by Leo Ruickbie
We can find rational explanations for almost all of the tricks and wonders ascribed to Faustus. Blooming winter gardens, out of season produce, ‘magical’ banquets – all can be explained as the application of the techniques of greenhousing and refrigeration, techniques that have an ancient history. As we see in the pages of Reginald Scot’s Discoverie of Witchcraft, the illusionist’s craft was well developed in the sixteenth century with trick knives, rigged sets and all the other apparatus of deception. Even the transmutation of base metals into gold can itself be explained with reference to poorly understood techniques of purifying metals and the imprecision of assaying at the time, without condemning all of the art as charlatanry.
All of what Trithemius claimed to be able to do with the aid of spirits, we can do now with the aid of electronics. By accelerating lead atoms to enormous speeds and smashing them together we can produce gold. Other forms of magic may now be labelled under the less threatening headings of hypnosis, psychotherapy, neuro-linguistic programming and parapsychology, but they are still unexplained. We are living now in the world the Renaissance magicians dreamt of.
But there is something left over that we can never really explain. There are still those who sign pacts with the infernal powers and claim that it works, and there are still those who believe themselves tempted by the Devil. I once even met a man who claimed to have seen him. There is still a thirst for hidden and forbidden powers.
We have penetrated the sulphurous smokescreen started by Trithemius and enflamed in the Faustbooks, seen through the romantic shimmer conjured up by Goethe and the dark shadows of modernism cast by Spengler, to find the real man, as much as we could. If there is a message here, it is that truth always dies to serve political ends and partisan interests. We should always distrust the Trithemiuses of this world who seek to ruin men for their own gain. And when we remember Faustus we should not think of the pact-making diabolist, but of a Renaissance magician, both representative and victim of his age.
Notes
Chapter 1
1. Ziolkowski, 2000; Russell, 1986:58, said much the same thing.
2. Tille, 1899 and 1900; Shuh, 1952; Aign, 1975; Prodolliet, 1978; Mahal, c.1980:6; Meier, 1990: 685–820; Durrani, 2004:4.
3. For example, neither Shumaker, 1979, nor Walker, 2000, mention him in their studies of Renaissance magic; in his history of the Devil from the early modern period, Russell, 1986:58, gives only a paragraph to the historical person of Faustus and inadequately sums up his career in a sentence, and both Mebane, 1989:53, and Clark, 1997:405, make only passing reference.
4. Würzburg cod. o. Sign., quoted in Brann, 1999:105.
5. Luther, 1912–21, no. 1059.
6. For: Witkowski, 1896/7; Henning, 1959; and Mahal, 1980. Against: Petsch, 1910; Beutler, 1936; and Baron, 1983.
7. A species of chapbook (Volksbuch in the German), a broad genre of popular legend, referring here to the full length treatments of Faustus, beginning with the Wolfenbüttel Manuscript, Spies’s Historia and the many works derived from it, including P.F.’s English adaptation. Generally, when I use the term it is to Wolfenbüttel, Spies and P.F. that I am referring.
8. Quotations from Mackenney, 1993:216–7.
9. Quoted in Tille, 1900:74–5.
10. I have used the form of his name as it appears in the 1587 Historia, but other variations are recorded.
11. Milchsack, 1892; Füssel and Kreutzer, 1988:224–33; Baron, 1992.
12. Könneker, 1991, for example, argued that it was entertainment, whilst Baron, 1992:155, convincingly argued that it would have been seen as non-fiction had such a category existed. Füssel and Kreutzer, 1988:334, highlighted its paradoxical nature.
13. Lercheimer, 1888:41–3; Baron, 1992:38, 55–8.
14. Henning, 1966:430–45.
Chapter 2
1. Durrius (also Durrii, or Dürr), 1676 (published 1726), and Neumann, 1683, for example.
2. Out of 48 sixteenth-century sources – not counting other editions of the same work (unless where different), or references to literature or plays – there are 38 references to ‘Faustus’ against only three to ‘Faust’ with the rest being indeterminate variations. Furthermore, this is not a question of German versus Latin spelling since German texts also used ‘Faustus’. It was Roshirt who first used the form ‘Faust’.
3. The ‘Pseudo-Clementine Literature’ – the Clementine Homilies, the Clementine Recognitions and to a lesser extent the Apostolic Constitutions.
4. Kaiserchronik, attributed to Pfaffe Konrad, c.1141, which survives in a large number of manuscript copies; and Jacobus de Voragine’s Legenda Aurea, thirteenth century, which by 1500 had gone through 74 Latin editions with translations into High and Low German.
