Goethe's Faust. Parts I and II

Front matter

Sige rity m Piao a bale

: ANS ia u iS \) Me { eee

Pe eat 3 Ve NSW sees 4 ee

Introduction

The Collaboration of the Ages in a Great Work of Avt.—The ground-theme of Goethe’s Fausi, as is indeed the case with most if not with all great poetical creations, is not the individual fabrication of one gifted mind, but rather the climax in a long evolutionary series, through the medium of which the poet has enjoyed the collaboration of the ages. To the material which in the ripeness of time he found ready to his hand have contributed, not only the conscious literary efforts of such of his predecessors as have been attracted by the same subject, but \also the artless imaginations of the ignorant ‘and unlettered multitude who have, through many generations of men, moulded the growing mass of inherited fact and fiction into a coherent whole in accordance with their own ways of life and thought. The reader will doubtless ‘appreciate some introductory account of this lengthy preliminary elaboration before entering upon the study of the masterpiece in which it culminates.

The Mythology of Sovcervy.—For the first germ of this inherited material in the conception of the mage or wizard, who by various devices

, could persuade or compel to his service the

supernatural powers, gods or demons, and

_through their agency pervert the accustomed Vl

Vill Introduction course of nature, we must go back to the very dawn of literature, and even then we shall find such a conception already in existence, an inheritance from the voiceless times beyond. It will be sufficient merely to hint at the currency “of the belief in sorcery amongst the Jews, the "Greeks, and the Romans, and, for a parallel to the forms in which it must have existed in prehistoric times, to cite the magical practices in vogue amongst savage nations in our own days.

Such a belief was, indeed, in the first instance merely an outgrowth of religion, if it was not rather of the very essence of primitive religion itself. The earliest sorcerer was the priest, and the practice of sorcery by no means carried with it at first the odium which attached to it inlater times. It was, however, already looked at askance amongst the Greeks and the Romans, doubtless rather on moral grounds, as being employed as the instrument of malevolence, than on religious grounds as an offence against the Deity. Amongst the Jews, however, in view of their monotheistic conception of religion, sorcery could not fail to be regarded as a form of idolatry, and as such condemned; and this attitude grows still more marked in the Christian conception of sorcery, in which it appears as devil-worship, as amongst the early Christians the old heathen gods themselves figure as devils.

The roll of sorcerers of whom legend tells in Christian times is a long one, and constantly receives new additions as one after another the names of the men who distinguished themselves by their learning in times of ignorance are

Introduction 1X enshrined in it. Three of the earlier Christian _ legends of sorcery deserve at least a passing mention, by reason of the resemblancé which they show in certain points with the Faust-legend.

The subject of the first of these is mentioned as early as the Acts of the Apostles, in Chapter VIII. of that book: ‘‘A certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria.”’ Later legend busied itself further with this Simon, introducing into his story traits which present so striking a parallel with certain features of the Faust-legend, that many have held him to be the real original of Faust. He lost his life by an attempt to fly in Rome, whilst Faust came to grief in a similar attempt in Venice; and he married the Homeric Helena (in the older form of the legend Selene, the moon-goddess). It is worthy of notice that this Simon is actually compared with Faust in the Faust-book, but with the biblical Simon, not the Simon of the later legend. In spite, however, of these striking coincidences, Kuno Fischer scouts on historical grounds the idea of any direct contribution made by this legend to the Faust-legend.

The other two of the legends referred to show us the mythology of sorcery enriched by the conception, natural to Christianity, of a compact with the devil, whereby the sorcerer renounces Christianity, and forfeits his soul as the purchase-price of his magic-powers. These are the legend of Cyprian of Antioch, which belongs to the fourth century of the Christian

a2 x Introduction era, and was afterwards wrought into a well-known drama by Calderon, and the Theophilus-legend, which belongs to the sixth century. But neither of these legends knows anything of the irrevocable nature of the pact with the devil, which is characteristic of the medieval Faust. Cyprian is a heathen, who, like Faust, in his striving after all knowledge and power has entered into a pact with the devil, but discovering the powerlessness of his ally against the might of the Cross is thereby converted to Christianity and dies as a Christian martyr. Theophilus on the other hand is a Christian, who from disappointed ambition abjures the Faith at the instance of the devil in a written document signed with his blood, but repenting straightway, invokes the aid of the Virgin, and from her receives again the written pact, wrested by her from the devil.

