Was Goethe’s Faust ‘modern’?
From its conception to its reception, Goethe’s Faust was sixty years in the making. A tall order then for Faust (the character) to mirror the intellectual currents of the time, namely Christianity, Classicism, Sturm und Drang, Enlightenment, Romanticism and German cultural nationalism. Yes, the list is long, so are the six decades that marked a profound change in Germany; what with the transformation of philosophy and literature by the Kantian revolution and the establishment of the European movement of Romanticism. Was Faust in synchrony with Goethe’s age? In other words, was Faust the character, Romantic? Was he Christian, or Gothic? Was he Kantian? In sum, was he ‘modern’? I will argue that indeed Faust illuminates the intellectual vogue of the time while simultaneously reflecting the complexity and often overlapping popular impulses of Goethe’s (long) age.
Faust’s legend began in the Reformation (first published in 1587) and inspired countless interpretations in the 1770’s. But it was Goethe’s Faust that embodied the typical reaction of the early nineteen-century to the Enlightenment movement. His characterization reanimated the Romantic theme for the Sturm und Drang movement; this was the movement that rebelled against convention and central to it was the emphasis on ‘the’ individual.
Long before Goethe’s publication of Faust, Lessing (1729-81) had, in 1759, drafted the first dramatization of Faust in which the character is not damned. Indeed, the 1770’s transformed the Faust legend from a character that is punished and damned for his pursuit of intellectual ‘truth’, to one that embodies a defiant cult figure and saved by his intellectual pursuit. Faust undergoes a metamorphosis at the hands of Goethe, thus reflecting the Strum und Drang movement of the defiant cult figure. And Goethe goes further.
As an individual bent upon self-realization, Goethe’s Faust wants to grasp his own destiny and hence the paradox: he is caught up in a devil’s bargain, and at the same time, he refuses to delegate the ‘terms’ to Mephistopheles. In the pact with the latter, Faust sets the terms and conditions – if you wish- of the deal: ‘ If ever, as Time flows by us, I should say:[…]’ (lines 351-7). Here the characterization reflects not only the Strum und Drang defiance, but also the Kantian theory of will. In other words, the character reflects the ‘modern’ Kantian doctrine, that of the individual determining outcomes. Indeed, Faust goes on to say: “Let us Plunge into Passion’s hectic dance,/balanced upon the rolling wave of Chance,/where pain is mixed with pleasure, failure with success:/no man can be in action and rest./” (lines 385-390). Here Faust not only steers his own destiny, but mingles Kantian self-determination with that other ‘modern’ intellectual current, Romanticism. Certainly the imagery and metaphors echo Romantic symbolism: Faust’s experience is individual, yet this same experience ultimately must communicate a unified, spiritual reality. In other words, reality (the infinite) manifests itself via the symbol (the finite). Faust’s characterisation therefore, particularly in both the Gothic setting of his study and the ‘sublime’ apparition of Mephistopheles, illuminates the Romantic current of Goethe’s time.
Faust’s legend began in the Reformation (first published in 1587) and inspired countless interpretations in the 1770’s. But it was Goethe’s Faust that embodied the typical reaction of the early nineteen-century to the Enlightenment movement. His characterization reanimated the Romantic theme for the Sturm und Drang movement; this was the movement that rebelled against convention and central to it was the emphasis on ‘the’ individual.
Long before Goethe’s publication of Faust, Lessing (1729-81) had, in 1759, drafted the first dramatization of Faust in which the character is not damned. Indeed, the 1770’s transformed the Faust legend from a character that is punished and damned for his pursuit of intellectual ‘truth’, to one that embodies a defiant cult figure and saved by his intellectual pursuit. Faust undergoes a metamorphosis at the hands of Goethe, thus reflecting the Strum und Drang movement of the defiant cult figure. And Goethe goes further.
