Professional Documents
Culture Documents
GOETHE’S FAUST
Faust has been called the fundamental icon of Western culture, and
Goethe’s inexhaustible poetic drama is the centrepiece of its tradition
in literature, music and art. In recent years, this play has experienced
something of a renaissance, with a surge of studies, theatre produc-
tions, press coverage and public discussions. Reflecting this renewed
interest, leading Goethe scholars in this volume explore the play’s
striking modernity within its theatrical framework. The chapters present
new aspects, such as the virtuality of Faust, the music drama, the
modernization of evil, Faust’s blindness, the gay Mephistopheles, clas-
sical beauty and horror as phantasmagoria, and Goethe’s anticipation
of modern science, economics and ecology. The book contains an
illustrated section on Faust in modern performance, with contributions
by renowned directors, critics and dramaturges, and a major interview
with Peter Stein, director of the uncut ‘millennium production’ of
Expo 2000.
edited by
HANS SCHULTE,
JOHN NOYES
AND
PIA KLEBER
cambridge university press
Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town,
Singapore, São Paulo, Delhi, Tokyo, Mexico City
Cambridge University Press
The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 8ru, UK
Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521194648
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library
Introduction
Hans Schulte 1
part i m odernity 15
1. Faust – today
Albrecht Schöne 17
2. Mephisto and the modernization of evil
Rolf-Peter Janz 32
3. Mephisto is the devil – or is he?
Peter Huber 40
4. ‘Schwankende Gestalten’: virtuality in Goethe’s Faust
Ulrich Gaier 54
5. Amnesia and anamnesis in Goethe’s Faust
Wolf-Daniel Hartwich 68
6. Magicians of modernity: Cagliostro and Saint-Simon
in Goethe’s Faust ii
Hans-Jürgen Schings 78
7. The blind Faust
Eberhard Lämmert 94
8. From Faust to Harry Potter: discourses of the centaurs
Gisela Brude-Firnau 113
v
vi Contents
9. Mistra and the Peloponnese in Goethe’s Faust ii
Wilhelm Blum 129
10. Goethe and the grotesque: the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’
Angela C. Borchert 138
11. Re-defining classicism: antiquity in Faust ii under the sign
of the Medusa
Ernst Osterkamp 156
12. Diabolical entrapment: Mephisto, the angels and the
homoerotic in Goethe’s Faust ii
W. Daniel Wilson 174
15.1 Bernardo Strozzi, ‘Old Woman at the Mirror’ (1615) page 245
15.2 Cesare Ripa, ‘Prudence’ in Iconologia (1758–69) 246
17.1 ‘This is my wager.’ – ‘Here’s my hand.’ (Photograph
from the Peter Stein production, Hanover–Berlin–Vienna,
2000–1, © Ruth Walz) 269
17.2 Helena and Phorkyas in Sparta. (Photograph from
the Stein production, 2000–1, © Ruth Walz) 271
17.3 Mountain Gorges: the heavenly spiral. (Photograph
from the Stein production, 2000–1, © Ruth Walz) 276
19.1 The three young men as Faust. (Photograph from the
Stuttgart production, 2005–6, © Staatstheater Stuttgart) 295
19.2 Margarete’s attempt at an abortion. (Photograph from the
Stuttgart production, 2005–6, © Staatstheater Stuttgart) 298
19.3 Mephistopheles and the Faust chorus. (Photograph
from the Stuttgart production, 2005–6, © Staatstheater
Stuttgart) 301
20.1 Prologue in Heaven. (Photograph from the Strehler
production, 1989–91, © Luigi Ciminaghi, Piccolo
Teatro, Milan) 308
20.2 Faust and Helena’s veil. (Photograph from the Strehler
production, 1989–91, © Luigi Ciminaghi) 314
20.3 ‘My lovely young lady, may I venture . . .?’ (Photograph
from the Strehler production, 1989–91, © Luigi
Ciminaghi) 319
vii
Contributors
viii
List of contributors ix
rolf-peter janz is Professor of German at the Free University, Berlin.
eberhard lämmert is Prof. Dr Dr h.c. (emeritus) for German and
Comparative Literature. He was President of the Free University of
Berlin (1976–83) and President of the Schiller-Gesellschaft (1988–2002).
He was also the founder and director of the Centre for Literary Research,
Berlin (1991–9).
ernst osterkamp is Professor of German at the Humboldt University,
Berlin. He is also co-editor of the Jahrbuch der deutschen Schiller-
Gesellschaft.
dirk pilz is a theatre critic, freelance writer and editor of Nachtkritik (the
only German on-line theatre magazine). He holds lectureships in theatre
criticism and literature in Munich, Berlin, Leipzig and Essen.
helmut schanze is Professor of Literary and Media Studies at the
University of Siegen, Germany.
hans-jürgen schings is Professor of German (emeritus) at the Free
University, Berlin.
albrecht schöne is Dr phil. habil., Professor of German (emeritus
1990). He holds honorary doctorates in philosophy and theology, and is
a member of numerous academies of science. He has been awarded the
Great Cross of Merit of the German Federal Republic with star and the
Order Pour le Mérite for arts and science.
peter stein was a theatre director in Munich, Zurich and Bremen
(1966–70) and artistic director of the Schaubühne, West Berlin (1970–85)
and of the Salzburg Festival (1991–7). His credits include numerous
productions of plays and operas world-wide.
martin swales was Professor of German at University College, London
(1976–2003). He holds the Cross of Merit of the German Federal
Republic and is a Fellow of the British Academy.
w. daniel wilson is Professor of German at the University of Berkeley
and Vice-President of the Goethe Society of North America.
Preface
xiii
Introduction
Hans Schulte
not es
1. Karl Jaspers, Über das Tragische, Munich: Piper, 1952, 29.
2. Erika Fischer-Lichte, Theatre, Ritual, Sacrifice, New York: Routledge, 2005.
3. Shannon Jackson, Professing Performance: Theatre in the Academy from Philology
to Performativity, Cambridge University Press, 2004, 268.
part i
Modernity
chapter 1
Faust – today
Albrecht Schöne
‘Intimidation through Classicism’ was the heading Brecht gave to his notes
on Goethe’s Faust in 1964.1 The colossal scope of this work does indeed have
such an intimidating effect that many readers (and the vast majority of
directors as well) content themselves with Faust i , not even daring to
approach Faust ii, which is almost twice as voluminous. Furthermore, the
work as a whole is burdened by 200 years of reception and interpretation,
surrounded by countless scholarly interpreters, and completely armed
against the curiosity of uninhibited readers with its reputation of fearsome
profundity and overwhelming demands. It is easy to see why Thomas Mann
wrote to Hermann Hesse that one might be ‘tempted some time to write a
totally fresh, intimate commentary on Faust which would relieve people of
their all too pious timidity in the face of this sublime, serene, by no means
inaccessible work, exceptional and bold but humanly fallible as it is’.2
Such a ‘fresh, intimate commentary’ would also have to explain what
might otherwise be misunderstood and would certainly be worth under-
standing correctly. Goethe himself believed that such assistance was
required in the case of the great old masters:
Denn bei den alten lieben Toten
Braucht man Erklärung, will man Noten;
Die Neuen glaubt man blank zu verstehn;
Doch ohne Dolmetsch wird’s auch nicht gehn. (BA 1, 441)
For with the old and dear departed
They need explanations, they want notes;
The new ones they think they can understand;
Yet without interpreter they won’t succeed, either.
With this, he certainly had not least his Faust in mind, for here was a work
that was meant to compel the reader ‘to dare himself to go beyond himself’,
as he wrote to his friend Zelter on 26 July 1828, while working on it. ‘Even
someone with a good head and good sense’, he continued, ‘has his work cut
17
18 albrecht schöne
out for him if he wants to make himself the master of all the mysteries that
have been tucked away there’ (WA 4:44, 226).
If that was valid when the wood was green, it is much more so now that it
has aged. Today’s reader needs commentaries to supply meanings that
would have been evident to a contemporary. These commentaries therefore
tend to explain works such as this by going back to language usage and
objective knowledge from the time of writing. For them, the end of the
writing (i.e., the year 1808 for Part i, and 1832 for Part ii of Faust) signals the
end of their responsibilities. They leave the rest to the descriptive accounts
of reception and interpretive history. ‘Modernizations’, regardless of
whether they distort the text or are faithful to its own intentions, are
considered unrespectable and utterly uncritical. No wonder theatre direc-
tors took and continue to take matters into their own hands.
However: ‘If I read Homer today,’ Goethe wrote to Zelter (8 August 1822),
‘he looks different from ten years ago; if we could reach the age of three
hundred years, he would look different again’ (WA 4:36, 111). Which does not
mean, of course, that the traditional text of the Iliad or Odyssey itself would
change with the times, but that it would be perceived in a different way. The
reader is always a child of his own time: his perceptions are controlled by his
personal experiences, interests and expectations. While the later reader may
lose sight of certain meanings, he may be the first to see new meanings. The
contemporary context within which an author has composed his work will
fade away with time, enabling new contexts to enrich the great old works of
literature. They also enrich the Faust-drama, placing it in new relationships
and moving it into a different light (‘if we could reach the age of three
hundred years, [Homer] would look different again’!). That is why I did
not wish to neglect, in the commentary of my Faust edition in the Deutscher
Klassiker Verlag, what this mightiest, richest and most significant work in
German literature could mean specifically for our time, for our self-
understanding and world-view. I did not wish to patronize the reader, but
to make suggestions and to stimulate his own discoveries. I did not want to
simply explain the historical substance stored in the treasury of this work, in
the wonderful medium of poetry. Goethe wrote in the West-östlicher Divan:
If a reader sees present and future matters prefigured in this way, and
discovers today’s concerns in things past, he certainly does not find them
presented directly, and definitely not in the way that Goethe as theatre
principal criticized in the drama of his own time, which mimicked and
copied everyday reality. In Zahme Xenien v he writes:
Rather, the reader sees his present world reflected in the images of the old
text. He sees this world at a distance, with a depth of field, and alienated to
the point of recognition, so that the old informs his new. Goethe did not
conceive the history of mankind as a purposive linear progress, but (in a
letter to Carl Friedrich Zelter of 11 May 1820) described the ‘Earthly
happenings’ (WA 4:33, 28) as ‘A recurrent circle or spiral’. In his poetic
endeavours too he became increasingly determined to focus this decidedly
structuralist understanding on model constellations, i.e., on what is of
necessity recurrent even under changed historical conditions, and hence
too in his changing dramatic subject-matter. In the end he declared (to
Boisserée, 3 November 1826): ‘As an ethical-aesthetic mathematician of
advanced years I must always press on towards the ultimate formulae
through which alone the world becomes conceivable and tolerable to me’
(WA 4:41, 221).
But I am not going to pursue such ultimate conditions any further at this
point. I would rather get my feet back on the ground and stay a while within
the economic sphere which Karl Marx touched on with his reading of the
Mephisto verses. In the first act of Faust ii at the Emperor’s court, this
emissary of hell promises a stabilization of the national budget through the
introduction of paper money. This paper money presents itself, therefore, as
a diabolical invention. And indeed, the gold reserves, which are to cover
these bank notes and bonds, are not deposited in national treasuries, but
buried as unrecovered treasures under the ground.
Faust – today 23
The worldly knowledge in Faust derives from the fact that Goethe was
not only a qualified lawyer, but also a natural scientist, and a politician as
well (I shall refer to both later). He was also a connoisseur of art, a mining
engineer, a critic of war, and more. Decidedly competent in the realm of
national economics, he had forty-six books on this subject in his library.
A remark he made in 1829 reveals how highly he rated the importance of
economic questions, and how far-reaching – for human behaviour as well –
he considered the consequences of financial and economic revolutions: ‘The
liveliness of commerce, the continual rustle of paper money, the increase in
debts to pay off other debts – all these are powerful elements that the young
man of the present confronts.’7
A model for these pitfalls had been presented by the Scottish banker and
economic critic John Law, who redeemed all the king’s debts in 1716 with
the foundation of a central bank and the issue of insufficiently backed paper
money. Thus he achieved lower taxes and a general economic boom – until
the progressive financial expansion doomed his experiment to failure in a
far-reaching economic crisis. Goethe’s deep suspicion of these remedies was
based on his experiences of his own time, for example with the assignats of
the French Revolution, the treasury warrants of the Austrian government
bonds and the Prussian treasury issues in the nineteenth century. He knew
very well that the transition from coinage to more mobile paper money and
to the credit system can unleash powerful economic energies, and that an
increase in the amount of money can lead to an increase in the national
product and turnover of goods – provided that the increase in prices has not
fully caught up, and that the productive potential has not been exhausted.
But he also knew that Mephisto’s creation of paper money – with its sudden
and boundless rise in current cash through fraudulent bonds, and without
progress in productivity linked to purchasing power and demand – had a
catastrophic and inbuilt inflationary effect.
While everybody at court and throughout the empire plunges, with the
help of the new mass of paper money, into a reckless consumer frenzy, only the
old court fool acts differently: ‘And can I buy some land, a house, and cattle?’
(6167), he asks Mephisto, ‘A castle, too, with woods, a chase, and fishing?’
(6169), then:’ Tonight I’ll dream of my estates’ (6171). Mephisto comments:
‘Who still can doubt our fool has wit!’ (6172) – and ‘wit’ here means his
economic savvy which allows him to escape inflation in real estate. Whoever
has, in Goethe’s own words, ‘been around and experienced a few things’ will
find that Faust can teach us the abcs of today’s investment consultants.
And so to the natural sciences, for a change of perspective. When
the philosopher Karl Jaspers was honoured with the Goethe Prize of
24 albrecht schöne
Frankfurt am Main in 1947, he talked about ‘Our future and Goethe’ and
declared: ‘Goethe’s world is the end of millennia of the Western World, a
last realization, fulfilled and yet already turning into remembrance and
departure. This is the world which generated ours, but from which our
world is already so far removed that Goethe seems to be closer to Homer
than to us.’8
Without considering that even Homer could ‘look different’ ten years
later (not to mention three hundred years later), Jaspers justified his
apodictic judgement mainly by saying that Goethe closed his mind to the
natural sciences and ‘the emerging world . . ., without having understood it’.
‘This world has been lost to something that is now our fate, that signifies a
human greatness and an enormous new challenge which we must take up if
we wish to live.’9
That was said half a century ago. Agents of secret services or terrorists
occasionally talk about ‘sleepers’ who have been planted somewhere, remain
inconspicuous for a long time and do not draw any special attention to
themselves – until they are awoken from outside at a certain point and
spring into action. There are such sleepers among works of art, like sleeping
passages in literary works.
Occasionally, dealing with them is a somewhat risky balancing act.
Goethe put this ironically in Zahme Xenien ii : ‘When you interpret, be
happy. / If you can’t interpret, pretend’ (BA 1, 655). Faust’s report at the
time of the Easter walk on his father’s medical experiments during a plague
may serve as an example. These experiments were based on old alchemist
recipes written in technical jargon, the hermetic imagery of the initiated:
‘Red lion’, for instance, means a quicksilver oxide imagined as male, ‘Lily’
signifies hydrochloric acid and the combination of them in the ‘Young
Queen in the glass’ (i.e., test tube) then stands for quicksilver chloride,
which was accepted at that time as a pharmaceutical substance. Here are
Faust’s lines:
Da ward ein roter Leu, ein kühner Freier,
Im lauen Bad, der Lilie vermählt
Und beide dann, mit offnem Flammenfeuer,
Aus einem Brautgemach ins andere gequält.
Erschien darauf mit bunten Farben
Die junge Königin im Glas,
Hier war die Arzenei, die Patienten starben. (1042–8)
There a mercurial suitor, the Red Lion,
would in a tepid bath be married to the Lily,
then both be driven by tormenting flames
Faust – today 25
out of one bridal chamber to another;
when in the beaker of the Young Queen
at last appeared a mass of colour,
that was our medicine – the patients died.
In the context of a psychoanalytic Faust interpretation published in 2001, it
is said (simply out of ignorance of this alchemist terminology): ‘The “Leu”,
the lion is the sperm cell, the lily is the egg; they fuse and become the queen.
Faust’s father understood this clearly as medicine. It did not work, though.’
Given our awareness of biomedical research today, such a misunderstanding
would undoubtedly lead to associations with embryonic stem cell research
and its therapeutic promises – a solid actualization, but based on a quite
obvious misunderstanding of the text.10
Let us turn then to a more valid example. In Act 2 of Faust ii, Faust and
Mephisto have entered the ‘laboratory’ of Professor Wagner, who whispers
excitedly ‘Something tremendous is almost completed’ (6833). Mephisto
says, more softly, ‘What’s going on?’ Wagner then, even more softly,
‘a human being is being made’ (6834–5).
According to the stage directions, this biochemist works with alchemist’s
equipment. Consequently, critics have traced his experiment, correctly,
back to corresponding endeavours of pansophist alchemists of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries, specifically to directions (by Paracelsus) to make
it possible ‘that a human being may be born outside a female body and of a
natural mother’. His extra-corporeal in-vitro conception concludes with the
assertion that in the end ‘a truly living human child will come of it . . . yet
much smaller, which we would call a homunculus’.11
In December 1826, Goethe noted how he had planned this matter:
Mephisto was to talk Faust into visiting his former famulus, the now
‘academically employed Doctor and Professor Wagner . . . whom they
find in his laboratory rejoicing about a small chemical human being having
been brought to life. This being immediately bursts the luminous flask and
enters as a nimble, well-formed dwarf ’ (Paralipomena, FT 638).
The laboratory scene written three years later looks quite different,
however. Measured against the intended goal, it deals with a failing experi-
ment. No longer is there any creation of a human being who bursts the
alchemist test tube to step into life immediately. Rather, what has been
successfully crystallized (‘kristallisieren’ is Professor Wagner’s word, 6860)
remains locked in the flask, from which the ventriloquist voice of Paracelsus’
homunculus makes it known that he has come only half-way into the world,
and above all is trying to discover how one can evolve and transform. And
why? Because in the meantime contemporary scientists had interfered with
26 albrecht schöne
the prescriptions of the old alchemists and begun to make their own
contributions to the Faust drama. Friedrich Wöhler’s epoch-making urea
synthesis comes into play here.
Wöhler had written to his teacher Berzelius in Stockholm about a
‘crystallized’ substance extracted from cyanic ammonium and its identity
with animal urea: ‘I have to tell you that I can produce urea without . . .
requiring kidneys.’ And: ‘This artificial formation of urea – can you con-
sider it as an example of the formation of an organic substance from
inorganic matter?’ (22 February 1828).12 Berzelius replied, ten days later,
highly ironically to his former famulus, who worked at the Berlin trade
school: ‘If we should manage to progress a bit further in our productive
abilities . . . what wonderful art to make a child, however small, in the
laboratory of the trade school. – Who knows? It should be easy enough.’13
As the highest authority of the time in the field of chemistry, he also
supported the prevalent opinion that there was no hope at all for any
‘organic matter’ to be ‘artificially produced’.
That was in February and March 1828. In August, Berzelius visited
Goethe. Undoubtedly he told his keenly interested host about Wöhler’s
urea crystallization and did not understate the chemist’s fundamental
reservation concerning the possibility of ‘a child, however small’ being
made ‘in the laboratory of the trade school’. And Goethe had not stopped
learning.
What Wöhler had, in Berzelius’ sceptically dismissive view, contributed
to the laboratory scene had extraordinary consequences for the Faust drama.
The failed experiment, or rather, the experiment that had got bogged down
half-way demanded a continuation which had not been anticipated at all in
Goethe’s draft. Homunculus now would like to come to life. And the advice
given by Thales, the Greek philosopher of nature, and Proteus, the ancient
god of metamorphosis, was informed by ideas on natural history so
advanced that only now have we become aware of it: ‘All living things
evolved in water’ (7856). And: ‘You must begin out in the open sea’ (8260).
In the rocky bays of the Aegean Sea a dolphin will carry the Homunculus
phial to the place where it is smashed, in a hymnic-orgiastic act, on the shell-
carriage of Galatea. Wagner’s crystallized substance is dissolved in the
element from which organic life emerges. Thus ends the second act. And
with the first lines of the third act, after the boldest cut a dramatist may ever
have made (bridging about 3.5 billion years by the latest estimate), man
stands in front of our eyes, the paragon of female beauty: ‘I, Helena, who am
much admired, much berated, / come from the beach [i.e., from the sea,
from water] where only now we disembarked’ (8488–9).
Faust – today 27
Accordingly, the theorem of Thales referring to the sea and directed to
Homunculus appears as a vivid formula for the emergence of life and the
evolutionary phylogenesis of man – ‘for you’ll evolve according to eternal
norms [natural laws!] / changing your shape uncounted times, / with lots of
time before you must be human’ (8324–6). What the author of Faust
developed, with the morphogenetic approach of his theory of metamor-
phosis, out of the premises of the natural science and natural philosophy of
his time, covers modern theories of a prebiotic-chemical phase of emerging
organic forms as much as the concepts of a selective development of genetic
information based on self-reproduction and mutageneity. According to the
biochemist Manfred Eigen, it covers advanced ideas of an immanent
‘purposiveness of the evolutionary process’ which under the ‘steering influ-
ence of natural laws determined the development of life from the molecular
system up to man’.14
But, finally, to politics. The scene of the last act of Faust ii is at first the
little hut of the old couple Philemon and Baucis, with a little garden, a few
lime trees with hollow trunks and a dilapidated chapel in which the pious
old people ring the chapel bell. Quite close by is the mighty residence of the
now centenarian Faust. The keywords – palace, wide ornamental garden,
large regular canal – were for Goethe’s theatre-going and reading contem-
poraries unmistakable political signs that referred to French garden art, with
its paradigm of the castle and park of Versailles, the embodiment of a
monarchic-absolutist state. Hut, therefore, and Palace present in this con-
text a binary formula of opposition which goes back to Horace, Seneca and
Virgil and had just been politically re-actualized by the slogan of the French
Revolutionary forces: ‘War to the palaces! Peace to the huts!’
Mephisto presents the deeply troubled old autocrat with his coastal realm
reclaimed from the sea: ‘admit that here, here from this palace, / you have
the whole world in your reach’ (11225–6) – which causes Faust to foam
with rage:
Das verfluchte hier!
Das eben leidig lastet’s mir.
Dir Vielgewandten muß ich’s sagen,
Mir gibt’s im Herzen Stich um Stich,
Mir ists unmöglich zu ertragen! (11233–7)
Confound your here –
that’s what’s so terribly oppressive!
I have to tell you, you who know so much,
it causes me such endless heartache,
it’s something I can bear no longer!
28 albrecht schöne
In a popular commentary written well over fifty years ago we read that Faust
wanted to ‘acquire Philemon and Baucis’ hut with its premises, because
from there he would have the best view of his property’ (HA 3, 611). That is
indeed what the old man claims, but the matter is by no means so harmless.
This we can see because we too have experienced a few things. If Faust
plainly contemplates world supremacy and now rages about two decaying
lime trees on a sand dune, and about a dilapidated hut and an old chapel, we
are really dealing with a fundamental phenomenon of power politics: the
timeless essence of totalitarian control, which feels threatened in its absolute
rule by even the smallest enclave, even the tiniest element of divergent
selfhood. Faust calls it ‘resistance’ (11269) and ‘obstinacy’ (11269). He
himself spells it out clearly: ‘The freedom of an invincible will / is blunted
by this pile of sand’ (11255–6). And: ‘The few trees spoil, because I do not
own them, / everything that I possess on earth’ (11241–2). And still earlier,
locked in a strange formula: the two resistant old people are for him ‘A thorn
in the eyes, a thorn in the soles of the feet’ (11161). The ‘intertextual’
reference of these words is to Numbers 33, where the Promised Land is
announced. When the Lord caused an order to be issued to the children of
Israel that they must conquer Canaan, expatriate its inhabitants and destroy
its sacrificial sites, it said: ‘But if you don’t drive out the country’s inhab-
itants before you, those that you leave behind will become thorns in your
eyes and thorns in your sides, and they will plague you in the country where
you live’ (Numbers 33:55). These biblical words entering into Faust’s speech
provide the formula of an ancient and persistent history of disastrous and
violent expulsion.
‘Go and rid me of their presence!’ (11275) Faust commands Mephisto,
who gives a piercing whistle to summon his Three Mighty Men. This
expulsion will cost Philemon and Baucis their lives. Mephisto, turning to
spectators still well versed in the bible, says: ‘Here’s an old story, ever the
same – / Naboth’s vineyard once again’ (11286–7). These words relate to the
story of the pious Naboth in the Old Testament, who refuses to yield his
vineyard near the royal palace to the ruling king. He is executed, and king
Ahab takes over his property. ‘A thorn in the eyes, a thorn in the soles of the
feet’ and ‘Naboth’s vineyard once again’ – this drama of mankind reaches as
far back into the depths of time as it does forward into the distant future.
The further someone pulls back the string of his bow, the further his arrow
can fly.
During the winter semester of 1989–90 in Göttingen, I was dealing in a
lecture with the scenes at the Emperor’s court of the first act of Faust ii. This
was during the highly dramatic weeks of the collapse of the German
Faust – today 29
Democratic Republic (GDR). In the great ‘Throne Room’ scene the power
centre of the empire is visualized. It is worth reading again how the situation
reports presented by members of the Staatsrat (State Council) sketch the
picture, or rather the model, of a collapsing state. Note also that this was the
same name as the GDR’s highest political body. Public injustice, lawless
violence and general corruption are the rule. The progress of national bank-
ruptcy cannot be stopped. The commander-in-chief of the army has no firm
control of his troops any more. ‘Sedition’s growing turmoil’ (4794), we read,
is raging in a land which has become ungovernable. And even the session of
the State Council is now invaded by the murmurings of the crowd, the mass
of the people who have lost all confidence in any improvement in conditions.
At that time, it was quite superfluous to point out the simultaneous happen-
ings outside the lecture hall in Göttingen, beyond the border that was 15 km
away. There was nobody who would not have understood immediately how
the events outside were reflected and explained in the text read inside, the new
in the old. This venerable, dusty museum piece was revealing itself as an
exciting piece of contemporary literature.
When Faust at last stands in the courtyard of his palace, the desire of the
centenarian reaches beyond all he believes to have achieved, towards a vast
new land wrested from the sea which is to open up ‘Space for many millions’
(11563). This stands before his inner eye when he speaks the famous lines: ‘If
only I might see that people’s teeming life, / share their autonomy of
unencumbered soil’ (11579).
Shortly afterwards, he sinks down, dying – a second Moses, who was at
least allowed by the Lord to see the Promised Land from afar, a land which
he will not set foot on himself. These lines provided a basis for the
politicizing glorification of Faust – in the Wilhelmian era and then (with
a different twist) by the National Socialists, and finally (twisted differently
again) by the rulers and cultural functionaries of the GDR. Walther
Ulbricht, chairman of the GDR’s state council, had proclaimed these verses
as a visionary anticipation of the Stalinist land reform and the first Workers’
and Peasants’ State on German soil, and they can still be found on the
building marking the south entrance of the former Stalinallee in Berlin.
Worth preserving!
It was a despot, however, who spoke these verses, one who had just
attempted to mobilize the subservient masses for an all-out effort, and who
had his overseer Mephisto drive the forced-labour gangs. ‘The traces of my
days on earth / will survive into eternity!‘ (11583) – these are the words of a
blind old man who thinks he hears the spades of the slaves clank as the
lemurs dig his grave. But Mephisto murmurs, aside:
30 albrecht schöne
In jeder Art seid ihr verloren,
Die Elemente sind mit uns verschworen,
Und auf Vernichtung läuft’s hinaus. (11548–50)
All of your kind are doomed already; –
the elements have sworn to help us;
the end will be annihilation.
Both perspectives are side by side, unreconciled and undecided, and reflect
the central problem of modernity which stands behind the late passages of
the Faust drama written at the beginning of Germany’s industrial revolu-
tion. The fire of steam engines accompanies the work on Faust’s enormous
canal construction project: ‘Fires flowed down to the sea / there, at dawn,
was a canal’ (11129). The feud of the interpreters concerning a positive or
negative understanding of Faust (as the incessantly striving, great and
exemplary figure, or as the protagonist of an ultimate demise, hopelessly
entangled in crime) – this feud corresponds to the schism of the optimists
and pessimists foretelling the end of what has now begun with our
encroachment on nature, the deciphering of genomes, or nanotechnology,
or computer-based robotics.
In the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 19 June 1999, the then minister
Otto Schily wrote that everybody ‘ought to have read two books: the bible
and Goethe’s Faust’. This is not a bad piece of advice, coming from the
Federal Minister of the Interior (especially if we can distinguish between
these two books, if we don’t take Faust, as we once did – in opposition to
Goethe aiming at ‘European, even world literature’ – as the bible of the
Germans). This, after all, had been the aged poet’s hope at the very end of
his life: that this work of art ‘would continue to delight and challenge
humanity’ (letter to Zelter of 1 June 1831), in other words, that it might
entertain and delight us theatre-goers or readers today, occupying our
minds, causing us concern, driving our thoughts and actions.
notes
Translated by Hans Schulte.
1. Bertolt Brecht, ‘Einschüchterung durch die Klassizität’, in Große kommentierte
Berliner und Frankfurter Ausgabe, ed. Werner Hecht, Jan Knopf and Werner
Mittenzwei, vol. xxiii, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1988–, 316–18. We thank
Albrecht Schöne for adjusting a pre-published version of this chapter for us and
for allowing us to translate it for this volume. First published as ‘Faust – heute’,
in Moderna Språk, vol. c, 1 (Växjö, Sweden, 2006).
2. Thomas Mann to Hermann Hesse, 25 November 1947, Letters of Thomas Mann,
trans. Richard and Clara Winston, New York: Knopf, 1971, 540.
Faust – today 31
3. Goethe, Poems of the West and East, trans. John Whaley, Frankfurt: Lang,
1998, 189.
4. Paul Celan, Mohn und Gedächtnis, 6th edn, Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-
Anstalt, 1963, 37–9.
5. Goethe, Zur Farbenlehre, GA 16, 331.
6. Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, trans. Martin
Mulligan, Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1959.
7. Goethe, Wilhelm Meister’s Journeyman Years or The Renunciants, Collected
Works, vol. x, New York: Suhrkamp 1989, 298.
8. Karl Jaspers, ‘Unsere Zukunft und Goethe. Rede, am 28. August 1947
anlässlich der Verteilung des Goethepreises der Stadt Frankfurt am Main
gehalten’, Die Goethe-Schriften, Zurich: Artemis, 1948, 14.
9. Ibid., 21.
10. Oskar N. Sahlberg, ‘Goethes Faust. Homunculus und die Neuzeugung der
Schwestergeliebten’, The International Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal
Psychology and Medicine 13/1–2 (2001), 193–200, 194.
11. Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke. Erste Abteilung: Medizinische, naturwissenschaft-
liche und philosophische Schriften, ed. Karl Sudhoff, Munich and Berlin:
Oldenbourg, 1922–33, xi, 317.
12. Jöns Jakob Berzelius, Briefwechsel zwischen J. Berzelius und F. Wöhler, ed.
O. Wallach, vol. i, Leipzig: W. Engelmann, 1901, 205–8.
13. Ibid., 208–9.
14. Manfred Eigen, Stufen zum Leben. Die frühe Evolution im Visier der
Molekularbiologie, Munich: Piper, 1987, 20, 79–80.
chapter 2
When Goethe created Mephistopheles, his version of the devil, he was well
aware that he had to get rid of most of the attributes traditionally ascribed to
this opponent of God. There is plenty of evidence that this character no longer
stands for one principle of evil, for instance the schemer or the Machiavellian
ruler, but is deliberately constructed to bring together a large number of
different qualities. Mephistopheles, one might say, is excessively overdeter-
mined. Goethe lets him enter the stage in many masks. He plays the role of
‘Kuppler’ (matchmaker) and the tempter of Faust (following the story of Job),
as well as the seducer, the schemer, the gambler, the magician, the art expert,
‘Souffleur’ (prompter), entertainer, the envoy of hell, the satanic Don Juan etc.
The phenomenology of evil in Faust is almost inexhaustible. If we compare
Mephistopheles with the traditional picture of the devil, it is quite clear that he
has become more complex – and more ambivalent.1 His art of metamorphosis
turns him into a legitimate successor to Proteus. (Faust, by the way, also excels
in this role.)2 So he can well be called a ‘man without qualities’,3 and in this
respect Mephistopheles is more modern than the epitomes of evil on the
Elizabethan stage – such as Richard III – and elsewhere.
But if Mephistopheles is similar to Proteus and lacks identity, how can he
still be regarded as a devil? Or does Goethe’s drama explore precisely the
enormous multiformity of Mephistopheles as the modern version of evil,
appropriate for the nineteenth century? How can evil and one of its main
principles, destruction, be represented and visualized on the stage? One
option is to give it a deformed, grotesque body. But the fact that the body is
intact does not mean that Mephistopheles is any less destructive; rather, the
evil which Mephistopheles stands for often finds its correlative in an ugly
body. The supreme ugliness that he finally achieves by wearing the mask of
the Phorkyas is to be read as the appropriate sign of absolute evil. Goethe
leaves him only a few parts of his old trappings and costume: a cock’s plume,
a red robe and a cloven hoof. But Mephistopheles can easily change clothes
and wear all kinds of costumes in order to hide his physical appearance.
32
Mephisto and the modernization of evil 33
The qualities, however, that the drama ascribes to Mephistopheles
cannot be isolated from those given to Faust. While playing the role of
Faust’s counterpart, Mephistopheles at the same time is designed as Faust’s
alter ego. To be more precise, Mephistopheles nourishes and provokes the
evil that is part of Faust’s character. He demonstrates Faust’s own ambiv-
alence. If Mephistopheles is defined as the personification of destruction –
‘Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!’ (1338, I am the spirit which always
negates)4 – he also shows Faust’s inclination towards self-destruction.5 If
Faust calls Mephistopheles a monster, he involuntarily addresses himself, too.
Given these kinds of contradiction, we might enquire as to the concept of
anthropology that simultaneously generates characters like Mephistopheles
and Faust. Evil is at work in Faust as well as in Mephistopheles.
The answer seems to be rather simple. Faust desperately tries to escape his
dilemma as someone caught between heaven and earth. He does not belong
to either of them. Faust carries too much of heaven with him to live on earth
and is too much involved in worldly life to belong to heaven; therefore, he
needs Mephistopheles and the latter’s appropriate diagnosis:
Vom Himmel fordert er die schönsten Sterne,
Und von der Erde jede höchste Lust,
Und alle Näh’ und alle Ferne
Befriedigt nicht die tiefbewegte Brust. (304–7)
not es
1. See Ernst Osterkamp, Lucifer. Stationen eines Motivs, Berlin, New York: Walter
de Gruyter 1979; Peter-André Alt, ‘Aufgeklärte Teufel. Modellierungen des
Bösen im Trauerspiel des 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Die deutsche Tragödie. Neue
Lektüren einer Gattung im europäischen Kontext, ed. Volker C. Dörr et al.,
Bielefeld: Aisthesis, 2006.