The authority quoted above likewise traverses the assertion that these legends are in the direct line of ancestry of the Faust-legend. However this may be, these three legends and countless others like them doubtless contributed to the stock of wizard-lore which was the

.common possession of all medieval Christianity, and which survived in vigorous life in the sixteenth-century German Protestantism in the bosom of which the Faust-legend had its birth. In this last scion of the wizard-legend the compact with the devil finally assumes an irrevocable character; the Church itself is now ‘ powerless to intervene in favour of the recreant. In this feature Kuno Fischer finds the characteristic contribution of Protestantism to the

Introduction Xi mythology of sorcery. As, for Protestantism, the Pope himself is Antichrist, so the miracleworking power of the Catholic Church is itself a form of magic, equally blameworthy and in- ‘efficacious to salvation. The man that has dabbled in sorcery and given himself to the , devil is lost past redemption. The drama -must be played to its tragic consummation.

The Evolution of the Faust-legend.—We have thus far acquired some very general idea of the growth of the atmosphere of thought and belief in which the Faust-legend had its birth. It is the last branch of a tree which has its roots deep down in immemorial antiquity. We must now seek to trace in greater detail the origin and growth of this particular legend.

The Faust-legend, before it received from the genius of Goethe a new lease of life, together with a deeper meaning, had already enjoyed in various forms a wide popularity.

The inquiry into its credentials began as early as 1621, less, than fifty years after the y publication of the first Faust-book, when a theologian of Tubingen, Schickard, declared the story of Faust to be a mere legend, invented to the end of deterring people from the practice of magic. Another theologian, Dirr, of Altdorf, writing in 1676, is apparently the first to identify the black-artist Faust with Johann \Fust, whose name is associated with the invention of printing in the fifteenth century. This view is rejected by Neumann, a theologian of Wittenberg, who was moved to undertake (1683) the investigation of the question chiefly, it would seem, from the desire to free that city from the

Xil Introduction unwelcome association with such a disreputable

, character as Faust, which had become an im- , portant feature in the legend. Neumann first produced documentary evidence for the exist-

\ence of an historical Faust, but none earlier ‘than that of Manlius, which is quoted later »(p. xxi.). His conclusion, that ‘“‘ Faust’s life is not a downright fable, nor yet a downright history, but a middle-thing,’’ is the view which in more recent times has generally prevailed. But the identification of the conjurer with Johann Fust (a name which would correspond etymologically with the modern German Faus?), far from having been regarded as controverted by Neumann’s arguments, continued to be even more generally accepted. The story, probably fabulous, which relates how Fust incurred the imputation of witchcraft by reason of the apparently miraculous character of the new art, itself underwent a legendary growth, and was without any historical justification localised in Paris. The Englishman, Daniel Defoe, contributed not a little to its propagation by a passage in his Political History of the Devil (1726), which may be of interest to the English reader. It runs as follows:—

“ John Faustus was Servant, or Journeyman, or Compositor, or what you please to call it, to Koster of Harlem, the first inventor of Printing, and having printed the Psalter, sold them at Parts aS manuscripts; because as such they yielded a better Price.

“But the learned Doctors not being able to

| anderstand how the Work was perform’d, con- ‘cluded as above, it was all the Devil, and that

Introduction X11]

\the Man was a Witch ; accordingly they took him up for a Magician and a Conjurer, and one that work’d by the Black Avt, that is to say by

.the help of the Devil, and in a word they threaten’d to hang him for a Witch, and in order to it commenc’d a Process against him in their criminal Courts, which made such a Noise in the World as rais’d the Fame of poor John Faustus to a frightful Height, ’till at last he was oblig’d, for fear of the Gallows, to discover the whole secret to them.

““N.B.—This is the true original of the famous Dr. Faustus or Foster, of whom we have believ’d such strange Things, as that it is become a Proverb, as great as the Devil and Dy. Foster: Whereas poor Faustus was no doctor, and knew no more of the Devzl than another body.”

