…Sean, your piece is interesting and thoughtful, but I am not persuaded that your analysis answers the problem of the text - although I think you have identified the problem when you observe that “Despite the Christian imagery that Goethe uses, this is not a Christian play.”
I agree. It is most certainly not a Christian play - but I would argue it is so much not a Christian play that it is impossible to derive Christian lessons from it, which your analysis seems to suggest we can do.
Here is my reasoning.
As in The Book of Job, in Faust the devil secures the Lord’s permission before he sets out to try to corrupt his target human. Goethe almost certainly devised this parallel on purpose, in order to contrast his “God” with the Christian Lord. The tell is that just as the God of the Bible is confident that Job will not turn against Him, Faust has his “God” suggest in the prologue that Faust is his guy; he will be fine; he will withstand the devil’s schemes.
But now look at the difference in the two texts.
Goethe’s “God” says of Faust, “Though now he serves me but in clouded ways, Soon I shall guide him so his spirit clears … Man ever errs the while he strives.”
How different from the Lord of the Bible, who has faith in Job *because he is blameless:* Job was upright, eschewed evil, and was scrupulous about atonement.
Goethe’s “God” otoh apparently thinks Faust is fine because he’s ambitious and busy, or something.
(One could argue that the Biblical Lord values being - what we are in our hearts/souls/spirits - while Faust’s “God” values doing/accomplishment.)
At this point in the story (i.e. when it opens) Faust is already involved in divination and similar sins; he is already an unrepentant sinner. He’s an occultist.
But Goethe’s “God” is also unperturbed by Faust’s later sins, which as you mention include ruining Gretchen and causing the murder of Philemon and Baucis. In fact, Goethe reinforces this explicitly at the end of the play: when the angels carry Faust to heaven after he dies, they state that “Whoever strives in ceaseless toil, Him we grant redemption.” Echoing the words of Goethe’s “God” in the prologue.
So - in a sense, your analysis distills down to an argument that Faust failed because he did not give himself to Christ. That is true, as it is true of everyone, fictional or real.
And no doubt Goethe had a God-shaped hole in his heart. All we sinners do.
But I don’t think Goethe wrote Faust to show us a protagonist who would have been happier sooner if he’d correctly interpreted the book of John.
My reading of the play is that Goethe was trying to describe and defend a corrupted version of Christianity. “It’s okay if you sin, child; as long as you were ‘striving’ while you did it, and maybe get a little intercessory boost, you’ll receive eternal life.”
(You can almost hear Goethe arguing for himself. “Surely I will go to heaven. Haven’t I put all my gifts to work to the utmost of my ability?”)
So I agree 100% that Faust has something to tell us about modernity and the void-of-the-soul that haunts so many moderns. But what the play tells us is not to be found by looking at Faust’s choices, but at Goethe’s.
Imo.
…What do you think. Does my alternate analysis make sense?
I appreciate this analysis as it’s quite thorough and very well said! I reckon your conclusion is ultimately the same as my piece, however. To clarify, my claim was not that Goethe himself advocated logos (he didn’t), rather the conclusion is my critique as to where Goethe’s philosophy falls short. Nonetheless, your commentary was very well written my good sir!
I think there’s a balance of both. There’s a time, place, and season for rigorous striving in the temporal world, but then there’s a need for “leisure,” (the contemplation of eternal truth as you suggest), which I believe is a core aspect as to why Christianity abides by a Sabbath day each week
This piece gives me pause. I always wish I had had a better, more traditional classic education. But then we read Faust--and I remember reading the play. And I see your subhead, "The Futility of Knowledge".
Yes, it is good to study the greats, but it's not enough. There is something more to this than book learning...
And how is it that Goethe learned this lesson so that he might teach it through his play?
Goethe himself had a very rigorous private education growing up. I reckon his genius was merely the firsthand realization of what knowledge both can, and can’t do for you - namely it be nourishing for the soul, but can never fulfill your spirit on its own
"In the beginning was the deed." A fascinating detail to build the whole play on.
Jewish tradition also puts the deed first. When the Bible was offered to the Israelite nation at Mount Sinai the people answered "we will do and we will understand," action before comprehension.
But the deed there is received, not invented. It answers to something beyond the one doing it.
Perhaps Faust's mistake was not choosing the deed over the Word, but a deed that answered to no one.