2. See FK 52.
3. Gert Mattenklott, ‘Der Medien-Mephistopheles. Gustav Gründgens als
Mephistopheles in Goethes Faust’, Theater heute 2 (2000), 23–7.
4. All further references to Faust are by line number from FT. Unless otherwise
indicated, all translations are taken from Goethe, Faust, trans. David Luke,
Oxford University Press, 1987, 1994.
5. See Jochen Schmidt, Goethes Faust. Erster und Zweiter Teil. Grundlagen–Werk–
Wirkung, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1999, 122.
6. See Rolf-Peter Janz, ‘“Vom Harz bis Hellas immer Vettern.” Mephistopheles
in der “Klassischen Walpurgisnacht”’, in Peter Stein inszeniert Faust von Johann
Wolfgang Goethe, ed. Peter Stein and Roswitha Schieb, Ostfildern: DuMont
Reiseverlag, 2000, 274–6.
7. See 11832 ff. and FK 777.
8. Macbeth I, i. 11.
9. See for instance Albrecht Schöne, Götterzeichen, Liebeszauber, Satanskult. Neue
Einblicke in alte Goethetexte, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1993; FK; Thomas Zabka,
‘Dialektik des Bösen. Warum es in Goethes “Walpurgisnacht” keinen Satan
gibt’, DVJs 72 (1998), 201–6.
10. This thesis is strongly advanced by Wilhelm Schmidt-Biggemann in ‘Über die
unfaßliche Evidenz des Bösen’, in Das Böse. Eine historische Phänomenologie des
Unerklärlichen, ed. Carsten Colpe and W. Schmidt-Biggemann, Frankfurt am
Main: Suhrkamp, 1993, 7–12.
11. If we look at plays of the 1970s and 1980s, I would suggest that a play like Mein
Kampf by George Tabori could be understood as one of a few examples that
show the double identity of devil and fool, the intimate alliance of terror and
laughter.
12. Hans Richard Brittnacher, Ästhetik des Horrors, Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp, 1994, 241.
13. Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil, New
York: Viking Press, 1963. (German translation: Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein
Bericht von der Banalität des Bösen, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1978, 16.)
chapter 3
The Titans are the foil of polytheism, as the devil may be considered the foil of
monotheism; though, like only God to whom he stands in contrast, he is not a
poetic figure. The Satan of Milton, though boldly enough drawn, still remains in
the disadvantage of a subordinate existence, attempting to destroy the splendid
creation of a higher being: Prometheus, on the contrary, has this advantage, that
even in spite of superior beings, he is able to act and to create.3
Nobly as they [the Nordic Myths] excited my imagination, they nevertheless were
inaccessible to the perception of the senses; while the mythology of the Greeks,
turned by the greatest artists in the world into visible, easily imagined forms, still
existed before our own eyes in abundance. I did not often allow gods in general to
appear; because they had their abodes outside of the Nature which alone I knew
how to imitate. Now, what could have induced me to substitute Wodan for Jupiter,
and Thor for Mars, and instead of the Southern, accurately described figures, to
introduce forms of mist, nay, mere verbal sounds, into my poems?6
46 peter huber
Well, with Mephisto Goethe did introduce a kind of ‘schwankende
Gestalt’, as we have seen above. According to the author’s confession, this
figure is – additionally and predominantly – given features of a figure from
Greek mythology: Hermes. Although the allusions are too numerous to be
listed completely, I shall concentrate on a few: Hermes is given the epithet
‘psychopompos’ because he guides souls to the underworld. This is exactly
what Mephisto intends to do with Faust. He has God’s explicit permission
‘to guide [Faust] gently along [Mephisto’s] road’ (314). Just as Hermes
mediates between Olympus and earth, Mephisto is the chain between the
transcendent God of the ‘Prologue’ and Faust on earth. Hermes is the god
of travellers and thieves, having stolen his brother Apollo’s cattle when he
was still a baby. Mephisto, too, cannot be completely exonerated from
larceny. The monkey in the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’ says, ‘You recognize the thief
and must not tell his name?’ (2420–1). Mephisto and Faust appear as
travellers in ‘Auerbach’s Cellar’ and in the Gretchen scenes. When
Marthe asks, ‘And you, Sir, will you always be travelling like this?’ (3085),
Mephisto replies, ‘Alas! that business and duties force us to!’ (3086).
Mephisto pretends to be a trader, which also conforms to the competency
of Hermes. He is the divine messenger, and in this function he brings the
news of Mr Schwerdtlein’s death. He also invents the lyre or kithara, and
with this instrument Mephisto performs his serenade under Gretchen’s
window. In this scene Mephisto acts as matchmaker for Faust and
Gretchen, and matchmaking also belongs to the patronage of Hermes,
because he is the god of mediation. In his translation of The Birds by
Aristophanes, Goethe uses the expression ‘The matchmaking messenger
Mercury’ (MA 2:1, 330), who is the Roman equivalent of Hermes. In his
capacity as god of matchmakers he is very impressed by Marthe. Mephisto
gushes about her: ‘That’s a woman predestined to matchmaking and gypsy
work’ (3029 f.). In the ‘Forest and Cave’ scene, the furious Faust yells ‘Get
lost, pimp!’ (3339), and the scolded companion retorts ironically that even
God acted as a matchmaker when he brought Adam and Eve together. Thus
we see that Mephisto is well versed in doing the job of Hermes. One more
feature: Hermes is the god of serendipity, so there is some hope that he will
discover the hidden treasures he had promised to the Emperor. ‘What a
lucky find’ (9955), gloats Mephisto, while he picks up what is left of
Euphorion. These examples should suffice to demonstrate that the charac-
ter of Hermes lies within the shell of Mephisto. In fact, the author himself
connected the two figures in the third act of Part ii, when Mephisto in the
mask of Phorkyas guides Helena and her women from Arcadia towards
Faust’s Gothic castle. With perceptible anxiety the chorus intones:
Mephisto is the devil – or is he? 47
Siehst du nichts? schwebt nicht etwa gar
Hermes voran? blinkt nicht der goldne Stab
Heischend, gebietend uns wieder zurück
Zu dem unerfreulichen, grautagenden,
Ungreifbarer Gebilde vollen,
Überfüllten, ewig leeren Hades. (9116–21)
Can you see anything? Is that not Hermes
Who hovers before us, his golden wand gleaming,
Who summons, who orders us to return
To dreary, twilight-gray Hades,
which, filled to repletion
with impalpable shapes, is eternally empty?
notes
This chapter is dedicated to Harry Seelig.
1. Line-number references to Faust are from MA. Translations are cited from
Walter Arndt, Walter Kaufmann and Stuart Atkins and some are by the author.
2. ‘Schwankende Gestalt’ is commonly translated as ‘wavering apparition’, but
‘fuzzy’ and ‘uncertain’ are more exact.
3. The Autobiography of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, trans. John Oxenford, 2
vols., Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1974, ii, 278.
4. In Die Götter Griechenlands (The Gods of Greece), Schiller laments the demise
of antique polytheism: ‘To enrich just one, the whole realm of the gods had to
vanish’, and the following sentence of the first version of Schiller’s poem
represents the very programme of classical humanism: ‘When the gods were
still more human-like / mankind was more god-like’. Friedrich Schiller,
Sämtliche Gedichte i, in Sämtliche Werke, ed. Gerhard Fricke and Herbert
G. Göpfert, vol. i, Munich: C. Hanser, 1965, first version [1788], 163–9, second
version [1800], 169–73.
5. Cf. Albrecht Schöne’s comment to 10664, FK 685 f.
6. The Autobiography of Goethe, ii, 161.
7. Goethe mocks literary critics (probably a particular one) of religious-orthodox
provenance, who had polemicized against Schiller’s philosophical poem The
Gods of Greece (see above).
8. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, West-östlicher Divan, BA 3, 22.
9. A theatrical Example of a natural goddess without consciousness is Wagner’s
Erda of the Rheingold.
10. Letter to Carl Ernst Schubarth, 3 November 1820, WA 4:34, 5.
11. Letter to Schiller, 19 January 1802. The first draft of Iphigenia reaches further
back than the Mephisto conception of Goethe’s classical period. Nevertheless
the humanist tendency of the drama is very much in accordance with the ‘good
and evil’ problem discussed here. One of the central points of Iphigenia is the
Mephisto is the devil – or is he? 53
self-liberation from the ‘curse of Tantalus’, the progenitor of the Atrides. This
‘curse’ symbolizes Christian original sin and, according to the Augustinian
doctrine, such a (self-)expiation is impossible. As a consequence of his deviant
view, Pelagius was condemned as a heretic. The classical conception of human-
ity, as propagated by Goethe and Schiller, is based on this ‘demonized’
Pelagianism. So the expression ‘verteufelt human’ is not at all meant ironically
or paradoxically, but is strictly literal.
chapter 4
Ask Goethe whether you should put Faust on the stage: he will tell you flatly
‘No!’ He never supported efforts to do so,1 even though readers and theatre
people urged him to stage the piece. When the actor Pius Alexander Wolff
and Goethe’s adlatus Friedrich Wilhelm Riemer planned a representation in
Weimar around 1810, Goethe was angry, saying that if he had wanted, he
could have staged it himself.2 Later he described his attitude towards it as
‘passive, if not suffering’.3 Finally he consented to draw sketches for some
scenes in Part i and revise the stage version, adding lines here and there in
order to stress the operatic character which Wolff had intended (FT 582–
90). When, in 1829, Weimar and Leipzig rehearsed for a representation of a
revised version of Part i, Goethe contributed a chorus for the ‘Study 2’ scene
and a final chorus for the ‘Prison’ scene (FT 591 ff.), again to enhance the
operatic character which he always had in mind. We think of the multitude
of musical inlays in the text, but also of his remark that only Mozart could
have set the play to music, and that after his death only Meyerbeer was
capable of rendering its more terrifying aspects.4 He consented to train the
actor LaRoche to portray Mephistopheles; indeed, LaRoche confessed that
each gesture, each step, each grimace and each word came from Goethe.5
Wilhelm Holtei, an aficionado of the Weimar stage, noted on LaRoche’s
Mephistopheles: ‘It was a symbolic appearance, fully on the level of the
poem. To tell the truth: it was an appearance which perhaps was as little
suited to the real stage as the poem itself.’6
Referring to the Leipzig production, Goethe himself wrote that it
revealed the old truth that one should not ‘paint the devil on the wall’,7
that is, one should not try to create a realistic image of that figure.
Apparently, it is not so much the difficulties which the stage technicians
might encounter in realizing Goethe’s ideas and imaginations, but the
symbolic nature of the figures, events and scenes. ‘Symbolic’ refers to a
54
‘Schwankende Gestalten’ 55
plurality of aspects and relationships in which a phenomenon has to be
understood, and such plurality will always exceed the spectator’s ability to
perceive a stage figure.
mephistopheles
LaRoche played Mephistopheles, and he succeeded in giving the figure a
symbolic appearance. Let me go into some detail with this figure. First,
Mephistopheles constantly changes costume, mask and function. In the
‘Prologue to Heaven’, we have his name only as a stage name for the figure
who, in this re-make of the biblical Book of Job, plays the role of Satan. But
at the same time this figure appears modernized in the same way as the
figure of the Lord, since the eminent object of their wager is not the pious
Jew any more but a non-believing Doctor of Theology. So, the intertextual
reference to the Book of Job suggests that the unknown opponent to the
Lord is Satan. Faust as the modern object of the wager, however, denies the
Satan identity, as does the stage direction that the actor of Mephistopheles
has to play this part. Before Faust conjures Mephistopheles in ‘Study 1’, he
calls for spirits in the air who might lend him wings on which he could
follow the sun. Such spirits, as Wagner warns, are dangerous because they
carry all the evils of the four winds. Just as Faust took the Earth Spirit as an
elementary daemon, Wagner speaks of the air demons and forgets that Saint
Paul had warned of the devil, the evil spirit who rules in the air between
earth and sky (Ephesians 2:2; 6:12). Thus the poodle who follows upon
Faust’s request is not only the dangerous shepherd’s dog with a predilection
for water, drawing behind himself a tail of fire and spiralling in on Faust
through the fields; it is also a spirit of the air and at the same time the devil
who rules in it, an animal composed of the four elements and possessed by the
evil spirit. When Faust conjures this creature, we see it swell and assume ever
larger form, filling the room as a cloud and finally appearing in human form
as the travelling scholar. All these, we learn, are masks of Mephistopheles.
Faust, seduced by an apparition he takes for a colleague, stops conjuring,
although he already had to use the holy cross for the exorcism. Had he gone
on, the devil would have had to show himself in his dreadful shape. The
scholar’s mask, however, which Faust takes to be the poodle’s core, offers his
services, appears easy to communicate with, and above all useful. It is the
domesticated nature of the poodle with some devilish spice in it, clad in viable
academic form – exactly what Faust had longed for when he asked for
technical assistance in flying. Already, the forms and functions are multi-
plying; Mephistopheles is becoming a symbolic figure.
56 ulrich gaier
Here, we can go on indefinitely: the outward appearance of Mephistopheles
changes continually. In ‘Study 2’, he is dressed in Spanish travelling attire; in
the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’, the Witch does not recognize him any more because the
‘Nordic phantom with horns, tail and claws’ has been relegated to the realm of
fable, and the horse’s leg and hoof are concealed. Here, Mephistopheles wants
to be called a baronet like the rich bankers of the era of the French Revolution
and the ensuing wars, Necker and Rothschild for instance (2490–513).8 In the
Gretchen scenes, Mephistopheles even reflects on his masks: ironically, he
praises Margarete for her physiognomic competence in reading his mask and
feeling that he is either a genius or the devil (3537–41). On the Blocksberg, he
appears in traditional costume; in the first act, he is a fool; in the second and
third acts, he is Phorkyas, first by distorting his face, then with a tragical mask
in the third act’s play within the play. In the fourth act, he mimics a medieval
knight, as does Faust. In the fifth, however, he is the captain of a war, pirate
and commerce fleet, and the overseer of the modern dyke project. Finally, he
falls back into the late medieval devil’s gear, following the imagery of the
paintings of the Camposanto in Pisa which inspire the scenery, figures and
content of the two final scenes.
Looking back on this constant play of masks and costumes, of animal,
human and daemonic figures, we detect a diversity which symbolizes the
infinite and unexpected, often unrecognizable ways in which we encounter
evil. We also find reflections on outdated and modern forms and figurations
of evil: ‘The Evil One / They may be rid of, evil ones still have not vanished’
(2509). Evil in the singular belongs to the realm of fable; now we have evil in
the plural. Or we see, in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’, Mephistopheles’
attempt to transport himself, with a fake Phorkyas identity, back to the
mythical beginnings of the world (8010–33). Here Eros–Phanes and Lucifer
play the same role of creating from chaos a beautiful organic world while at
the same time contradicting its Greek beauty by ugliness – disrupting its
living biblical coherence by negative isolation.
Alongside the diversity of masks and chronological variations, we
encounter the fact that in each culture there are specific figures that negate
the principle and basis of that culture – beauty in Goethe’s view of ancient
Greek culture, and pious elevation to the divine in Christian culture.9 The
praise song at the beginning of ‘Prologue in Heaven’ even shows how this
principle of negation enters the world: the Archangels, in their function as
angeloi (messengers) to other angels and mankind, are at a loss in the
beginning because they are confronted with incomprehensible phenomena,
with two world models, encompassing both constructive and destructive
processes. They cannot but see these as ‘works’, but they cannot trace them
‘Schwankende Gestalten’ 57
back to a single will. Michael, the angel to sing the last strophe, finally
decides that these ambivalent and incomprehensible, albeit magnificent and
strengthening, works may be the Lord’s works, but what the messengers
revere and communicate is a Lord of slowly wandering daylight and benign
gentleness.
At this point, the Satan figure of Mephistopheles pops up; the negative
principle is provoked, even created by the reductive view of the Archangels.
And to confirm this, the Lord employs the satanic rogue as an instrument to
keep mankind from becoming lazy. Mephistopheles consents to this func-
tion, but not as a simple servant and dependant of the Lord. His final words
in this scene indicate that he could very well dissolve the treaty with the
Lord (351). It is only under this condition that a wager can be made between
the Lord and Satan/Mephistopheles in which the goal is to preserve or to
seduce Faust, and where triumph and lordship over the cosmos is at stake.
This initial situation in analogy to the Book of Job is overturned in an
ironic way at the end of the play. In the last chapters of the Book of Job,
Satan is not mentioned any more, the Lord is triumphant and Job is
rehabilitated after his submission. But in Faust the Lord is not to be
found at the end, Mephistopheles has no court of appeal – Faust’s entelechy
meets a kind of apotheosis. The Lord has given up lordship, and there is a
Lady, a heavenly queen and goddess, we are told by Doctor Marianus
(12103). And from Mephistopheles’ bitter complaints concerning the deceit-
ful methods of cheating the devil of his claims on a soul (11612–35) we
understand that with the new management in heaven, the customs and
principles have changed completely. Thus, at the end of the play,
Mephistopheles in the old devil’s function is an outdated figure, objectively
comical because he has been radically overtaken by the new developments.
We must not forget, however, that Mephistopheles, at the end of the
‘Interment’ scene has once again assumed the late medieval devil’s costume
and function, and is assisted by the grotesque daemons and hell’s jaws as
depicted by Buffalmacco in the Camposanto in Pisa. So it is only this
outdated phantom of evil which has become obsolete and objectively
comical, a mask that Mephistopheles has already ridiculed in the ‘Witch’s
Kitchen’. For Faust, the Doctor of Theology who is not afraid of hell or the
devil, Mephistopheles must match his modernity. As we saw in the
‘Prologue in Heaven’, Faust is a decidedly modern version of Job, and
Goethe seems to be asking how it is still possible for a modern man, a non-
believer, to be diabolically tempted. We saw that Faust asked for technical
assistance in flying, to follow the sun, and what he received was a contem-
porary with the devil inside. But after this devil in scholar’s clothing has
58 ulrich gaier
escaped him once, Faust becomes wary and does not simply renew the
twenty-four-year pact which the Renaissance Faust made with the devil.
Instead, he offers a wager that Mephistopheles could never divert him from
his infinite goal, and from his restlessness and dissatisfaction with himself
and everything that is offered to him. In accepting this wager,
Mephistopheles is reduced to a kind of sparring partner for Faust.
Actually, Faust makes a wager with himself, reducing Mephistopheles to a
provider of highest-quality solutions to every wish that Faust may have and
a constant source of new wishes. The pact itself seems to consist in Faust
giving himself up to Mephistopheles, should he pronounce the words of
Rousseau’s formula for happiness and say to the present moment ‘Verweile
doch! du bist so schön!’ (1700, Tarry, remain! – you are so fair!).10
In offering the wager, Faust replays the wager on Job, but Faust has read
the Book of Job and knows that Job is an exemplary figure, and that the
wager on Job is potentially made on every human being. The reader knows
from the ‘Prologue in Heaven’ that Faust is the object of such a bet and is
right in assuming that it will also apply to himself. It is a modern Faust who
can make a wager with his counterpart by himself. He is really challenging
himself; Mephistopheles (as we have seen) is reduced to a sparring partner
and technician. Faust is fully aware of the difficulty of keeping a promise to
himself through a lifetime, in view of the rapid changes the world is going
through (1720–3). With this kind of wager, compared with the story of Job,
Faust is not only his own Lord, but also Satan and Job in one. This devalues
Mephistopheles even more. The former devil can do nothing more than
provide high-quality treats, arouse wishes whose fulfilment might make
Faust forget his promise, let him ‘tarry’ and make him succumb to pleasure.
By embracing restlessness and dissatisfaction, Faust keeps not only
Mephistopheles but also himself on the move and unknowingly assuages
the Lord’s fear that man may get lazy. Here, too, Faust makes the devilish
rogue superfluous and becomes his own rogue.
How, then, could there be a temptation for a man who is so autono-
mous – even in making himself unhappy? In ‘Forest and Cave’, for the first
time, Faust understands that he cannot do without this technician and
fulfiller of wishes, and that he becomes more and more dependent on that
hateful cynic who constantly debases him and his ideal feelings. This
dependence is the temptation which, until the end, usurps Faust’s will
and decision-making completely. We may think of the way in which
Mephistopheles and his three terrible servants do away with Philemon
and Baucis, or how he makes fun of Faust, the blind and nearly deaf old
man who orders a ditch to be dug (‘Graben’) whilst they dig a grave (‘Grab’,
‘Schwankende Gestalten’ 59
11555–8). It is this growing autonomy of the instrument, the irresistible
magic of technology, commodities and wealth that can be termed tempta-
tion and evil for modern man.
This is also why, in the Nordic ‘Walpurgis Night’, Satan with his strategy
of tempting man with sexual sin has to step down from his reign in hell.
Faust, whose behaviour decides over the lordship in the world, warns
himself not to forget himself in that Walpurgis mass (4114), and when he
dances with the young witch, he is again warned by his disgust of a red
mouse, by enlightenment in the shape of the ridiculous Proktophantasmist
and by his projective memory of Gretchen (4124–209). With modern man,
Satan’s strategy of seducing Adam by the magic of sexuality is no longer
effective. So, as in heaven the Lord is replaced by the Lady, Satan in hell is
replaced by Mammon – on the roof of the illuminated palace (3915, 3932)
where the Walpurgis festival takes place. And it is Mammon who dominates
the world, as Acts 1, 4 and 5 of Part ii show clearly. Mephistopheles,
especially with the three terrible servants, works for Mammon and rebuilds
his hellish palace as Faust’s palace in which the world’s wealth is piled up.
And Faust cannot bear the sound of the sweet old couple’s bell, and the idea
that this little patch of land with a hut, a chapel and two lime trees does not
belong to him. Faust has been successfully seduced by this modern evil. The
only possibility of liberating himself from this magic is to pronounce the
ominous sentence (wishing the ‘beautiful’ ultimate moment to last) in a
situation that cannot qualify. The new land is poisoned by a stinking swamp
and endangered by the next flood; the colonists who are going to live there
are lemurs, half-natures sewn together from dead bodies, or workers of the
type found in the English coalmines of the time. Or in the immense
building project of Bremerhaven in the 1820s, which Goethe followed
with great interest: exploited workers with emaciated bodies, incapable of
organizing their own defence against the elements. And for them to be free,
on liberated land, and for Faust to be free with them, Mephistopheles, his
terrible fellows, and Faust himself would have to be eliminated. Would it be
possible for Faust, who cannot bear to leave a patch of land to its owners, to
consider giving away land where many millions can live and which he
himself has created?
What Faust describes in his final speech (outlining the wish that the
moment may last) contradicts all facts and possibilities in the present and in
the future. But Faust pronounces the sentence, using the magic of word-
charm, and falls dead as the pact foresaw. But Mephistopheles has not won
the wager with Faust, he has not put him to rest, not made him complacent,
not cheated him with pleasures; on the contrary, Faust enjoys his highest
60 ulrich gaier
moment in devising a future contrary to all given facts and even contrary to
his own existence. Thus Mephistopheles hears words, and Faust falls dead,
but the devil has been tricked out of a wager which would have given him
the right to take the soul he had worked for. As in medieval spiritual plays,
the devil is the dupe of a tricky human and an astute Lady in heaven. We
must not forget that this is part of the cheerfulness in which Goethe wanted
this tragedy to end,11 and that the dupe is the traditional devil who wants to
catch a soul, not the absolute ruler of the world who, with his three terrible
companions, rules and ‘colonizes’ the world. To be sure, he does this in the
service of Faust, but he performs all these tasks and carries out all his orders
in his own manner. As we shall see when we discuss the spatial aspects of the
play, after the beginning of the fourth act, this world has become hell, with
Mammon as its absolute monarch, and Mephistopheles as Mammon’s
obedient and Faust’s disobedient servant.
I have discussed the Mephistopheles figure paradigmatically in order to
show what Goethe meant when he intended the actor LaRoche to give the
figure a ‘symbolic appearance’. This appearance was – as Holtei observed –
on the level of the poem itself, and neither figure nor poem was suitable for
the stage. We have seen the diversity of costumes and masks, and found
chronological and cultural reasons for this diversity and elusiveness. I have
dealt with Mephistopheles’ functions in various religious systems of the
play, his decidedly modern relationship with Faust, an experimental figure
whose behaviour in the face of temptation and seduction decides the change
of rulership in hell and the character of evil in the world. On the one hand,
Mephistopheles – whose name, throughout the entire text, is never pro-
nounced fully (see 4183) – is a figure who appears, with some exceptions, as a
variable human figure on the stage. On the other hand, he is what men in
different times and cultures think of as ‘evil’ (1342–4). Then again, he seems
to be just a principle of negation or negativity, complementary to the ruling
affirmative principle of the Lord. He represents the male principle, together
with the Lord in Part i, as well as the opposite female principle in Part ii.
Mephistopheles is one of those ‘schwankende Gestalten’ of which the first
line of Faust speaks and which the Lord extends to the whole of creation
when he orders the Archangels to pin down by permanent thoughts what
floats in undecided appearance (348).
To be sure, what the Archangels pin down, define and solidify with their
thoughts is only meant for a certain duration; what embraces them eternally
is the love of what is eternally living, becoming and creating (346–9) – we
have seen this constant process of shaping and reshaping in the heavenly and
hellish governments. This is what I would like to call ‘symbolic’ and ‘virtual’
‘Schwankende Gestalten’ 61
in Goethe’s figures and, indeed, in the whole play: symbolic in the sense
that a multitude of aspects is present, as in the figure of Mephistopheles. It
makes him infinitely readable and elusive; virtual in the sense that all these
aspects are embedded in one principle (or tendency, or vector) which
remains ungraspable in terms of a visible figure or definable concept. It is
experienced, in Mephistopheles’ case, in the sheer force of negation, in
examples which are only a fraction of what is, in fact, one aspect of the
whole world.
faust
With Faust, we could go into similar detail; he is no less symbolic, elusive and
virtual than Mephistopheles. Let me mention some aspects of this. Most
prominently, there is the chronological line from the Renaissance to the time
around 1830, which we can follow from act to act, and of which Faust is the
exemplary representative. The Nordic Walpurgis complex, for instance, can –
by way of various textual hints – be dated to the time around 1800. This
shows that Goethe situated the main change in hell’s strategy – the shift from
the temptation by sin to the temptation by capital – in the years after the
French Revolution, allegorized in the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’. The search for
Helena in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ and the play within a play, the
birth and death of Euphorion during the ongoing Peloponnesian war, refers
to the Greek wars of liberation in the 1820s and to the Philhellenic movement
which absorbed the attention and interest of European intellectuals to the
detriment of the political and economic situation at home. Faust is the
exponent of European history; his seemingly private experiences are an
allegory of what were, in Goethe’s interpretation, the crucial developments
in general history. This applies as well to his symbol of domesticated nature –
the poodle as a well-trained animal comprising the four elements. Evil is its
real core, but Faust ceases conjuring as soon as the human shape appears, and
does not disclose evil. Nature, whose workings had, from the sixteenth
century onwards, been investigated with increasing success by science and
made useful by technology, proved a wonderful instrument to improve
human life and to increase the effects of action. Nature harnessed by tech-
nology, machines, electricity, chemical plants and artificial breeding suddenly
presents destructive consequences. But above all, it makes individuals and
societies dependent, creates coercions, channels human activity, deprives man
of free decisions. Faust complains in ‘Forest and Cave’ that he cannot do
without Mephistopheles who, while procuring commodities and delights,
debases him continually and reduces to cheap mechanics what Faust had
62 ulrich gaier
embraced as gifts of the Great Spirit, and for which he wants to feel gratitude.
One can easily see how, in Faust, Goethe not only registered historical events
from about 1500 to 1830, but also represented and made plausible the
enormous changes in spirit which took place during these two-and-a-half
centuries.
To make these changes plausible, Goethe continually sets up a confron-
tation of the two epochs between which Faust oscillates, ‘schwankende
Gestalt’ that he is. Take for instance the beginning, where Faust speaks his
first monologue in Hans Sachs’ old-fashioned Knittel-verse, which auto-
matically dates the figure back to the early bourgeois period of the German
renaissance. But after the first thirty-two lines the tone changes, the verse
runs smoothly, making way for Ossianic reminiscences: Faust speaks as a
sentimental youth of the late eighteenth century. The change is so audible
that, in the nineteenth century, Gustav Röthe hypothesized (with his
so-called ‘paper-scrap theory’) that Goethe had written a couple of lines
from time to time, then simply taken the scraps and copied them without
harmonizing them in a consistent character. Röthe has apparently not read
the first line of Faust: there is no consistent character in the play, only
‘schwankende Gestalten’. Here, Faust can be regarded as a Renaissance
man, ingeniously anticipating the coming centuries, or as a contemporary of
the eighteenth century stubbornly harking back to the old days and finding
no language for the new developments. For instance, the magic he uses for
the Macrocosm and the Earth Spirit signs is Renaissance magic, but Faust
counteracts its ecstatic character with ‘inward’ magic developed in the
eighteenth century. Consequently, both magic experiments fail half-way.
In Part i, the scholar’s tragedy, light falls especially on the Renaissance
aspect; in the Gretchen tragedy, the contemporary aspect is stressed. In Act 1
of Part ii, the Renaissance aspect of the Emperor Charles IV is blended
with the modern creation of paper money. In Act 2, structures of time and
history from the beginning to the end of the world are construed. Faust
becomes less and less active, and action is taken over by his aides and
partners, as we have seen. His last concrete action is at the end of Act 1,
when he presents images of Helen and Paris – which he obtained from the
Mothers – with a kind of slide projector. Infatuated with Helen and furious
at Paris who is about to abduct her, he tries to shoot him out of the show,
causing an explosion of the projector which places him in a coma. The next
two acts take place in his head, a situation which is impossible to reproduce
on the stage. In the fourth act, we have radical virtuality: a combination of
two historical periods – the struggle of Emperor Charles IV against Günther
von Schwarzburg, and the battles between Emperor Franz II and
‘Schwankende Gestalten’ 63
Napoleon – and the allegory of the three giants of aggression, greed and
avarice. It is explicitly stated that these figures are allegories (10329), but
when they fight in battle, they dissolve into a mass of individual fighters
(10581–3), like the ‘artificial man’ in the frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes’
Leviathan. In the fifth act, we are completely absorbed by virtual reality –
antique mythological figures watching an ultra-modern dyke-building proj-
ect in which armies of workers and magical powers are at work: half-dead
lemurs singing Shakespeare, devils and angels, pious fathers and children
who died before they could be baptized. All these figures have stepped out of
the late medieval frescos in the Camposanto of Pisa, and all of them are
mixed with Faust’s utopia, which in turn depicts the plans of the Saint-
Simonists in the 1820s for a social and industrial revolution. If we are led, at
the beginning of the play, to experience certain historical developments,
such historical presence is consequently and consciously dissolved into
virtuality in the course of the play, right up to the end. Faust is at the
centre of this process. He is present on the stage at first as an individual man
whose uneasy situation between progress and regression can be understood
psychologically; he is also present on stage at the very end as an entelechy –
not as an individual soul, but as accumulated energy which is about to take
ethereal shape for a new form of posthumous existence. As we can see, Faust
is as multivalent in his aspects and forms of existence as his counterpart,
Mephistopheles.
female figures
Turning now to the female figures – Margarete and Helena, not to speak of
the Mothers, the Hades goddesses and the Mater gloriosa in Part ii – we see
that they are elements of a series of configurations which starts with the
vision of the reclining female in the magic mirror of the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’.
According to Mephistopheles’ explanation that this female is the result of six
hard days of God’s creative work, it must be understood as the beauty of the
world enclosed in a female body; it is therefore not just any woman’s picture
presented to a naïve scholar who has until then seen nothing but books.
Actually, he has seen beauty in the scene ‘Outside the City Gate’ already:
the beauty of the evening sun gilding the mossy green huts. He experienced
beauty (in the sense of Goethe’s colour circle) as the unfolded totality of the
seven basic colours. What Faust perceives in the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’, then, is
Frau Welt, the medieval representation of the alluring world in a female
figure. Inflamed by the Witch’s potion, he wants to take possession of this
heavenly image. Margarete is the compromise between those extreme
64 ulrich gaier
spiritual and sexual desires with which he leaves the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’, with
Mephistopheles quoting Duke Theseus’ remark in Act V, Scene 1 of
Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream that the frantic lover will see
‘Helen’s beauty in a brow of Egypt’.
Margarete thus is not only a compromise between heavenly beauty and
sexual attractiveness, but also a Proto-Helena who is the mythical image of
god-like beauty and sexual attraction. Margarete, little more than 14 years
old, cannot unite the two projections of angel and whore thrown upon her
by Faust, although she tries hard to meet both desires. Goethe reveals the
split in her personality by using two stage names for the figure, Margarete
and Gretchen. In Goethe’s day, ‘Gretchen’ was still used as a generic name
for a girl of easy virtue, or even a prostitute, and it is in the scenes where this
aspect is prominent that Goethe uses this stage name. Margarete, on the
other hand, is the name of two saints, Margaret of Antioch and Margaret of
Cortona. The latter is the patron saint of prostitutes who returned to virtue;
her fate is very close to that of Margarete, while Margaret of Antioch with
her successful defence against the devil in her gaol gives the pattern for the
end of Part i. Thus, in a way, this figure has to be played by two actresses or
by one actress playing two parts. The saintly background of Margarete is not
just a pious reminiscence: in encountering Mephistopheles, Margarete
develops a bodily feeling of Mephistopheles’ radical negativity, his funda-
mental hatred and incapacity for love. This religion of the body also works
in gaol, where she feels similarly suffocated when Faust cannot kiss her any
more, and it is this religion of the body which, at the end of the scene ‘At the
Well’, makes her confess that what impelled her to sin was all good and
loving (3585–6). The same God–Father whom she prays to in this con-
fession contradicts Mephistopheles at the end of the ‘Prison’ scene.
Traditionally, the devil rightfully anticipates condemnation, but the
Lord’s voice from above confirms that she is saved. Or, as I would prefer
to put it, parallel to the change of management in hell, the Lord has already
stepped down, possibly because of Margarete’s new religion, and the Lady
with her new theology saves what was a sinner for the old Lord.
