would have more sympathy for Hamlet throughout the play and less for Faustus because Faustus becomes more corrupted as the play progresses – this corruptedness (straying from religion etc) would have been more shocking to an audience of the time. At the end scene of the play the audience would feel more emotions during Faustus’ downfall due to his realisation and great loss of pride compared to Hamlet’s. ‘His is a chaos of will and impotence’ as explained earlier applies to Faustus – his intelligence and desire to be wealthy, powerful and honoured means he was damned from the start of the play, this starts a chain of events that leads him further from God and closer to the dark arts and the devil, once set in motions he is impotent to stop this cause and effect motion until it is too late.