But more recent research, stimulated by the re-awakened interest in the subject, has suc-

ceeded in unearthing earlier and in fact con-

temporary evidence,’ which puts beyond any reasonable doubt the actual existence of an

| historic Faust, who when we first come across him entirely lacks the sulphurous halo with which the popular fancy quickly began to invest him. It is worth noting here, however, that as recently as 1874 an authority of such weight as Karl Simrock still maintained that the Faust-legend begins with the printer Fust, and that this theory is still tenable in the light thrown on the subject by the evidence referred to above. His views will be briefly indicated in the proper connection. It may however at once be said that they do not find general acceptance to-day.

X1V Introduction

The earliest extant reference to the historical Faust is contained in a collection of the letters of the historian Johannes Tritemius (who writes in Latin and thus latinised his name, in accordance with the custom of his time, from Johann von Trittenheim). Tritemius was Abbot of Spanheim, and one of the most learned and famous scholars of his day. An interesting light is thrown upon the credulity of the epoch in which the Faust-legend had its origin by the fact that the learned abbot to whom we owe the earliest notice of Faust was himself, like the English Roger Bacon and divers other scholars, at a later time canonised as a wizard, and to him were attributed many feats of sorcery, borrowed from earlier legend and ultimately transferred to Faust. Indeed he found it necessary even during his lifetime to defend himself against the suspicion of having dealings with demons.

Tritemius’ letters were printed in 1536, and one of them, written in 1507, is addressed to a mathematical friend who has applied to him for information concerning one Georgius Sabellicus, then on the point of visiting Tritemius’ correspondent.

Tritemius describes him as a “ landlouper, braggart, and vagabond that should be whipt at the cart’s tail.” He has presumed to style himself ‘‘ Magister Georgius Sabellicus, the younger Faustus, the well-head of the necromancers, astrologer, the second magician, cheiromancer, agromancer, pyromancer, the second in the hydric art,’’ and this notwithstanding that he is in fact “‘ wholly ignorant of

Introduction XV all good letters, and should rather have called himself a fool than a magister.’’ The writer then cites instances of the charlatan’s extravagant boasts, as that “‘if all the books of Plato and Aristotle, together with their entire philosophy, had perished utterly from the memory of men, he himself with his own natural genius could, like another Hebrew Ezra, restore them in yet greater splendour’’; and that ‘the miracles of our Saviour Christ are nothing marvellous, he himself could do all that Christ had done, as often and whensoever he would ”’; and that “‘in Alchemy he was the most perfect of all that had ever been, and knew and could do whatever the folk should wish.”” The letter finally quotes facts as damning for the moral character of this “ well-head of the necromancers’’ as are those already cited for his learning and his modesty, and finally sums him up as “no philosopher, but a very foolish man, and a very impudent withal.”’

This flattering letter of introduction makes the calling of its subject sufficiently clear. He was one of a well-known class, the so-called scholastict vagantes, fahrende Schiler, or strolling scholars, men of more or less learning who roamed about the world living on their wits, equally ready to maintain a thesis against the learned, or as conjurors, treasure-seekers, weather-makers, etc., to bubble the ignorant and credulous out of their money.

That this Georgius Sabellicus styles himself the “ younger Faustus,’’ and claims to be only the ‘“‘ second magician,’’ etc., suggests that the name Faustus must already have acquired

Xvi Introduction some notoriety as that of a magician before he adopted it, but it cannot with any certainty be traced beyond him. It is this circumstance which furnishes Simrock with the opportunity to bring the printer Fust or Faust again into connection with the Faust-legend; he holds the latter to have been the fivst Faust, through whom the name became reputed as that of a sorcerer. However this may be, as the Faust-book seems at a later date undoubtedly to have grown out of rumours concerning this Georgius Sabellicus, the younger Faustus, there can be little doubt that in this charlatan we have the unworthy prototype of Goethe’s immortal Faust :— ** So that then was the poodle’s kernel! A strolling scholar! ”’

It will be interesting to glance briefly and in chronological order at the further references to this personage, whom we shall see gradually assuming a more legendary character, whilst his impudent claims are received with growing credulity.