In forty years as a rabbi, the restless people I sat with were rarely short of achievements. What they lacked was something to answer to - a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives in which their achievements could find a place.
I think the distinction you draw is spot on. If I understand you right, “the deed,” of Judaism is received via revelation, whereas Goethe’s “deed,” is a rationally constructed deed. It reasons to follow that the “deed,” grounded in the creator-God of the universe provides far more nourishment for the soul than the “deed,” of the modern “self-made,” man.
Excellent distillation of the essence of the Faust story. I have a small list of books that I read as a young, existentially inclined atheist that I'm interested in rereading now as a mature (agewise, at least!) Christian. It hadn't occurred to me to put Goethe's "Faust" on the list, but I will now.
The pipeline from “young existential atheist,” to “matured Christian,” is very real haha! Faust is definitely one of those plays that awards a second inquiry later in life. Always fascinating to see how differently you receive works like that after some time has passed
What a great insight! I’ve been through this story before but never caught the significance of the mistranslation of John 1:1 which totally puts a new perspective on it. The synchronicity is that I’m going to see Gounad’s Faust at Houston Grand Opera next week, so your thoughts here are most appreciated!
As someone who had Faust on her reading list for so long but has not found the time to read it, your piece was written in a way that I understood your analysis. Which is very nicely done by the way. I think that for Faust to find true happiness he cannot just satisfy his earthly desires without consequence or conscience. He has to move in the margins of morality, to have a right and wrong to find it. I think that is what sort of what the principle of logos is in this text.
Yes, that is it exactly, Sean. One small addition: in Jewish tradition the understanding is not left behind. "We will do" comes first, but "we will understand" follows, and it comes through the doing. The practice teaches what argument alone cannot.
Anything that man constructs he can de-construct. Anything that comes from outside remains an absolute.
Finally!!! We get to talk about Faust.
…Sean, your piece is interesting and thoughtful, but I am not persuaded that your analysis answers the problem of the text - although I think you have identified the problem when you observe that “Despite the Christian imagery that Goethe uses, this is not a Christian play.”
I agree. It is most certainly not a Christian play - but I would argue it is so much not a Christian play that it is impossible to derive Christian lessons from it, which your analysis seems to suggest we can do.
Here is my reasoning.
As in The Book of Job, in Faust the devil secures the Lord’s permission before he sets out to try to corrupt his target human. Goethe almost certainly devised this parallel on purpose, in order to contrast his “God” with the Christian Lord. The tell is that just as the God of the Bible is confident that Job will not turn against Him, Faust has his “God” suggest in the prologue that Faust is his guy; he will be fine; he will withstand the devil’s schemes.
But now look at the difference in the two texts.
Goethe’s “God” says of Faust, “Though now he serves me but in clouded ways, Soon I shall guide him so his spirit clears … Man ever errs the while he strives.”
How different from the Lord of the Bible, who has faith in Job *because he is blameless:* Job was upright, eschewed evil, and was scrupulous about atonement.
Goethe’s “God” otoh apparently thinks Faust is fine because he’s ambitious and busy, or something.
(One could argue that the Biblical Lord values being - what we are in our hearts/souls/spirits - while Faust’s “God” values doing/accomplishment.)
At this point in the story (i.e. when it opens) Faust is already involved in divination and similar sins; he is already an unrepentant sinner. He’s an occultist.
But Goethe’s “God” is also unperturbed by Faust’s later sins, which as you mention include ruining Gretchen and causing the murder of Philemon and Baucis. In fact, Goethe reinforces this explicitly at the end of the play: when the angels carry Faust to heaven after he dies, they state that “Whoever strives in ceaseless toil, Him we grant redemption.” Echoing the words of Goethe’s “God” in the prologue.
So - in a sense, your analysis distills down to an argument that Faust failed because he did not give himself to Christ. That is true, as it is true of everyone, fictional or real.
And no doubt Goethe had a God-shaped hole in his heart. All we sinners do.
But I don’t think Goethe wrote Faust to show us a protagonist who would have been happier sooner if he’d correctly interpreted the book of John.
My reading of the play is that Goethe was trying to describe and defend a corrupted version of Christianity. “It’s okay if you sin, child; as long as you were ‘striving’ while you did it, and maybe get a little intercessory boost, you’ll receive eternal life.”