Helena, to whom Margarete is a stepping-stone, appears in the first act
on transparencies which Faust has obtained from the Mothers in the
universal archives of shapes, together with the poetic tripod which functions
as projector. This explodes when Faust, in his folly, takes the projected
image for reality – but this is the same folly that in the same act makes
people take a piece of paper money without the backing of real value. In the
second act, which already plays in Faust’s head, he projects Helena’s
conception by Leda through Zeus in a swan’s shape. Moments later he
‘Schwankende Gestalten’ 65
meets, in his dream, Chiron the centaur and learns that Helen is a mytho-
logical figure whom the poets shape and reshape according to their needs.
Feeling that he is a poet himself, Faust shapes a poetess Helena who can
shape herself according to the needs of the situations in which she finds
herself. This is experimented with in the third act, a stage play consisting of
three fragmentary plays: an antique tragedy in the manner of Euripides, a
medieval chivalrous drama, and an Arcadian opera in a literary landscape
but set during the Greek wars of liberation of the 1820s. In this act, Goethe
wanted the Helena figure to be played by two actresses, a tragical heroine
and an opera singer.12 So again, the character is split, albeit between a
theatrical and an operatic appearance.
These remarks may be sufficient to indicate first that the female figures
are ‘schwankende Gestalten’ as well, in the sense of multiple characters;
secondly, that they possess iconic depth (like Margarete referring to and
commenting upon the two saints); thirdly, that the mirror-woman,
Margarete, and the various figurations of Helena are parts of a series; and
fourthly, that all of them are expressions and allegories of the sensual beauty
of the world and of the principle of female attraction which is complemen-
tary to the principle of male expansion.
form
I have analysed the main characters of Goethe’s tragedy as variables being
held together only by a stage name and, in the case of Margarete, not even
by a single stage name. Now, the whole play is immensely variable in its
structure, form and Gestalt. To conclude, let me give some indications of
this. I have discussed the time problem in Goethe’s interpretation of history
from 1500 to 1830, and in his superimposing of epochs which contradict or
comment upon each other. Goethe was proud of the phantasmagorical time
span of 3,000 years in the third act which stretches from the battle of Troy
to the Greek wars of liberation, and to Lord Byron’s death in 1824.13
Similarly, there is immense variability and layering in terms of spatiality.
The ‘Prologue on the Stage’ speaks of encompassing the whole orbit of
creation, and of a passage from heaven through the world to hell (239–42).
Scholars have always wondered if Goethe had not somehow forgotten hell,
since, with the ‘Prologue’ and Faust’s passage through the small and the
greater world, only heaven seemed to rule. An important subtext of Part ii is
Dante’s Divina Commedia. Part ii starts with the characteristic situation at
the outset of Inferno, and Dante’s triplet verse. But Faust has no poet Virgil
to guide him through hell. He returns to the world, then to the world of his
66 ulrich gaier
head with its conflation of times and places, until at the beginning of the
fourth act, after orbiting the world in Helena’s garments, he lands on top of
the highest mountain. According to Mephistopheles’ serious myth, this was
originally the deepest point in hell, now turned downside up by a revolution
which transformed Dante’s funnel bottom of hell into this mountain top,
bringing all the damned sinners, as well as the devils who plagued them, into
full daylight. In climbing down the mountain, Mephistopheles calls the
three terrible giants with whose help the war is fought and Faust’s worldly
possessions are acquired. This means that hell is right here, that the nine-
teenth century, with its colonization, imperialism and exploitation of peoples
and nature itself, is hell in the sense understood by the elderly Goethe.
Poetically, Faust is the text with the highest calculated variability in all
literature. Apart from one or possibly two prose scenes, Goethe uses all
kinds of verse, not only with expressive inner variability, but also with the
value of a cultural or social index. Margarete’s naïve Knittel-verse differs
greatly from Faust’s high-tension use of the metre. Margarete’s use of the
French courtly Alexandrine verse is a proof intended for Faust that she is
educated and can move in higher society. But when he is gone and she
returns to her domestic Knittel, it is like kicking those painful high-heels off
and walking around in an old pair of slippers.
So much for the verse. As far as poetic genres are concerned, Goethe is
constantly quoting genres of literature from all times and cultures, again not
at random, but in calculated series or conflations. In Part i, for instance, we
find a number of genre inlays, from the late medieval Easter play in the first
scene to Margarete’s folk song in gaol, which the Romantic artist Philipp
Otto Runge had published in the fairy tale of Machandelboom. I have
already mentioned the three fragments of plays in Part ii, recalling the
epochs and cultures of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the present. Parallel
to the Renaissance and contemporary aspects of the Faust figure in Part i,
the scholars’ drama becomes a Renaissance drama of admonition in the
manner of Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus, on which, in turn, a modern drama of
social conditions developed by Diderot and Lessing is superimposed. In the
Gretchen drama, a domestic tragedy in the tradition of Lillo’s London
Merchant is projected onto a Renaissance legend. The ‘schwankende
Gestalt’ extends from the figures, times, spaces and cultures to the poetic
form. The first line in Faust already reveals much of its poetics.
As I noted at the beginning, Goethe was convinced that Faust was not
stageable. I have tried to explain why: too many perspectives, surface
appearances and multiple readabilities, interfaces of reality and virtuality
come together and are symbolically bound up by a stage name which, like
‘Schwankende Gestalten’ 67
Mephistopheles, is never fully pronounced in the text. Finally, there is that
ungraspable deep reality in which all these aspects are one, and which
I called virtual. We saw how, in Mephistopheles, the force of negativity
appears as the negation of the central values of a certain culture – Greek
beauty, Christian piety, modern freedom – and which then works in
countless manifestations of that culture. Similarly, we have a virtual prin-
ciple of affirmative Lordship or Ladyship, virtual principles of male and of
female humanity, and a virtual principle of poetry.
not es
1. Hans Gerhard Gräf, Goethe über seine Dichtungen. Versuch einer Sammlung aller
Äußerungen des Dichters über seine poetischen Werke, vol. ii:2, Frankfurt am Main:
Rütten & Loening, 1904, repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft,
1968, 511.
2. Ibid., 468.
3. Ibid., 494.
4. Johann Peter Eckermann, Gespräche mit Goethe in den letzten Jahren seines
Lebens, ed. Otto Schönberger, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1994, 325.
5. Gräf, Goethe über seine Dichtungen, 185.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid., 511.
8. All further references to Faust are by line numbers from FT.
9. See the myth at the end of Book viii in Goethe’s Dichtung und Wahrheit.
10. For the Rousseau reference, see Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust-
Dichtungen, ed. Ulrich Gaier, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1999, ii, 256.
11. Gräf, Goethe über seine Dichtungen, 272.
12. Eckermann, Gespräche, note 4, 233.
13. Gräf, Goethe über seine Dichtungen, 350.
chapter 5
not es
1. Dieter Borchmeyer, Goethe. Der Zeitbürger, Munich: Hanser, 1999.
2. Harald Weinrich, Lethe. The Art and Critique of Forgetting, Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 2004.
3. Johann Werner Streithorst, ‘Beispiel einer ausserordentlichen Vergessenheit’,
Magazin fiir Erfahrungsseelenkunde 3/3 (1784), 1–14.
4. Ibid., 3.
5. Ibid., 8.
6. Helmut Schanze, Goethes Dramatik. Theater der Erinnerung, Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 1989.
chapter 6
To be sure, Goethe stated repeatedly that what appears in the second part of
Faust is ‘a higher, more spacious, brighter, more dispassionate world’, and
that one must ‘lead a man like him through more worthy circumstances,
in higher regions’.1,2 Yet occasionally his intention also admits of more
apprehensive tones: ‘There are still a number of magnificent, real and
fantastical delusions on earth, in which the poor human, were he to lose
himself in them, would experience something nobler, more dignified and
higher, than he ever does in the first, common part. Our friend Faust should
also have to struggle through these.’ And to this Goethe adds that ‘in the
world’s daylight, it would look like a pasquinade’.3
Those who cling decidedly to the ‘higher regions’, like Max Kommerell,
Dorothea Hölscher-Lohmeyer or Wilhelm Emrich, run up against the great
entelechy and its spheres of being, the survey, if possible, of cosmic world-
regions, primordial ur-phenomena and histories of being – and tend towards
a monumental interpretation of Faust, beyond all morality.4 Those who, on
the other hand, keep in mind the ‘real and fantastical delusions on earth’ will
retrieve the Faust of the second part, too, from an ontological, ur-phenomenal
dimension and expose him to the ‘world’s daylight’. The Emperor plot of
Acts 1 and 4, as well as the land appropriation venture in the fifth act, are then
recognizable as a ‘poetic-symbolic representation of modern existence’, as a
more or less systematic sequence of historical-political phenomena, in which
‘symphronistically’ – to use Goethe’s expression from the Journeyman Years –
the German late Middle Ages are synthesized with the modern present. The
work of Gottlieb C. L. Schuchard was ground-breaking in this regard, though
belatedly so.5 Recently his trail has been picked up by Nicholas Boyle,
Thomas Zabka, Jochen Schmidt and Michael Jaeger, among others.6 And
from here the ‘pasquinade’ – that is to say, the disenchantment with Faust – is
indeed no longer so far off.
78
Magicians of modernity 79
The political-historical sequence which appears in the second Faust
circumvents the phenomenon of the French Revolution, but playfully skirts
it as its secret kernel. In Act 1 we see: a state in crisis – ‘while fever rages
rampant in the state / And brooding evil breeds prolific evils’ (4780–1); an
empire on the brink of ‘turmoil’ (4794) and bankruptcy – ‘but here the lack
is money’ (4890); a ruler who celebrates anyway – ‘then let us pass the time
in gaiety!’ (5057), who does not know why ‘we should torment ourselves by
holding council’ (4769) and who confuses governance and pleasure – ‘it was
proper and commendable / To practise two activities at once – / To govern,
and to lead a life of pleasure’ (10249–51).7 An ancien régime ripe for
revolution, then, is exposed to the meddling of the magical ‘cronies’
Mephisto and Faust. In Act 4, after the overture about vulcanism and
revolution, which can be read as a ‘prelude’ rather than as a digression,
there follow stages of ‘anarchy’ (10261), usurpation, civil war and restora-
tion.8 Act 5 presents post-revolutionary modernity, the new world. Faust
the war profiteer disposes of the fiefdom which he has acquired by magical
intervention, he has ‘sovereignty and property [trans. modified]’ and
‘Eigentum’ (10187), ‘great holdings’ (11156) and ‘possession of the world
[trans. modified]’ (11242). The colonizer dies with a utopian vision for
‘millions’ (11563).
This all amounts to something like a complicated picture puzzle which
thornily resists any solution. A wealth of names and events from history
have been read into this scenario: Louis XVI, but also Duke Carl August, or
Prussia and Napoleon, Charles X and Louis Philippe, the 1806 battle of
Jena and the battle of the nations at Leipzig, or the Congress of Vienna and
the July revolution in France.9 What is at issue in particular are develop-
ments in French history stretching from the pre-revolutionary ancien régime
to the ‘restaging of the tragedy of 1790’, which Goethe saw arrive in the July
revolution of 1830.10 Even if, as is self-evident, mimetic exactitude is not to
be expected of Goethe’s symbolic typology, a sequence of phenomena can
nonetheless be discerned grouping around the omitted centre, the French
Revolution. Does Faust thus also partake of what Goethe, in 1823, called the
‘boundless effort to poetically master, in its origins and consequences, this
most terrible of all events’ (WA 2:11, 61)?
But what part does Faust himself play? Does Goethe draw his hero into
this era as well? This is what he is supposed to have suggested to the painter
Burmeister in a splendid, unfortunately not entirely dependable, statement
of 1830: ‘What if you drew a modern Faust, a distiller of the invisibly
daemonic in all life and activity? A discloser of the dire future and the
seemingly good present?’11
80 hans-jürgen schings
Let us recall how he had proceeded in the case of Euphorion, for whom
he could ‘use no one’ but Byron as a ‘representative of the latest poetic
period’.12 If we look for representatives who might serve typologically –
‘symphronistically’ – as models for the ‘distiller’ Faust, then Cagliostro and
Saint-Simon appear good candidates – both great, dubious, daemonic
adventurers of historic scale and ‘Faustian’ restlessness, exemplary of deci-
sive tendencies of the age of revolution and modernity, one a subversive
occultist, the other armed with utopian explosive power, and both active
prior to the revolutions of 1789 and 1830, respectively. The one stumbled
early on, the other only later, into the sights of the poet of Faust.
To paraphrase this ‘religion de notre siècle’ (as the obituary calls it), its main
ideas are as follows: abolition of the parasitic feudal system, the ‘classe
féodale et théologique’; development of science, production, technology
and labour in the direction of the dominant world system, to the ‘système
industriel et scientifique’, to the ‘grande société d’industrie’; and formation
of the ‘citoyen industrieux’ as the new type of human.50 All of this is to be
organized by an elite class of intellectual and practical producers, the ‘chefs
naturels et permanents du peuple’. If this restructuring succeeds, the
supposedly lost Golden Age will be close at hand: ‘L’âge d’or, qu’une
aveugle tradition a placé jusqu’ici dans le passé, est devant nous!’51 The
will is what counts, and beside it all sceptical reservations pale: utopia
becomes reality.52
Can the will, the ‘god of recent times’, which Goethe had long been
pursuing, manifest itself any more clearly?53 To the poet of Faust it was ripe
for the picking, and Schuchard has demonstrated the affinities. The mod-
ernizing push that Goethe gave his hero in the final phase of writing
borrows boldly from the new utopian magicians of modernity.
88 hans-jürgen schings
‘To rule’ and ‘have possessions’ (10187) is what Faust wants, not a feudal,
hereditary patrimonium, but a free dominium. The Emperor disappears into
nowhere; the old world, the ‘dilapidated chapel’ (11158) and ‘our fathers’
God’ (11142) are liquidated along with Philemon and Baucis. Mastery over
nature and the elements, hence dykes, canals; the draining of marshlands
continues to fascinate Faust up to his final vision. The Three Mighty Men
stand for his productive power, and with them he has at his disposal an army
of ‘workmen’ (11503) and ‘labourers’ (11552). Be it of feudal, neo-feudal or
already bourgeois orchestration, Faust appears in any case as the uninhi-
bited ‘master’ (11169) of an empire of trade and labour. And he too directs
his final glance, ‘the final wisdom we can reach’ (11574), towards a Golden
Age, ‘a land of Eden’ (11569), as he says.
Faust’s striving takes a turn towards the very latest, modern configuration
of the world. The ‘great work’, the signal word first for archaic, then for
‘kophtic’ magic, now becomes the ‘greatest work’ (11509), magic in the
highest possible style, the technological-industrial utopia of the new age.
And its building-blocks are provided by the doctrine of Saint-Simonism.
Having just been blinded, the ‘master’, the ‘patron’ (cf. 11170) heralds the
coming of this new world:
notes
Translated by John Koster.
1. Gespräch mit Eckermann, 17 February 1831.
2. ‘Helena. Zwischenspiel zu Faust’, WA 1:41.2, 291.
3. To Karl Ernst Schubarth, 3 November 1820, WA 4:34, 5.
4. Max Kommerell, Geist und Buchstabe der Dichtung. Goethe, Schiller, Kleist,
Hölderlin, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1940; Dorothea Lohmeyer,
Faust und die Welt. Der zweite Teil der Dichtung, Munich: C.H. Beck, 1975;
Lohmeyer, ‘Einleitung und Kommentar zu Faust ii’, MA 18:1, 535–1213;
Wilhelm Emrich, Die Symbolik von Faust ii. Sinn und Vorformen, 5th edn,
Königstein: Athenäum, 1981.
5. G. C. L. Schuchard, ‘Julirevolution, St Simonismus und die Faustpartien von
1831’, ZfdPh 60 (1935), 240–74 and 362–84. The citation there is on 370.
6. Nicholas Boyle, ‘The Politics of Faust ii. Another Look at the Stratum of 1831’,
Publications of the English Goethe Society 52 (1983), 4–43; Thomas Zabka, Faust ii –
Das Klassische und das Romantische. Goethes ‘Eingriff in die neueste Literatur’,
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1993; Jochen Schmidt, Goethes Faust. Erster und Zweiter
Teil. Grundlagen–Werk–Wirkung, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1999; Michael
Jaeger, Fausts Kolonie. Goethes kritische Phänomenologie der Moderne, Würzburg:
Königshausen & Neumann, 2004 and Global Player Faust oder Das Verschwinden
der Gegenwart. Zur Aktualität Goethes, Berlin: WJS Verlag, 2008.
7. Faust citations are from FT. Unless otherwise indicated, all Faust translations are
taken from Goethe’s Collected Works, vol. ii, trans. Stuart Atkins (Boston:
Suhrkamp, 1982).
Magicians of modernity 91
8. Schuchard, ‘Julirevolution’, 371.
9. See for instance Manfred Birk, ‘Goethes Typologie der Epochenschwelle im
vierten Akt des Faust ii’, Jahrbuch der deutschen Schillergesellschaft 33 (1989),
261–80; Katharina Mommsen, ‘Faust ii als politisches Vermächtnis des
Staatsmannes Goethe’, Jahrbuch des freien deutschen Hochstifts (1989), 1–36;
Heinz Hamm, ‘Julirevolution, Saint-Simonismus und Goethes abschließende
Arbeit am Faust’, Weimarer Beiträge 28 (1982), 70–91; John R. Williams, ‘Die
Deutung geschichtlicher Epochen im zweiten Teil des Faust’, Goethe-Jahrbuch
110 (1993), 89–103; Zabka, Faust ii.
10. To Knebel, 12 September 1830, WA 4:47, 217.
11. The passage is quoted in Schuchard, ‘Julirevolution’, 372. Cf. GG, 4, 424 f. and
5, 182.
12. Gespräch mit Eckermann, 5 July 1827.
13. ‘Zur Italienischen Reise. Zweiter Teil’, WA 1:31, 304.
14. Campagne in Frankreich, WA 1:33, S. 264; Goethe’s Collected Works, trans.
Thomas P. Saine, New York: Suhrkamp, 1987, v, 744.
15. Gespräch mit Eckermann, 15 February 1831.
16. Tag- und Jahreshefte 1789, WA 1:35, 11.
17. Campagne in Frankreich, WA 1:33, S. 261.
18. Klaus H. Kiefer, ‘Balsamo, Giuseppe’, in Goethe-Handbuch iv/i , ed. Hans-
Dietrich Dahnke and Regine Otto, Stuttgart-Weimar: Metzler, 1998, iv/1, 98.
19. See Wolfgang Martens, Der patriotische Minister. Fürstendiener in der Literatur
der Aufklärungszeit, Weimar-Cologne-Vienna: Böhlau, 1996.
20. Fundamental: Bernd Mahl, Goethes ökonomisches Wissen. Grundlagen zum
Verständnis der ökonomischen Passagen im dichterischen Gesamtwerk und in
den ‘Amtlichen Schriften’, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1982. Particularly plau-
sible: Zabka, Faust ii, 230 ff.
21. Faust scholarship has, as far as I can see, only rarely been interested in
connections to Cagliostro, probably because they came too close to Faust’s
prestige. See Pierre Grappin, ‘Zur Gestalt des Kaisers in Faust ii’, Goethe-
Jahrbuch 91 (1974), 107–16; John R. Williams, ‘Mephisto’s Magical Mystery
Tour. Goethe, Cagliostro, and the Mothers in Faust, Part Two’, Publications of
the English Goethe Society 58 (1989), 84–102; Michael Jaeger, Fausts Kolonie,
289 ff.; Yvonne Wübben, ‘ “. . . und dennoch spukt’s in Tegel” – Zu Goethes
Cagliostro-Rezeption’, Goethe-Jahrbuch 119 (2002), 96–119, esp. 108 ff.
(Michael Jaeger and Yvonne Wübben were among the participants in an
Oberseminar at which I discussed the Cagliostro question.)
22. To Goethe, 19 May 1781, in Heinrich Funck (ed.), Goethe und Lavater. Briefe und
Tagebücher, Schriften der Goethe-Gesellschaft xvi (1901), 179. Gespräch mit
Eckermann, 17 February 1829: ‘“Lavater”, said Goethe, “believed in Cagliostro
and his miracles. When he was debunked as an impostor, Lavater held that it was
a different Cagliostro, for the miracle-worker Cagliostro was a holy person.”’
23. Lavater to Goethe and Knebel, 10 February 1781, in Funck (ed.), Goethe und
Lavater, 147.
24. Lavater to Goethe, 3 March 1781, ibid., 152 f.
92 hans-jürgen schings
25. Lavater to Goethe, 10 December 1783, ibid., 235.
26. Goethe to Lavater, 18 March 1781, ibid., 162.
27. Charlotta Elisabeth Konstantia von der Recke, ‘Nachricht von des
berüchtigten Cagliostro Aufenthalte in Mitau, im Jahre 1779, und von dessen
dortigen magischen Operationen (1787)’, in Klaus H. Kiefer (ed.), Cagliostro.
Dokumente zu Aufklärung und Okkultismus, Munich: Beck, 1991, 90.
28. Now easily accessible in Kiefer’s anthology, ibid.
29. FT, 547 (paralip.).
30. See the print by Ch. Guérin in Kiefer (ed.), Cagliostro, 67, fig. 3. The print
Goethe mentions in regard to his research in Palermo (WA 1:31, 126) may have
been of this type; cf. Kiefer’s commentary, Cagliostro, 648.
31. Von der Recke, ‘Nachricht’, in Kiefer (ed.), Cagliostro, 46 ff.
32. Reproduction in ibid., 283.
33. See figures 3–12 in ibid., 67 f., 129–32 and 193–6, and physiognomic descrip-
tions at 179, 213, 418 f.
34. Augustus Moszinsky, ‘Cagliostro in Warschau (1786)’, in ibid., 160. See also
Ludwig Ernst Borowsky, ‘Cagliostro, einer der merkwürdigsten Abenteurer
unsres Jahrhunderts’ (1790), in ibid., 390.
35. Moszinsky, ‘Cagliostro in Warschau’, in ibid., 161.
36. See ibid., 89, 188.
37. Heinrich Düntzer, Studien zu Goethes Werken, no. 6: ‘Graf Cagliostro und
Goethe’s Großcophta’, Archiv für das Studium der neueren Sprachen und
Literaturen 5 (1850), vii, 1–60, here 14.
38. Von der Recke, ‘Nachricht’, in Kiefer (ed.), Cagliostro, 55 f. and 79 ff.
39. Ibid., 41, 47, 60, 83.
40. Von der Recke, ‘Nachricht’, in ibid., 79–81.
41. Goethe’s remark about Roger Bacon also pertains to this: ‘But it wasn’t his time
alone which was guilty of this overhastiness, in which it presumed to subjugate
those things which are possible for profound, solidly founded, consequent,
eternal forces of Nature, to will and and to caprice, treating them, against God
and Nature, as if they were arbitrary’ (MA 10: 587).
42. Heinz Hamm, Goethe und die französische Zeitschrift Le Globe. Eine Lektüre im
Zeichen der Weltliteratur, Weimar: Böhlau, 1988, 303–6.
43. F. v. Müller to F. Rochlitz: ‘The impression which this lightning-fast revolu-
tion has left here, too, is indescribable. Goethe says he can only keep calm
about it by seeing it as the greatest thought problem which he could have faced
at the close of his life.’ GG 4, 291.
44. Boyle, ‘The Politics of Faust ii’, 13–14.
45. Cf. R. Martinus Emge, Saint-Simon. Einführung in ein Leben und Werk, eine
Schule, Sekte und Wirkungsgeschichte, Munich-Vienna: Oldenbourg, 1987, 46
ff. and 181 ff.
46. Quoted in Zabka, Faust ii, 255.
47. Ibid., 256.
48. This quotation, which is otherwise attributed in the literature to the Doctrine
de Saint-Simon, I have here taken from the MA thesis by André Renis, ‘Der
Magicians of modernity 93
Schlußakt des zweiten Faust als staatswirtschaftliche Denkübung’ (Berlin,
2004), 29. The reader is there also referred to Ulrich Gaier, who notes the
significance of Job 38: see his Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Faust-Dichtungen,
Kommentar I, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1999, ii. 1043.
49. Hamm, ‘Goethe und die französische Zeitschrift Le Globe’, 304.
50. Ibid., 305.
51. For summaries of the doctrine see Emge, Saint-Simon, 99 ff.; Thomas
Petermann, Claude-Henri de Saint-Simon. Die Gesellschaft als Werkstatt,
Berlin: Duncker & Humboldt, 1979, 100 ff. Quoted in Schuchard,
‘Julirevolution’, 266.
52. Quoted in Schuchard, ‘Julirevolution’, 272.
53. ‘Shakespeare und kein Ende!’, WA 1:41.1, 61.
54. See Schuchard, ‘Julirevolution’, 272; Zabka, Faust ii, 256.
55. An excellent discussion is Peter Michelsen, ‘Fausts Erblindung’ (first published
1962), in Peter Michelsen, Im Banne Fausts. Zwölf Faust-Studien, Würzburg:
Königshausen & Neumann, 2000, 161–70.
56. See H. J. Schings, Melancholie und Aufklärung. Melancholiker und ihre Kritiker
in Literatur und Erfahrungsseelenkunde des 18. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Metzler,
1977.
57. Jules Lechevalier-Hippolyte Carnot, Religion Saint-Simonienne. Enseignement
central, Paris, 1831, 15.
58. Goethe, Maximen und Reflexionen, BA 18, 620.
59. Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjahre, HA 8, 286.
chapter 7
Once a play has been written, it is the beginning and end that are least in
keeping with life beyond its artistic representation. The author who narrates
or brings to the stage the life of various human beings is obliged to provide
an artificial beginning and end to his presentation, and the life that unfolds
between these two moments derives its particular shape from them.
It is for this reason that Jean Paul in his Vorschule der Ästhetik (para. 74)
explicitly calls the first chapter of a novel the ‘Omnipotence Chapter’, in
which ‘the sword that cuts through the knot in the last [chapter] actually has
to be sharpened’.1 Thus, by already proclaiming in the ‘Prologue’ the aged
Faust’s unquenchable thirst for knowledge, and by making this the overall
theme with Faust’s first appearance on stage, Goethe sets a theatrical world-
review in motion that from one phase to another takes in ever more people
and ever greater spatial expanses.
The end of a drama – as opposed to all life outside the realm of art – gives the
author the opportunity to stop the hands of the clock for one ideal moment,
and to take stock of whether or not the main characters, indeed all those
involved, have been apportioned the right measure of satisfaction or atone-
ment. Such a stock-taking according to the rules of poetic justice is most clearly
seen in comedy when the good are rewarded at the end with marriage or riches
or both, and due punishment is meted out to the wicked. But tragedy, too,
allocates to everyone a fate at the end, so that even the death of the hero can
provide the grounds for sympathy and hence also for aesthetic enjoyment.
In order to take stock in this way of Faust, Goethe’s life’s work, we shall
turn our attention first of all to the last act of this sprawling drama. We want
to see how it all ends, this wager that Mephistopheles makes with the Lord
in ‘Prologue in Heaven’ and that Faust seals with a pact in his study.
Goethe spent no fewer than sixty years of his life weaving this pact with
the devil into one huge theatrical work that he filled out with everything
that concerned him, with art and science, with love affairs and affairs of
state, with despair and thirst for action, but above all with a knowledge of
theatre. His taking hold of the ‘fullness of human life’ (167) develops into a
94
The blind Faust 95
panopticon of the small world and the great, and in the end the centenarian
must come to terms with both the pact and himself.
This is supposed to be the moment when Faust’s promise to the devil is
realized. But does it ever actually come to that moment? What has become
of those people whose lives he has utterly shattered, even ended? What
happens to Faust in the end? What becomes of his soul after death? And
what happens to the land on which he finally erected his palace, and the
territory that he sought to create for a free people?
When the curtain goes up on this last act of Part ii, the audience catches
sight – like the wanderer who has just come on stage – of ‘Open Country’
with a hut on a small piece of high ground and a beautiful landscape which the
wanderer soon declares to be ‘like Paradise’ (11086). Yet here is by no means a
primal nature landscape in the manner of Rousseau; rather, it has buildings on
it, a meadow, pasture, garden, village and forest as well, while in the distance
sails are seen drawing into a harbour. This is an artificially constructed
paradise and yet almost too perfect to be the work of human hands.
Four scenes follow which present the dimensions of Faust’s palace,
together with his ornamental garden, a canal that runs nearby, his outer
courtyard and the inner one, with the slightly raised cabin visible in the
middle distance. Faust’s burial will take place slightly off to one side. This
panorama is followed only by the last scene in a wasteland, ‘Mountain
Gorges, Forest, Cliffs, Wilderness,’ which is completely removed from the
previous setting. Here, rising from the valley below and spreading out across
the mountains are hermits, boys’ choirs and in higher up the Mater gloriosa
with female Penitents, all of whom gather together around the angels that
raise Faust’s soul up into heaven or, more cautiously put, into a higher region.
Understandably, this fifth act of Faust ii belongs to the most heavily
interpreted parts of the whole drama. More than all the other pièces de
résistance of Part ii – the ‘Pleasant Landscape’ at the beginning, the
‘Classical Walpurgis Night,’ the appearance of Helena and the cloud scene
in ‘High Mountains’ at the beginning of Act 4 – this act gives rise to the
liveliest arguments about Goethe’s intentions, as well as to a broad spectrum
of admiring, conflicting or dismissive judgements on the entire play.
This response can be traced back to the early life of the play: a commentary in
the year of Goethe’s death, praising the end of Faust for its ‘genuine mysticism’
and ‘beatific fusion’ of God and nature;2 the lament of the aesthete Friedrich
Theodor Vischer about the overloading of the play with ‘incomprehensible
ballast of knowledge,’;’3 and the fit of rage of a leading critic at the time,
Wolfgang Menzel, concerning Goethe’s presentation of the Catholic-Christian
heaven; it seemed as repulsive to him, a dyed-in-the-wool Protestant, as
96 eberhard lämmert
the way in which the genial Marie Antoinette held court. . . . Around her we see
only ladies-in-waiting and pages, as larger and smaller angels, with a few adoring
mystics as devoted doormen. The poor sinner is now brought in . . . a young
lady-in-waiting makes supplication for him, the Queen of Heaven smiles and –
the sinecure in heaven is his. – Where is God? Is there no man in heaven any
more?4
This is how the rattle of arms from the desk of scholars swiftly drowns
out the harmony of the spheres in which Goethe enveloped Faust’s
elevation.
But quite apart from the innumerable pages that have been written about
this relatively short final act, far more single lines and set expressions have
found their way from here than from any other part of this sprawling drama
as idioms into everyday German. Remarkably, these are almost exclusively
positive, praising life, encouraging the worthy and able (Tüchtigen), and
heralding a bright future:
Dem Tüchtigen ist diese Welt nicht stumm. (11446)
No good and able man finds this world mute.
Das ist der Weisheit letzter Schluß:
Nur der verdient sich Freiheit wie das Leben,
Der täglich sie erobern muß. (11574–6)
It is the final wisdom we can reach:
He only merits freedom and existence
Who wins them every day anew.
Auf freiem Grund mit freiem Volke stehn. (11580)
While Philemon goes to the chapel with the intention of ‘greeting the
parting sun once more’ (11140), the watchtower keeper, Lynceus, announces
from the palace the arrival of new ships and the great good fortune of living
in this time of joyous industriousness and increasing wealth. Faust, how-
ever, makes his appearance with a curse because the bell in Philemon’s
chapel begins to ring out while he is strolling through his ornamental
garden. He curses the ringing because it reminds him that this hill and
this chapel, which abut his own new land, do not yet belong to him, and
that he could best survey his whole new territory from the vantage-point of
that raised ground:
Der Lindenraum, die braune Baute,
Das morsche Kirchlein ist nicht mein.
Und wünscht’ ich, dort mich zu erholen,
Vor fremdem Schatten schaudert mir,
Ist Dorn den Augen, Dorn den Sohlen;
O! wär’ ich weit hinweg von hier! (11157–62)
That linden grove, its old brown cottage,
And the dilapidated chapel are not mine.
The blind Faust 99
Although I would enjoy its restful quiet,
I cannot bear the thought of shade that’s not my own,
That pricks the eye and stabs the flesh like thorns –
Oh, would that I were far from here!
Albrecht Schöne finds a precursor to these lines in Numbers 33:50 ff.5 There
the Lord advises the children of Israel to take over Canaan, the promised
land, to destroy the inhabitants’ places of worship on the high ground and
to drive them out. ‘But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land
from before your face, then they will become, if you let them remain, thorns
in your eyes and thorns in your sides.’
Faust orders Philemon and Baucis to be expelled, albeit peacefully, and
this time – drawing on the legend in Ovid’s Metamorphoses (viii, 618–724) –
he has the vision at night of a spacious new manor house for the couple. But
Mephistopheles, together with his Three Mighty Men, goes to work in a
more brutal way, destroying the cabin and chapel with fire, along with the
two old people.
Do we read this scene differently today from the way it looked more than
a century and a half ago to an author well-versed in the bible, adhering to
the Old Testament and to classical writers? Are we alarmed because what
happens here to two human beings happened in our century in the Congo,
in Solingen and a million times over in Poland at the hands of Hitler’s
thugs? It is true that Faust says nothing more than ‘go then and clear them
out of my way!’ (11275) and promises them a ‘handsome little estate’ (11276),
but Mephistopheles, overseer of the great project, only whistles shrilly and
promises his Three Mighty Men a festival at sea to follow.
At this point Albrecht Schöne sees a connection with that part of Celan’s
‘Todesfuge’ (Death Fugue) in which a man comes out of the house, whistles
for his hounds and has his slave labourers engage in making preparations for
the death of others as well as himself.6 Celan’s recollection of Faust in this
poem is very clear, given his allusion to Gretchen’s golden hair. But is it
justifiable to establish this proximity on the basis of Goethe’s text, and then
without further ado apply it to what is going on around us right now, or
what we clearly remember from our most recent past?
Here we need a more comprehensive view. The Old Testament makes
use of the – long-since clichéd – image of the thorn in the eye. Goethe not
only takes up the image, however, but also does more. The small hill is
important for the dramatic action, since it had previously offered the
wanderer a safe escape from the raging sea at the home of the hospitable
old couple. Those familiar with Ovid’s Metamorphoses will rediscover, in
this hill and chapel, the hallowed heights of the Canaanites, as well as the
100 eberhard lämmert
temple which the gods had erected as thanks for the couple’s hospitality.
Goethe fits these biblical and classical prefigurations together to create a
scene with many associations, and the ancient names of the old couple are
meant as their own contribution to the whole scenario: a timeless image of
helpfulness and peace before it is overtaken by the brutal murder and fire
enforced by Faust, the military general, and his thugs.