On October 3, 1513, Conradus Mutianus Rufus (z.e., Conrad Mudt the Redhaired), the Canon of Gotha, in a letter breathing fire and flames against the monkish persecutors of the theologian Reuchlin, turns aside for a moment to mention one whom we can scarcely err in identifying with our hero. ‘‘ There came eight days since to Erfurt a certain cheiromancer by name George Faust, Helmitheus Hedebergensis, a downright swaggerjack and fool. His profession is idle, as is the profession of all the like paltry soothsayers, and such (an art of) physiog-

Introduction XV nomy is lighter than a water-spider (t#ppula— the learned Canon imitates an expression of Plautus). The unlettered gape at him in wonderment; let the theologians rise up against him. They will not demolish our philosopher Capnio (Reuchlin). I have heard him babbling in a tavern. I did not reprove his boasting. What is the folly of others to me? ”’

The expression Helmiitheus Hedebergensis is apparently meaningless and probably corrupt. If we accept Dunzer’s ingenious conjecture, Hemitheus Hedelbergensis, it would mean .“ demigod, of Heidelberg.’? There has been found actually inscribed in the Matriculation Roll of the Heidelberg University a Johannes _ Fust, who entered in the Faculty of Philosophy in 1505 and graduated as bachelor, the senior of fourteen, in 1510. Is this the same man? The Christian names do not agree, but in the other documents which remain to be quoted there is this same wavering between George and John. Was there more than one Faust the Sorcerer, or did our hero deal in aliases—as indeed judging from what evidence we have of him he had good reason to? The dates do not forbid us to identify this Johannes Fust of Heidelberg with Mudt’s George Faust, but they do not tally so well with the facts quoted from Trittheim (see p. xiv.) concerning Georgzus Sabellicus, the younger Faustus, and if we identify Trittheim’s Faust with Mudt’s, as the characteristics of the two charlatans would seem to justify us in doing, we must throw back into the sea the fish we have drawn in our net from the Heidelberg Matriculation Roll. The name Fust was

XV1ll Introduction by no means rare, and Johannes Faust the graduate of Heidelberg may well have been a harmless individual who in Defoe’s quaint words “‘knew no more of the Devil than another body.”

The importance in the investigation of the Faust-legend of the two documents quoted cannot be overestimated. In them we have the personal testimony of two of the best known men of their time, scholars both, to their own acquaintanceship with Faust, together with a graphic appreciation of his character, entirely untinged by the superstition of the time, which carries conviction with it.

The year 1520 brings us a brief but highly interesting notice extracted from the register of accounts of the bishopric of Bamberg, the entry of an “item of eighteen gulden given and presented to Dr. Faustus the philosopher, as a gratuity for that he hath cast a nativity of my gracious master.”’ Oddly enough, we find from an entry of the previous year in the same register that Hans Muller, the Treasurer, dated his yearly accounts “from Walpurgis until Walpurgis again.”

But Faust does not meet with such a graci6us reception everywhere. In the judicial archives of Upper Bavaria is a report to the effect that “‘on the Wednesday after St. Vitus 1528, one that did call himself Dr. Jorg Faustus of Heidelberg was bidden to quit the town (Ingolstadt) and spend his penny?! elsewhere, and he hath taken a solemn vow that he will neither avenge him upon the authorities for

14,e. his means; cf. English, “a pretty penny.” -

Introduction X1x

\this summons, nor make merry at their ex- \ pense.”

The learned Joachim Camerarius, Chancellor of the University of Tubingen, writing to a friend in 1536, says:—

“The day before the nones I passed the saddest of nights, the Moon being opposed to ‘Mars in the sign of the Fishes. For my friend ‘Faust is to blame that I take pleasure in talking of these matters with thee. Would he had taught thee something of his art, rather than have puffed thee up with the vain wind of the most empty superstition, or held thee in suspense by I know not what magic! But what doth he say to us now? For I know that thou hast diligently questioned him concerning everything. Is the Emperor victorious (in France videlicet)? So it needs must be.”’