As an individual bent upon self-realization, Goethe’s Faust wants to grasp his own destiny and hence the paradox: he is caught up in a devil’s bargain, and at the same time, he refuses to delegate the ‘terms’ to Mephistopheles. In the pact with the latter, Faust sets the terms and conditions – if you wish- of the deal: ‘ If ever, as Time flows by us, I should say:[…]’ (lines 351-7). Here the characterization reflects not only the Strum und Drang defiance, but also the Kantian theory of will. In other words, the character reflects the ‘modern’ Kantian doctrine, that of the individual determining outcomes. Indeed, Faust goes on to say: “Let us Plunge into Passion’s hectic dance,/balanced upon the rolling wave of Chance,/where pain is mixed with pleasure, failure with success:/no man can be in action and rest./” (lines 385-390). Here Faust not only steers his own destiny, but mingles Kantian self-determination with that other ‘modern’ intellectual current, Romanticism. Certainly the imagery and metaphors echo Romantic symbolism: Faust’s experience is individual, yet this same experience ultimately must communicate a unified, spiritual reality. In other words, reality (the infinite) manifests itself via the symbol (the finite). Faust’s characterisation therefore, particularly in both the Gothic setting of his study and the ‘sublime’ apparition of Mephistopheles, illuminates the Romantic current of Goethe’s time.
Equally, Faust’s characterisation mirrors another mood of the time, namely the European chattering classes’ realisation of the limitations of the Enlightenment movement: to Faust, knowledge is a burden since it is external to him, and therefore a ‘valueless inheritance’ (line 40). It is worth noting that at the heart of the Enlightenment project lies the illumination of the human mind by rational enquiry, notably knowledge. Indeed the externality of this knowledge is crucial, since it informs empiricism – central to the Enlightenment- thus defining the human mind at birth as a blank slate or tabula rasa. Faust is portrayed as a man who is almost overwhelmed by this knowledge, a man in acute agitation, in conflict between ‘Two Souls’ (line 137): on the one hand, he’s confronting the limitation of his life (sensual, internal, Romantic) and on the other hand, the aspirations for ‘purity of mind’ (Line 141) (rational, external, Enlightened).
Faust is presented as an intellectual scholar and yet, we find him devoured by intense emotion and gasping for some understanding of ‘ the force that binds all nature’s energies’ (line 22). Goethe’s Faust indeed captures, what I would call, the contemporary intellectual schizophrenia. Here we have a characterization of the Romantic Movement, the rebellious and immature child of that happy-go-lucky parent, the Enlightenment. It is almost as if we can hear it, through Faust, developing its tantrum: I differ, I rebel, I accuse and yet, I want to know everything but it’s impossible to know everything (not by the means you showed me anyway, dear parent) ‘…I shall be forced to acknowledge, once again/not one desire has been fulfilled-not one.’ (lines 269-70). Knowledge for Faust is no longer gained from the outside (he concludes that despite seeking knowledge he knew nothing) but from within the self. Seeking of the truth is an internal, organic process (Romantic) as opposed to external, mechanic one (Enlightenment). Faust will not rely on reason alone. Furthermore, in the opening lines of Scene I, Faust challenges directly the Enlightenment’s concept of ‘knowledge’ leading to the ‘truth’ and happiness for mankind: ‘I cannot boast that what I know is right;/ I cannot boast that my teaching will ever find/ a way to improve or to convert Mankind/’ (lines 14-16). (Robert Owen beware: Goethe’s Faust is not the production you want imported to New Lanark…)
It is interesting to note how Goethe deviates from Enlightenment’s ‘rules’ of drama (inspired by the Classics) and how, instead, he uses ‘Romantic irony’- the audience realises that the play is an illusion – Faust the character illuminates on the one hand the contemporary Strum und Drang’s rebellion against French neo-classical theatrical genre and therefore irremediably takes on a Romantic characterization.