As long as poet worship has been restricting us to questions concerning
the poet’s intention, huge efforts have been made by scholarship to research
‘sources’ or ‘precursors’ and, as here, to measure Goethe’s artistic powers
against these. Today, scholarship for many reasons no longer pays serious
attention to the writer alone, but also to the audience and readers, as it is
only they who continually bring the text alive in a new and different way.
Therefore scholars who deal with those inferable images no longer look at a
text’s origins only, but also at its future – indeed, its lease on life, granted
ever anew by readers from different parts of the world or generations to
come. To the literary work worth reading they bring memories and images
from their own sphere of life, and sometimes even recognize the universal
validity of their own experiences when they encounter the images and
symbolic actions of an attentively examined text.
Albrecht Schöne gives the text this kind of new life in his own way. In
expressing what has in the meantime come to concern us all and is of
importance for many of us, he demonstrates that poetic texts always have
possible subject-matters far beyond that determinable common ground they
may share with earlier works of world literature. This is because of their
power of imagery – one might also call it creative power – whose very
medium, language, at all times makes room for new meanings. Nobody
knows this better, incidentally, than a judge who, for a new case with no
exact precedent, is obliged to make use of laws whose application has not yet
been tested. Poetic texts, on the other hand, which are actually calculated to
have multiple significances, are meant to make us aware of what they bring
to us from the world of the author. At the same time, when we listen to
them or engage in close reading, they hold up a mirror to our own lives.
Goethe was a master of this mirroring technique, and Faust is possibly the
greatest and most multifaceted hall of mirrors of the human condition –
even in those minor passages which did not necessarily aspire to any special
significance.
But of course there are limits to this where misuse begins, and that is
wherever a portion of the text is cast adrift from its context and used as a
weapon in a feud, to make one’s own opinion prevail, or just to instruct
modern life. Here, however, Schöne uncovers and reclaims, in an important
The blind Faust 101
scene for the text itself, additional meaning for our day. That is exactly what
a text requires in order for it to remain alive and significant.
Shadowy clouds drift over the balcony from the smoke of the burning
cabin in which Philemon and Baucis lose their lives, that balcony on which
Faust gazes out over the conflagration. These clouds become the four grey
crones – Want, Debt, Care and Need – of whom Faust sees only three
continue on their way. With the material problems in Want, Debt and
Need as well as a guilty concience unable to reach him, he then finds Care in
his palace; she can enter any time she likes.
She herself says as much: she ‘slips in through the keyhole’ (11391). This
may have always been the place in popular belief where demons and spirits
of all kinds made their entry, but here it is particularly appropriate. This last
test which Faust undergoes and the manner in which he deals with it bring
us to a key point in the tragedy. Accordingly, this scene has become the
object of numerous studies. The Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift, for a long time
the most important journal in Germany for literary and intellectual history,
began its first issue in 1923 with a lengthy essay by Konrad Burdach on
‘Faust und die Sorge’ (Faust and Care).7 Max Kommerell wrote a large
study on the same topic, and Heidegger alludes to it, together with Goethe’s
source, in his Sein und Zeit (Being and Time), where he devotes a whole
chapter to Care as the existential foundation of being.8,9 He too makes
reference to the two meanings of the word cura in Latin, that is, as a state of
being (‘worrying about something’) and as active doing (‘taking care of
something’).
And how does Faust understand Care in the drama itself? Already in the
very first night scene in his study he spoke of how the high flight of
the imagination and all the power given to man to feel as the ‘image of
the godhead’ (516, 614) was dragged down into the dust by Care, which
nestles ‘deep within the heart’ (644), where it hides ‘secret sorrows’ (645).
She disguises herself ‘as house and home, as wife and child . . . / As fire,
water, dagger and poison’ (648–9). In short, she appears to him as the sum
of all that can prevent the individual’s self-realization. Both as care for others
and as tormenting worry she becomes for him the worst impediment to his
own path through life. From the moment Wagner disturbs him in his study
right up to the prison scene, Faust seems to be concerned only about
himself, and Mephistopheles supports him in this. The consequences are
felt by Gretchen’s brother, a soldier, later a whole army of soldiers, and in
the end a whole army of workers. All of them, as well as the many whom he
falsely leads to believe in the swift acquisition of wealth with his invention of
paper money, pave the way to his final goal. And even this goal – here we
102 eberhard lämmert
have the decisive about-turn from Faust i to Faust ii – is transformed from a
striving for the recognition of ‘what holds the world together in its very
essence’ (382–3) into a boundless yearning for wealth and land ownership.
Does Care stop him at the very end, or make him understand? Many
important interpreters believe the latter, because Faust responds to the
blindness with which Care afflicts him with the memorable lines:
Die Nacht scheint tiefer tief hereinzudringen,
Allein im Innern leuchtet helles Licht (11499–500)
Incidentally, you’ll admit that the ending, where the saved soul is raised upward,
was very difficult to do, and that in dealing with such supernatural, barely
imaginable things it would have been very easy for me to get lost in vagueness, if
I had not imposed some pleasantly limiting form and firmness on my poetic
intentions by making use of the clearly defined figures and concepts of the
Christian church.23
not es
Translated by Deirdre Vincent.
1. Jean Paul, Sämtliche Werke, Part i, Leipzig: Zentralantiquariat, 1977, v, 262.
2. Johannes Falk, Goethe aus näherem Umgange dargestellt, Leipzig:
F. A. Brockhaus, 1832, 217. For this and following evidence of the historical
impact of the work, see Andreas Anglet, ‘Faust-Rezeption’, in Goethe
Handbuch, ‘Dramas’, ed. Theodor Buck, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1996, ii,
478–521; also Bernd Mahl, ‘Bühnengeschichte von Goethes Faust’, ibid., 532–8.
3. Recurring judgement in the Faust criticism of Friedrich Theodor Vischer, cited
by Anglet, ‘Faust-Rezeption’, 483.
4. Ernst Beutler, Essays um Goethe, 4th edn, Wiesbaden: Diederich, 1948, i, 367–8.
5. FK 722. See also Chapter 1 above.
6. FK 726.
7. Konrad Burdach, ‘Faust und die Sorge’, Deutsche Vierteljahresschrift 1 (1923),
1–60.
8. Max Kommerell, ‘Faust Zweiter Teil. Zum Verständnis der Form’, Corona 7
(1937); also in Max Kommerell, Geist und Buchstabe der Dichtung. Goethe,
Schiller, Kleist, Hölderlin, Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1940, 9–74.
9. Martin Heidegger (first published 1927), Sein und Zeit, Tübingen: Niemeyer,
1986; cf. especially para. 42: ‘Die Bewährung der existentialen Interpretation
des Daseins als Sorge aus der vorontologischen Selbstauslegung des Daseins’,
196–200.
10. Wilhelm Emrich (first published 1943), Die Symbolik von Faust ii. Sinn und
Vorformen, 5th edn, Königstein: Athenäum, 1981, 397. See Albrecht Schöne’s
112 eberhard lämmert
commentary (FK 740). Hans-Jürgen Schings has passed harsh judgement on
the ‘defenders’ of this kind of ‘heroic-creative self-assertion’ – see ‘Faust and the
“God of the Modern Age”. Goethe as Critic of the Faustian Urge’, Goethe-
Jahrbuch der Goethe-Gesellschaft in Japan 43 (2001), 33–43.
11. See also Gert Mattenklott, ‘Faust ii’, Goethe-Jahrbuch, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1996,
ii, 454 note 2: ‘All that is best in Faust’s inner being always has to remain out of
play when he gets ready to act.’
12. Hans-Jürgen Schings compares ‘Faust’s Vocabulary’ in his last monologue with
the basic tenets of the Saint-Simonists in ‘Faust and the “God of the Modern
Age”’, 37–42.
13. Andreas Anglet, ‘Faust-Rezeption’, 485.
14. Jeannot Emil Grotthuß, Probleme und Charakterköpfe, Stuttgart: Greiner &
Pfeiffer, 1897, 9 f.
15. Bertold Litzmann, Goethes Faust, Berlin: Fleischel, 1904, 164.
16. The term ‘Faustian’ and its susceptibility to be used in the service of ‘every
ideology’ is dealt with by Günther Mahal, taking into account Hans Schwerte’s
book; see Gunter Grimm (ed.), ‘Der tausendjährige Faust. Rezeption als
Anmaßung’, in Literatur und Leser, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1975, 181–95, esp. 182
and 189. See Schings, ‘Faust and the “God of the Modern Age”’.
17. Ernst Beutler, ‘Der Kampf um die Faustdichtung’, Essays um Goethe, 3rd edn,
Leipzig: Dieterich, i, 365.
18. Heinrich Düntzer, Goethes Faust, Leipzig: Dyk, 1850, 117.
19. Heinrich von Treitschke, Deutsche Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert, Leipzig:
Hirzel, 1879, i, 317.
20. Hans Volkelt, Auf freiem Grund mit freiem Volke stehen. Goethes Faust
und Deutschlands Lebensanspruch, Leipzig: Psychol.-Pädag. Institut d. Univ.,
1944, 1.
21. See Paul Michael Lützeler, ‘Goethes “Faust” und der Sozialismus. Zur
Rezeption des klassischen Erbes in der DDR’, in Basis. Jahrbuch für deutsche
Gegenwartsliteratur 5, Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1975, 31–55. Lützeler begins with a
speech by Walter Ulbrich to the National Assembly that draws widely on
Faust’s last monologue, making connections between ‘marshland’ and ‘free
ground’ with West Germany and the GDR, and setting the pattern for the
‘creative’ treatment of this ‘legacy’. See Albrecht Schöne, FK 749–52 and 760 f.
Schöne also attributes a ‘utopian energy’ to ‘Faust’s powerful last lines’ but
without ignoring Goethe’s own remarks of 1830 on ‘real and fantastical errors’
in ‘striving for the absolute’.
22. Goethe to Zelter, 19 March 1827, WA 4:42, 95. See also FK 787.
23. Goethe to Eckermann, 6 June 1831; FK 783.
chapter 8
It may be called daring, or merely naïve, to relate Faust, the crown jewel of
German-language literature, to Harry Potter, a series of seven children’s
books.1 The pressure to justify oneself that sets in when one takes Rowling’s
novels seriously as literature can also be seen in the qualifying titles of some
of the publications that have so far appeared: Why Nabokov Would Have
Liked H. P., or The Charm of H. P.; another subtitle is On the Trail of a
Charming Bestseller.2 All these titles try to vindicate Rowling’s novels as a
relevant subject for academic analysis.3 Although a publicity machine of
global dimensions may raise suspicions, popularity is not in itself a disquali-
fication; it cannot change the text. Anyone able to ignore the media vortex
and concentrate on the text will find sufficient quality to induce him to read
further; and very quickly, Germanists will stumble across parallel motifs
that practically invite the comparison with Faust.
For the young magician Harry Potter, who learns and practises sorcery at
Hogwarts Boarding School, has more in common with the magician Faust
than merely his first name, since German Heinrich is English Harry; more,
too, than the academic milieu and the encounter with evil; and although
Harry never concludes a pact with the devil, there exists a mysterious and
life-threatening relationship between him and the Evil Lord. Faust and
Harry both see the object of their deepest desire in a mirror, and both are
air-lifted from their confining quarters by adapted versions of a magic
carpet: Faust on Mephisto’s coat, Harry Potter in his friend’s flying car.
Both ride safely on the back of a centaur at night through magic terrain.
There are similarities in the supporting characters as well: Harry’s best
female friend at school is named Hermione, exactly like the daughter of
Helen, whom Goethe mentions only once (8859).4 Just as Helen exists
‘outside of all time’, Rowling’s Hermione has at her disposal a Time-Turner
that can transport her back in time (Azkaban, 426). Both protagonists have
113
114 gisela brude-firnau
to put up with bothersome Philistines, but enjoy dealing with their stu-
dents. Harry, as much as Faust, is keenly aware of his ‘two souls’ and gains
insight into his own self while the sun is slowly rising – the alchemist’s
symbol of enlightenment (Phoenix, 728–40). Both experience the empow-
ering truth of fiction and poetry, ‘a power beyond the reach of any magic’
(Hallows, 568). Both texts emphasize that, in the end, it is not magic
techniques that change the world; rather, every human being possesses
the mental strength with which he can oppose the power of evil. In both,
the main characters emerge victorious from war and struggle. And yet where
Faust avails himself of the devil, Harry must above all use his courage and
laboriously learned magical powers to wrestle with the exponent of black
magic, as well as the aid of fellow students, teachers and mythical creatures.
The course of his vita ultimately leads to a bourgeois family life, not in the
least comparable to the metaphysical ascent of the great individualist Faust.
Similarly, the fundamental differences hardly need to be mentioned: the
two works belong to different periods and genres, to different levels of
literature, and they thus make different statements. It would be absurd to
overlook these circumstances and to compare such unequal texts with one
another in terms of aesthetics, for instance, or intellectual content. Likewise,
it cannot be denied that Rowling’s novels suffer from a certain schematic
quality in their construction. There are also some concessions to juvenile
tastes shaped by television; again and again, for example, adventure and
battle episodes follow one another in much too rapid succession.
What keeps such a comparison from falling into absurdity, however, is the
conspicuous analogy of numerous themes and their respective constellations.
The reference of both texts to the European literary tradition leads to a striking
multiplicity of similar themes, both central and peripheral, whose significance
varies. In any case, Rowling’s novels remain complex texts, crafted according
to the maxim that children’s books that appeal simply to children are just not
good enough: there is one reading code for young readers and a decidedly
different code for adults.5 It is the code for adults that we wish to pursue here.
Let us recall on the other hand that parts of Goethe’s Faust do not
deny their chapbook origins; that the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ is seen
by several critics as fairy-tale drama; and that there are numerous other
scenes that definitely appeal to the ‘culturally less competent perception’ of
young people.6 There is more common ground if we remember that
some of the best examples of youth literature, as for example Lewis
Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland, are considered part of world literature.
Furthermore, Heinrich Faust and Harry Potter are born of texts, and as
such they are bound to a number of literary and subliterary sources: both are
From Faust to Harry Potter 115
nourished from medieval spell-books, alchemists’ handbooks and fairy tales
from the entire European literary tradition.
More importantly: in both works elements of Graeco-Roman mythology
abound. This chapter will therefore concentrate specifically on one motif,
the mythologem of the centaurs that trot lively through both texts. And we
shall pose the question: what additional significance do these half-and-half
creatures gain in Goethe’s ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ and, on the other
hand, in Rowling’s novels? What specific insight do we obtain from the
comparison of the two literary realizations? This comparative attempt in
mythopoetics does not establish any direct relationship between the two
texts, and it would be futile to maintain any influence as long as the author
declines to answer any enquiries.7 Our venture therefore rests on the
premise that comparative observation leads to scholarly knowledge. Thus
Gerhard R. Kaiser, too, asserts that ‘scholarship begins with the comparison’
and explains its importance for comparative literature, which goes beyond
the usual bounds of national literatures or literatures bound to one linguistic
community. Kaiser discusses the significance of such a ‘complex confronta-
tion’ between literary texts and concedes: ‘Here too comparison, in Hegel’s
and Gadamer’s sense, ultimately remains a subordinate means in the
service of a specific historical knowledge; and yet one that is implemented
somewhat more consciously than others, and is capable of doing particular
justice to literature, which is both diverse in a specific way and yet a single
object of research.’8 Therefore we proceed from the assumption that the two
texts, similar in aspects of their plots and in their complexes of motifs but
otherwise thoroughly disparate, can be placed side by side with the aid of
a method that is ‘subordinate’ in this sense, but particularly well suited to
literature. It is to be expected that a comparison of the centaur motif
grounded on the common mythological basis will lead to insights into
each specific depiction and their correspondences with one another. The
resulting gain in knowledge ought ultimately to speak to the value of the
method.
To be sure, it must be kept in mind that the myth that both centaur
characters have in common also represents no methodologically clear-cut or
stable basis. For a myth has neither a primary source nor a single authori-
tative text. Since a myth usually has no beginning and no end, every author
who creatively appropriates a mythologem adds new meaning to it. We
therefore agree with the definition of Carl Kerényi, for whom mythology
consists of ‘tales already well known but not unamenable to further reshap-
ing. Mythology is the movement of this material: it is something solid and
yet mobile, substantial and yet not static, capable of transformation.’9
116 gisela brude-firnau
Mythology is thus twofold: the handed-down material and the shaped
material, the literary work; and the task at hand is to observe the pendulum
of the author’s creativity as it swings back and forth between the two. Thus
Goethe, for example, oriented his basic concept of the centaur Chiron
towards Karl Philipp Moritz’s Götterlehre; he consulted Hederich, and
knew Homer and Dante, as well as other texts in which the motif
appears; moreover, in Italy he had seen the famous depictions of centaurs
recommended by his guide, Johann Jacob Volkmann, among them the
Pompeiian fresco in which Chiron instructs the youthful Achilles on the
lyre, which continued to occupy Goethe into the last years of his life.10 But
in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ the mythologem is expanded by means of
a new variant: Chiron appears as the ironic, self-reflexive teacher, whose
discourse transforms Faust into a poet. Rowling, by contrast, whose sources
of mythological information have not yet been determined, takes the
centaur Firenze well beyond the status of the self-reflexive teacher: she
makes him an ethical sceptic, and a rebellious critic both of his origins
and of the system that offers him shelter and security – a system that he
nonetheless defends with all his might in the crucial battle (Prince, 598,
Hallows, 489, 530, 597).
In order to contextualize the following comparison of centaurs, we
need to cast a brief glance at the significance attributed to Greek myth in
both texts: it is essential that – besides a few semi-divine beings – there
are practically no Olympian gods in Goethe’s ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’.
Instead there are numerous mythical creatures, such as nymphs, sphinxes,
tritons, sea-gods and others, also originating from other mythologies. With
regard to the Helena act, Goethe considers them intermediaries, best suited
‘to mediate the encounter between gods and humans’.11 Instead of the one
narrated myth, as for example in Iphigenia, elements from various mytho-
logical strands are interwoven with new fictitious parts; thus disparate time
dimensions intersect. Instead of the pronouncements of binding ethics,
dialogues sparkle with wit, irony and satire; they burst with encyclopaedic
knowledge. The author is no longer shaping the myth, but transforms it as
he pleases. Jamme stresses that this is ‘a myth already disrupted by inter-
pretation, because it consciously relativizes classical antiquity by equating it
with Nordic and Oriental classicism’.12
While Goethe’s use of Greek myth has been well analysed and discussed,
the mythological elements that can be found in all seven volumes of the
Harry Potter novels have so far received little or no attention; thus a more
detailed description seems required in order to show the context and the
relevance of the centaur motif. Here the integration of mythologems is
From Faust to Harry Potter 117
decidedly less complex, although ironic scepticism and self-doubt or
caricaturish depiction raise several characters far above the level of stereo-
typical unambiguity. Quite noticeable is the lower realm of magical crea-
tures, populated with hippogriffs, a phoenix, a basilisk, werewolves and
owls, used to deliver the post. Fluffy, the three-headed dog, is a genuine
Cerberus, and Argus Filch, the evil and rather shortsighted keeper of the
castle, is a caricature of the Greek many-eyed model. This grand mytho-
logical game then widens into a cosmos of its own: headmaster Albus
Dumbledore, on the basis of his first name alone, appears as Zeus, the
bright one, the radiant. He is described with such qualifiers as these like a
leitmotif (Stone, 113, 144, 318; Secrets, 86, 283, passim). On feast days,
therefore, the meals at Hogwarts are Olympian banquets in a gigantic hall
whose ceiling shows an ever-changing image of the real heavens (Stone, 129).
The students dine off golden plates (Stone, 128), and Zeus–Dumbledore is
enthroned ‘at the centre of the High Table, in a large gold chair’ (Stone, 134).
In anger, he also hurls thunderbolts of mental energy (Fire, 736, 767).
His element is fire, and accordingly he possesses a phoenix, which climbs
into the sky in a pillar of fire at Dumbledore’s funeral, an image that
could also be read as the fiery ascension of the deceased into heaven. This
character could easily ossify into a stereotype,13 were that not prevented by
ironic touches. But he remains wise and commands respect, embodying
the elder Zeus, who in an imperceptible manner tries to steer Harry’s
life. Yet ultimately even the Zeus-like Dumbledore is ‘demythologized’
when he confesses to Harry the failure and sin of his youth. Thus, however,
he strengthens his now almost grown-up pupil with courage and self-
confidence (Hallows, 572–9).
Minerva McGonagall, a Scottish Athena-figure, is equally protective. In
her care for Harry the emancipated woman lives up to her mythical model,
for Athena too raised a child that she had not borne. Dolores Umbridge, a
virginal but formidable caricature of Artemis–Diana, is as little at home at
Hogwarts as Artemis initially was on Mount Olympus. Just as the Taurian
Artemis was originally offered human sacrifices (a source of conflict in
Goethe’s Iphigenia), so the Spartans used to scourge their boys before the
image of Artemis Orthia until they bled. Dolores Umbridge attempts to
gain Harry’s respect in a more modern, but no less bloody fashion, by
carving her rules of behaviour into the backs of his hands over and over
again. She viciously pursues all who do not bend to her will, particularly the
keeper of magical creatures, Rubeus Hagrid, an Orion-figure with bow and
arrow (Stone, 153, 270) who is gigantic in size and good-hearted, and has a
gift with dragons, hippogriffs and winged horses. These teachers are not
118 gisela brude-firnau
allegories; they are less identifiable as Olympian gods by external accesso-
ries. Instead, they incorporate the actions and reactions, values and patterns
of behaviour of their models: they exist up to a certain point ‘in the form of
mythical identification, of mnemonic survival, of following in the foot-
steps’, as Thomas Mann perceived the characters of his Joseph und seine
Brüder.14 Although these pedagogues are steeped in irony and caricature,
they are conceived ad usum delphini and lack any kind of ribaldry.
Consequently, there is no attempt to depict or even hint at a metaphysical
realm. Similarly, the magical abilities of the professors are not comparable to
the might of Greek gods, but rather they are based on educated intelligence
and practice; they can be taught. Thus the students are not dependent upon
their teachers to the same degree as the Greek heroes are upon the gods.
Some of the other teachers are disguised adherents of evil and are well
integrated into the background plot that runs through all seven novels: the
opposition between the humanistically oriented wizards and the adherents
of destructive evil, represented by the black magician Lord Voldemort. His
name has its origin in Judaeo-Christian myth: vol de mort, a flight of death,
is the deadly fall of the angel of evil who fell away from God, the ‘dragon’ of
Revelations who ‘saw that he was cast unto the earth’.15 Mythologems of
various origins are here intertwined.
How, then, does Harry Potter himself fit into this mythological universe?
Similar to Goethe’s Faust and Thomas Mann’s Leverkühn–Faustus, he is a
‘highly synthetic figure’. For he possesses traits of different mythologies, yet
at the same time he is also a modern and quite loveable teenager. Rowling’s
protagonist is conceived according to a well-known mythologem that Carl
Kerényi describes as the ‘primordial’ or ‘divine’ child which existed ‘in the
older strata of Greek religion’ (Essays, 65). Such a child enters the world in
diverse forms, often as orphan and foundling under mortal threat; often
humiliated, he grows to become a hero or a saviour. Rowling’s protagonist
almost exactly parallels Kerényi’s well-known definition: the infant Harry
was orphaned when his parents fell victim to the evil Voldemort. The
mother, as Kerényi defines it, has ‘a peculiar part to play: she is and is not
at the same time’ (Essays, 28). Rowling realizes this mythological paradox
by means of the death of Lily Potter, who sacrifices herself to save her child’s
life and thus imbues him with a protective enchantment. This mystical
absence–presence of the mother is described as ‘an ancient magic’ and
Harry’s ‘strongest shield’ (Phoenix, 736), reminiscent of Kerényi’s ‘older
strata of Greek religion’. The little foundling growing up in his aunt’s
family, humiliated and pestered by all, remains enigmatic and contradic-
tory: magical occurrences take place around him. More and more,
From Faust to Harry Potter 119
particularly at the school, he takes on the traits of heroes of various
mythologies: Harry is cunning like young Hermes, courageous like
Perseus, gifted like Orpheus (Stone, 36); he solves the riddle of the
Sphinx like Oedipus (Fire, 683); he has an Invisibility Cloak and a
wondrous sword like Siegfried (Stone, 218) and he also kills a Basilisk
(Secrets, 343–4). Like the Saviour in Judaeo-Christian mythology, Harry is
pure of heart (Phoenix, 743); he withstands the temptations of the Evil
One (Stone, 316; Secrets, 17, 167) and is prepared to sacrifice himself for
others, which brings about his rescue (Hallows 566–7). Yet, like the
primordial child, he is at once the lowest and the highest, until he achieves
the final victory (Hallows, 506, 595–6).
To summarize Rowling’s fictional integration of Greek mythologems:
they are on both the lower and the Olympian level an essential element and
tie the various parts together with an encompassing iconographic system,
thus creating a more universal level of understanding. The integrated
mythologems have little predeterminative function and do not cancel
out the individual’s responsibility for his actions. This is particularly true
for the protagonist, who as a realization of Kerényi’s ‘divine child’ seems to
be mythologically overdetermined. But being at the centre of the all-
embracing struggle between good and evil, he has to overcome the asso-
ciated difficulties more by means of reflection and courage, more with the
help of his friends and teachers than with the help of magical arts.
Narratologically, mythologems constitute another level of fiction, in that
they refer to a possible earlier reality; they increase the credibility of the plot.
In Goethe’s as well as in Rowling’s text, the encounter between the
protagonist and the centaur takes place within the respective mythological
contexts: both meet the man-horse at night in magic terrain and gratefully
ride on his back to safety. Neither of the two episodes, to our knowledge,
has received the attention it deserves. Goethe, who every night during his
work on the ‘main business’ habitually reflected on and laid out the next
day’s composition, opined on 24 January 1830, regarding Faust’s encounter
with Chiron: ‘I hope that the scene will succeed at my hands.’ And a mere
three weeks later, he affirmed that he was making daily progress on the
‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ ‘and that he was producing wondrous things,
beyond expectation’.16
The Chiron scene in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ depicts the third
stage of Faust’s journey through a ‘fable-land’ (7055). His goal is Hades,
whence he intends to fetch Helen (7319–494). Strangely enough, we never
see or retrospectively hear whether Faust arrives in the underworld and
addresses Persephone with the great petitionary speech Goethe had
120 gisela brude-firnau
planned. I maintain that Faust’s dialogue with Chiron made Goethe realize
that this speech had become obsolete. During the exchange with Chiron
Faust had been transformed into an artist who would then re-create Helen
as a poetic work of art. He did not have to implore the gods once he had
become aware of his own god-like creativity. The text will have to corro-
borate our thesis.
Referred to Chiron by the Sphinxes (7198–9), Faust believes himself
to be experiencing a unique marvel (7324) when ‘the famous son of
Philyra’ (7329) appears. By invoking the name of the nymph Phylira,
Faust alludes to the immortal Chiron’s ‘halbgöttliche’ (7362) or semi-divine
status, which differentiates him from other centaurs. While riding on
Chiron’s back, Faust invokes the achievements of the mythic teacher and
physician. However, what is intended as a captatio benevolentiae is little
more than the encyclopaedic accumulation of formulae. Accordingly,
Chiron corrects the recitation with high-handed irony and his own better
knowledge, unmasking it as mere flattery. He refutes his own myth with a
mythologem, referring to Pallas Athena, who had no lasting success in
teaching. Goethe’s Chiron is obviously no longer the pedagogue-figure of
the ancient myth, who does not call his own story into question. The
traditional mythic hero acts and believes; Chiron reflects and doubts. He
appears as a consciously modern, fragmented mythologem, attempting to
shatter Faust’s book-learning.
Similarly unexpected is the answer to Faust’s next question, about the
greatest hero among the Argonauts. Chiron – a sceptic and not a poet – tries
to undo mythological illusions. Therefore his answer is not the adventure
story of an Argonaut-superman, but rather a didactic poem about the sense-
lessness of the hero cult. The lesson: ‘Danger is best endured in company with
others: / What one achieves obtains the praise of all’ (7379–80). Solidarity and
consensus, Chiron concludes, are as important as the individual deed. This
interpretation is again anti-mythological, since it ignores both the typical
deeds of the lonely hero and the crucial metaphysical intervention. Two
constitutive mythological dimensions are replaced by social ones: co-existence
and reciprocity.
Faust’s third question, ‘And aren’t you going to mention Hercules?’
(7381), is unexpectedly answered by Chiron with a classical lamentation
about an extraordinary being and its ephemerality. Sorrow replaces the
attitude of ironic rationality. Chiron depicts Hercules as the ideal of
masculine beauty – ‘When with these eyes I saw before me / What all
men worship as divine’ (7386–7) – which neither the visual arts nor poetry
are capable of reproducing. This lamenting paean remains within the
From Faust to Harry Potter 121
tradition of mythic hymnic poetry, communicating the picture of an
apotheosized demi-god. Here myth is taken seriously as a bygone world, a
narrated realm of exceptional beings who occupy mind and soul.
Only now does Faust dare to enquire about ‘the greatest beauty’ (7398),
referring unequivocally to Helen. The answer given is a treatise on aes-
thetics: using concepts from Schiller’s philosophy, Chiron explains that it is
not beauty, but rather grace, that is the highest aesthetic value in a woman,
mentioning his encounter with Helen as a paradigm. Faust’s book-learning,
however, knows of no such encounter, as his exclamation testifies: ‘You
carried her?’ (7406). In response, Chiron further elucidates the example for
his thesis. Schiller’s definition of grace as ‘beauty in motion’ is translated
into the description of Helen’s movements and actions.17 One might
consider this a short treatise in verse, demonstrating the adaptability and
usability of myth for other realms of thought, such as aesthetics.
Even now Faust has understood little of the true character of myth
demonstrated to him so far, as can be seen from his interjection ‘And only
ten years old!’ (7426), referring to the beautiful Helen’s ride on Chiron’s back.
Once again he appears as the eager know-it-all who seeks to impress with
book-knowledge. Again Chiron ironically reprimands Faust, and all scholars
who at the time considered similar chronological calculations as serious
scholarship. Reflecting the Enlightenment, however, Chiron explains that
they are nothing but self-deceptions, overlooking the essence of mythological
figures: their timelessness. His conclusion, that ‘poets ignore the constraints
of time’ (7433), draws a line between poetry and all other fields of knowledge.
He maintains nothing more than that Kant’s thesis, which states that the
category of time is a component of all perception, is not valid for the literary
work of art.
This section thus represents an abbreviated mythopoetics, explaining it as
‘a language of the imagination’ according to which mythologems are not
the object of an exact science, but rather inspiration for poets.18 They
remain independent of place and time; they develop and reveal their essence
in the freedom of the poetic imagination. The verses reflect upon their own
content: for Chiron becomes the promulgator of possible modes of recep-
tion of the myth. He reflects upon and – sometimes mockingly – distances
the material upon which the dramatic plot is built and of which he himself is
a part. He remains the didactician of the mythological process to which he
owes his existence.19 Thus, however, he remains a contradiction: himself a
part of mythology, Chiron gives an account of the Argonauts, Hercules and
Helen as real, active beings whom he has actually encountered in some
indeterminate past. In conversation with Faust, by contrast, he himself
122 gisela brude-firnau
belongs to a more recent period, in which the figures of myth are nothing
more than poetic evocations. His consciousness swings back and forth
between mythic occurrence and contemporary poetic re-creation. This
is the literary game that Helen articulates in the next act, because it
confounds reason and sense (8838–40, 8875, 8880–1). Chiron’s observations
thus summarize Goethe’s mythopoetic process in the ‘Classical Walpurgis
Night’ as a great ‘Self-reflection of art’.20
Faust has finally understood and does not ask any further questions.
Instead, his exclamation testifies to his transformation. He makes
Chiron’s words his own, but with a difference: the teacher’s conclusion,
‘poets ignore the constraints of time’, becomes in Faust’s words ‘Then
time shall not constrain her either!’ (7434). To Chiron’s rational conclu-
sion Faust replies with an emotional exclamation, to the distancing irony
with a fiery enthusiasm; instead of a logical summation, Faust utters a
desire and an invocation.
Likewise, he has changed registers and strikes up a paean to Helen,
anticipating some of the most beautiful lyrical stanzas he will recite in the
third act. This is the summary as well as the creative application of all of
Chiron’s indirectly communicated instructions. Faust first confirms the
mythopoetic lesson, but then also surpasses it: he understands mythological
timelessness and knows that the myth will enable him to vanquish time and
death. Chiron’s first reprimand has helped Faust achieve a sovereign atti-
tude towards mythological characters and the events surrounding them.21
The lamenting paean to Hercules inspires Faust’s hymn to Helen; but
where Chiron mourns the past, loss and bereavement, Faust is assured of
the future. In contrast to Chiron’s condemnation of all artistic depictions of
Hercules, Faust feels himself capable of making Helen become real as a
work of art. In disputing with the tutor of demi-gods, scientists and heroes,
Faust has become a poet.
However, as such he is beyond the understanding of his teacher, who
diagnoses: ‘In mortal realms you may be just exalted, / But in the spirit
world the way you act seems madness’ (7446–7). Since ecstasy is a disorder
of the mind for those who cannot share in it, Chiron expects the seer Manto
to heal Faust from his insanity. Goethe, at a time when he had just
completed and sealed the Faust ii manuscript, declared his own poetic
productivity conditioned by ‘a mysterious psychological transformation’
which, he continues, ‘Aristotle and other prosaic minds would ascribe to a
kind of madness’.22 Goethe thus raises Faust to his own rank by endowing
him with the ‘Muses’ madness’ that Plato declares to be the mental state
which alone permits poetic creation. The Chiron scene, following Goethe’s
From Faust to Harry Potter 123
own self-assessment, may therefore be called the drama of Faust’s ‘psycho-
logical transformation’: he has become aware of the same potential with
which his author created him. The seer Manto eventually confirms this by
comparing Faust, ‘the man who wants what cannot be’ (7488), to the poet
Orpheus (7493).
Faust, on the other hand, having been transformed from hypnotized
lover into loving poet, gains the certainty that he can re-create even Helen, a
figure of Hades. He no longer has to go there and plead with the gods. His
entrance into the tunnel leading to Persephone has thus changed into a
mere finale to his hike through the mythological realm; it is now a ‘blind
motif’, not needed for the intellectual content of Act 2 or the development
of Act 3.23
The change in perspective from Goethe’s Chiron to Rowling’s Firenze is
something like the landing of an astronaut: unbounded space is followed by
terrestrial limitation – with the understanding, of course, that this limita-
tion is by no means monotonous. Centaurs appear in the first, fifth, sixth
and seventh volumes of the Harry Potter novels. Close to the mythological
tradition, they appear as members of a collective in the Forbidden Forest,
secretive yet argumentative. At first they seem to be guided by pride and
self-interest, yet when the all-encompassing struggle intensifies, the centaurs
act as good guardians (Prince, 600, 602; Hallows, 583) and valiantly fight
against the dark forces (Hallows, 587, 588). Further, the image of a centaur is
part of the sculpture at the ‘Fountain of Magical Brethren’ (Phoenix, 118).
