A response to: Okerlund, A. N. “The Intellectual Folly of Dr. Faustus.” Studies in Philology, vol. 74, no. 3. July 1977, pp. 258-278.

Following Okerlund’s metaphorical reading of The Tragic History of Dr. Faustus leaves us with God portrayed as the “perfect logician” and men as inferior beings who strive to achieve higher reasoning in order to be more unified with God (263). According to Okerlund, one of the ways men do this is through the use of logic in accordance with language (260). This reading proves to be accurate based on the actions of Mephostophilis within the play, even though Okerlund marginally contradicts himself in the process.

In his reading, Okerlund states that Mephostophilis is intelligent (272). Before this point in the article, Okerlund offered us an explanation of intelligence. He implied that intelligence is related to the respect for language and logic (260). Since Okerlund believes Mephostophilis to be intelligent, it can be ascertained that Mephostophilis does well in these two areas. In the same section where Okerlund states Mephostophilis’s intelligence, he also confirms Mephostophilis’s respect for language as “absolute” (272). Okerlund proves this by linking Mephostophilis’s success in corrupting Faustus with his knowledge of “rigorously precise language of legal documents” (272). After all, it is the signed legal contract that completes Faustus’s committal to Satan.

Okerlund does not, however, discuss Mephostophilis’s use if logic within the play. According to his own definition, both logic and language must be respected (or well used) in order to claim intelligence, which Okerlund has claimed for Mephostophilis. However, if Mephostophilis is logical (and therefore intelligent) then Okerlund’s basic argument is flawed. We as readers understand inherently that Mephistopheles, being a representative of Satan, serves as an antithesis to God within the play. This is the only logical conclusion, considering that Mephostophilis spends the majority of the play trying to lure Dr. Faustus into an eternity in Hell. He describes Hell in a way that suggests that Hell is anywhere that God isn’t (Marlowe 1119). This proves that Heaven and Hell are opposites and validates Mephostophilis’s role as “opposite” as well. Seeing that God is logical (based on Okerlund’s reading) and that Mephostophilis is the opposite of God, then it would make sense for Mephostophilis to also serve as an antithesis to logic. If he didn’t, Okerlund’s reading of the play and resultant arguments would be flawed.

Okerlund argues that Mephostophilis is aware of logistical fallacies (268). Mephostophilis responds to Faustus’s question with “that was the cause, but yet per accidents” (Marlowe 1118). Okerlund argues that this word choice indicts the name of the Aristotelian fallacies: extra dictionem (268). Although Okerlund points out Mephostophilis’s knowledge of fallacies, he doesn’t make an argument for or against Mephostophilis’s own use of them. Mephostophilis is referring to Faustus’s use of fallacy in the instance that Okerlund mentions, not his own. Mephostophilis does, however, use this very fallacy himself later in the play.

This fallacy happens when someone attempts to apply a general rule to an irrelevant situation. In Act 2, Scene 1, Mephostophilis tries to convince Faustus that humankind is more glorious than Heaven (Marlowe 1125). The general rule here is that Heaven is glorious. Mephostophilis tries to apply this rule to the fact that Heaven was made for humankind, which results in the assumption that humankind is more glorious than Heaven. These forced connections are obviously flawed logic; fallacies. Mephostophilis also displays the use of other logical fallacies in the poem. For example, he displays the ad hominem fallacy, which means “to attack the person.” Mephostophilis constantly threatens Faustus with the consequences of Hell that he will face if he tries to repent.

Mephostophilis’s status as the “opposite” is not threatened because of his use of fallacy. This is slightly at odds with Okerlund’s statement about Mephostophilis’s intelligence, which leaves is with a bit of a contradiction within Okerlund’s work. This contradiction is better, however, than having Mephostophilis be logical, because that would insinuate a flaw in argument at the very base of the play’s plot. God and Mephostophilis need to oppose one another for the purpose of the play as a whole and for the purposes of Okerlund’s other arguments within “The Intellectual Folly of Dr. Faustus.”