When Gretchen asks Faust if he believes in God, he replies: ‘Who can dare name God,/and say ‘He does exist’?/ Or what sane man resist/ the feeling. ‘He does not’?/’ (lines 20-23). Faust then, in the Romantic tradition of the era, stretches the question out of its doctrinal essence. He goes on to say ‘Open your generous heart, and let it be/ flooded with nameless ecstasy –/ then call it what you will- […]/ Feeling is all.’ (Lines 33-38). Here again Goethe relies on the ‘feeling’ of the sublime – a feeling of infinity within the finite- and Faust’s ‘conviction of divinity in nature’ has its roots in Spinoza’s definition of God as present in everything. Spinoza (1632-77), we note, lived a century before Goethe. So can it be argued that the characterization of Faust was not exclusive to the intellectual currents of the time? Spinoza’s philosophy was certainly endorsed by some of Goethe’s contemporaries, but by no means universally so.
Another strong characteristic of Faust the Romantic is demonstrated in Goethe’s use of the sublime, as in Scene 20, ‘Walpurgis Night’. Note the verses/description of the surroundings used by Faust (he and Mephistopheles are travelling through the Harz mountains) ‘…where the foaming cataract falls in spray…’ (Line 9) and ‘…The storm-witch hurtles howling through the air:/ she beats down savagely on the back of my neck.’ (Lines 33-34). The sublime is illustrated at its best with the chorus of witches, warlocks and ‘voices from below’ that pepper the scene. The setting of the scene (Harz mountains) touches on German folklore.
Which leads us on to a more ambiguous area: did Faust reflect that other current of Goethe’s time, namely German cultural nationalism? Briefly (as elaborating on this requires another discussion altogether), Faust was a Germanic legend that was, at the hands of Goethe, developed into a different and radicalized version. Goethe’s Germany was not really one nation, but fragmented, and Weimar was a hotbed of ideas and intellectual creativity. Goethe was greatly influenced by Herder’s promotion of European (and German) folk-song heritage and Faust the character was probably very much a product of this vogue, not German cultural nationalism as we would understand it today (e.g. Nazism), but nationalism as in a ‘dreamt-of’ Germany that was not geographically fragmented but united in the wealth of its folk-heritage.
Faust the character did indeed reflect the times, in particular German Romanticism, however, it is not that straightforward, since central to the Faust character is the denouement in Faust part II: here we have an almost mystical solution, and wait for this, even a setting in the ‘Classics’ themes. It is worth remembering that the Romantics, unlike their predecessors, the Enlightened, abhorred denouements, rational or otherwise, and thrived on the perpetual dramatization of internal convulsions of the ‘soul’ or the ‘inner’ (emotion) versus the ‘external’ (knowledge by rational enquiry). And this is where the complexity of the Faust characterization at its best illuminates Goethe’s age: it mirrors the complex, implicit and intangible conflict between Romanticism and the bastardisation of post-Enlightenment/early Romantic project(s) mingling the Classics with the sublime.
And yes Faust was ‘modern’; in as far as he reflected the ‘complex mix’ of contemporary Germany. For example, Christianity for Faust belonged to the past; however, he did not substitute this to some passive contemplation of beauty. He feels one with ‘modernity’ and yet he is at odds with it. It’s a paradox, really, that encapsulates the essence of modernity: Isn’t modernity, after all, individualistic and subjective (as was Faust)? Doesn’t it drive on life in a hectic, chaotic manner, unable to realize all the potentialities of itself (as did Faust)? In that respect, Goethe’s Faust was modern. He integrated or ‘synthesized’ the opposed elements of the time: philosophy and poetry, the Classical and Romantic imagination and reason (derived from high culture) and common sense (derived from popular culture). Faust did reflect the popular impulses of Goethe’s age, impulses that were as complex and interwoven as the overlapping intellectual currents of the time. A legend, perhaps, of modernity at its messiest.
Nada Cabani © 2010
This is the edition of Faust I’ve been reading: MacDonald, R.D (2002) Goethe, FAUST, Oberon Books
Advertisement
Comments are closed.