We shall focus here on Firenze, the one centaur who leaves the collective,
since he almost demands comparison with Goethe’s creation. However,
Firenze is distinguished not by a nobler birth, but by his sense of respon-
sibility, which is already indicated by his name. It derives – I assume – from
Florentius Radewin, the promoter and teacher of a chapter of the ‘Brothers
of Communal Living’ active in the Netherlands and in Northern Germany
from the twelfth to the sixteenth centuries.24 These societies distanced
themselves from church orthodoxy in order to lead a more liberal religious
community life. Similarly, Firenze, his modern Italianized namesake, is a
responsible teacher as much as a moral rebel: after first saving Harry from a
murderous attack by Lord Voldemort, he carries him, not unlike Chiron,
through a ‘fable-land’ called the Forbidden Forest and back to safety. This,
as well as his alliance with Dumbledore, is seen as a betrayal by his fellow
centaurs, who threaten him with death, so that he has to flee the forest and
work as a teacher at the School of Wizardry. There his first class is ‘the most
unusual lesson Harry had ever attended’ (Phoenix, 532), for Firenze is
concerned less with content than with attitudes. First, he tries to instil in
124 gisela brude-firnau
the teenagers respect for the dignity, the intelligence and the wisdom of
beings different from themselves: ‘Centaurs are not the servants or play-
things of humans’ (Phoenix, 530). Then he explains the centaurs’ prophecies
by causing a starry sky to appear above the classroom and emphasizing how
very different these prophecies are from the absurd astrology of humans.
However, Firenze’s teaching remains a pedagogical paradox: he puts in
question not only all didactic methods, but even his own instruction. And
although he predicts a war for wizardkind from reading the stars, he assures
them that scepticism towards cherished beliefs and towards magic in general
is needed – for, as he says, ‘it was foolish to put too much faith in such
things, anyway, because even centaurs sometimes read them wrongly’
(Phoenix, 532). Ultimately, it is of little importance to him that none of
the students see the signs that he causes to rise from the smoke of a fire,
because the content of his lesson is less important than the underlying
convictions and values. Scepticism and doubt are at the centre of Firenze’s
teaching, and he calls all pedagogical effort into question: ‘His priority did
not seem to be to teach them what he knew, but rather to impress upon
them that nothing, not even centaurs’ knowledge, was foolproof ’ (Phoenix,
532). He thus reflects on the realistic plot strand that constitutes the school
novel, the teaching of magic at Hogwarts School of Wizardry. The novel
here reflects critically upon itself: the centaur, a mythological character who
belongs to an older tradition than fiction, hints at the uncertainty and
fictitiousness of magic, the main reason for the existence of the school and
of the novel.
However, Firenze is a doubter not on principle, but rather on the basis of
modern humanist convictions. He knows that intelligent beings have the
freedom to decide, just as he made use of his own freedom and is willing to ally
himself with humans in order to combat the Evil Lord (Stone, 279). Firenze
the teacher knows that neither the social status nor the qualities of a human,
nor prophecies of any kind, exert as much influence on one’s life as the ever-
endangered ability to doubt, from which independent decisions are born. In
the School for Wizardry, the centaur Firenze teaches a freedom that is proof
against all determinism, be it of magical, mythological or natural origin.
We have seen that our experiment relating the ‘Classical Walpurgis
Night’ and the Harry Potter novels yields new insight into each text. The
comparison makes clear that both texts are firmly embedded in the fabric of
Western literature and reactivate a considerable number of the same
mythological elements. Playing with congruence and difference has drawn
our attention to the many potential interrelations of texts and opened up
their ‘communicative dimension’.25 Our reading of one text has influenced
From Faust to Harry Potter 125
the understanding of the other, and the more the pendulum of our atten-
tion swang back and forth, the more the function of the centaur as self-
reflective teacher came to the fore. In conclusion, however, it remains to ask
what we have learned about the Chiron myth from our comparison. In what
way do the two texts extend and surpass the established mythologem?
First of all, both attest to the vitality and plasticity of the Chiron
mythologem.26 They corroborate Kerényi’s definition of mythology as
something ‘substantial and yet not static, capable of transformation’
(Essays, 2–3). Since antiquity, the intellectual man-horse seems to illustrate
the paradigmatic balance between nature and culture – one of the goals of
education; thus both characters are ideally suited to teach and bring about
their pupils’ transformation. Unlike their classical model, both centaurs are
conceived as intellectual mavericks, without the security of a collective or
faith in a metaphysical realm. On the basic pattern of the humanistically
oriented teacher, both authors have constructed the figure of a modern
sceptic and doubter who strives above all to dismantle stereotypes, even his
own: Chiron’s rhetoric liberates the encyclopaedically petrified images of
mythic figures into a new poetic configuration. Firenze, by contrast, teaches
his less mythologically literate pupils that even what is outwardly wholly
other deserves respect and indeed admiration. True to his model Florentius,
he remains the radical moralist for whom there is no inviolable truth except
the struggle against evil. Chiron and Firenze belong to modernity, in that
they teach scepticism towards everything that is conventional and held to be
true. However, while Chiron, who lives in two eras, is still sure of his own
experiences and opinions, the more simply and unambiguously conceived
doubter Firenze is closer to Brecht’s Galileo, who himself despairs on
account of doubt and yet goes on teaching doubt. The ‘transformation’
described by Kerényi can be seen in the manner in which the two characters
treat the myth. Chiron, the narrator of myth, has learned from both the
Enlightenment and the historical and comparative mythological research of
the Romantics, and he demonstrates that both myth and mythological
fiction are to be understood as a language of the imagination. Chiron’s
reflection on the myth, and its presentation anew, effect Faust’s trans-
formation from pining lover to loving poet. Rowling’s centaur is composed
of elements of myth and of the historical vita of a ‘Brother of Communal
Living’. His individuality is narrowly limited by his origins and his occu-
pation; and limited, too, is the contribution that Firenze the teacher makes
to his pupil’s transformation. And yet his didactic intelligence, coupled with
an unshakeable humanistic attitude, make him a figure that may be placed
beside Goethe’s teacher Chiron as a simpler counterpart.
126 gisela brude-firnau
notes
1. J.[oan] K.[athleen] Rowling, Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone,
London: Bloomsbury, 1997, cited in text as: Stone; Harry Potter and the
Chamber of Secrets, London: Bloomsbury, 1998, cited as: Secrets; Harry Potter
and the Prisoner of Azkaban, London: Bloomsbury, 1999, cited as: Azkaban;
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, London: Bloomsbury, 2000, cited as: Fire;
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, London: Bloomsbury, 2003, cited
as: Phoenix; Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Vancouver: Raincoast
Books, 2005, cited as: Prince; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Vancouver:
Raincoast Books, 2007, cited as: Hallows.
2. Michael Maar, Warum Nabokov Harry Potter gemocht hätte, Berlin: Berliner
Taschenbuchverlag, 2003; Sandra Bak, Harry Potter. Auf den Spuren eines
zauberhaften Bestsellers, Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 2004; Paul Bürvenich, Der
Zauber des Harry Potter. Analyse eines literarischen Welterfolgs, Frankfurt: Peter
Lang, 2001.
3. The Institute for Applied Children’s Media Research at the Stuttgart Media
University judges the Harry Potter novels to be ‘entertaining and of good literary
quality’, although it also claims that many children are overtaxed by these
‘aesthetically complex’ books and will not read them all the way through. See
Sigrid Tinz, ‘Spaghetti mit Gruselsoße’, Die Zeit 59, Sonderbeilage 19 (April
2004), 15. Undergraduate courses on the Harry Potter novels have been intro-
duced in various universities in North America and the UK. The academic
discussion is rather polarized between Harold Bloom’s condemnation of
Rowling’s prose as ‘governed by clichés’, and on the other hand English
Literature professor John Granger, who evaluates the series as ‘classics – and
not just “kid-lit” but as classics of world literature’. Other critics compare
Rowling to Dickens, Lewis Carroll and Rudyard Kipling. See ‘Harry Potter.
Criticism, Praise and Controversy’ – Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Harry_Potter
4. All further references to Faust are by line numbers to HA.
5. Forty per cent of Rowling’s readers are between 25 and 40 years of age. The
publishers release a portion of each edition with a cover specifically designed for
adults.
6. Pierre Bourdieu, ‘Künstlerische Konzeption und intellektuelles Kräftefeld’, in
Soziologie der symbolischen Formen, trans. Wolfgang Fietkau, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp,
1974, 106.
7. The author is seemingly unable to answer questions ‘due to an extremely hectic
schedule and fighting to find time writing’. Reply of Ms Rowling’s personal
assistant, 15 September 2004.
8. Gerhard R. Kaiser, Einführung in die vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft,
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980, 9.
9. Carl Kerényi, ‘The Primordial Child in Primordial Times’, in Essays on a Science of
Mythology. C. G. Jung and C. Kerényi, Princeton University Press, 1973, 2–3. Cited
as: Essays.
From Faust to Harry Potter 127
10. Ernst Volkmann, ‘Gestalt und Wandel der Kentauren-Idee bei Goethe’, in
Lebendiges Erbe. Festschrift für Dr Ernst Reclam, ed. E. Reclam, Leipzig: Philipp
Reclam, 1936, 123–37.
11. Myrons Kuh, HA 12, 136.
12. Christoph Jamme, ‘“Alter tage fabelhaft Gebild”. Goethes Mythenbastelei im
Faust ii ’, in Interpreting Goethe’s Faust Today, ed. Jane K. Brown et al.,
Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1994, 207.
13. This was the case in the otherwise successful film version of the Prisoner of
Azkaban (dir.: Alfonso Cuarón, 2004).
14. Thomas Mann, ‘Freud and the Future’, in Essays of Three Decades, trans.
H. T. Lowe-Porter, New York: Knopf, 1947, 426.
15. Revelations 12:13. See also Maar, Warum Nabokov, 60.
16. Hans Gerhard Gräf, Goethe über seine Dichtungen. Versuch einer Sammlung
aller Äußerungen des Dichters über seine poetischen Werke, Part ii, Frankfurt
am Main: Rütten & Loening, 1904, repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1968, 538. Critics have been sharply divided in their estima-
tion of the Chiron scene: for example, Hans Arens declared the first half as
‘functionally superfluous . . . an insignificant little scene’ (Kommentar zu
Goethes Faust ii , Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag, 1989, 454). Erich Trunz
had stressed four decades earlier that ‘Faust’s conversation with Chiron and
Manto is one of the greatest poetic achievements of the later Goethe’ (HA 3,
637–8).
17. Friedrich Schiller, ‘Über Anmut und Würde’, dtv-Gesamtausgabe, ed. Gerhard
Fricke, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1962, xviii, 7.
18. Karl Philipp Moritz, Götterlehre oder mythologische Dichtungen der Alten, ed.
Horst Günther, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1999, 9. The treatise, published in
1791, was produced in Rome in close collaboration with Goethe.
19. As genre the exchange corresponds paradigmatically to Goethe’s definition of
didactic poetry, which he considered ‘a hybrid creature, between poetry and
rhetoric’. ‘Über das Lehrgedicht’, WA 1:41, 2, 225.
20. Jamme, ‘“Alter Tage fabelhaft Gebild”’, 216.
21. Faust claims that Achilles met Helen at Pherae (7436) instead of Leuke; he does
not object to Chiron calling Manto not Tiresias’ but rather ‘Aesculapius’
daughter’ (7451).
22. Goethe to Wilhelm von Humboldt, 1 December 1831, WA 4:49, 166. Cited
following the translation in Faust: A Tragedy. Backgrounds and Sources, the
Author on the Drama, Contemporary Reactions, Modern Criticism, ed. Cyrus
Hamlin, trans. Walter Arndt, New York: Norton, 1976, 430.
23. The paralipomenon 123 C of 17 December 1826 outlines the Hades scene with
Manto pleading for Faust. Goethe abandoned this plan only after 18 June 1830.
Albrecht Schöne assumes that he eventually gave it up for structural reasons:
FK 52–28.
24. Thomas à Kempis, trans. J. P. Arthur, The Founders of the New Devotion. Being the
Lives of Gerard Groote, Florentius Radewin and Their Followers, London: Kegan,
1905. Florentius Radewin, head of the order from 1384, died in 1400.
128 gisela brude-firnau
25. Karlheinz Stierle, ‘Werk und Intertextualität’, in Das Gespräch, ed. Karlheinz
Stierle and Rainer Warning, Munich: Fink, 1984, 50.
26. For the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the electronic edition of
Kindlers neues Literatur-Lexikon lists the centaur as a motif or character
in nine novels, one narrative, one epic and one play, as well as in several
poems.
chapter 9
introduction
not es
Translated by Hans Schulte.
1. For the history and sights of Mistra, see Ernst Kirsten and Wilhelm Kraiker,
Griechenlandkunde, Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1967, ii, 393–4 and 410–15. See
136 wilhelm blum
also Steven Runciman, Mistra. Byzantine Capital of the Peloponnese, London:
Thames & Hudson, 1980.
2. Homer, Iliad xi, 832; Ovid, Fasti v, 413.
3. Iliad xi, 832; Hesiod, Fragments 96, 48–55 Rzach. This Hesiod fragment is of
special importance in our context, since it concerns the courting of Helena by
Menelaus.
4. Pindar, Pythian Odes 3,5–7, and Nemean Odes 3, 54 f.
5. Hesiod, Theogony 1001; and Fragment 19 Rzach.
6. Here we remember the Helenephória, the feast and celebration, in Brauron, in
honour of Artemis, and the Helène, the torch or light. Helena shines for
Greece, is the light of Greece.
7. Gerhard Schulz, Die deutsche Literatur zwischen französischer Revolution und
Restauration, Part ii, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1989, 672.
8. Mephisto assumes the identity of Phorkyas. Ernst and Erika von Borries com-
ment: ‘As the representative of ugliness and chaos, Mephisto can help reveal the
beautiful as the polar opposite. Chaos is necessary for the creation of order and
harmony, and beauty can only be formed out of contrasting ugliness.’ Deutsche
Literaturgeschichte, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1991, iii, 290.
9. Herodotus, Histories, vi, 61.3.
10. Strabo, Geographica, 8, 1.3.
11. Homer, Odyssey xi, 12–19.
12. Herodotus, Histories, i, 15.
13. Homer, Iliad ii, 204.
14. Aristotle, Metaphysics xii, 10: 1076, a4.
15. Goethe speaks of world history but really means German and European history
when he talks, to Eckermann, 25 January 1827, about the finished Helena act:
‘The modern, romantic part is very difficult, with half of the world’s history
behind it.’
16. Today, as in Goethe’s time, the tomb of the Empress Theophanu rests on
German soil, in the church of St Pantaleon in Cologne.
17. Line 9472: ‘Norman, clear the seas!’ Goethe appreciated Norman rule on the
two great European islands.
18. See Michael B. Wellas, Griechisches aus dem Umkreis Kaiser Friedrichs II,
Munich: Arbeo, 1983.
19. Konstanze, daughter of Friedrich II, marries the emperor of Nikaia-
Nymphaion, Johannes III Vatatzes. Manfred, Friedrich’s son and king of
Sicily, marries a daughter of Michael II, prince of Epiros, with the name of
Helena. He was also a brother-in-law of Wilhelm II of Villehardouin. And this
prince of Achaia (1246–78) with his seat in Mistra, builder of the Frankenburg,
was the husband of Anna, sister of the Helena of Epiros mentioned above.
20. Bruno Snell, ‘Arkadien. Die Entdeckung einer geistigen Landschaft’, in Antike
und Abendland, Berlin: Watter de Gruyter, 1945, i, 26 ff.
21. Goethe valued this novel very highly. See his conversations with Eckermann of
9 and 20 March 1831, and Eckermann’s report of Goethe’s conversation with
Soret of 15 March 1831.
Mistra and the Peloponnese in Faust ii 137
22. See Ernst Robert Curtius, Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter,
Berne: Francke, 1967, 199.
23. Hesiod, Erga, 109–26; Ovid, Metamorphoses i, 89–112.
24. The name Euphorion is easy to translate: the son of Euphoros, the well-carried,
the noble sufferer – both Helena and Faust had been carried by the Centaur
Chiron. The figure of Euphorion may have been invented by Ptolemaios
Chennos (first to second century ad): his Euphorion is a son of Achilles and
Helena, and he is killed with a lightning-strike from Zeus.
25. See the stage directions to 9903: Goethe erects a monument, in the character of
Euphorion, to Lord Byron, who died in 1824 in Messolonghi, Greece.
26. As for the Christian perspective, see Paul, Letter to the Colossians, 1:20 and
Letter to the Romans, 5:10. For early Greek culture, see Homer’s Odyssey
(xxiv, 541–8), where the reconciliation is affirmed by oath, in a sacred bond.
The Odyssey is also of more fundamental importance. Eckermann was the first
to see that Faust ii is comparable to Homer’s work. See Dieter Borchmeyer,
Goethe. Der Zeitbürger, Munich: Hanser 1999, 339–40.
chapter 10
introduction
In the past two decades a new direction has emerged in the interpretation of
Faust ii. While earlier interpreters, like Wilhelm Emrich and Heinz
Schlaffer, produced primarily complex symbolic and allegorical readings,
the commentaries to the new editions of Faust ii by Albrecht Schöne and
Ulrich Gaier illustrate how recent work has focused on material contexts, on
media technology and on the performative character of the theatrical
spectacle.1 Scholars have examined, for example, Goethe’s inter-medial
references to the iconography of the Renaissance masque and seriously
considered the impact of modern media techniques like the panorama,
the laterna magica and its development into the phantasmagoria.2,3 As a
consequence of this new direction in interpretation, the ambiguous, decep-
tive character of certain scenes has gained more significance (FA 1:7.2, 466).
This new interpretive direction has, however, not yet been fully pursued
with regards to the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ in Act 2, even though the
scene begins with a thematization of the media of aesthetic presentation.
Mephistopheles hopes to see ‘as if through ancient casements in the wild and
dismal North, very horrid ghosts’ (7044–6) on the ancient battlefield.4 To his
surprise, however, the medium is deceptive. He feels alienated (7081) by the
masses of suspicious figures that surround him (7757). Yet these ‘throngs’
(7648) serve as a reflective medium for the actions of Faust, Mephistopheles
and Homunculus. Indeed, in their double characteristic as amorphous and
shaped, the masses present a poetical key for the whole spectacle. The
aesthetic category that unites the Janus-facedness of chaos and shape, of
ghost and body, of contourlessness and contour, is the grotesque.
The grotesque has not yet been discussed as an interpretive principle for
the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’, although scholarship has noted the pres-
ence of the element of the grotesque, particularly in descriptions of the
heterogeneous figures and in the contourlessness and deformation of many
138
Goethe and the grotesque 139
figures.5,6 The ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ is usually read by primarily
focusing on Bildung (self-development). Karl Reinhardt’s classic interpre-
tation in the tradition of Ernst Robert Curtius remains representative;7
Arens has recently called it ‘Bildungsdichtung’.8 For Reinhardt, the
‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ unites a collection of humanistic knowledge
with scientific and philosophical thinking, mythic remains gathered from
primarily late sources and pure poetic inspiration, all shimmering with
greater or lesser complexity through a mass of Bildung.9 In fact, the
commentaries by Schöne and Gaier illustrate how the text seems to mention
almost the entirety of knowledge around 1800 (FA 1:7.2, 28–9; FR-II, 12).
In consequence, the discussion of Bildung in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’
has, in the last few years, focused on knowledge; certain grotesque figures
function as personifications of the discourse of knowledge or represent the
sensual demonstration of ‘Bildungswissen’.10,11
I shall show how Goethe, rather than presenting us in the ‘Classical
Walpurgis Night’ with a history of ideas, employs the grotesque to offer us
his own specific story of ghosts, spectres and phantoms as if viewed through
an antique lens. The antique grotesques, ‘fabled shapes’ (7028) of the
imagination, come to life in a very modern, multivalent media-savvy
poetology. My thesis is that although the grotesque was an ambivalent
subject for Goethe, he employs inter-medial references to the ornamental
grotesque to choreograph the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ and plays with a
very radical form of the aesthetic grotesque in Mephistopheles’ experience.
I shall examine this thesis by exploring three questions.
(1) What is Goethe’s understanding of the grotesque?
(2) How does he employ the ornamental grotesque in the ‘Classical
Walpurgis Night’?
(3) What are the consequences of Mephistopheles’ experience of the aes-
thetic grotesque?
mephistopheles’ experience of
the aesthetic grotesque
In Faust’s journey, Goethe employs grotesque figures like the Sphinx and
Chiron as Faust’s interlocutors to explore the possibilities of representation. In
contrast, Mephistopheles’ journey begins with the ethnological clash of the
cultures of southern antiquity and northern modernity, establishing the
experience of the aesthetic grotesque. The antique mythological creatures see
him as the ‘uninvited witch’s son’ (7787) from the north, the ‘nasty one’ (7139)
with the ‘shrivelled horse’s hoof ’ (7150). He in turn experiences the ulteriority
of the ancient ghost world unfiltered and without distance. He ‘wanders’
(7080) aimlessly through the ‘labyrinth of flame’ (7079), initially seating
himself with ironic self-consciousness between two Sphinxes – expressions of
an antique–modern grotesque (7111) – then becoming more and more besieged
Goethe and the grotesque 147
both haptically and phonetically by the antique phenomena. ‘As if intimidated’
(7224) and ‘vexatious’ (7798), Mephistopheles says ‘What I touched gave me
the willies’ (7798). Nevertheless, he gets mixed up against his better judgement
with the Lamiae, who erotically entrap him.
Faced with the unfamiliar, ‘naked’ (7082), lifelike appearance of these
ancient seductresses, Mephistopheles loses his ironic superiority and his
cynical security. Instead of the clear differentiation between the ‘gloomy’
north (6975) and ‘sinful pleasures’ (6974) of the south, he himself experi-
ences the radical anxiety, insecurity and disorientation of the aesthetic
grotesque.45 Indeed, he feels himself totally ‘alienated’ (7081) because he
clearly cannot move adroitly (7329) in the foreign space, in these antique
‘horrifying circles’ (7788).
Left without orientation, the self-confident prancing ‘gallant’ (7764)
metamorphoses into a comically grotesque gawk. Not only does he lose
his way (7800), he also loses his footing. This is related from the perspective
of his ancient seductresses, the Lamiae:
Goethe, however, omitted these lines in the final version, not because
‘poetic metamorphosis’ is generally unrepresentable,52 but because he
wanted to avoid ridiculing the effect of the aesthetic grotesque created by
the imitation of the Phorcydes in mime. Had he allowed this, he would have
shifted to the comic, just as if he had allowed the Sphinxes to see the
transformation of Mephistopheles, as originally planned (P 509). The
desired effect – the comic tipping into horror characteristic of the aesthetic
grotesque – is better achieved by Mephistopheles’ exit lines: ‘Since I must
hide from public view / I’ll go and scare the devils down in hell’ (8032–3).
With this statement, however, the grotesque spiral turns back to the
ornamental. One of the structural elements of the ornamental grotesque
that informs the aesthetic grotesque here is the combination of different
cultures in media.53 Mephistopheles, himself an incarnation of the Nordic
grotesque with his shrivelled horse’s hoof, had experienced the aesthetic
grotesque encountering the grotesque figures of antiquity in the ‘Classical
Walpurgis Night’. But Mephistopheles not only meets Homunculus’ chal-
lenge: ‘Romantic spectres are the only ones you know / But any proper
ghost has to be classical’ (6946–7); he exceeds it when the Nordic devil
mimics antique ugliness. This imitation seemingly erases both the ethno-
logical differentiation of north and south and the gender differentiation
between Mephistopheles as ‘Chaos’ well-loved son’ (8027) and the
Phorcydes as Chaos’ daughters (8028). This is how antique ugliness needs
to be hidden.
However, this means frightening the Nordic devils through Mephistoph-
eles’ mimicry of antique ugliness. Goethe employs the structural potential
of the ornamental grotesque to perpetuate the experience of the aesthetic
grotesque through repetition. Through his use of space, of surprise and
recognition, opposition and unification, Goethe moves the play to another
level of organization. This is seen in the ornamental grotesque in the
invention of festive processions. Going beyond Geoffrey Harpham, Günter
Oesterle reads arabesques as an artificial suspension between the modus of
the ornamentation and the modus of the image, which changes, often with
unnoticeable transitions from one dimension to the next. It is a complicated
Goethe and the grotesque 151
interplay of creative factors that demand and hinder illusions. Oesterle
emphasizes the arbitrary yet calculating transition from one method of
representation to the other, from one logic of perception to the other.54
Mephistopheles’ plan to scare his Nordic compatriots provides the transi-
tion banishing the aesthetic grotesque by exploring the ornamental grotes-
que and its metamorphic integration into the arabesque in the experiences
of Homunculus.
conclusion
Throughout his life, Goethe had and expressed a great interest in and
ambivalent relationship to the arabesque and the grotesque. He admired
the artistic and ludistic potential of the grotesque, but was at the same time
alarmed by its character as a boundary phenomenon of the artistic. In the
Propyläen he even speaks of the arabesque as ‘sins of antiquity’ (FA 1:18). As a
reaction to the alarming disquiet of the grotesque, one can ascertain moves
to integrate it or at least to theoretically attenuate it. Is this also true for the
‘Classical Walpurgis Night’?
While working on Faust ii, Goethe allowed himself to be inspired by
collections of images from the Renaissance on the one hand and on the
other by the masques which he himself organized at the Weimar court. We
can see this inspiration – if not in the iconographical details, then in the
overall composition of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’, the dramatic con-
frontation of Nordic and antique ghost worlds, the persiflage of humanistic
Bildungs-knowledge, the sequence of figures, and finally the meandering
ramble, the ‘Schweifen’.
The ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’, however, does not consist only of the
grotesque representation of the conflict of cultures between the ancient and
the Nordic ghost worlds. The three adventurers experience three quite
different ‘marvels’ (7069).55 There is first the world of Faust, for whom
the grotesque appearance of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ reduces itself to
the colossal and the archaic heroic. There is, on the other side,
Homunculus, who does not experience his process of becoming as a
grotesque phenomenon, since it is appropriate to the process of metamor-
phosis found in nature. These two world-views – Faust’s world-vision
filtered through memory and the world of arabesque and metamorphosis
appropriate to evolution for Homunculus – are not grotesque. Both are
interwoven as bodies of text by the grotesque confrontation of the Nordic
with the ancient world of ghosts. But, for both, this world of the grotesque is
highly selective, in that it limits itself to the non-ugly. Thus one could first
152 angela c. borchert
consider this a classicist cushioning of the grotesque. But this is only true to
a limited extent. Incited by the polemic confrontation with the Romantic,
Goethe dares to create a grotesque figure that surpasses the Romantic
grotesque. The antique grotesque chaos is in its hermaphroditic mixture
of shapelessness and ugliness larger than the Nordic grotesque.
The potential of the antique grotesque proved to be significant. We can
trace its far-reaching effect into the twentieth-century controversy about a
non-Eurocentric, non-Nordic grotesque. When Ernst Bloch reviews Carl
Einstein’s programmatic work Negerplastik (1915), he demands that an ulterior
grotesque be developed similar to the Australian aboriginal grotesques. Bloch
characterizes these as ‘extinct sins, before which the vilest phantasies are
mute’, and thus echoes Mephistopheles’ surprise at the sight of the
Phorcydes: ‘Can one who sees this monstrous trinity / Still find the vilest
forms of sin / In any way repulsive?’ (7973–5).56 Goethe’s antique grotesque
becomes one key to an aesthetic conception of modernity.
notes
1. Wilhelm Emrich, Die Symbolik von Faust ii. Sinn und Vorformen, 5th edn,
Königstein: Athenäum, 1981; Heinz Schlaffer, Faust Zweiter Teil. Die Allegorie
des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1981; Albrecht Schöne, Faust.
Kommentare, Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, 1994; Ulrich
Gaier, Kommentar, Faust ii, in Goethe. Faustdichtungen, Stuttgart: Reclam,
1999; cited as FR-II.
2. Jane K. Brown, Goethe’s Faust. The German Tragedy, Ithaca: Cornell University
Press, 1986, 156–62.
3. Helmut Schanze, Goethes Dramatik. Theater der Erinnerung, Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 1989, 179–82.
4. All further references to Faust are by line number from FT. Stuart Atkins’ 1984
translation of Faust ii is referenced, modified if necessary. Apart from Faust ii, all
translations are mine.
5. Hans Arens, Kommentar zu Goethes Faust ii, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag,
1989, 417; Schanze, Goethes Dramatik, 184; Steffen Schneider, ‘Mnemonische
Imaginationen in Goethes Faust ii. Eine Lektüre der Klassischen
Walpurgisnacht’, Goethe-Jahrbuch 119 (2002), 77; Luciano Zagari, ‘Natur und
Geschichte. Metamorphotisches und Archetypisches in der Klassischen
Walpurgisnacht’, in Bausteine zu einem neuen Goethe, ed. Paolo Chiarini,
Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1987, 156.
6. Zagari, ‘Natur und Geschichte’, 179.
7. Ernst Robert Curtius, Europäische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter, Tübingen:
Francke Verlag, 1948; Karl Reinhardt, ‘Die klassische Walpurgisnacht. Entstehung
und Bedeutung’, in Tradition und Geist. Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. Carl
Becker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, 309–56.
Goethe and the grotesque 153
8. Arens, Kommentar, 406.
9. Reinhardt, ‘Die klassische Walpurgisnacht’, 309–10.
10. Schneider, ‘Mnemonische Imaginationen’, 77.
11. Schanze, Goethes Dramatik, 184.
12. Wolfgang Kayser, Das Groteske. Seine Gestaltung in Malerei und Dichtung,
Tübingen: Stauffenburg Verlag, 2004; see also Dominique Iehl, ‘Goethe et le
grotesque’, Litteratures 12 (1985), 95–106; Peter Firchow, ‘Conrad, Goethe and
the German Grotesque’, Comparative Literature Studies 13 (1976), 60–74.
Oesterle’s edition of Kayser’s Das Groteske provides an up-to-date bibliography
of scholarship (xxxi–lii).
13. Kayser, Das Groteske, 32.
14. Ibid., 472–94.
15. Ibid., 20–9.
16. The grotesque is a form of antique ornamental pattern found first in excava-
tions in Rome in Nero’s Domus Aurea after 1480. With the discovery of
Herculaneum in 1738 and Pompeii in 1748, the great interest in the grace and
brilliance of the antique arabesque and grotesque plant and animal ornamen-
tation developed into a decorative fashion across Europe. The ornamentation
permeated everyday culture and the culture of festivities. See Elisheva Rosen,
‘Grotesk’, trans. Jörg W. Rademacher and Maria Kopp, in Ästhetische
Grundbegriffe. Historisches Wörterbuch in sieben Bänden, ed. Karlheinz Bark
et al., Weimar: Metzler, 2001, ii, 881; Günter Oesterle, ‘Arabeske, Schrift und
Poesie in E. T. A. Hoffmanns Kunstmärchen “Der Goldne Topf”’, Athenäum.
Jahrbuch für Romantik 1 (1991), 273.
17. Kayser, Das Groteske, 22.
18. Günter Oesterle, ‘Zur Intermedialität des Grotesken’, introd. to Kayser, Das
Groteske, xviii. Mikhail Bakhtin’s conception of the grotesque is developed on
the basis of the work of François Rabelais (1494–1553), whose Pantagruel can be
read as an intertext to the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. See John R. Williams,
‘The Flatulence of Seismos. Goethe, Rabelais and the “Geranomachia”’,
Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift 64 (1983), 106–10. However, the inter-
medial component is lacking from the outset in Bakhtin’s conception of the
grotesque.
19. Kayser, Das Groteske, 55.
20. Ibid., 50–1.
21. Andreas Gipper, ‘Von wirklichen und eingebildeten Monstren. Über die Rolle
der Imagination in Diderots Lettre sur les aveugles’, in Historische Anthropologie
und Literatur, ed. Rudolf Behrens and Roland Galle, Würzburg: Königstein &
Neumann, 1995, 167.
22. Elise von Keudell, Goethe als Benutzer der Weimarer Bibliothek. Ein Verzeichnis
der von ihm entliehenen Werke, Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachf., 1931, 350, 354.
23. Keudell, Goethe als Benutzer, 324.
24. Karl Philipp Moritz, Götterlehre oder mythologische Dichtungen der Alten, ed.
Horst Günther, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1999, 23.
25. Keudell, Goethe als Benutzer, 426, 442.
154 angela c. borchert
26. Ibid., 285–6, 331–2.
27. See Arens, Kommentar, 405.
28. Reinhardt, ‘Die klassische Walpurgisnacht’, 314; Dorothea Hölscher-
Lohmeyer, Faust und die Welt. Der 2. Teil der Dichtung. Eine Anleitung zum
Lesen des Textes, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1975, 206–77; Arens, Kommentar, 561–2.
29. FR-II, 801.
30. Carsten-Peter Warncke, Die ornamentale Groteske in Deutschland. 1500–1650,
Berlin: Spiess, 1979, 28–53.
31. See Roswitha Schieb, ‘Probentagebuch’, in Peter Stein inszeniert Faust, ed.
Roswitha Schieb, Cologne: DuMont, 2000, 144–51.
32. Warncke, Die ornamentale Groteske, 20–78.
33. Ibid., 54–5, 78, 82, 86–7.
34. Frances Barasch, The Grotesque. A Study in Meanings, The Hague: Mouton,
1971, 40. In fact, the word ‘grotesque’ only begins to replace ‘antique’ or
‘anticke’ in sixteenth-century England at the time when Christopher Marlowe
(1564–93) published his Doctor Faustus. ‘Faustian grotesquerie’ produces an ‘old
comic chill’ in ‘ludicrously horrifying situations’ (Barasch, The Grotesque, 47).
The term ‘antiquus’ is furthermore an adjective for the Christian devil, whose
protean characteristics link him to the antique representation of chaos. See
Rainer Lengeler, Tragische Wirklichkeit als groteske Verfremdung bei Shakespeare,
Cologne: Böhlau, 1964, 25–7.
35. Stuart Atkins, ‘Goethe, Aristophanes and the “Classical Walpurgisnacht”’,
Comparative Literature 6 (1954), 76.