5. In the Homilies the father is Faustus and the two brothers are Faustinus and Faustinianus.
6. Butler, 1948, sidestepped the problem. For 1478 see Mahal, 1979, and c.1980:72, and Hoppmann, 1998:185; Mahal, 1980:10, gives c.1480; Mahal, 1990b:74, suggested 26 December 1478, without giving any reasoning. Beutler, 1936, argued for 1465–8, whilst Baron, 1978:18, suggested 1466 or 1467. Battus, 1592, fol. 1r gave 1491. This date also appeared in an early eighteenth-century MS catalogued by Henning, 1966:430, no.3148.
7. Hale, 1977:17, and Mackenney, 1993:21, give different figures, but neither explain how they arrived at them, especially whether they include child deaths. Not happy with this, I made my own calculations based on a sample of 133 people contemporaneous with Faustus and whose dates were fairly well established. This gave a date range of 1432 to 1590 with a mix of occupations. Almost all of these people were what we could call upper class and so clearly enjoyed the health benefits money and privilege could secure. The average age was 57.27 with a range of 20 to 90.
8. Identified earlier in connection with the usage of the name ‘Faustus’.
9. Ward, 1901:n.p.
10. Sylke Titzmann, Stadtverwaltung Stadtroda, personal communication, 20 September 2006.
11. ‘Hedelbergensis’ is often cited as ‘Hedebergensis’ by other authors, e.g., Tille, 1900:5, and Palmer and More, 1936:87, but having examined the original myself I can categorically state that ‘Hedelbergensis’ is correct, although Mutianus did not use capitalisation. Furthermore, there is no comma separating the elements of the name as we also find in other sources.
12. E.g., Palmer and More, 1936:87; Butler, 1948:122; Bates, 1969:3.
13. Düntzer in Scheible, 1845–9, V:36.
14. Thus ‘Helmstheus’ and ‘Helnntheus’ have also been suggested. See Baron, 1978:15. Keefer’s, 2007:30, n. 1, idea of a literary allusion to a garbled word appearing in a 1504 publication of the pseudo-Clementine Recognitions is unconvincing.
15. Working from the same material, Babinger, 1912 (not 1914 as in Palmer and More, 1965:88) came to the same conclusion; see also Beutler, 1936; Baron, 1978; and, following Baron, Grafton, 1999 and 2001, and Keefer, 2007.
16. Quotations from Manlius, 1563:44.
17. Mahal, 1980:225–6.
18. Tim Lörke, Faust Archive and Museum, Knittlingen, 1 March 2005.
19. Mahal, 1980:227, 1990:16, and 1990b:81.
20. Frank Baron, Director Max Kade Centre for German-American Studies, University of Kansas, personal communication, 1 December 2008.
21. Entries dated 1521, 1523 and 1545. Mahal, 1980:228, and 1990b:89.
22. Lang, 1985:308–15, is also critical of this document.
23. Paris, Cod. Lat. Par. 8643 (II), fol. 125r-125v;Allen, 1914; Baron, 1978:92, n. 22, and 1989:297–302.
24. Baron, 1978:16.
25. Möller, 1936.
26. Toepke, 1884:370; Heike Hamberger, Director Faust Archive and Museum, Knittlingen, 2 March 2005.
Chapter 3
1. Butzbach was a classic wandering scholar who would eventually become the Prior of Maria-Laach Monastery. He first met Trithemius in 1496 and formed links with Reuchlin and many other leading Humanists. Allen, 1914: 59, 76–7.
2. Quoted in Tan
ner, 1990:n.p.
3. Quoted in Aries and Duby, 1989:173, with corrections.
4. Cato, Monosticha Catonis 4.
5. Quoted in Allen, 1914:113.
6. Innocent quoted in Burns et al., 1980:353–7; de Vitriaco, 1894, II, 3: 19–20.
7. Quoted in Pachter, 1951:93.
8. Luther, 2006:n.p.
9. R. Haasenbruch, Halle-Wittenberg University, personal communication, 18 October 2005.
10. Strauss, 1989:35.
11. Allen, 1914:87; Hale, 1977:286; Mahal, 1980:212.
12. Edyta Paruch, Jagiellonian University, Kraków, (personal communications, 8 February 2005 and 16 March 2005) consulted Chmiel, 1892, and Gąsiorowski, 2004, on my behalf.
