These defects are not, of course, due to any lack of dramatic talent in Goethe but to the nature of the Faust myth itself, for the story of Faust is precisely the story of a man who refuses to be anyone and only wishes to become someone else. Once he has summoned Mephisto, the manifestation of possibility without actuality, there is nothing left for Faust to represent but the passive consciousness of possibilities. When the Spirit of Fire appears to Faust, it says:
Du gleichst dem Geist, den du loegreifst, Nicht mir
and in an ideal production, Faust and Mephisto should be played by identical twins.
Near the beginning of the play Faust describes his condition:
Zwei Seelen wohnen, ach! in meiner Brust Die eine will sich von der andern trennen; Die eine halt, in derher Lieheslust Sich an die Welt mit klammernden Organen; Die andre heht gewaltsam sich vom Dust Zu den Gefilden hoher Ahnen.
This has nothing to do, though he may think it has, with the conflict between pleasure and goodness, the kingdom of this world and the kingdom of Heaven. Faust's Welt is the immediate actual moment, the actual concrete world now, and his hohe Ahnen the same world seen by memory and imagination as possible, as what might have been once and may be yet. All value belongs to possibility, the actual here and now is valueless, or rather the value it has is the feeling of discontent it provokes. When Faust signs his contract with the latter says:
Ich will mich hier zu deinem Dienst verhinden, Auf deinen Wink nicht rasten and nicht ruhn; wenn wir uns driihen wieder fmden So sollst du mir das Gleiche tun
to which Faust replies airily:
Das Driihen kann mich wenig kiimmern Schlagst du erst diese Welt zu Trummern, Die andre mag danach entstehen
Mephisto,
because he does not believe that Das Driihen, the exhaustion of all possibilities, can ever be reached—as, indeed, in the play it never is. Faust escapes Mephisto's clutches because he is careful to define the contentment of his last moment in terms of anticipation:
Im Vorgefiihl von solchem hohen Gliick Geniess' ich jezt den hochsten Augenblick.
But, though Faust is not damned, it would be nonsense to say that he is saved. The angels bearing him to Heaven describe him as being in the pupa stage, and to such a condition Judgment has no meaning.
Mephisto describes himself as:
ein Teil des Teils, der Anfangs alles war, Ein Teil der Finsternis, die sich das Licht gebar
as, that is to say, a manifestation of the rejection of all finite- ness, the desire for existence without the limitation of essence. To the spirit that rejects any actuality, the idea must be the Abgrund, the abyss of infinite potentiality, and will creation must be hateful to it. So Valery's serpent cries out against God:
II se fit Celui qui dissipe En consequences son Principe, En entoiles son Unite.
Mephisto describes himself as:
ein Teil von jener Kraft, Die stets das Bose will und stets das Gute schaft,
but it is hard to see what good or evil he does to Faust. Through his agency or his suggestion, Faust may do a good deal of harm to others, but Faust himself is completely unaffected by his acts. He passively allows Mephisto to entertain him and is no more changed in character by these entertainments than we are by watching the play.
Faust may talk a great deal about the moral dangers of content and sloth, but the truth is that his discontent is not a discontent with himself but a terror of being bored. What Faust is totally lacking in is a sacramental sense,1 a sense that the
1IЈ Faust holds any theological position, it is pantheist. The pantheist believes that the universe is numinous as-a.-wh.ole. But a sacramental sign is always some particular aspect oЈ the finite, this thing, this act, not the finite can be a sign for the infinite, that the secular can be sanctified; one cannot imagine him saying with George Herbert:
A servant with this clause Makes drudgery divine; Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws Makes that and the action fine.
In this lack Faust is a typical modern figure. In earlier ages men have been tempted to think that the finite was not a sign for the holy but the holy itself, and fell therefore into idolatry and magic. The form which the Devil assumed in such periods, therefore, was always finite; he appeared as the manifestation of some specific temptation, as a beautiful woman, a bag of gold, etc. In our age there are no idols in the strict sense because we tire of one so quickly and take up another that the word cannot apply. Our real, because permanent, idolatry is an idolatry of possibility. And in such an age the Devil appears in the form of Mephisto, in the form, that is, of an actor. The point about an actor is that he has no name of his own, for his name is Legion. One might say that our age recognized its nature on the day when Henry Irving was knighted.
VI
Voglio far il gentiluomo E non voglio -piu servir.
—da ponte, Don Giovanni
Dein Werkl O thorige Magd
—wagner, Tristan and Isolde
The man who refuses to be the servant of any telos can only be direcdy represented, like the Miller of Dee, lyrically. He
finite-in-general, and it is valid for this person, this social group, this historical epoch, not for humaiiity-in-general. Pansacramentalism is self- contradictory.
can sing his rapture of freedom and indifference, but after that there is nothing for him to do but be quiet. In a drama he can only be represented indirectly as a man with a telos, indeed a monomania, but of such a kind that it is clear that it is an arbitrary choice; nothing in his nature and circumstances imposes it on him or biases him toward it. Such is Don Giovanni. The telos he chooses is to seduce, to "know" every woman in the world. Leporello says of him:
Non si picca, se sia ricca
Se sia brutta, se sia bella,
Perehe porti la gonnella
A sensual libertine, like the Duke in Rigoletto, cannot see a pretty girl, or a girl who is "his type" without trying to seduce her; but if a plain elderly woman like Donna Elvira passes by, he cries, "My God, what a dragon," and quickly looks away. That is sensuality, and pains should be taken in a production to make it clear why the Duke should have fallen into this particular idolization of the finite rather than another. The Duke must appear to be the kind of man to whom all women will be attracted; he must be extremely good-looking, virile, rich, magnificent, a grand seigneur.
Don Giovanni's pleasure in seducing women is not sensual but arithmetical; his satisfaction lies in adding one more name to his list which is kept for him by Leporello. Everything possible, therefore, should be done to make him as inconspicuous and anonymous in appearance as an FBI agent. If he is made handsome, then his attraction for women is a bias in his choice, and if he is made ugly, then the repulsion he arouses in women is a challenge. He should look so neutral that the audience realizes that, so far as any finite motive is concerned, he might just as well have chosen to collect stamps. The Duke does not need a servant because there is no contradiction involved in sensuality or indeed in any idolatry of the finite. The idol and the idolater between them can say all there is to say. The Duke is the master of his ladies and the slave of his sensuality. Any given form of idolatry of the finite is lacking in contradiction because such idolatry is itself finite. Whenever we find one idol we find others, we find polytheism. We do not have to be told so to know that there are times when the Duke is too tired or too hungry to look at a pretty girl. For Don Giovanni there are no such times, and it is only in conjunction with his servant, as Giovanni- Leporello, that he can be understood.