36. Friedrich Piel, Die Ornament-Groteske in der Italienischen Renaissance. Zu ihrer
kategorialen Struktur und Entstehung, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1962, 79–83.
37. See Reinhardt, ‘Die klassische Walpurgisnacht’, 355; Thomas Gelzer,
‘Aristophanes in der Klassischen Walpurgisnacht’, in J. W. Goethe. Fünf
Studien zum Werk, ed. Anselm Maler, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1983, 80;
Andreas Anglet, ‘Der reflektierte Mythos in Goethes “Klassischer
Walpurgisnacht”’, Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts 32 (1992), 142–4.
38. See FR-II, 729–31.
39. Warncke, Die ornamentale Groteske, 87.
40. Anglet, ‘Der reflektierte Mythos’, 153, 159; Arens, Kommentar, 403; Zagari,
‘Natur und Geschichte’, 161.
41. See Kayser, Das Groteske, 24.
42. Katharina Mommsen argues that Faust experiences the ‘Classical Walpurgis
Night’ as a dream. See Natur- und Fabelreich in Faust ii, Berlin: Walter de
Gruyter, 1968, 117; Luciano Zagari calls it a voyage into collective memory
(163–4). Gaier’s Kantian approach considers Faust to be split between repro-
ductive imagination (memory) and productive imagination (dreams) (FR-II,
669), allowing the focus to move to perception.
43. With regards to the plan that Faust would encounter Medusa (P 449), and with
it new forms of the grotesque, please see Chapter 11 in this volume.
44. Mommsen, Natur- und Fabelreich, 119.
45. See Kayser, Das Groteske, 36.
Goethe and the grotesque 155
46. FR-II, 748–9.
47. Kayser, Das Groteske, 199.
48. The more common interpretation is that an actual mask is created, so that
Mephistopheles puts on a mask like an antique actor (Anglet, ‘Der Reflektierte
Mythos’, 139) or creates a mask by his own mimicry (FR-II, 670).
49. See Oesterle, ‘Intermedialität’, xxi.
50. Angela Borchert, ‘Grotesque’, in Feminist Encyclopedia of German Literature,
ed. Friederike Eigler and Susanne Kord, London: Greenwood Press, 1997, 221.
51. Kayser, Das Groteske, 203.
52. Friedmann Harzer, ‘“Hinweg zu Proteus!” Goethes “Poetische Meta-
morphosen” in der Klassischen Walpurgisnacht’, in Goethe nach 1999. Positionen
und Perspektiven, ed. Matthias Luserke, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2001, 36.
53. Oesterle, ‘Intermedialität’, xx.
54. Oesterle, ‘Arabeske, Schrift und Poesie’, 90–3.
55. See Arens, Kommentar, 415.
56. Ernst Bloch, ‘Negerplastik’, in Die Argonauten. Eine Monatsschrift, ed. Ernst
Blass, Heidelberg: Verlag von Richard Weissbach, 7 (1915), 10–20. The exact
quotations are, for Bloch, ‘ausgestorbene Sünden, von denen selbst die ver-
worfensten Phantasien [. . .] versagen’ (13) and, for Goethe, does one find
‘urverworfenen Sünden / Im mindesten noch häßlich / Wenn man dies
Dreigetüm erblickt?’ (7973–5).
chapter 11
This chapter enquires into the image of antiquity which Goethe employed
in order to come to terms with the experience, central to his age, that the
horrors of history seem not to decline over time but to increase. Classicism
generally assumes not only that antiquity represents the aesthetic model for
modernity, it also offers an ideal of human perfection that modernity must
emulate. The classicist understanding of artistic representation prevalent in
Goethe’s time was, however, challenged by the apparent failures of two
tenets of philosophical thought: the striving after human perfection, and the
humanism of the optimistic Enlightenment. If the underlying picture of
antiquity was to serve as an artistic mirror of even the most advanced
aesthetic, political and social problems of the age, it would have to incor-
porate the historical resistance to the Enlightenment’s very concept of
humanity. Goethe experienced the nineteenth century not as increasingly
humane but, on the contrary, as increasing in its horrors. In the paralipo-
mena to Faust ii, he captured this experience in an image that gave an
ancient myth a striking modernity: the image of the incessantly growing
Medusa. The picture of antiquity he developed in the second and third
acts can be understood as an aesthetic attempt to adapt classicism to the
historical realization that the growing Medusa could not in his time be
stopped. The first part of this chapter locates the Medusa image in the
original conception of Faust ii ; the second part describes the conception of
history implied by this image and its consequences for Goethe’s under-
standing of antiquity as he develops it in his play.
In the paralipomena to the second act of Faust ii, Goethe sketched an
‘aesthetics of horror’ up to a point the surpassing or transgressing of which
would have literally brought about the death of the audience. In 1827,
Goethe decided to publish the completed third act of Faust ii in volume iv
of the Ausgabe letzter Hand under the title Helena, klassisch-romantische
156
Re-defining classicism 157
Phantasmagorie. Goethe was therefore obliged to explain how the plot
of this ‘interlude to Faust’ related to the already published Part i.
On 15 December 1826, he sketched a short introductory note to the
Phantasmagoria based on several brief drafts for the second act that
he had written a month previously. In this sketch, he detailed for the
first time the plot and motifs of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. Just two
days later, on 17 December, he revised and greatly expanded this intro-
duction, adding several important scenes. These drafts and introductions,
with a teeming abundance of characters and episodes, were created in
just six weeks (readers are seldom given the opportunity to follow so
closely Goethe’s creativity in actu). Goethe decided to confront Faust
and Mephistopheles with ‘all the monsters of antiquity’ (P 123C, 442).
Here, his creativity, supported by all his knowledge of antiquity, advanced
with obvious pleasure to areas it had hitherto carefully avoided. Following
the principle of escalation, Goethe wanted to increase the horror in the
second act. The act takes the audience from Wagner’s laboratory via the
dark moonlit fields of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ to Hades, where
Faust, as a ‘second Orpheus’, pleads with Proserpina for the release of
Helena (P 123B, 430). In December 1830, Goethe finally abandoned this
concept, when Galatea’s maritime celebration of life and love replaced
Proserpina’s realm of the dead.
Already in the earliest version of his introductory note, Goethe developed
the panoply of the ‘monsters of antiquity’ which Faust and Mephistopheles
would meet in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ (P 123B, 426). What Faust
would have encountered in Hades, however, if he had come to ‘Proserpina’s
throne’ is only vaguely suggested (P 123B, 430). This was certainly due to the
absence of literary precedents for the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’; the image
of the journey to Hades, by contrast, had been prepared by literary tradi-
tion. By using the key phrase ‘second Orpheus’, Goethe had already given
sufficient clues as to how he intended to elaborate the Hades scene, namely,
as the finale of an opera enriched with ‘boundless incidences’. But he must
have quickly realized that the enrichment of the Hades scene by these
‘boundless incidents’ would pose a genuine artistic problem. The under-
world of the nineteenth century could no longer be what it had been under
the ancien régime; the well-ordered movements of a Gluck-like ballet of
furies could no longer offer an aesthetically plausible image of Hades in a
world full of political strife and social conflict, revolutions and wars. So, in
the few hours he had in the two days between the first and second versions
of his introductory note, Goethe worked both on emphasizing the ‘tumult’
(P 123C, 444) of the ancient ‘monsters’ (P 123B, 426) and on grappling with
158 ernst osterkamp
the task of visualizing the horror that awaits Faust on his way to the Orcus.
To boost the tumult of the monsters in the ‘Walpurgis Night’ was to
humorously neutralize the threat posed by any individual one. By contrast,
the death that reigned in the underworld created an absolute horror that
could only be captured by an image of the highest existential seriousness;
multiplying the horrors in individual episodes would have meant relativ-
izing each at the same time. In the second version, Goethe therefore
condensed the horrors of Hades into a single picture of absolute terror.
In the text of the introductory note, it was Manto, daughter of Tiresias,
who guided Faust into the underworld:
All of a sudden Manto covers her protégé with the veil and pushes him off the
path against the rocks, such that he fears he will be asphyxiated and die. Upon
uncovering him soon after, she explains this precaution; the head of the Gorgon,
growing bigger and wider with each century, had been coming towards them
through the canyon; Proserpina likes to keep it away from the festive plateau
because the congregated ghosts and monsters, unnerved by its appearance, would
quickly disperse. Manto herself, of much talent, would not dare to look at it; if
Faust had faced it, he would have been destroyed at once, such that, of his body and
soul, nothing would be found again in the universe. (P 123C, 449)
The origin of this vision of absolute horror, unequalled anywhere in Goethe’s
oeuvre, has of course long been known to philologists: it is the ninth Canto of
Dante’s Inferno. What Odysseus, in the Nekyia episode of the Odyssey, merely
feared – that Proserpina would send the horrendous Gorgon to meet
him1 – is actually experienced by Dante. When Dante suddenly encoun-
ters the Medusa, it is Virgil who covers his eyes:
‘Turn thyself round, and keep thine eyes closed shut,
For if the Gorgon appear, and thou shouldst see it,
No more returning upward would there be.’
Thus said the Master; and he turned me round
Himself, and trusted not unto my hands
So far as not to blind me with his own.2
To convey the horror of the ancient Hades, Goethe returned to the
imaginary inventory of a Christian epic that was otherwise alien to him,
an epic that had created a vision of the horrors of the Christian hell by
populating it even with demons of antiquity. Thus the Medusa, mytho-
logically enriched with the terrible suffering depicted in the Inferno, enters
Goethe’s Hades. Goethe pushed Dante’s imaginary world, however, to a
poetic extreme that was supported neither by ancient myth nor by
Christian theology; instead, it responded to his experience of his own
Re-defining classicism 159
historical age. This extremity of horror was physically transferred to
Faust’s experience in the presence of the Medusa, even though he never
actually sees her himself. In fact, throughout the entire play, Faust never
comes as close to a violent death as in this unwritten scene.
Goethe heightened the horror of the Medusa in a threefold manner.
Whereas Dante integrated the Gorgon into the Inferno’s well-organized
apparatus of suffering, Goethe isolated her from the other mythological
figures, the ‘ghosts and monsters’ (P 123C, 449). Among the monsters she
has no equal. Were she to appear, she would disrupt at once the festivities of
the ‘Walpurgis Night’. The horror she emanates is absolute, not relative.
Secondly, whereas in ancient mythology the look of the Medusa turns
those she sees into stone, so that the living body becomes a dead sculpture
and is immortalized, the look of Goethe’s Gorgon has the power of
ultimate destruction, approaching the effects of a nuclear bomb. It dis-
solves body and soul into nothingness. This is no longer the ancient
Medusa, but a highly modern force of destruction, equipped with the
annihilating aim of a laser gun that eliminates not only the individual, but
also any concept of the individual. Thirdly, although the devastating
powers of the Medusa are already beyond comprehension, her destructive
potential continues to grow. This vision of horror, created when Goethe
was 27 years old, is eternally expanded and drawn into a totalizing
perspective – when Manto observes that the head of the Gorgon has
been ‘growing bigger and wider with each century’. Goethe’s imagery
was seldom closer than it was here to a fundamental historical pessimism.
Proserpina may have been keeping the Gorgon in Hades, but the Medusa
is vigorously pushed forward into the canyon that leads from the under-
world into the dark fields of history, fields that would be depicted as
battlefields in the second act of Faust ii. This mythical picture suggests
that the destructive horror of the Medusa cannot be kept at bay by the
Enlightenment; it grows uncontrollably, and with it grows the sum of
historical destruction that endangers not just bodies, but souls. It comes as
no surprise, then, that even Faust is scared to death, for any pact with the
devil will seem harmless in comparison with an annihilating power that
develops its destructive potential independently of all contractual rationality.
None of the changes Goethe made to Dante’s invention are explained by the
mythological tradition; nor do we find a draft for those changes in Goethe’s
most important source for mythological knowledge, namely, Benjamin
Hederich’s Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon. The changes are understand-
able, I am suggesting, only as a response by Goethe to his experience of his
own historical times.
160 ernst osterkamp
That Faust’s encounter with the Medusa is crucial for Goethe’s under-
standing of the journey to Hades is further evidenced in the few lines he
actually sketches of their encounter. We hear Faust asking, ‘Why are you
covering me in your coat? And pushing me violently off the path,’ and
Manto answering, ‘I’m saving you from greater harm. / Honour wise
guidance’ (P 161, 531). It is difficult to know how Goethe actually envisaged
the theatrical realization of this encounter with the Medusa. The drafts
suggest only that Faust was to be in the immediate vicinity of her. Goethe
may have planned to let her appear on stage, just as many decades before he
had staged the Earth Spirit. This possibility is further supported by another
paralipomenon from Goethe’s hand that is connected to the scene when
Faust sees ‘something giant and long’ protruding from the dark (P 160, 530).
That Goethe might have wanted this would have meant that the audience
would have suffered what Faust was spared having to face: the petrifying
image of the Medusa. This highlights how radical Goethe’s idea was: in
meeting this mythical picture of absolute horror, the audience would have
been confronted with the ever-growing horror of history from which one
cannot turn one’s gaze. It is suggestive that Goethe envisaged the encounter
in the Hades scene with Proserpina, Queen of the Underworld, very differ-
ently. Two drafts for the second act, dictated in February and June 1830,
show that while the horrible head of the Medusa appears on stage, the
figure of Proserpina always remains veiled (P 125, 510; P 157, 525). The first
draft indicates the reasons for this: ‘Head of the Medusa / Proserpina veiled /
Manto celebrating her beauty’ (P 125, 510). Proserpina is veiled because she
is beautiful, yet beauty has no place in the underworld; hence Proserpina
reveals her beauty only when she returns periodically from the underworld
to the light of day. In the draft for the Hades scene, Goethe casts Medusa
and Proserpina as contrasting figures. The horrors of the inferno appear
with all their power, while beauty hides itself. Yet Hades is the place where
Helena is also housed, so that Medusa and Helena, absolute horror and
absolute beauty, can be seen as contrasting figures. Proserpina and Helena
both show that the earthly existence of beauty is only of short duration, that
beauty must eventually return to the underworld. Horror, however, con-
tinually grows, and there is no Perseus in sight to halt its destructive force.
Towards the end of 1830, Goethe decided to finish the ‘Walpurgis Night’
act not with Faust’s journey to Hades, but rather with Galatea’s maritime
festivities. As a result, the appearance of the Medusa was dropped, and with
it a motif that was meant to connect the ‘Walpurgis Night’ of Faust i
significantly with the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. In the German
‘Walpurgis Night’, Faust encounters ‘a pale, lovely girl’ (4184) with ‘the
Re-defining classicism 161
eyes of someone dead’ (4195).3 To stop Faust from recognizing that the girl
is an image of the dead Gretchen, Mephistopheles pretends that it is really
the ‘magic image’ (4190) of the Medusa:
Ihm zu begegnen ist nicht gut;
Vom starren Blick erstarrt des Menschen Blut,
Und er wird fast in Stein verkehrt,
Von der Medusa hast du ja gehört. (4191–4)
It is dangerous to meet up with it;
Its stare congeals a person’s blood
And almost turns him into stone –
You’ve surely heard about Medusa!
Mephistopheles is right about both Faust and Goethe – both would have
‘abominated’ such images in times past. At the time of the Propyläen,
when Goethe wrote the first draft of the Helena act as a ‘Satirical Drama’
with the title ‘Helena im Mittelalter’ (Helena in the Middle Ages), his
classicism combined the notion of Gestalt with principles of internal law
and harmony. The notion of form thus coincides with the notion of ideal
beauty. In the 1798 introduction to the Propyläen, Goethe wrote:
‘Comparative anatomy has united all organic natures under one idea; it
leads us from form to form, and while we contemplate near or far-removed
natures, we rise above them all, to see their individualities in one ideal’
(MA 6:2, 15).6 The aesthetic classicism implied here was intended to force
upon the human figure more beautiful proportions, ‘the nobler forms, the
higher characters’, and stay within ‘the circle of symmetry, excellence,
significance and perfection’ (MA 6:2, 17).7 From this perspective, the irreg-
ular, the ugly and the repulsive conflicted with the notion of Gestalt. During
and after his classicist decade, Goethe’s conception of Gestalt was dominated
by a notion of ideal beauty that he drew from antiquity. He went so far as to
say that German artists who are unable to draw on ancient art or copies of
such art would find ‘the transition from the Formless to Form . . . hard, nay
almost impossible’ (MA 6:2, 19).8
164 ernst osterkamp
In the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’, the situation changed fundamentally.
Among the panoply of mythological figures which Goethe ordered onto the
stage, one certainly looks in vain for beautiful proportions and noble shapes,
regularity and perfection; we do not see these again until we reach the final
scene, ‘Rocky Inlets of the Aegean Sea’. And yet, in their ultimate ugliness
and irregularity, these creatures embody the grandeur and liveliness, i.e., the
very characteristics of the forms that Goethe, in his classicist period,
attributes to ideal beauty. Thus Mephistopheles’ objection that ‘Time was
you’d have abominated shapes like these / Yet now you seem to thrive on
them’ is completely justified.
What has changed here? Did Goethe give up his classicist credo to
propound in Faust ii a romantic aesthetics of ugliness? This is unlikely,
not least because, if that had been his intention, he would have avoided the
world of antiquity altogether. Instead, both the second and third acts are
dominated by the encounter of modernity with the figures of antiquity.
Goethe radically expands the range of characters drawn from antiquity to
reach beyond the scope of ideal beauty. He reveals the fundamental change
in the relation of modernity to antiquity and by doing so redefines his
classicism. This change was a necessary response to something apparently
urgent in Goethe’s view, the fact that in his artistic endeavours he had to
accommodate his contemporary historical experience, the sort of experi-
ence, I have been arguing, that he put into the image of the Medusa.
During the classical decade, Goethe’s classicism was primarily founded
on Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s work, which idealized Ancient Greece.
Yet Goethe also paid close attention to, and absorbed into his work, the
rapid advances and conclusions of contemporary archaeology. Despite
the strongly normative component that remained part of Goethe’s art
criticism until his death, the concept of antiquity he used was dynamic
and flexible, caught up, as it was, in the tensions between classicist
aesthetics and aesthetic historicism. Goethe remained surprisingly faithful
to the maxim that ‘we are to depart as little as possible from classical
ground’ (MA 6:2, 9),9 the maxim he offered in the introduction to the
Propyläen. But the archaeological ground was rapidly expanding and being
restructured; its excavation led to many surprising discoveries. Goethe
profited enormously from this expansion; it deeply affected the under-
standing of the classics during the early decades of the new century. One
could almost think of the ‘classical ground’ Goethe did not want to
depart from as volcanic terrain; and yet Goethe, the anti-volcanist, stood
steadfast on the shifting ground, continuously enriching his image of
classical antiquity with the newest discoveries.
Re-defining classicism 165
Goethe was remarkably open to any new finding or discovery, even if it
contradicted his aesthetic maxims. He stood in sharp contrast to dogmatic
classicists like Johann Heinrich Voß, who focused on Homer and the
autonomy of Greek mythology and wanted to maintain the purity of the
classical ground. In his battle with Friedrich Creuzer’s romantic investi-
gation of myths, Voß declared that all images of demons with wings,
grimaces and mixed imagery were post-classical signs of aesthetic decline.10
Goethe was willing, rather, to adapt his principles to the findings, so that
his Greece of 1830 could not be what it had been in 1800.11 Following
the archaeological advances, Goethe began to see Greece as more archaic
and historical than he had hitherto; his view, one might say, became less
idealized and more scientific or empirical. Goethe must have been pleased
with this development: the more scientific approach to Greece accorded
well with Winckelmann’s general research programme.
The new archaeological surveys of the classical ground shaped the aes-
thetic form of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. In its textual landscape, one
finds both an archaic and a historical terrain; each of the ‘ugly and fantastic’
ancient monsters that return, if not to light then at least to life, demonstrate
the depths of their archaic existence. Yet they also accord with modern
archaeological knowledge. No surprise is it then that these figures are all
ironists, for how else could one bridge the gap between the archaic and the
modern consciousness of being archaic? The ancient ghosts are, on the one
hand, timeless, like archaic pre-classical myths; on the other hand, they are
historical through and through, because philology has finally come to
recognize them as the archaic pre-classical, and, as they are not time-
bound, they are completely aware of being identified as archaic. ‘Our line
died out before her time’ (7197) is how the Sphinxes respond to Faust’s
question about Helena, which is to say, self-reflexively and conscious of
their historical position. On the other hand, Chiron, when confronted with
Faust’s bookish knowledge about Helena’s age, offers a sharp aside about
the ‘philologists’ (7426) and insists on the timelessness of myths protected
by the creative power of poetry: ‘poets ignore constraints of time’ (7433).
This double character of the ancient monsters, their archaic timelessness
and historical self-consciousness, means that Faust and Mephisto must
struggle to position themselves in the ironic textual landscape of the
‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. Without a guide, they would be lost. But if
the archaic and the historical jointly define the landscape of the ‘Classical
Walpurgis Night’, there is no room in it for the classical notion of ideal
beauty: in the second act, Proserpina only appears behind veils, while
Helena has no place at all.
166 ernst osterkamp
For Goethe, the ‘ugly and the fantastic’, the ‘repulsive’ and demonic
cannot be expelled from the classical ground in the way Voß suggested;
instead, all of Goethe’s efforts aim aesthetically at integrating the counter-
classical moment into the classical. This is consistent with the high accord the
fine arts find in Goethe’s image of antiquity. Winckelmann’s notion of ideal
beauty was shaped by the canon of sculptures from the fourth century bc that
were passed on to Goethe’s contemporaries through Roman copies of the
Greek originals. This notion, however, became indefensible in the face of
the discoveries, publications and exhibitions of Greek originals – the
Parthenon sculptures, the Bassae temple frieze in London, the archaic
Aegines in Munich, to mention only the most prominent examples.
However great Goethe’s misgivings were about the aesthetic appearances of
some of these works, he was always willing in the end to modify his judge-
ment and accept the empirical evidence. In a conversation with Eckermann
on 21 February 1831, in which Eckermann praised him for the ‘Sharply
outlined individualities’ of the ghosts, Goethe acknowledged the importance
of the fine arts for his conception of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. Here one
sees that Goethe’s judgement is derived from new evidence he has of
antiquity’s artworks. ‘Without a life-long interest in the fine arts, Goethe
said, this would have been impossible for me’ (MA 19, 417). Using the ancient
artworks as examples, his mythological monsters now gain their plastic
physicality. They gain a sensual presence and precisely the same ‘ahnungs-
vollste Gestalt’ (most ominous figure) that Goethe saw and praised in the
Medusa Rondanini. For Goethe, such characteristics differ sharply from the
more formless and amorphous ones of the romantic ghosts of the north.
Goethe underscored the point to Eckermann on 24 January 1830, stating that
for the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ he chose only those mythological figures
‘that made the right kind of figurative impression’ (MA 19, 535). ‘Figurative’
refers here to the fully formed bodily presence that the arts of antiquity gave
to all mythical figures, and through which Goethe was able to integrate the
‘ugly and fantastic’ into his dramatic universe. As he said to Eckermann on
21 March 1830: ‘I have striven to show everything in clear outline, in the
ancient sense; and that nothing vague, uncertain be present that may be
agreeable to the romantic method’ (MA 19, 367).
Goethe’s guidance from antiquity was not limited to his depiction of
individual mythological characters; he also tried to find ways to expand the
canon of representation, to include the ugly and the repulsive, without
abandoning the examples set by antiquity. Goethe’s ‘Letter to Counsellor
and Director Sickler’, written in 1812, is particularly important for under-
standing Faust ii. Here, Goethe develops an iconographic interpretation of a
Re-defining classicism 167
three-piece stucco relief which Sickler had found in 1809 in a tomb near
Cumae. Two of the reliefs show a woman dancing before an audience,
although the backdrops in each differ; the third depicts three skeletons also
in a dancing pose. Goethe regarded the reliefs as the plastic decoration of the
tomb of a female dancer. In the first picture, she is a beautiful young woman
who is the ‘crowning attraction at a banquet’; in the second, she performs a
sort of death dance ‘in the dismal realm of the lemurs’; finally, in the third,
she is in the underworld. Here she has regained her beautiful body and
dances in tragic poses (MA 9, 621).12 Goethe became intensely interested in
the reliefs again in October 1831 when better copies were made available.
The lemurs of the final act, ‘patched-together, half-live creatures / Of sinew,
ligament and bone’ (11513–14), were particularly vivid reminders of the
influence the piece would have on Goethe’s conception of Faust ii. For
our purposes, the most important consequence of this case was the aesthetic
conclusions which Goethe drew from the relief, for they contrasted strongly
with the classicism of the Propyläen, which had demanded that art be
exclusively guided by the classical notion of ideal beauty. In his letter to
Sickler, Goethe thus wrote:
Art, which is god-like in that it ennobles and elevates, will not reject the repulsive
and the loathsome. It is here where it will exert its divine prerogative. But it has only
one way of doing so: art can only master ugliness by treating it comically. Zeuxis
comes to mind, who is said to have died from laughter at his supremely ugly
rendering of Hecuba. (MA 9, 624)
Faust’s author was sticking to the maxim, borrowed from antiquity, that
through the comic even ugliness can be subjected to the ‘divine prerogative’
of ‘god-like’ art. He did not die of laughter while he wrote the ‘Classical
Walpurgis Night’; and yet, this act, populated by the ugliest creatures that
appear anywhere in his oeuvre, is one of the merriest of Goethe’s texts. In
Faust, humour, satire and irony became the means to integrate ugliness into
art. The principles of representation that shape ancient artworks, such as the
Medusa Rondanini and the reliefs from Cumae, expand Goethe’s classicism
to allow it to assimilate unbeautiful works of art. These works stand outside
the classical canon. Their force rests on two features: on the one hand,
on the plasticity of form that the monsters display and, on the other hand,
on the transformation of the ugly by the comical. Goethe’s maxim to
‘depart as little as possible from classical ground’ gives him licence to
incorporate into the classical the ugly and the repulsive. Throughout,
Goethe was fully aware that the continuous expansion of the classical
paradigm and the increasing historicizing of ‘classical ground’ which had
168 ernst osterkamp
resulted from the advances of archaeology were going to undermine the
traditional norms of classicism. He fully acknowledged this in his article on
the tomb of the female dancer, and by doing so helped further to historicize
antiquity. ‘Indeed, I must confess that the lemurian jest simply does not
seem genuinely Greek to me. I am more inclined to say it dates back to those
times from which the older and the younger Philostratos got their more or
less fictive stories, their poetic and rhetorical descriptions.’13 The norm of
the ‘genuinely Greek’ is undermined by history; Goethe contributed to this
undermining when, in 1818, he published his version of Philostratos’ third-
century descriptions of a picture gallery. His aim here was to make antiquity
attractive to the young artists who had joined the Romantic camp. Quite
simply, he did this by bringing to their attention pictorial themes from late
antiquity that had put the horrible, discordant and ugly centre stage.14
The tensions between the ‘genuinely Greek’ and the ‘lemurian jest’,
between ideal beauty and ugly form, between norm and history that
Goethe identified in the three reliefs had a real impact on Faust ii. They
appeared as the artistic upshots of an increasingly historicized ‘classical
ground’; he modelled Faust ii on what he had learned. He called the
combination of the three reliefs a ‘humorous stroke of genius from
antiquity, whose magical power interposes a ghostly farce between a
human drama and a spiritual tragedy, interjects a grotesquery between
the beautiful and the sublime’ (MA 9, 624). One could similarly describe
the artistic constellation of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ as a humorous
stroke of genius from antiquity. This scene is the ‘ghostly farce’ between
the ‘human drama’ of the first part of the play and the ‘spiritual tragedy’ of
the Helena act. The ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ is the ‘grotesquery
between the beautiful and the sublime’; it is the humorous intermezzo
that mediates between the historical world of Faust i and the timeless
norm of ideal beauty that briefly appears in the Helena act. Goethe not
only borrowed the humorous integration of the ugly and the repulsive
from the ancient arts, he also took over their modes of representation in
order to achieve a dramatic integration of disparate elements. The second
part of Faust ii is marked by the connection of humane drama and
grotesque tragedy, of mythical and historical action. Although the tragedy
may seem extremely modern, and certainly appears an unlikely instance of
classicism, its author never sensed that he had departed aesthetically or
artistically from the ‘classical ground’.
The role that antiquity plays in Faust ii does not just reveal the internal
dynamics of Goethe’s conception of classicism; as a moment in the history
of theatre, this is also when classicism is finally displaced by historicism. In
Re-defining classicism 169
Faust ii, Goethe borrows from antiquity in the same way contemporary
architecture and painting help themselves to the unlimited reservoir of
past ideas and pictures, of historical material and past styles. Friedrich
Schinkel added a Greek temple façade to his design for a Gothic cathedral;
similarly, in Faust ii, antiquity, the Middle Ages and modernity are so
closely interconnected that archaic monsters can only make themselves
understood if they use the modern idiom of verse rhyme. It is certainly
true that for a very long time historicism did not shed the idea that antiquity
was a particularly privileged period in the history of art and humanity; yet
historicism could not and would not derive a normative conception of art
from this conviction. This is the stylistic attitude expressed in the antiquity
that figures in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ and the Helena act. In Faust,
antiquity is still a happy period for humanity; yet it does not reveal a
standard for future aesthetics; nor does it offer an understanding of ideal
beauty that could be binding. Both aesthetic norms and standards of beauty
submit to the universal pressure towards historicizing the past. One can
thus justifiably say that Faust ii is the greatest poetic masterpiece of aesthetic
historicism.
How does this aesthetic historicism affect the notion of ancient ideal
beauty that had dominated Goethe’s poetic oeuvre and aesthetic thought
for half a century? Could such a notion still influence an age in which the
Medusa grows inexorably, in which ugliness advances from all sides? It is a
sign of the genius of Goethe’s tragedy that it focuses on the situation of
beauty in modern times with an unparalleled analytical clarity. Here, beauty
becomes a phantasmagoria. The ancient notion of ideal beauty and kaloka-
gathia no longer counts as an aesthetically adequate representation of the
ultimate goal of a fulfilled humanity that classicism transposed from the
utopian Ancient Greek past to modernity. At best, these are historical
quotations or residues of classicist dreams. The relation between the
‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ and the Helena act reveals the precarious
situation of classical ideal beauty under conditions of modernity.
When, in 1830, Goethe imagined where the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’
would be set, he did not think of it as a mythical but as a historical Greek
location (the only exception is the final scene in the rocky inlets of the
Aegean Sea, where the mythical creatures transform into symbols of natural
forces). This shift from the mythical to the historical reflects the actual
condition of Greece at the time: as a country, it was no longer defined by the
longings of German artists who, instead of visiting it, consumed its liter-
ature and art. Greece had entered the historical stage. In February 1830, the
political powers of Europe agreed to the constitution of the independent
170 ernst osterkamp
state of Hellas. ‘Realpolitik’ had substituted history for ideals. The play
mirrors the reality insofar as it characterizes the Greece of the ‘Walpurgis
Night’ as a battlefield – as Greece had been a battlefield for more than a
decade in the wars of liberation against the Turks. The first location for the
‘Walpurgis Night’ is the plain near Pharsalus, where in 48 bc the civil war
between Caesar and Pompey was decided. The second location, on the
Peneus, is – incorrectly – described by Chiron as the battlefield where
Macedonians and Romans met in 168 bc: ‘Between the Peneus, on our
right, and on our left, / Olympus, Rome confronted Greece’ (7465).
Ancient Greece is thus rescued from the timelessness of the ideal and
drawn into the movement of history. There, all countries are subject to
the same laws recited at the start of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ by the
Thessalic witch Erichtho:
Wie oft schon wiederholt sich’s! Wird sich immerfort
In’s Ewige wiederholen . . . Keiner gönnt das Reich
Dem Andern, dem gönnt’s keiner der’s mit Kraft erwarb
Und kräftig herrscht. (7012–15)
How often it has been repeated! And it must
Recur eternally. Each wants to rule alone
And, holding power gained through power, neither yields
It to the other.
In these lines, Greece loses its special status as the home of a utopian past;
Ancient Greece disappears in the ‘darkness’ of universal history. Here is an
example of ‘how power always meets some power greater still’ (7019).
The characters that inhabit the landscape of the ideal transformed into
history correspond to this vision of the world. The realistic, historical
ground can no longer give birth to ideal Gestalt, although Goethe can still
bring forth from it the ancient ghosts that remain in tense harmony with the
discoveries of archaeology. These archaic-pre-classical creatures are mythical
virtuosi of disillusionment; they clean out the classical dream of an ideal
beauty that originated on Olympus; they do so all the more easily because
this dream was never dreamt in their mythical realms. They mirror the
expansion of the classical canon that was achieved by historical research into
myths. As a result of the bitter feud between Friedrich Creuzer and
Gottfried Hermann, this research was itself a battlefield, but this made it
all the more impossible to ignore the mythological findings. Archaeology
had made it impossible to limit the representation of Greek antiquity to the
Olympian aristocracy and its beau idéal. More and more layers of myths
came to the surface, and the ever-growing range of mythical creatures from
Re-defining classicism 171
all the different historical layers contributed to the displacement of the
old European ideal of beauty by a pluralistic, historicized aesthetics. Goethe
was aware that this aesthetic development mirrored the simultaneous
political process by which modern republicanism displaced the monarchies.
After all, the revolutionary fervour of July 1830 in France was already in the
air when Goethe had conceived of the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. As
Eckermann noted on 21 February 1831: ‘The old Walpurgis Night, said
Goethe, is monarchical, since the devil is there respected throughout as
a decided leader. But the Classical Walpurgis Night is thoroughly repub-
lican; since all stand equally beside one another, so that each is as prominent
as his associates, and nobody is subordinate to or affected by the rest’
(MA 19, 416).
Historicism’s stylistic pluralism is the aesthetic result of the dis-
placement of monarchy by republicanism. Here, one style is as prominent
and valuable as another; the ‘strange’ (7078) can stand near the ‘ugly
and fantastic’ (7157), the ‘repulsive’ (7182) is on a par with the sensually
pleasurable; anyone can show their own ‘strength and grandeur’ (7182).
The second act of Faust ii prefigures the aesthetic ‘Walpurgis Night’ of the
historicist and bourgeois nineteenth century that had been brought about
both by art history and archaeology and by fundamental political revolu-
tions. Below the surface of the new century, however, Goethe already saw
the Medusa growing.