Philipp Begardi, the physician of the city of Worms, writes in his Index Sanitatis (1539):—

“For a few years agone he journeyed almost throughout the whole country, principality, and kingdom, himself made known his name to everybody, and boasted highly of his great art, not alone in medicine, but also Cheiromancy, Nigromancy (szc), Physiognomy, Crystal-gazing, and the like other arts. ... He hath also himself -avouched and doth not gainsay that he is and is called Faustus, thereto hath writ himself Philosophus Philosophorum, etc. But they that have complained to me that they have been cozened of him, of them the tale hath been great. Now his promise was great. . and likewise his fame; but the deed .. . well-nigh petty and cheating; yet hath he not been

KX Introduction backward in the taking of money, and furthermore, on his departure, he hath paid many with heel-money.”’

The Protestant pastor of Basle, Johann Gast, in his Convivales Sermones (Table-talk) (1548), relates the following facts, already in a much more credulous spirit:—

““Concerning the Necromancer Faust. Towards evening he turned into a certain very rich monastery, intending to pass the night there. One of the brothers set before him a common wine of doubtful quality and nothing pleasing to the palate. Faustus begged him to draw from another cask a better wine, such as he was wont to give to distinguished visitors. The brother said: ‘I have not the keys, the Prior is asleep, and to waken him is a sin.’ Faust replied: ‘ There lie the keys in the corner, take them, broach the cask there on the left, and bring me a drink.’ The brother refused— he was forbidden by the Prior to set any other wine before the guests. When Faust heard this he said, full of wrath: ‘ Thou shalt soon see marvels, inhospitable brother.’ He went away at daybreak, hot with rage, taking no leave of the host, and sent an infuriate demon which day and night kept a pother in the monastery, and flung everything topsy-turvy both in the church and in the cells of the monks, so that do what they would they could get no TesEMSOh.

“Another sample of Faustus. In Basle 1 dined with him in the great College. He had given to the cook divers sorts of birds to roast. Where he had bought them, or who had given

Introduction XX1 them to him, I know not, for at that time they could not be bought, and besides, I had never seen the like in our neighbourhood. With him he had a dog and a horse, of which I believe that they were devils, and ready to execute anything. They told me that the dog at times assumed the form of a servant and procured victuals. But the wretch fell upon a lamentable end, for he was throttled of the devil, and his corpse lay upon the bier ever face downwards, although five several times he was turned upon his back. May God keep us, that we become not bondsmen of Satan! ”’

It is worth noting that of these marvels the only one which the good pastor relates as an eye-witness, though perplexing to him, is not in itself wildly improbable. The others are mere floating gossip.

The famous naturalist, Conrad Gesner, writing on August 16, 1561, Says:—

““T for my part conjecture that these (7.e. the forbidden arts, such as Astrology, Necromancy, and the like) are survivals of Druidism. For the Druids amongst the old Celts were wont to be instructed for some years by demons in subterranean places, whereof it is established that it is still carried on in our day at Salamanca in Spain. From this school came those who are commonly called strolling scholars. Amongst these a certain Faust, who died quite recently, is in particular famous.”’

The next piece of testimony, that of the Locorum communium collectanea of Johannes Manlius (1562), has especial interest inasmuch as it claims to rest upon the authority of his

XX11 Introduction master, Philip Melanchthon, the great reformer and friend of Luther. It is as follows:—

“TI (sc. Melanchthon) know one by the name of Faust, from Kundling, a small town in the neighbourhood of my home. Whilst this man was a student at Cracow he learnt the art of Magic, which art indeed was aforetimes greatly in vogue there, and of it there were public professorial courses. He wandered far and wide and talked of mysterious things. When he was going to give an exhibition in Venice, he said he would fly up into the sky. And accordingly the Devil raised him aloft and so dashed him down, that being hurled to the ground he was well-nigh a dead man, but nevertheless he came off with his life. Not many years since this same Johannes Faustus sat very dismal on his last day in a certain village of the Duchy of Wurttemberg. The host asked him why, contrary to his use and wont, he was so sad, for he was used to be a good-for-nothing losel, of a foul way of life, so that on divers occasions his debauchery had brought him to Death’s door; whereupon he said unto the host in that village: ‘See you be not affrighted this night.’ And at dead of night the house quaked, and when Faust did not arise betimes and it was already on midday, the host took others to himself, went into his chamber and found him lying beside his bed with his face twisted round to his back, thus he had been destroyed of the devil. Whilst he still lived he had a dog with him, that was a devil. ... This Faust slipped away in this city of Wittenberg when the excellent Prince, Duke John, had given orders to