13. Of all the hundreds of German students at Kraków from 1460 to 1520 only fifty-seven have been identified. As a long shot, I also had the Archiwum Uniwersytetu Jagiellonskiego check for the name Gerlach (and variations), but although there were three who studied here none of them was our Faustus (Edyta Paruch, personal communication, 21 November 2008).
14. Waite, 1911:103; Rudwin, 1989:186.
15. I contacted all of the most likely universities, but by the time of going to press not all of them had answered (or seemed likely to answer). Of those that had, and in addition to the cases considered in the text, we can rule out Erfurt, Freiburg, Ingolstadt, Leipzig, Tübingen and Würzburg. Henning, 1959: 112–4, had earlier scoured the same records and drawn a blank.
16. Quoted in Baron, 1978:16, 92.
17. Wylie, 1878, vol. 1, bk 5, chap. 2.
18. Heidelberg, H-IV-101-3-S36v published in Toepke, 1884, I:467; Mahal, 1980:245–6. In the MS one clearly reads ‘Simmern’, not ‘Simern’ as is frequently met with.
19. Heidelberg, Akten der Artistenfakultät, fol. 113v, 114r; Toepke, 1884:370.
20. Baron, 1978:18–9.
21. Baron, 1978:19–21, 94, n. 17; Stoudt, 1995:12–8.
22. Heidelberg, Akten der Artistenfakultät, fol. 123r.
23. Toepke, 1884:397; Baron, 1978:18, 93, n. 4.
24. Seuter, 1534; Baron, 1989:301; Grafton, 1999:61.
Chapter 4
1. Allen, 1914:214; Pachter, 1951:101, 178; Hale, 1977:24, 29–30; Garin, 1983:77.
2. Quoted in Hale, 1977:225.
3. Sabatini, 1912, ch. 8, and Summers, 1927:42, both draw on Francesco Guicciardini’s (1483–1540) subjective account. Sabatini dismisses Guicciardini’s claims and Summers is well-known for his credulity in such matters. Symonds, 1917, III:191–8, who discusses Hadrian’s alleged extispicium at length, as well as the case of Manfredi, is an early critic, arguing that the Roman historian Cassius Dio began the rumours. The theory is not entertained by modern scholars.
4. Scheible, 1845–49,V: 1107–116, 1124–34; Henning, 1966:438 no. 3194, 443 no. 3217.
5. The inn where Faustus supposedly stayed claims to be the oldest guest house in Germany, but problematically uses Trithemius‘s letter as evidence of its existence at that time. Given Gelnhausen‘s importance in this period it is highly likely that there was more than one inn. Similarly, there was also a Franciscan cloister where Trithemius could conceivably have stayed. Personal communications with local historians: Gudrun Kauck, 18 June 2008; Uschi Flacke, 26 June 2008; Vanessa Dippel, 26 June 2008; Axel Obkircher, 28 June 2008; also P. Rühl, the current proprietor of the Zum Löwen, www.zum-loewen-gelnhausen.de, accessed 18 June 2008; Mansfeld, 1966.
6. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:312].
7. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:312].
8. Trithemius, Würzburg cod. o. Sign., quoted in Brann, 1999:72–3.
9. Hartlieb, 1998:69.
10. Agrippa, 1651:489–90.
11. Trithemius to Count von Westerburg, 1503, quoted in Brann, 1999:120.
12. Würzburg cod. o. Sign., quoted in Brann, 1999:72.
13. Agrippa, 1651:567ft.
14. Agrippa, 1651:524. Agrippa only mentioned Zalmoxis twice in his Occult Philosophy compared to fourteen references to Zoroaster.
15. Quoted in Lilly, 1647:42–56.
16. Roberts and Donaldson, 1867–1872, vol. I.
17. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
18. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
19. Trithemius to Johannes Bracht, Würzburg, 31 October 1506, quoted in Brann, 1981:56.
20. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
21. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
22. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
23. Trithemius, 1690.
24. For Codex 849 see Kieckhefer, 1989; Begardi, 1539:17.
Chapter 5
1. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
2. Leaflet, no title, no date, Historisches Dr Faust Haus, acquired October 2005. A date carved above the cellar door has been obscured so that one can only read ‘15…’.
3. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
4. Quoted in Brann, 1999:70.
5. Quoted in Brann, 1999:70.
6. Quoted in Muir, 1913, ch. II.
7. Julius Reisek, Heimatwissenschaftliche Zentralbibliothek, personal communication, 12 March 2007; Dr Michael Vesper, Geschäftsführer Bad Kreuznach Tourismus und Marketing, personal communication, 12 and 20 March 2007; Heinrich Laun, local historian, Bad Kreuznach, personal communication, 13 March 2007.
8. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
9. Quoted in Wylie, 1878, vol. 1, bk 6, ch. 1.
10. Wylie, 1878, vol. 1, bk 6, ch. 1; Bax, 1967.
11. Lassalle, 1910:iii.
12. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313].
13. Lercheimer, 1597: 42.
14. Quoted in Manlius, 1563:44.
15. Puff, 2003:17, 28–30.
16. Kramer and Sprenger, 1485 (1996:55); Lea, 1957, I:232; Monter, 1976:135–6, 197–8 and 1985:41–55; Puff, 2003:5, 7, 23.
17. Quoted in Brann, 1999:53.
18. Hartlieb, 1998:119.
19. John of Salisbury, 1938:146–7.
20. Trithemius, 1507 [1536:313–4].
21. Quoted in Puff, 2003:131.
Chapter 6
1. Andreas Stiborius quoted in Mahal, 1980:79.
2. Vatic. Palat. Lat. 1439, fol. 39r; for Virdung’s MSS see Vatic. Palat. Lat. 1375 and 1391.
3. Würzburg cod. o. Sign., quoted in Brann, 1999:105.
4. Trithemius, 1518:103.
5. Letter of Trithemius to Rutger Sicamber, 12 Spetember 1506, quoted in Brann, 1981:51.
6. See Stoudt, 1995:12–8.
7. Guicciardini, 1579:405.
8. Quoted in Mackenney, 1993:91.
9. Published as Die Emeis, 1516.
10. Scheible, 1845–49, vol. II; Butler, 1949:159, 193, 197.
11. Landsknecht, sing., Landsknechte pl., were originally Feudal levies, but the word developed to mean mercenaries. English has retained the French form lansquenet, but the German is more appropriate here. Some writers Anglicise the plural as Landsknechts, but again the German is better.
12. Melanchthon, 1594:76.
13. Manlius, 1563:43.
14. Mathers, 1989: 73, and 1997: 44, 51, 57, using MSS of various dates – the earliest being late sixteenth century.
15. Kramer and Sprenger, 1996: 105.
16. Kramer and Sprenger, 1996: 105.
17. Erasmus wrote the book in 1509, but it was not published until 1511. The original title Encomium Moriae is variously given as The Praise of Folly and In Praise of Folly.
18. Quoted in Brann, 1981:117.
19. Agrippa, ‘To the Reader’, 1651: n.p.
20. Agrippa, ‘To the Reader’, 1651: n.p.
21. Agrippa, 1651: 2.
22. Agrippa, 1651:355.
23. A legendary connection mentioned in the Wolfenbüttel MS. See also Tille, 1900:93, and Bechstein, 1930:285.
Chapter 7
1. Mutianus, 1513, fol. 97r.
2. Quoted in Gillert, 1890:382–3.
3. Quoted in Gillert, 1890:382–3.
4. Quoted in Pachter, 1951:33.
5. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:54.
6. Also Faust-Gäßchen. Grässe, 1
868:339–40; Neubert, 1932:32; Fehrle and Schrom, 1953, Durrani, 2004:29.
7. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:54.
8. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:54.
9. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:54.
10. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:55.
11. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:55.
12. Grässe, 1868:339–40.
13. P.F., 1592:71; Bechstein, 1930:285.
14. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:55. 15. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:55.
16. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:55.
17. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:55.
18. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:55.
19. Grässe, 1868:339–40.
20. Lavater, 1569:92a.
21. Kramer and Sprenger, 1996:105.
22. Jirásek, 1931; Mönikes, 2003; Holger Kempkens, personal communication, 11 May 2006.
23. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:56.
24. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:56.
25. Quoted and trans. in Kieckhefer, 1997: 47.
26. Grässe, 1868:339–40.
27. Camerarius, 1591: 315.
28. Camerarius, 1591: 315.
29. Camerarius, 1591: 315.
30. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:56.
31. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:56. The nailing up of Luther’s theses has been discredited and is generally regarded as a legend spun by Melancthon.
32. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:56.
33. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:56.
34. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:56–7.
35. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:57.
36. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:57.
37. Quoted in Szamatólski, 1895:53.
38. Quoted in Tanner, 1990:n.p.
39. Quoted in Tanner, 1990:n.p.
Chapter 8
1. P.F., 1592:2.
2. Quoted in Walz, 1927:361.
3. P.F., 1592:2.
4. P.F., 1592:3.