The third act answers the question of how the beautiful ideal could
survive the stylistic pluralism of historicism and the simultaneous increase
in historical conflict. In the modern age, the classical, and with it the notion
of ideal beauty, turns into phantasmagoria. As the Helena act shows, it takes
a gigantic effort to revive the ancient ideal of beauty under the conditions of
modernity. The effort must be at least as great if we are to keep it alive for
any amount of time against the modern dominance of ugliness exempli-
fied by Mephisto–Phorkyas. Goethe gave the subtitle ‘Classical-Romantic
Phantasmagoria’ to the first edition of the Helena act, and, indeed, the
effect is dreamlike and deceptive when Goethe revives the highest beauty of
antiquity in a Middle Ages that are themselves already a modern phantas-
magoria. All is ‘a dream, and time and space have fled’ (9414) – this is how
Faust puts it at the end of his conversation with Helena, the embodiment of
ideal beauty. And just before the fall of Euphorion, Helena and Faust jointly
ask, ‘Is the joy we share a dream?’ (9883).
In Goethe’s final great work, the classical ideal of beauty, the normative
standard for all the classical ideas of artistic and philosophical renewal,
becomes real – but only as a phantasmagoria. The ideal is conjured up in
172 ernst osterkamp
the play like the central hope that nostalgic lovers do not want to part with,
although they recognize that it is not realizable. In this historic tumult of
stylistic quotations ideal beauty has no chance of survival. Helena, as
representative of ideal beauty, is revived repeatedly by the nostalgic
followers of the classical ideal of humanity who inhabit schools and
universities, theatres and academies; but she has lost her power. The
historical resistance to the realization of the humanistic dreams that
inspires the German classics grows in conjunction with the sum of all
things ugly and repulsive. The dream may be conjured up over and over
again; ultimately it disappears in the Hades of classical proverbs. The
Helena act shows how the dream of ideal beauty, the embodiment of
perfect humanity, descends into the shadowy realm of intellectual pro-
grammes. All the while historical reality follows the completely different
laws that are depicted in Acts 1, 4 and 5 of Faust ii – the laws of economy,
of military might and of technological progress. The dream of realizing the
ideal of humanity gains, in modernity, the reality status of a classical-
romantic phantasmagoria. Helena descends inexorably into the under-
world. And inexorably the Medusa grows.
notes
I would like to thank Daniel Viehoff for his kind help with the translation of this
essay.
1. See Karl Reinhardt, ‘Die klassische Walpurgisnacht. Entstehung und
Bedeutung’, in Tradition und Geist. Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. Carl
Becker, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, 309–56; esp. 312.
2. Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy, trans. Henry Wadsworth Longfellow,
New York: AMS Press, 1966, 61–2.
3. All further references to Faust are by line number from FT.
4. See the accounts in Ernst Grumach, Goethe und die Antike, eine Sammlung,
Potsdam: Walter de Gruyter, 1949, ii, 539–42, and in Max Wegner, Goethes
Anschauung antiker Kunst, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1944, 53 f. The quote from the
thank-you note to the king is taken from Grumach, Antike, ii, 541.
5. Quotation follows Grumach, Antike, ii, 541.
6. Translation follows J. W. Goethe, Essays on Art, trans. Samuel Gray Ward,
Boston: James Munroe and Company, 1845, 9.
7. Ibid., 12.
8. Ibid., 15.
9. Ibid., 2.
10. Johann Heinrich Voß, Antisymbolik, Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler, 1824 and 1826.
See Reinhardt, ‘Die klassische Walpurgisnacht’, 338.
11. For an overview of the change in Goethe’s perception of antiquity leading up to
Faust ii that is still readable today, see Richard Alewyn’s essay ‘Goethe und die
Re-defining classicism 173
Antike’, in his Probleme und Gestalten. Essays, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1982,
255–70.
12. Goethe’s Essays on Art and Architecture, ed. John Gearey, New York: Suhrkamp,
1986, 29 ff.
13. Ibid., 627.
14. See Ernst Osterkamp, Im Buchstabenbilde: Studien zum Verfahren Goethescher
Bildbeschreibungen, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1991, 185–223.
chapter 12
174
Diabolical entrapment 175
able to see with my own eyes the most beautiful manifestations of it, which we only
know from Greek sources (see Herder’s Ideen, vol. iii, 171). I have been able to
observe its physical and moral aspects as an alert observer of nature. It is a subject
that can hardly be talked about, much less written about, so I’ll save it for future
conversations.2
While Goethe seems to explain homosexual love as a replacement for
unavailable heterosexual contacts, and of course takes on the air of a
distanced researcher, complete with a learned reference to his friend
Herder,3 he shows remarkable appreciation of the homosexual scene in
Rome and obvious fascination with it.
This fascination is also apparent among others in his early Weimar circle.
Recall that in his first few months there, Goethe, the 18-year-old duke, Carl
Ludwig von Knebel, Carl von Seckendorff and others staged a full-fledged
revolt against courtly propriety, riding around the countryside raising hell
and sleeping together under the stars in the woods – a more prototypical
male-bonding, homosocial experience can hardly be imagined. The rela-
tionship between Goethe and Carl August was apparently especially inti-
mate and has been described by the psychoanalyst Kurt Eissler as latently
homosexual.4 And a still-unpublished letter of Carl August to Knebel (who
had been the duke’s tutor) shows that homoerotic love must have been
discussed in this group: ‘I want to tell you about a bon mot of
D’Ablancourt: At a certain place Jupiter says of Ganymede: “qu’il vouloit
lui donner dix baisers.” Now, the translator says in a footnote . . .: “il n’y a
dans l’original que deux baisers, mais dix ont plus de force”.’5
Even before he came to Weimar, Goethe had published his famous poem
‘Ganymed’ – although the homoerotic discourse is still rarely mentioned in
commentaries on the poem. Around the same time, Goethe had also written
a nasty satire on Wieland entitled Götter, Helden und Wieland, and here,
alluding to Wieland’s previously mentioned story Juno and Ganymede,
which, as we saw, supposedly provoked a flowering of gay culture in
Germany, Goethe refers obliquely to Wieland as ‘Ganymede’s tutor’
(MA 1:1, 683).6 In the context of the play, this passage seems to have a
mildly homophobic flavour,7 but it also shows the almost casual treatment
of this theme, which is typical for the eighteenth century. The catalogue of
Goethe’s collection of priapic and erotic art and objects (first published in
1992) includes a drawing of a man being penetrated anally by a typical
ancient statue of Priapos. The editors suggest it is a rape scene, consistent
with a tradition of erotic poetry to which Goethe also contributed in the
aforementioned passage of the Römische Elegien. However, the man’s hat
and stick are neatly leaning against the statue, and his arm is wrapped
176 w. daniel wilson
around the statue’s neck, indicating to me that there is nothing here but
consensual anal sex with an immobile priapic statue.
Finally, there is Goethe’s relationship with his male servant, Philipp
Seidel, which was certainly described by Seidel as homoerotic. In a letter
from 1777, at a time when they shared the same bedroom, Seidel writes to a
friend in Frankfurt about Goethe:
Oh if only I could give up my soul in love to this man and were worthy to thank
God, who gives me so much bliss to enjoy with him. Our relationship is just like
that of man and wife. In just this way, I love him and he me, I serve him in this way,
and he exercises just this authority over me. But why do I commit to paper what is a
holy, dear secret?8
The conversation turned to Greek love, Johannes Müller etc. He [Goethe] argued
that this aberration actually was based on the fact that the man, in purely aesthetic
terms, is, after all, much more beautiful, superior, more complete than woman.
Once it had arisen, such a feeling then can easily veer off into the animalistic, the
coarsely material. Pederasty is as old as humanity, and we can therefore say that it is
in nature, although it is against nature.14
The last phrase seems more like a conventional nod at standard mores; the
rhetorical thrust of the entire passage amounts to a defence of Greek love as
natural. The argument from the supposed superior beauty of men – an
ancient topos – suggests, too, that same-sex desire is part of nature, even if
178 w. daniel wilson
the mention of lower animal drives tends to evoke deviance. Central to
Goethe’s view is that this desire, even if it is deviant, is part of nature.
It is important to reinsert this conversation in its historical setting. There is
no indication how the conversation turned to Greek love, but I think that
Paul Derks is right to suggest that it was partly based on the highly public feud
following the known homosexual poet August von Platen’s attack on
Heinrich Heine, and Heine’s reply in the witty but homophobic satire in
Die Bäder von Lucca. (We know that Goethe knew about this conflict, since
he had referred to it a few weeks earlier in a conversation with Eckermann.)15
Thus, in his conversation on ‘Männerliebe’, Goethe took up the cause of
homosexuality when it was under massive attack. Those attacks had begun in
earnest in 1807, not only in response to Goethe’s championing of
Winckelmann in his essay of 1805, but in a politically charged campaign
against the supposedly treasonous homosexual Johannes Müller, who seemed
to support Napoleon’s rule after the end of the old empire in 1806. The
attacks on Müller, one of the most celebrated historians of his day, were
venemous, for the first time bringing nationalism to bear on the interpreta-
tion of homosexuality (at the same time, incidentally, when antisemitism also
took on a particularly modern virulence). Goethe not only defended Müller
(though without mentioning the issue of Greek love), he also befriended and
supported him when the historian visited Weimar.
It is clear, I hope, from all this evidence that Goethe had a very broad-
minded attitude towards ‘Greek love’, having befriended one of its adher-
ents (Müller), possibly practised it himself (Carl August and Seidel),
described it in glowing terms as ‘beautiful’ at a time when it was under
vicious attack (the Winckelmann essay) and portrayed it casually as part of
normal sexuality (the epigram and the conversation with Eckermann).
However, the question arises: if this is so, how could Goethe have por-
trayed, in the penultimate scene of his most important work, same-sex
desire as something devilish, as ‘absurd’, ‘base’ and ‘foolish’? While the
‘Interment’ scene in the second part of Faust is certainly complicated, even
grotesque (the term most often used for it), I shall argue that it hardly
shows – as the critics assert – that in Goethe’s eyes homosexuality was
‘perverse’, ‘unnatural’ or even ‘evil’.16
The scene contains all sorts of ‘queerness’. It begins with lemurs from the
previous scene, burying Faust’s remains – but the lemurs themselves are sort
of undead: they are ‘half-natures’ (11514),17 they reside ‘in a region of decay
and half-deadness’.18 Faust, too, is supposedly dead, but Mephisto casts
doubt on this deadness when he raises the Enlightenment’s widely discussed
question of when you can really tell whether a person is dead. Such
Diabolical entrapment 179
half-dead half-natures already evoke gender trouble through their analogous
blurring of distinctions. And in these lines, queer desire is alluded to when
Mephisto uses sexually laden terms to describe his desire for dead bodies, in
this case the body of a man; the word lüstern, as we shall see, is used later in
the scene in a homoerotic sense and is used here in a series of double-
entendres: ‘I’ve often coveted some limbs in rigor mortis – / It was only an
illusion! They stirred and began to move again’ (11634–5).
These lines are immediately followed by a curious stage direction:
‘Phantastisch-flügelmännische Beschwörungs-Gebärden’, with which he sum-
mons his demonic minions. Atkins translates this difficult locution as
‘fantastic gestures of conjuration, in the manner of a squad leader’. Forms
of Flügelmann are used sparingly in Goethe’s works, but appear twice in this
single scene. The word, which would literally translate as ‘wing man’,
traditionally refers to the first man in a line of soldiers, the tallest, whom
the others can see and follow.19 Thus he represents a sort of over-the-top
masculinity. One of the most telling of Goethe’s few uses of the term
appears in connection with homosexuality. Just two years before his book
on Winckelmann, Goethe had published his translation of Benvenuto
Cellini’s delightful autobiography, in which the Renaissance artist’s bisexual
adventures receive due attention. In one of his interpretive notes, Goethe
uses the same term when writing of Cellini:
In such a lively city [Florence], at such a significant time, a man appeared who can
be seen as the representative of his century and, perhaps, as a representative of all
humanity. Natures such as this can be seen as spiritual squad leaders
[Flügelmänner], who hint, with their forceful expressions, at what is doubtless
inscribed in every human breast, though often with weak, illegible strokes.20
As if this valorization of a bisexual man as a model for all humanity were not
enough, later on in the same essay Goethe writes:
Given this receptivity for sensual and moral beauty, given his continued residing
and living among everything great and significant that ancient and modern art
produced, the beauty of male youth, more than anything, was bound to have an
effect on him. And indeed! the most charming passages of his work are those in
which he expresses his feelings on this. Have poetry and prose depicted for us
situations as alluring as we find in the banquet at which the artists gather with their
girls . . . and Cellini brings a cross-dressed boy?21
This passage is loaded with broad hints, including the suggestion that moral
beauty resides in this gender-bending performance directed by the bisexual
Cellini. At this point, I want to stress the connection to the scene in Faust in
which Mephisto, too, appears as a Flügelmann. If in both texts the
180 w. daniel wilson
Flügelmann is associated with queerness and acts as a sort of leader and even
director, are we to see Mephisto in this light?
In ‘Burial’, it is not only Mephisto who is associated with this big fellow.
Very shortly afterwards, he himself uses the same term to refer to the tall devils
under his command: ‘flügelmännische Riesen’ (11670). Only a few lines
before that, he had referred to Faust’s (presumably masculine) soul as ‘the
little soul, Psyche with her wings’ (11660), a clear echo of the Flügelmann.
Psyche is indeed considered to represent the soul in Greek mythology, and
she is portrayed as a butterfly with wings.22 This line reverberates with gender
confusion in at least four aspects relevant to this discussion. First, it feminizes
Faust’s soul. Secondly, it strongly suggests eroticism. Psyche was so beautiful
that even Eros himself fell in love with her (just as Mephisto had expressed his
erotic desire for souls) – even Love loves her, as it were. The German rococo
was practically obsessed with the erotically charged figure of Psyche – and also
with butterflies, which represented ‘flighty’, promiscuous sexuality, a role
they play in Goethe’s own poetry.23 Thirdly, by introducing Greek myth, the
line hints at the theme of ‘Greek love’ that dominates the text a bit later; in the
eighteenth century, any mention of things Greek was apt to conjure up this
association. And fourthly, the wings bring Faust’s feminized soul into a
dizzying association not only with Mephisto as hyper-masculine
Flügelmann but also with the winged angels who appear a few lines later.
Angels, in turn, are figured as masculine, but barely so: the gender of angels,
of course, is ambiguous or androgynous, and Goethe’s earlier character
Mignon – a figure whose own gender is so confused that in the earliest
version of Goethe’s Bildungsroman she is referred to alternately with mascu-
line and feminine pronouns, er and sie – views angels as androgynous.24 But
we do not need to turn to another of Goethe’s works to confirm the angels’
androgyny. Mephisto’s own reaction to them is clear on this point: he refers
to ‘das bübisch-mädchenhafte Gestümper’ (11687, such juvenile-androgynous
bumbling). This and the following lines have cost the critics endless puzzling:
. . . Wie frömmelnder Geschmack sichs lieben mag.
Ihr wißt [addressing the other devils] wie wir, in tiefverruchten Stunden,
Vernichtung sannen menschlichem Geschlecht;
Das Schändlichste was wir erfunden
Ist ihrer Andacht eben recht. (11688–92)
. . . is what the sanctimonious enjoy.
You will remember how, in our most heinous hours,
We plotted the destruction of mankind:
The vilest method we invented
Exactly suits the needs of their devotions.
Diabolical entrapment 181
Among the many explanations of these lines the one that seems to me most
convincing is Buchwald and Daur’s, namely, that Mephisto is referring to
castrati – so that the word Geschlecht would be meant quite literally,
referring to the male genitals.25 This interpretation is bolstered by a fact
unnoticed by its purveyors: one of the most common tricks that witches,
beholden of course to the devil, are supposed to have played was to make the
male reproductive organ disappear (along with the associated prank of
causing impotence) – the fifteenth-century Malleus maleficarum or
Hexenhammer lists numerous examples of it.26 So the idea that ‘castrating’
(broadly understood) could be seen as the plan of the devils for the
Vernichtung of humankind makes perfect sense. Castrati, in turn, play an
important part in the aesthetics of Winckelmann; it is precisely the shape of
castrati buttocks that aroused Winckelmann’s sensibilities,27 just as it does
Mephisto’s desire for equally sexless rear ends later on in this scene.
By the time we arrive at the overtly homoerotic part of the scene, the
theme has been amply prepared. There is the definite suggestion here that
queerness is a comprehensive aspect of nature and humanity, one that is
difficult to bring under control. Now, in the ensuing action, Mephisto
attempts to impose order on this gender confusion. The angels fling roses –
and the rose stems themselves have wings (11703), completing the nexus
associating them with the devil and with human beings – and Mephisto
instructs his devils to blow on them; they blow too hard, setting the roses
afire. The devils are defeated, flung arse-first (‘ärschlings’; Atkins: ‘breech-
first’) into hell. Mephisto stands his ground. But when the roses touch him,
he is consumed with same-sex desire for the angels.
Mephisto’s responses to his homosexual desire have hardly ever been
looked at in much detail. His first response is that now he knows what lovers
feel. This is absolutely crucial: the devil suddenly experiences not only love,
but also empathy with heterosexual lovers – which suggests that they could
have the same understanding of his same-sex desire. Mephisto remarks that
this love is something ‘alien, strange’ (11762) – but the following lines
suggest that he is not referring to same-sex desire as such, but rather to,
first, love itself, and, secondly, love for angels. He cannot reconcile his
desire for angels with his hatred of them (11767–8). He cleverly tries to
rescue himself from this dilemma by defining the angels as not really angels,
but rather devils – for the second time in this scene (see 11696) – and this is a
claim supported by the first part of the scene, where, as we have noted, the
distinction between angels and devils becomes blurred. He now asks:
‘You lovely children, may I ask / If you’re descendants too of Lucifer?’
(11769–70). As Derks points out, Mephisto seems concerned about
182 w. daniel wilson
avoiding one kind of sodomy – sex with another species, bestiality – but
unconcerned about avoiding the other.28 He seems to have satisfied himself
that the angels are the same species as he is, for the lines following this
question express his comfort in homoerotic desire more tangibly than
anywhere else, and with signifiers that echo Faust’s heterosexual passion:
Ihr seid so hübsch, fürwahr ich möcht euch küssen;
Mir ists als kommt ihr eben recht.
Es ist mir so behaglich, so natürlich
Als hätt ich euch schon tausendmal gesehn,
So heimlich-kätzchenhaft begierlich;
Mit jedem Blick aufs neue schöner schön.
O nähert euch, o gönnt mir Einen Blick! (11771–7)
You are, I swear, so pretty that I’d like to kiss you;
I have a feeling you would suit me nicely.
I am as much at ease and natural
As if we’d met a thousand times already,
And am as eager as a stalking kitten,
While you grow lovelier each time I look.
Please don’t hang back – look at me at least once!29
Important here is the word ‘natural’ (11773), suggesting that homosexual
love is, as Goethe was to say a few years later, ‘in nature’. However,
Mephisto never entirely gives himself over to desire – he repeatedly exhibits
sovereign awareness of what is going on, even as he expresses his desire. He
suggests that he would be taken for a fool if he gave in (11765–6). It would be
tempting to say that Goethe has here portrayed with amazing sensitivity the
emotional dilemma of closeted homosexuals, who must maintain reflective
distance from their desire even as they express it, in order to avoid discovery
and ostracism. But Mephisto shows no signs of being closeted.
Connected with this reflective awareness of his desire is a move that,
amazingly enough, has never been really interpreted in the voluminous
commentaries: Mephisto at first lures the angels onwards, pleading for a
glance from them, and then, when they move closer, he retreats to the
proscenium (11777–9, with stage directions). The proscenium or apron of
the stage is the area between the curtain and the audience. As such, it is
perfectly suited to bringing the characters into play with the audience and at
times breaking the illusion of the dramatic action. Mephisto likes the
proscenium – this is the fourth time in the second part of the play that he
has appeared here.30 Each of these earlier occasions saw him, indeed,
disturbing the audience’s sense of dramatic illusion – once appearing in
the prompt’s box (6399) and another time speaking directly to the audience
Diabolical entrapment 183
(6772; see 6815–18). And on another, extended occasion, after he has spent
most of the third act cross-dressed, playing the role of the old woman
Phorkyas, he reveals himself as Mephisto directly to the audience at the
end, on the proscenium (9955, 9962, 10038) – thus suggesting an association
between the proscenium and gender confusion.
The instance at hand functions slightly differently. He doesn’t speak
directly to the audience, but I would suggest that he does so indirectly: his
first words to the angels from the proscenium are ‘You call us spirits
damned, but prove to be / The actual sorcerers yourselves, / For you seduce
both men and women’ (11780–2). It is perhaps important to note that these
lines, together with the stage direction indicating Mephisto’s retreat to the
proscenium, were a later addition to this scene, which was otherwise written
out with unusual completion and sureness, in quick handwriting and with
relatively few corrections.31 This addition suggests that Goethe had a fairly
clear conception of what he was doing, but he left open a space in the
manuscript at this point, to be filled in later. Thus I think we are justified in
seeing Mephisto’s position in the proscenium in connection with his first
three lines there, all of which was added together to the manuscript.
What is the purpose of Mephisto’s move, and of his lines here? Leaving
aside for the moment the association, yet again, of angels with devils, I think
Mephisto at this point draws the audience into his desire. By bringing
women into the circle of desire, Mephisto again tacitly sets homosexual and
heterosexual desire on an equal plane. And he thus invites the entire
audience to share with him in the ensuing fantasy in which he becomes a
sort of would-be director of a porn play. But it is an interactive play in which
Mephisto figures as both director and primary audience, instructing the
angels on how best to arouse him (11780–800). In all of this, Mephisto’s
audience joins him in a sort of vicarious voyeurism, bringing together all
humankind, men and women, in desire for these boys. Of course, the boys
are only marginally male, as we saw: they are attractive to both men and
women precisely because they are ‘bübisch-mädchenhaft’, androgynous.
The larger dramatic function, then, of Mephisto’s move to the proscenium
is to draw the audience into his desire, and to problematize the easy dis-
tinction between heterosexual and homosexual – a bold move, needless to say
(but one that Goethe had prefigured in the Venetian epigram quoted above).
From Mephisto’s own limited perspective, however, the purpose is different:
he is avoiding sexual contact with the angels. Otherwise, there is no good
explanation of his retreat to the proscenium in the first place. One could ask:
is he perhaps avoiding contact because they are sexless, and sex with them
would therefore be impossible?32 I think the larger reason is that he wants to
184 w. daniel wilson
retain his identity as a devil (as various critics have pointed out), for of course
he has a job to do that goes far beyond Faust’s single soul. His tactic, however,
involves making the angels into devils, or, perhaps more accurately, playing
on the devilish aspect of these angels in order to arouse himself. He does so
not only by sexualizing them, but also by singling out an especially tall one as
his favoured object of desire – the Flügelmann of the angels, as it were. He can
only survive as a devil, however, if he keeps his distance from them, prompt-
ing them to adopt voluptuous poses and gazes to arouse him at a distance.
Mephisto is practising ‘safe sex’ with the angels, and it is difficult to
imagine what he is doing if not trying to achieve an erection – or even
masturbating. This latter possibility would explain why his passion sud-
denly subsides, without explanation; it would explain the three dashes in the
space of two lines at the height of his arousal (11798–9) and some otherwise
odd locutions in his speech after recovering from the spell the angels have
cast over him (11809–16). Whatever he is doing, he is ultimately the dupe.
There is no indication that the angels cooperate as actors in his scenario, at
least until the end, when they consciously turn away from him – in order to
snatch Faust’s soul, it turns out – and drive him to the height of his passion
by giving him full view of their buttocks (11798–800). Thus the angels
actually remain fully in control, the masters of Mephisto’s passion, which
they turn to their own advantage. This move also draws in the audience, at
least by analogy: for if the ‘director’ Mephisto is not really the director, is the
audience really only the audience? Whatever the wider effect, the angels
exploit Mephisto’s same-sex desire rather mercilessly. Regardless of how one
tries to twist and turn it, they really have behaved diabolically – as Mephisto
points out (11781), and the reminiscence of the doctrine of ‘pious fraud’
cannot really change that.33 The angels engage in diabolical entrapment, in
both senses: they trap the devil, and they do so with devilish methods.
Mephisto’s response is to pull himself together (‘sich fassend’, 11809) –
possibly because of ejaculation – lick his wounds and curse the angels. At
this point, he seems fairly unperturbed – he expects such behaviour from
angels and such battles with them, and feels that he has come away relatively
unscathed – his same-sex desire doesn’t even rate a mention at this point. It
is only later, after he learns that they have absconded with Faust’s soul, that
he expresses remorse, frustration (he even wants to enter a judicial appeal,
which Goethe originally intended to stage) and, above all, self-hatred: he
curses his own desires as ‘base’ and ‘absurd’ – ‘base desire, absurd affairs’
(11838). The crucial question is whether it is really his homosexual desire that
he is cursing, as the critics all assume – could it not as easily be his desire for
the angels? As other recent interpreters have pointed out, Mephisto shows
Diabolical entrapment 185
signs of same-sex desire throughout the play.34 By way of illustration,
consider a scene that Goethe excluded for reasons of self-censorship, as
Albrecht Schöne has convincingly argued, in which a satanic mass is
portrayed. Here we find the requisite kiss of the devil’s behind by which
the initiates indicate their fealty; the one who is bestowed with the largest
fief – ‘millions of souls’ – is the one who desires to crawl into Satan’s anus
(FA 1:7.1, 555–6). Thus there’s no inherent reason that homosexuality in
itself – either sexually passive or active, I might add – should be embarrass-
ing to Mephisto (or to Goethe). He only expresses this self-deprecation after
he learns that he has been tricked.
But more important, other scenes in Faust ii suggest that ‘absurd’ does
not refer to homosexuality, but rather to Mephisto’s attraction to angels.
Most important is the attempted seduction of Mephisto by the Lamiae in
the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’. Lamiae are a sort of female vampire.
Mephisto is attracted to these beautiful creatures, but when he touches or
approaches them, they transform themselves into various forms of ugliness,
which seems to reveal their true nature. The salient fact here is that these
female figures, and among them Empusa, seem to be related to him: ‘I
thought that here there’d just be strangers, / And find, alas! close relatives; /
It’s an old, familiar story: / From Harz to Hellas, always cousins!’ (7740–4).
Thus, by his attraction to these creatures, Mephisto is in danger of commit-
ting a sort of metaphorical incest.35 But this sort of proscribed sexuality
doesn’t disturb him in the least. When he finally awakens from his attempts
at sexual contact with these creatures, Mephisto speaks and acts strikingly
like he does in the ‘Burial’ scene:
lamien Fahrt auseinander, schwankt und schwebet
Blitzartig, schwarzen Flugs umgebet
Den eingedrungnen Hexensohn!
Unsichre, schauderhafte Kreise!
Schweigsamen Fittichs, Fledermäuse!
Zu wohlfeil kommt er doch davon.
mephistopheles (sich schüttelnd )
Viel klüger, scheint es, bin ich nicht geworden;
Absurd ist’s hier, absurd im Norden,
Gespenster hier wie dort vertrackt,
Volk und Poeten abgeschmackt. (7785–94)
notes
An updated version of these reflections (going back to 2004) will be published as
a chapter of my book on Goethe and Greek love, to be published in 2012 by
Suhrkamp Verlag, followed by an English edition.
Diabolical entrapment 189
1. Despite the fact that the term ‘homosexual’ was only used beginning in 1869 and
with respect also to sexual practices has to be viewed as an anachronism when applied
to the early nineteenth century, I use it here heuristically in order to designate same-
sex sexuality that has not yet been pathologized or viewed as a character trait. On the
theoretical underpinning for this approach, see David M. Halperin, How to Do the
History of Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 2002).
2. Goethe to Duke Carl August, Rome, 29 December 1787, HA 2, 75.
3. On the Herder reference – and Goethe’s letter generally – see Paul Derks, Die
Schande der heiligen Päderastie. Homosexualität und Öffentlichkeit in der deut-
schen Literatur 1750–1850, Berlin: Verlag Rosa Winkel, 1990, 79–80, 251–2.
4. Esp. Kurt R. Eissler, Goethe. Eine psychoanalytische Studie 1775–1786, trans. Peter
Fischer and Rüdiger Scholz, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1987,
1446–62; see also the passages referred to under ‘Homosexualität’ in the index.
Karl Hugo Pruys, Die Liebkosungen des Tigers. Eine erotische Goethe-Biographie,
Berlin: Edition q, 1997 has rightly been criticized for asserting Goethe’s homo-
sexuality on flimsy evidence.
5. ‘Ein bon mot von D’Ablancourt will ich Dir mittheilen: An einer gewißen
stelle sagt Jupiter vom Ganymed, qu’il vouloit lui donner dix baisers. Da sagt
nun der Übersetzer in einer Note (denn wie bekant zeigt er immer wo er mit
unter vom Grundtext abgewichen ist) il n’y a dans l’original que deux baisers,
mais dix ont plus de force.’ 3 Feb. [1781], Goethe- und Schiller-Archiv 54/249,
fl. 97r–97v (Knebel’s papers). The reference is to Nicolas Perrot d’Ablancourt’s
(1606–64) translation of Lucian. The passage occurs in the fifth of the Dialogues
of the Gods, in which Juno berates Jupiter for his pederastic talk (‘discours de
Pæderaste’). See Lucien de la traduction de N. Perrot Sr d’Ablancourt: Divisé en
deux parties. Seconde édition reveue et corrigée. Paris: Augustin Courbé, 1665,
vol. i, pp. 73–5, 652. (Editions from 1670, 1683 and 1709 are held by the
Herzogin Anna Amalia Bibliothek in Weimar, the core of which is the ducal
collection.) Ganymede is the traditional code for a passive, boyish gay lover. See
Robert D. Tobin, ‘Faust’s Membership in Male Society. Prometheus and
Ganymede as Models’, Interpreting Goethe’s Faust Today, ed. Jane K. Brown
et al. (Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1994), 19–20, and the literature cited
there, as well as the references to Goethe’s own knowledge of this meaning.
6. See Tobin, ‘Faust’s Membership’, 19. The use of ‘Ganymedes’ for the object of
pederastic love in Wieland’s own Agathon is part of Tobin’s evidence (26).
7. When Wieland appears in the play he speaks as if in a dream-state: ‘Lassen Sie
uns mein lieber Jakobi’, referring to Johann Georg Jacobi, whose flirtatious
published correspondence with Gleim was the subject of widespread ridicule.
See Wilhelm Körte, Johann Wilhelm Ludwig Gleims Leben. Aus seinen Briefen
und Schriften, Halberstadt: Büreau für Literatur und Kunst, 1811, 506–7. One of
the figures comments: ‘Man sieht doch mit was für Leuten er umgeht’ (MA 1:1,
683, You can see the kind of people he associates with).
8. Walter Schleif, Goethes Diener, Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau, 1965, 33, who
dismisses it as a ‘literarischer Versuch’. See also Robert D. Tobin, Warm
190 w. daniel wilson
Brothers. Queer Theory and the Age of Goethe, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2000, 96.
9. Nachlese zu den Venezianischen Epigrammen, MA 3:2, 151; translation is from
Goethe, Erotic Poems, trans. David Luke, introd. Hans Rudolf Vaget, Oxford
University Press, 1997, 73. Vaget remarks: ‘this catholicity of sexual taste in the
younger Goethe is needless to say not well documented, though it has been
suggested that his feelings for Charlotte von Stein’s young son Fritz, whom she
permitted to live in Goethe’s house for three years during the period of his
infatuation with her, were not always purely paternal or avuncular . . . [This
epigram] can at any rate stand as a particularly concrete example of the
conciliatoriness so much lauded and criticized in the author of Faust, that
aversion to stark alternatives which pervades all levels of his thought and
work’ (134).
10. On Götz: Susan E. Gustafson, ‘Male Desire in Goethe’s Götz von Berlichingen’,
in Outing Goethe and His Age, ed. Alice Kuzniar, Stanford University Press,
1996, 111–24, 257–8; on Egmont: W. Daniel Wilson, ‘Amazon, Agitator,
Allegory. Political and Gender Cross(-Dress)ing in Goethe’s Egmont’, in
Outing Goethe, 125–46, 258–64; on Wanderjahre 2.12 (MA 17, 499–505) and
‘Das Schenkenbuch’ of the West-östlicher Divan (MA 11:1.2, 95–106): Derks,
Die Schande, 262–7, 272–81.
11. Derks, Die Schande, 208, quoting Goethe, Winkelmann und sein Jahrhundert,
MA 3:2, 356.
12. Goethe, Winkelmann und sein Jahrhundert, ‘Freundschaft’, MA 6:2, 354.
13. Derks, Die Schande, 174–231.
14. Conversation with Friedrich von Müller, 7 April 1830, GG 3:2, 603 f.
15. On 14 March 1830; MA 19, 659.
16. For the last of these, see Eissler, Goethe, 1716. The scholarship on this scene is
not voluminous. It is reviewed by Silke Falkner in a perceptive essay whose
approach, however, is different from mine. Despite her departures from
previous critics, she still asserts that Mephisto’s ‘falling in love with the angels
is a humanizing experience that transgresses his devilish identity, and therefore
offers him a chance at redemption from the hell of which Mephisto is the
central part’. Silke R. Falkner, ‘ “Love only succors / Those who can love”.
Mephisto’s Desiring Gaze in Goethe’s Faust’, in Queering the Canon. Defying
Sights in German Literature and Culture, ed. Christoph Lorey and John
L. Plews, Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1998, 143, an assertion that I shall
challenge. She is right to suggest that Mephisto never acts on what she calls his
‘fraudulent’ heterosexual desires. However, she overlooks Goethe’s blurring of
the line between heterosexual and homosexual. An earlier article by Harold
Jantz presents the intriguing thesis that, in order to save himself from being
‘saved by the grace and love of God’, he consciously ‘twists the love surging
within him into a supremely hopeless pederastic passion for the boylike angels’
(168–9). This interpretation does not square with Mephisto’s clear loss of
control in the scene, and Jantz’s repeated references to ‘perversion’ do not
correspond to Goethe’s attitude towards ‘Greek love’. See Harold Jantz,
Diabolical entrapment 191
‘Goethe’s Last Jest in Faust: or, “Faust holt den Teufel”’, in Festschrift für Detlev
W. Schumann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Albert R. Schmitt, Munich: Delp, 1970.
17. All further references to Faust are by line number from FA 1:7.1 and Atkins’
1986 English translation, sometimes amended (in square brackets) for accuracy.
18. From an 1812 essay by Goethe, MA 9, 621; see FA 1:7.2, 755. He further
describes the ‘traurigen Lemuren, denen noch so viel Muskeln und Sehnen
übrig bleiben, damit sie sich kümmerlich bewegen können, damit sie nicht
ganz als durchsichtige Gerippe erscheinen und zusammenstürzen’ (MA 9:623,
with illustrations).