Introduction XX111 lay hands upon him. So also he got away at Nuremberg. There he had scarce set himself down to breakfast when a great agitation took him, and he immediately rose up, paid his host what he owed him, but scarcely was out at the door when the tipstaves came and sought for him. This same sorcerer Faust, an abominable beast and a sink of many devils, boasted of himself that all the victories won by the imperial armies in Italy had been by him brought to pass with the aid of his magic. But that was altogether a vain lie.”

We pass over the references to Faust in the Chronicle of the Count Frohen Christof von Zimmern, which repeat the story of the Poltergeist with which the magician plagued the monks of Luxheim in the Vosges Mountains (for this time the name of the monastery is given), and also report his death at the hands of the Devil, with the addition that he had been accustomed during his lifetime to call his familiar spirit his “‘ brother-in-law.”

The following account, drawn from the book De praestiguis Daemonum (concerning the juggleries of demons), the work of a Dutch physician, Johannes Wier, published in 1568, adds yet further traits to those with which we are already familiar:—

“‘ Johannes Faust, born in the little town of Kundling, studied Magic at Cracow, where it was aforetimes publicly taught, and with lies and manifold deceit practised it in divers parts of Germany for some years before 1540, marvelled at of many. With vain boasting and promises there was nothing he could not do.

XX1V Introduction

I will show the reader by one example the nature of his art, provided that he first promise me not toimitateit. It wasin this wise. This scoundrel was arrested at Batenburg on the banks of the Meuse, on the borders of Guelderland, and in the absence of the Baron Hermann was treated with much gentleness by his chaplain, since he promised to teach this good and simple-minded man the knowledge of divers matters and various arts. And accordingly the latter brought forth wine, for which Faustus had a singular affection, until the cask was at anend. Thereupon, when Faust was aware of this and the other said he must betake him to Grave to have his beard shaved, he promised him, if he would have a care for more wine, a peculiar art, by which a man might be rid of his beard without the use of a razor. The bargain having been struck, he bid him rub in arsenic, without in any way describing the method. Now when the other had rubbed in the arsenic, there followed such an inflammation that not only the hairs of the beard, but also the skin and the flesh were burned. The man himself has related to me more than once this trick, with great chagrin. When another man, one not unknown to me, one that had a black beard and in general a somewhat darkskinned countenance, such as witnesseth of melancholy (for he was a Spleneticus), came to Faust, the latter straightway said: ‘ Of a truth I weened thou hadst been my brother-in-law, wherefore I looked straight at thy feet, to see if they had long and crooked talons.’ Thus he compared him with the Demon, of whom he

Introduction XXV believed that he came to him, and it was his wont to call him his brother-in-law. At last he was found in a village of the Duchy of Wiurttemberg dead beside his bed, with his face twisted all awry, and it is said that on the preceding midnight the house had quaked. A school-master in Goslar learned through the instruction of Faustus magus, or rather infaustus malus, the method by which Satan by means of spells might be shut up in a glass. In order that he might not be disturbed of any, he went on a certain day into a wood, and here, being so ill-advised as to engage in a magical incantation, there appeared to him a devil of most hideous form, with flaming eyes, with a nose crumpled like a cow’s horn, with long tushes like those of a wild boar, with chaps like a cat, in sum, a most horrible sight. He swooned away of the horror of this phantom, and lay there some hours for dead. When at last he recovered in part his senses, and went towards the city-gate, some friends met him and asked him why he looked so pale and discomposed. He shuddered and held his peace, as if he were beside himself, and when they had got him home he began to utter fearful sounds and to grow altogether demented. In the course of a year he began at last to talk again, and related how that the Devil had appeared to him in that guise. After he had taken the Sacrament, he commended himself three days later to God and took leave of this miserable life.”’