(You can almost hear Goethe arguing for himself. “Surely I will go to heaven. Haven’t I put all my gifts to work to the utmost of my ability?”)
So I agree 100% that Faust has something to tell us about modernity and the void-of-the-soul that haunts so many moderns. But what the play tells us is not to be found by looking at Faust’s choices, but at Goethe’s.
Imo.
…What do you think. Does my alternate analysis make sense?
Thanks in any case for letting me play ☺️
I appreciate this analysis as it’s quite thorough and very well said! I reckon your conclusion is ultimately the same as my piece, however. To clarify, my claim was not that Goethe himself advocated logos (he didn’t), rather the conclusion is my critique as to where Goethe’s philosophy falls short. Nonetheless, your commentary was very well written my good sir!
Recommend reading this succinct comment before reading the article. This was enlightening about Faust, and room for reflection.
As always, beautifully written. This story will make me ponder…the balance and order of life. It’s so delicate, yet simple but so complex!
Thanks Laura! Yes Goethe has a way of getting you to go straight to the heart of pondering the human condition
An essay infused with wisdom!
Well done.
It’s a fine difference when talking about striving versus selflessly following the truth.
Makes me think 🤔 because so often I’m looking at the ‘striving’ side of things rather than the eternal truth.
I think there’s a balance of both. There’s a time, place, and season for rigorous striving in the temporal world, but then there’s a need for “leisure,” (the contemplation of eternal truth as you suggest), which I believe is a core aspect as to why Christianity abides by a Sabbath day each week
This piece gives me pause. I always wish I had had a better, more traditional classic education. But then we read Faust--and I remember reading the play. And I see your subhead, "The Futility of Knowledge".
Yes, it is good to study the greats, but it's not enough. There is something more to this than book learning...
And how is it that Goethe learned this lesson so that he might teach it through his play?
Goethe himself had a very rigorous private education growing up. I reckon his genius was merely the firsthand realization of what knowledge both can, and can’t do for you - namely it be nourishing for the soul, but can never fulfill your spirit on its own
"In the beginning was the deed." A fascinating detail to build the whole play on.
Jewish tradition also puts the deed first. When the Bible was offered to the Israelite nation at Mount Sinai the people answered "we will do and we will understand," action before comprehension.
But the deed there is received, not invented. It answers to something beyond the one doing it.
Perhaps Faust's mistake was not choosing the deed over the Word, but a deed that answered to no one.
In forty years as a rabbi, the restless people I sat with were rarely short of achievements. What they lacked was something to answer to - a sense of meaning and purpose in their lives in which their achievements could find a place.
I think the distinction you draw is spot on. If I understand you right, “the deed,” of Judaism is received via revelation, whereas Goethe’s “deed,” is a rationally constructed deed. It reasons to follow that the “deed,” grounded in the creator-God of the universe provides far more nourishment for the soul than the “deed,” of the modern “self-made,” man.
Excellent distillation of the essence of the Faust story. I have a small list of books that I read as a young, existentially inclined atheist that I'm interested in rereading now as a mature (agewise, at least!) Christian. It hadn't occurred to me to put Goethe's "Faust" on the list, but I will now.
The pipeline from “young existential atheist,” to “matured Christian,” is very real haha! Faust is definitely one of those plays that awards a second inquiry later in life. Always fascinating to see how differently you receive works like that after some time has passed
Awesome!
Thank you!
What a great insight! I’ve been through this story before but never caught the significance of the mistranslation of John 1:1 which totally puts a new perspective on it. The synchronicity is that I’m going to see Gounad’s Faust at Houston Grand Opera next week, so your thoughts here are most appreciated!
As someone who had Faust on her reading list for so long but has not found the time to read it, your piece was written in a way that I understood your analysis. Which is very nicely done by the way. I think that for Faust to find true happiness he cannot just satisfy his earthly desires without consequence or conscience. He has to move in the margins of morality, to have a right and wrong to find it. I think that is what sort of what the principle of logos is in this text.
Yes, that is it exactly, Sean. One small addition: in Jewish tradition the understanding is not left behind. "We will do" comes first, but "we will understand" follows, and it comes through the doing. The practice teaches what argument alone cannot.
Anything that man constructs he can de-construct. Anything that comes from outside remains an absolute.