19. See FA 1:7.2, 769, referring to Adelung. Critics generally define the word without
attempting to interpret it; Falkner, an exception, says merely that it is ‘reminis-
cent of “weltmännisch”, or worldly’ (Falkner, ‘ “Love only succors” ’, 148).
20. Anhang zur Lebensbeschreibung des Benvenute Cellini, bezüglich auf Sitten,
Kunst und Technik, MA 7, 489.
21. MA 7, 491–2. The episode described here can be found in Goethe’s translation,
MA 7, 59–62. Considering the confusion regarding the gender of the angels in
the ‘Burial’ scene of Faust ii discussed below, it is perhaps not amiss to see in a
passage from this translation an inspiration for the later work. Here the host,
the sculptor Michelagnolo of Siena, admires Cellini’s ‘date’, not realizing that it
is a young man: ‘Er selbst fiel auf die Knie, flehte um Barmherzigkeit, rief alle
zusammen und sagte: sehet nur, so sehen die Engel im Paradiese aus! Man sagt
immer nur Engel, aber da seht ihr, daß es auch Engelinnen gibt. Dann mit
erhobener Stimme sprach er: O schöner Engel, O würdiger Engel, beglücke
mich, segne mich!’ (61).
22. ‘Psyche’, in Benjamin Hederich, Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon.
Reprografischer Nachdruck [der Ausgabe] Leipzig, Gleditsch, 1770, Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967, cols. 2114–19.
23. On the theme Psyche, see the poem originally entitled ‘An Psyche’ (then ‘An
Lida’, MA 2:1, 65), and especially ‘Den Musen-Schwestern fiel es ein’ (MA 13:1,
180); on butterflies, see especially the poem ‘Der Schmetterling’, MA 1:1, 128,
143–4; see Alfred Anger (ed.), Dichtung des Rokoko, 2nd edn, Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 1969, 148–9. Psyche has been ‘an exceptionally fertile source of
inspiration in the figurative arts’, Irène Aghion, Claire Barbillon and François
Lissarrague, Gods and Heroes of Classical Antiquity, Flammarion Iconographic
Guides, Paris: Flammarion, 1996, 250; prominent was Raphael’s ten-part
depiction of the marriage of Amor and Psyche in the Villa Farnesina in
Rome, which Goethe knew, and he possessed a ten-part hand-coloured set of
Nicolas Dorigny’s etchings illustrating the theme (MA 15, 162, 916). Significant
in the context of this interpretation is the ‘Schmetterling’ in the description of
Knabe Lenker (5603).
24. ‘Sie fragen nicht nach Mann und Weib’, Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre, bk 8,
ch. 2, MA 5, 517. The commentary: ‘Motiv der Androgynie, verbunden mit der
Lehre von der Geschlechtslosigkeit der Engel. In ihrem Aufsatz “Der
Charakter der Freundschaft” . . . hatte S[usanne] v. Klettenberg erklärt:
“Unsere Seelen sind weder Mann noch Weib” . . .’ (826).
192 w. daniel wilson
25. Reinhard Buchwald, Führer durch Goethes Faustdichtung, 6th edn, Stuttgart:
Kröner, 1961: ‘Wenn Mephisto etwas erfinden könnte, die Menschheit zu
vernichten, so wäre es solches Kastratentum; und gerade dies – in Gestalt der
Engel – diene der christlichen Andacht!’ (241); Albert Daur, Faust und der
Teufel. Eine Darstellung nach Goethes dichterischem Wort, Heidelberg: Winter,
1950: ‘Er wehrt sich, schmäht die Boten als Kastraten, schmäht die Phantasie,
die so Verruchtes andachtsvoll verehrt, er warnt vor ihnen, die den Teufeln
gleich verlocken [. . .]’ (344); see Hans Arens, Kommentar zu Goethes Faust II,
Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1989, 973.
26. Jakob Sprenger and Heinrich Institoris, Der Hexenhammer (Malleus malefica-
rum), trans. J. W. R. Schmidt, Berlin: Barsdorf, 1906; repr. Munich:
Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1982, ii, 78 ff.
27. See Simon Richter, Laocoon’s Body and the Aesthetics of Pain. Winckelmann,
Lessing, Herder, Moritz, Goethe, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992.
28. Derks, Die Schande, 286.
29. On the parallel of later lines in this scene to Faust’s language of love, see Arens,
Kommentar, 985.
30. The first scene in which Mephisto appeared, the ‘Prologue in Heaven’, had after
all ended with a direct address by Mephisto to the audience. His speeches ‘ad
Spectatores’ are repeated at the end of the ‘Laboratory’ and ‘Throne Room’ scenes,
both in Faust II, Act 1 (7003–4, 5061–4), as well as in Act 4, ‘High Mountains’
(10210–11, 10327–30) and at the end of the ‘Formal Park’ scene in Act 5 (11286–7);
see also in Act 3 lines 9578–9. See Schöne’s commentary in FA 1:7.2, 425.
31. Ulrich Landeck, Der fünfte Akt von Goethes Faust II. Kommentierte kritische
Ausgabe, Zurich: Artemis, 1981, 169.
32. This is Arens’ suggestion (Kommentar, 985).
33. See Ulrich Gaier, Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Faust-Dichtungen, Kommentar I,
Stuttgart: Reclam, 1999, ii, 1121. Gaier also perceptively points out the devilish
behaviour of the angels. Missing this point is the major flaw of Falkner’s
interpretation, since she views the angels’ activity solely from the viewpoint
of offering Mephisto redemption.
34. See esp. Falkner, ‘“Love only succors”’.
35. See also Mephisto’s threatened incest with the Phorcydes (7987); Hederich
(Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon, col. 1997) says that the Phorcydes’ father,
Phorcyn/Phorcys, lat. Phorcus, fathered them on his own sister!
36. In only two lines (7785–6) there are echoes from the ‘Interment’ scene:
‘schwanken’ (see 11787), ‘schweben’ (11701, 11722) and ‘Flug’ (11717).
37. Para. 150, FA 1:7.1, 663; see 7.2, 536.
38. Schöne says only that Mephisto is shown to be ‘der “dumme Teufel”’ in
‘Burial’, just as in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ (FA 1:7.2, 528). Arens points
out such oblique parallels as the one regarding nakedness (Kommentar, 422),
but without any attempt at interpretation. Falkner rightly notes that in the
‘Burial’ scene Mephisto is emotionally involved (he desires a reciprocal gaze),
whereas he is not in the scene with the (presumably female) Lamiae (‘ “Love
only succors” ’, 149–50).
Diabolical entrapment 193
39. When he forces the identification of the angels as coming from Lucifer’s race
(‘Geschlecht’), he seems merely to be trying to arouse their sexual interest in
him.
40. Gaier, Kommentar I, 1125 ff.
41. Ibid., 1118–19.
42. Jane K. Brown, Goethe’s Faust. The German Tragedy, Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1986, 243.
43. See, in this context, Robert D. Tobin, ‘In and Against Nature: Goethe on
Homosexuality’, Outing Goethe and His Age, ed. Alice A. Kuzniar, Stanford
University Press, 1996, 103–4.
44. Osman Durrani, ‘The Character and Qualities of Mephistopheles’, in A
Companion to Goethe’s Faust: Parts I and II, Columbia, SC: Camden House,
2001, 91.
45. See FA 1:7.2, 788 ff.; Gaier, Kommentar I, 1118.
46. I would thus disagree with Falkner’s assessment that Goethe ‘. . . allow[s]
Mephisto an opportunity for salvation via homosexual love’ (‘“Love only
succors”’, 155); it is not Goethe who does this, but rather the angels whom
Goethe portrayed as hypocritical. It is not in this sense that ‘Goethe has
redeemed homosexuality not only for his contemporaries but for readers of
all generations’, but because he presents homosexuality as a form of love on a
par with others. Tobin is thus correct to state that Mephisto ‘underscores the
complication of another dichotomy, one that grounds the entire play: that
between heaven and hell’ (‘In and Against Nature’, 103). And this complica-
tion is parallel to the gender trouble that makes Mephisto’s homosexual
orientation (if that’s what it is) unproblematic.
part ii
Theatre
chapter 13
In this chapter I want to stress two matters in particular. One is that there is
an omnipresence of abundant, kaleidoscopic theatricality in Goethe’s Faust
project. The other is that that theatricality is not simply decoration, not
simply (as it were) icing on the cake, but is, rather, germane to the central
concerns of the drama. Whether we read Faust as a philosophical drama, as a
drama of desire or as the historical drama of modernity (and it is to this
aspect that I wish to pay particular attention), at every turn we find that the
theatrical statement is the correlative of the theme.
Let me begin with somewhat personal and anecdotal rather than scholarly
concerns. On two occasions I have been involved in directing students of
German at University College, London in theatre productions of Goethe’s
Faust. We performed an acting version of both parts. What resulted was a
three-act drama. At its centre was the so-called Gretchentragödie, the love story
of Faust and Margarete. This was our Act 2. It was preceded by the material
that is often referred to as the Gelehrtentragödie – the tragedy of the despairing
scholar – which extends, in Goethe’s Part i, from the opening monologue of
Faust’s lacerating despair, through the wager with Mephisto, to Faust’s
rejuvenation in the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’. This constituted our Act 1. And Act
3 consisted of five major scenes from the cultural-historical phantasmagoria
that is Goethe’s Part ii – Faust’s awakening, the invention of paper money at
the court of the Holy Roman Empire, the meeting of Faust and Helen of
Troy, the eviction of Philemon and Baucis, the death of Faust and the closing
scene depicting his salvation. We joined, then, a long tradition that started
with Eckermann in 1834, one that enshrines the quest for a performable
version of Goethe’s great project that gives at least some idea of the totality of
its statement.
To produce the play with gifted young actors is to be reminded of two
things: that the Faust drama really does come alive in the theatre; that it
works at two levels of statement – a visceral, immediate one and a reflective,
self-conscious one. Now in one sense, of course, it is true generally of all
197
198 martin swales
theatre that it is at one and the same time immediate and self-conscious,
both hyper-real and utterly fictive, engendering what Brecht liked to call
complex seeing. But I want to suggest that it is especially true of Goethe’s
Faust because those two aspects of theatre are embedded at the very heart of
Goethe’s drama. In ways I want to go on to explore, Faust is concerned to
understand the interplay of visceral experience, felt and known on the
pulses, on the one hand, and, on the other, of the imperative to stand
back from experience, to think, to question. Faust is about two kinds of
knowing, knowing in its biblical double sense of knowing carnally with the
body and knowing conceptually with the self-conscious mind.
This, as one might put it, dialectic of experiential modes informs the
three great strands of Goethe’s drama and of the theatrical statement which
they make. The strands are: the philosophical drama, the drama of desire,
the cultural-historical drama of modernity. These strands are not clusters of
watertight signification. Rather, they are in constant interplay. But for the
purposes of analytical and heuristic clarity it is helpful to treat them as
separate entities.
Let me start with the philosophical drama. It has centrally to do with the
mismatch, in the human subject, between mind and body, reflectivity and
activity. Faust is both an onlooker and a doer. When first we see him, he is
discontented with a surfeit of intellectual life, with an existence devoted to
ideas, concepts, words, abstractions. (I have, incidentally, never found it
difficult to explain this kind of resentment to university students; they know
it all too well from their own experience.) Faust longs for activity, not just as
a principle, but as a specific engagement with the material world. Hence he
translates the beginning of St John’s Gospel not as ‘In the beginning was the
Word’ but as ‘Im Anfang war die Tat’ (1237, In the beginning was the
Deed). Deeds enliven; but they are necessarily local and particular. They are
the limitation imposed by what is on what might be. Faust’s being both
reaches out for the circumscribed articulation of the self that is the deed, and
he also reaches beyond that constraining particularity into the play of
possibility. But that play is, as he says of the vision conjured up by the
sign of the Macrocosm, ‘alas, mere show’ (454). The theatrical metaphor is
crucial, and I shall want to return to it a little later.
The philosophical issue, the oscillation between the two kinds of knowing,
is felt in psychological terms. Anticipation expresses itself as desire, as the
craving of the self to enter experience. Yet once the desired object is reached, it
is never enough; and the desire rekindles itself as renewed anticipation. This is
the centre of Faustian energy; it is the discontent engendered by the friction
between the two souls within him. For Goethe, that process was part of the
Theatre, meta-theatre, tragedy 199
necessary polarity, the process of systole and diastole that quickens all matter.
Yet what he explores in the Faust drama is the stressfulness of living within
that energy, the existential and moral disturbance and tragedy that is present
at every turn.
The two great ‘Study’ scenes between Faust and Mephisto bring us to the
heart of the philosophical drama. In earlier versions of the Faust fable, the
contract between Faust and the devil was a fixed-term pact: Faust sells his
soul for twenty-four years of service, at the end of which time he is damned.
In Goethe’s drama an extraordinary transformation occurs. Faust goes into
the contractual relationship with Mephisto in a spirit of intense scepticism;
he makes not a pact but a bet, a bet on experience. And the final arbitration
in respect of that bet is not something objectively measurable like the
passing of twenty-four years. In Goethe’s project everything depends on
what Faust says of, and by that token makes of, his experience. He proposes
the wager to Mephisto in the conviction that he, Faust, will never come to
rest, will never find satisfaction and fulfilment. He believes that the devil’s
traditional role – which is to provide limitless pleasure – will never bring
him to a point of contented stasis. Faust knows that, for him, the onlooking,
reflective persona, the (as one might put it) meta-self to the active self will
always assert itself, condemning each and every present moment to experi-
ential insufficiency. This discontent is both Faust’s glory and his tragedy; it
is both the cause of his salvation (in terms announced by the Lord in the
‘Prologue in Heaven’) and, as the play will amply demonstrate, the source of
his monstrosity. In other words, Goethe changes the whole value scheme
that informs the Faust material; from the traditional battle between good
and evil we move to a struggle between energy and activity on the one hand
and sloth and inertia on the other.
Mephisto’s task, then, as the antagonist of the Lord’s purposes, is to
switch off the dynamo that drives Faust. To this end he employs two
strategies – and they are interrelated. One is to adhere to his traditional
function, which is to purvey pleasure, to be the ever-eager salesman who
talks up every possible experience as the harbinger of all the heart’s desires.
But the other role is that of the cynic, of devaluing anything and every-
thing. Mephisto has seen it all before: Margarete is ‘not the first’; falling in
love is part of the ‘course of the world’ (3204). Mephisto is the master of
reductive interchangeability, of the throw-away line. And he knows that
he can appeal to the disparaging, debunking agency housed in Faust’s self-
consciousness. Mephisto’s magic has little to do with fairy-tale enchant-
ment. Rather, it is the acceleration of experience; and his conviction is
that the acceleration of experience will bring about the devaluation of
200 martin swales
experience. Ready availability will, in other words, render experience null
and void, insubstantial.
One could state this philosophical issue through the metaphor of theatre.
Faust oscillates between wanting to be both on the stage of life and a spectator
at it. Mephisto offers him life as a theatrical extravaganza – immensely
appealing, quick-fire experience, yet ultimately (in his, Mephisto’s, view)
tawdry and worthless. Let me give a particular instance of the theatrical
conceptualization of substantiality and insubstantiality. At the end of the play
Faust has a vision of what might be – a new community living courageously
on land reclaimed from water. He sees the image before him like some great
theatrical panorama. He is excited, moved; and he speaks the words of the
wager with Mephisto, the words of contentment and fulfilment that spell his
doom. But he utters the words conditionally, in quotation marks – almost as
though they were being spoken by an actor in some future play:
Werd’ ich zum Augenblicke sagen:
Verweile doch! du bist so schön! (11581–2)
notes
1. In my discussion of the modernity of Faust I am particularly indebted to
Heinz Schlaffer, Faust Zweiter Teil. Die Allegorie des neunzenhnten Jahrhunderts,
Stuttgart: Metzler, 1981; Jochen Schmidt, Goethes Faust. Erster und Zweiter Teil.
Grundlagen–Werk–Wirkung, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1999; and Ulrich Gaier,
Fausts Modernität, Stuttgart: Reclam, 2000.
2. For an admirable discussion of the stage history, see Bernd Mahl, Goethes Faust
auf der Bühne, 1806–1998, Stuttgart and Weimar: Metzler, 1999.
chapter 14
part one
Goethe called Faust a tragedy. Of course, its protagonist is nothing less than
tragic. Regardless of whether our reference point is Aristotle’s conception of
tragedy, or the modern, post-Schelling, metaphysical one, Faust lacks the
fundamental criterion of the tragic – suffering. He thus never evokes the
sympathy of the viewer or the reader. Why is that? In the thirteenth chapter
of his Poetics, Aristotle described ‘similarity’ between the hero and the
viewer as one of the conditions of the tragic effect, for it alone enables the
viewer to identify with the protagonist. Fear and pity are identificatory
affects. Now, Faust – the Übermensch who is constantly trying to surpass the
conditio humana (490) – is at no point ‘similar’.1 He raises himself above
every limiting, conditioning human form and thus permits no identification
which might be bound to this form. One who, in Mephisto’s words,
‘overleaps the joys that this world affords’ (1859), also bypasses its suffering.
In moments of impending failure, when ‘all mankind’s miseries’ (4406)
take hold of him, Faust always manages to evade the tragic consequences of
his actions by discarding his earthly form and taking on another. He flees
from science and from the collapse of the edifice of knowledge he has
erected, taking recourse first in white and – after ‘memory’ (781) has
preserved him from suicidal oblivion and returned him to the limiting
realm of ‘earth’ (784) – later in black magic. Faust is made young through
sorcery, i.e., he is robbed of a part of his life story and the memories and
values that accompanied it. He transforms himself into a youthful lover, but
when this form precipitates a tragic fate, he escapes catastrophe – after trying
in vain to circumvent it through separation (‘Forest and Cave’) or to repress
it (‘Walpurgis Night’) – by simply running away.
In the ‘Pleasant Landscape’ scene, convalescent sleep and nature magic
internally cleanse him ‘in the dew of Lethe’s waters’ (4629) of ‘angry strife
within his heart’ (4624) and remove ‘the burning barbs of his remorse’
209
210 dieter borchmeyer
(4624). Once again, a part of his life story, memories and regrets, is wiped
clean. The encounter with antiquity remains a phantasmagoria, carrying in
itself consequences which for Helena are tragic, but which Faust can avoid
by stepping back into reality. His physical blindness, which is the symbol of
his spiritual blindness, prevents him from taking cognizance of his ultimate
failure as a politician. He is subject to an illusion which divests him of
tragedy. And the mystery of redemption at the end dissolves tragedy into
meta-tragedy. Faust is the great forgetter! Only by erasing his memory can
he repeatedly start again from the beginning, trade in one form of existence
for another and enjoy within his ‘inmost being’ that which is ‘the lot of all
mankind’ (1770). While he does trigger tragedies, one after the other – from
Gretchen via Helena to Philemon and Baucis – he is not, in his innermost
being, affected by them. If Faust is a tragedy, it is one despite Faust himself.
There is no doubt that in its predominantly high style and moments of
pathos Faust remains a tragedy, even if – like the tragedies of Shakespeare –
it does not, according to the strict humanist rules for the separation of styles,
meet the criteria for a ‘pure’ exemplar of the genre. No less than the
Elizabethan theatre, Faust is chock-full of low-brow comedy and is thus,
like the tragedies of Shakespeare, a theatre of mixed styles. With a view to its
dramatic form, one would be equally, if not more, justified in calling it a
Divina Commedia after Dante’s great epic poem.
In the tenth part of his letter to Cangrande, Dante wrote that tragedy and
comedy were to be differentiated by their plot development. Whereas
tragedy proceeded from a peaceful and noble beginning to a terrible end,
comedy on the other hand should lead from a bitter beginning to a happy
end. This is, of course, the very movement of the Commedia itself, which
represents Dante’s passage from hell through purgatory to paradise. The
Manager suggests the exact opposite way at the end of Goethe’s ‘Prologue
on the Stage’: ‘From heaven, through the world, to hell’ (242), but this is
just a formal description of the scenic possibilities of the three-tiered
symbolic mystery stage formed by Faust’s model of theatre. It certainly
applies to the plot of Faust i , which begins with the ‘Prologue in Heaven’
and, in the ‘Walpurgis Night’, finally leads to the precinct of the devil.
Faust ii, on the other hand, will return at the end to heaven.
Dante also distinguishes tragedy from comedy first by the tendency of the
plot, but then also by the modus loquendi, which is a mixture of the –
specifically tragic – sublime and the – characteristically comedic – vulgar.
This mixture also marks Goethe’s Faust project, which is in this sense hardly
less of a Commedia than Dante’s poem. Yet it is not only from the side of the
modus loquendi, but also from that of the plot that Faust disclaims tragedy.
Hidden comedy, covert opera 211
If the Lord relinquishes Faust to Mephistopheles in the ‘Prologue in
Heaven’, he does so with certain foresight of the happy, redemptive ending:
Nun gut, es sei dir überlassen!
Zieh diesen Geist von seinem Urquell ab
Und führ ihn, kannst du ihn erfassen,
Auf deinem Wege mit herab –
Und steh beschämt, wenn du bekennen mußt:
Ein guter Mensch in seinem dunklen Drange,
Ist sich des rechten Weges wohl bewußt. (323–9)
The enlightened pedagogue must admit his failure along the same lines as
the scientific thinker of Faust’s first monologue. Faust replaces failed science
with magic, ultimately through a pact with the devil. In calling himself a
‘Wretched fool’ (358) he reveals that he is, in his own eyes, a pathetic figure.
Such self-distancing makes him not at all comical – quite the contrast to his
intern, Wagner, who, proud of his knowledge, is the first comic ‘fool’ of the
Faust drama.
Wagner belongs to that species of learned pedants who populated
the comic stages beginning in the Renaissance; it was as the Dottore of the
commedia dell’arte that the pedant achieved this stereotypical status. Goethe
avails himself of this sterotype from the very beginning to counterpoint the
tragic pathos of Faust’s monologues. And this counterpointing is rigorously
continued in Mephisto’s scenes – such as in the straightforwardly humorous
student scene, which is, no less than the Wagner scenes, a satire of scholarly
industry. Even Gretchen’s story is, though certainly a tragedy for its female
protagonist, riddled with comic counterpoints. Mephisto’s game of
intrigue, his conjuring of the jewellery box into Gretchen’s wardrobe, his
narrative of its appropriation by a priest, the way he leads Martha around by
218 dieter borchmeyer
her nose and exploits her as a matchmaker – all this is reminiscent of the
farcical scenes of German carnival plays, as it is of ancient Roman comedy.
Mephisto’s primary aim is to degrade all of Faust’s lofty ambitions and to
drag down everything he does into the banal, wicked gutters of a coarse life,
while countering Faust’s elevated style with his obscene sense of humour
and cynical parlando. If he can bring people to sing, along with the students
in ‘Auerbach’s Cellar’, ‘we are as happy as cannibals, / Five hundred swine
can’t beat us!’ (2293–4), if he can pull them down from the spirit’s heights
into the depths of naked ‘bestiality’ (2297), he has reached his goal. The
wand – with which he conducts the farces he instigates, from ‘Auerbach’s
Cellar’ to ‘Walpurgis Night’ and the ‘Masquerade’, which mobilize low-
brow comedy to utterly negativistic ends – this wand is, directly or indi-
rectly, the phallus. It is with it that he reveals his identity in the ‘Witch’s
Kitchen’: ‘Look at the coat of arms I wear! He makes an indecent gesture’
(2513). The Witch, endowed with a hellish sense for the devil’s phallic
humour, ‘laughing immoderately’, states: ‘Ha, ha! I recognize your style! /
You always were a rogue, a rascal!’ (2514–15). In the ‘Forest and Cave’ scene
Mephisto likewise presents the phallus as the true director of all things. A
Faust who separates himself from Gretchen, for her sake as much as for his
own, and retires in solitude to devote himself to a new, no longer scientific,
but rather mystical-meditative contemplation of nature is a threat to
Mephisto’s plan and his wager with God. He must stimulate Faust’s
sensuality anew, with feigned sympathy, by calling his memory of
Gretchen to mind. Mephisto’s cynicism peaks in this bombastic exposure
of Faust’s nature mysticism as displaced sex act:
mephistopheles Ein überirdisches Vergnügen!
In Nacht und Tau auf den Gebirgen liegen,
Und Erd und Himmel wonniglich umfassen,
Zu einer Gottheit sich aufschwellen lassen,
Der Erde Mark mit Ahndungsdrang durchwühlen,
Alle sechs Tagewerk im Busen fühlen,
In stolzer Kraft ich weiß nicht was genießen,
Bald liebewonniglich in alles überfließen,
Verschwunden ganz der Erdensohn,
Und dann die hohe Intuition – Mit einer Gebärde –
Ich darf nicht sagen, wie – zu schließen!
faust Pfui über dich!
mephistopheles Das will Euch nicht behagen;
Ihr habt das Recht, gesittet Pfui zu sagen.
Hidden comedy, covert opera 219
part two
Faust does not, however, transcend tragedy only in the direction of com-
edy – it transcends it also in the direction of opera. Like none of his other
works, Goethe’s opus summum is full of music, ranging from realizable (and
often realized) stage music, i.e., instrumental, lied- and cantata-like inter-
ludes, across scenic analogies of music-dramatic forms, to imaginary or
symbolic worlds of sound. Hardly any other drama in world literature is
as full of inaudible music, or is as uncomposable, as Faust. This remains true
in spite of countless attempts to compose it and in spite of the clearly
operatic structures of Part ii.
‘Mozart ought to have composed Faust’, Goethe told Eckermann on
12 February 1829, when the latter enquired about the ‘right kind of music’
to accompany his life’s work, apparently meaning the second part of it.5
Even though Goethe played with the thought of a composition by Giacomo
Meyerbeer, who was a pupil of Zelter’s, he found it ‘absolutely impossible’
for a composer of his time to find adequate music for Faust. ‘The tone of
terror, the repulsive and loathsome tone that would have to be a character-
istic of it, at least in certain passages, goes quite against the times. The music
would have to be in the character of Don Giovanni’, Goethe remarked,
testifying to his unsentimental image of Mozart. To be sure, Faust is too
much of an imaginary opera to have become a real one. The composers who
made the attempt to find a musical equivalent for it confined themselves to
fragmentary approximations, the composition of individual scenes (like
Schumann and Mahler), or opted for their own free vision of a music
Hidden comedy, covert opera 225
drama. This is the case with Busoni, whose musical imagination circled
around Goethe’s Faust all his life, but who ended up basing his Doktor Faust
on the chapbook and the puppet play.
But even if it was no longer Goethe’s original drama, as an opera Faust
became so popular on the stage of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
that it may be called the subject of modern opera par excellence. This of
course has much to do with the immanent musicality of Goethe’s drama. A
major part of the over sixty Faust operas since 1797 are derived from it. They
are mostly based on the first part of the tragedy, or on the fragment of 1790.
But Faust ii has also been operatically adapted, from Boito’s Mefistofele
(1868) to Lili Boulanger’s stage cantata Faust et Hélène (1913) and other, later
Helen operas. Besides the opera, countless compositions of Goethe’s poetry
have been attempted, whether in song or as a symphonic oratorio explicat-
ing the text, such as Franz Liszt’s Faust Symphony (1857), Robert
Schumann’s Faust Scenes (1862) and Gustav Mahler’s Eighth Symphony
(1910), in which Mahler achieves a monumental synthesis of the church
hymn Veni creator spiritus – which Goethe had translated and interpreted as
‘an appeal to the universal genius of the world’ (to Zelter, 18 February
1821) – with the ‘Mountain Gorges’ scene of Faust ii.6
Hardly any composer spent more of his life more intensely engaged with
Faust than Richard Wagner. At the age of 18 (in 1831, while Goethe was still
alive) he had already set a few ‘numbers’ of Part i to music, while perhaps his
most important instrumental work, A Faust Overture (1839/55), developed
from plans for a whole symphony on Goethe’s drama. Significantly,
Wagner called his opus a Faust overture, just as Liszt would title his
Wagner-inspired symphony A Faust Symphony. The indefinite article sig-
nifies in both cases that music can only achieve an approach to Goethe’s
incomparable work, but never the transposition of it – an idea which also
guided Schumann’s Scenes from Goethe’s Faust.
The intention of Faust, at least of its second part, approaches a musical-
dramatic Gesamtkunstwerk. The important role played by the basic forms of
opera, oratorio and other musical-literary genres in structuring Faust ii – not
to mention the work’s pervasive musical symbolism and lyrical entangle-
ment of phonetic and semantic elements – has often been observed. The
eminent significance Goethe attributed to opera, however – as the modern
form of dramatic art – is still not widely appreciated among his connois-
seurs. ‘This pure opera’, he wrote in the Tag- und Jahreshefte of 1789, ‘which
remains perhaps the most favourable dramatic form, had become so per-
sonal and natural to me that I used it for many subjects’ (BA 16, 13).
Without even including the hybrid forms between opera and drama
226 dieter borchmeyer
(Proserpina, Egmont and pageants), one-third of Goethe’s dramatic works
and projects are finished or planned libretti.
This recourse to opera was one of the most important reforms under-
taken by the Weimar stage to counter the ‘naturalistic’ tendencies of
the contemporary theatre. In his ‘conversation’ Über Wahrheit und
Wahrscheinlichkeit der Kunstwerke (1797, On Truth and Probability in
Works of Art), opera serves as a model for distinguishing ‘artistic truth’
from ‘natural truth’. Schiller’s oft-quoted letter (29 December 1797) to
Goethe on opera in the same year points in the same direction: ‘I have
always had a certain confidence in opera, thinking that from it tragedy
would develop a nobler form, just as the chorus of the old Bacchanalian
festival did.’ This is because opera succeeds through the ‘power of music’ in
making the soul, by necessity, ‘more indifferent towards the subject matter’.
Accordingly, it lacks that ‘servile imitation of nature’ which, according to
Schiller, any ‘reform’ of drama must begin by suppressing.7
Goethe must have agreed with this wholeheartedly. His fascination with
opera had much to do with his ‘suspicion’, as he writes to Zelter on
6 September 1827, that the ‘sense for music should accompany . . . any
sense for art’ (WA 4:43, 49). And this suspicion even becomes a ‘claim’
which he ‘would like to support by way of theory and experience’. And in
Maximen und Reflexionen (Maxims and Reflections) we read: ‘The dignity
of Art appears perhaps most conspicuously in Music; for in Music there is
no material to be deducted. It is wholly form and intrinsic value, and it
raises and ennobles all that it expresses.’8 This is exactly the reason for the
exemplary role of music in Goethe’s aesthetic theory and practice – a
practice which, especially in the theatre, aims at ‘deducting’ subject-matter
when dealing with art.
This same idea lies behind the closeness of Faust ii to opera. Goethe did
not, of course, have ‘real’ opera in mind – in which the poet was typically
unable to express himself freely – but its ideal form. ‘The text of an opera’,
wrote Goethe in a letter to Prince Lobkowitz on 7 October 1812, is one of
those ‘poetic genres’ the quality of which is ‘very hard to judge, because they
cannot be judged as independent works of art’ (WA 4:23, 110–11). Faust i is
already marked by countless musical references. To begin with, there are the
clear indications of music on and behind the stage, such as ‘church bells and a
choir’ (736–7) during Easter night in the first scene in Faust’s study. There is
the singing and dancing of the beggar and of the soldiers and peasants in the
scene ‘Outside the City Gate’ and of the spirits in the first and second
‘Study’ scenes. There is the solo and choral singing of the students, as well as
Mephisto’s flea song in ‘Auerbach’s Cellar’, Gretchen’s song about the king
Hidden comedy, covert opera 227
in Thule, Mephisto’s serenade outside Gretchen’s door in the night scene,
and the cathedral scene with ‘Organ and Choir’ (3775–6), which, in its
blend of reality and imagination, with the voices of the Evil Spirit and
Gretchen alternating with the ‘Dies irae’ of the choir, gives the impression
of a veritable opera scene – no wonder it was set to music as a whole by
Robert Schumann. Nor can we forget the many musical elements of the
‘Walpurgis Night’ or Gretchen’s mad singing in the ‘Prison’ scene.
This unusually dense succession of incidental music is already enough to
distance Faust i from ‘classical’ drama and draw it into the vicinity of opera.
There are also scenes which are structured analogously to music. The
‘Prologue in Heaven’, for example, begins with the solemn quatrains of
the three Archangels, which are not literally sung but represent a meta-
phorical antiphony where the voices of the Archangels present themselves
soloistically at first and then unite in triphony. It is a musica angelica which
corresponds to the musica mundana, the harmony of the spheres invoked in
the first lines of the ‘Prologue’. Mephisto then consciously interrupts the
style of this ‘singing’ when he bursts in with his rakish and irregular spoken
verses of five or more stresses. Among other passages with musical structures
are several melodramatic moments in the study and in Gretchen’s lyrical
scenes ‘At Her Spinning Wheel’ or ‘By the Ramparts’ (3586–7, ‘Deign, O
deign, / You who are sorrow-laden’), which the young Richard Wagner
actually composed as a melodrama. Whether we focus on the pure inciden-
tal music or the above-mentioned analogous or metaphorical choral and
melodramatic scenes, Faust i is clearly marked by a counterpointing of
quasi-musical and spoken verse drama.
This is continued with even greater clarity in the second part of the
tragedy. The ‘Pleasant Landscape’ scene, which opens Faust ii as the pagan
counterpart to the ‘Prologue in Heaven’ of Part i, has such a consistently
musical structure that Schumann had no difficulty setting it to music. It
begins with Ariel, accompanied by aeolian harps, singing an eight-line aria
stanza in trochaic four-stress lines with alternate rhymes and masculine and
feminine endings. Formally, it could be the work of Metastasio, the model
librettist of Italian opera seria. This is followed by a recitative in iambic five-
stress lines with a free rhyme scheme. Then the chorus starts up with four-
lined stanzas in the same form as Ariel’s initial aria. In Goethe’s first draft
they bore the names of musical genres corresponding to Ariel’s four
‘watches of the night’ (4626): ‘Serenade, Notturno, Matutino, Reveille.’
The purely musical scene closes with a lyrically more relaxed ‘aria’ of Ariel.
This is followed by Faust’s monologue in terza rima which, while Goethe
usually intended it for spoken declamation, Schumann also set to music.
228 dieter borchmeyer
The actually or metaphorically sung opening scene is followed by the
state council scene at the Emperor’s court, which appears to be conceived as
a conventional theatrical scene. The ‘Masquerade’ that follows again mixes
spoken monologues and dialogues with soloistic and choral antiphonies,
but in the second part of this scene the borders once again blur between
what can be imagined and represented musically on the one hand and
verbally on the other. The remaining scenes of the first act, culminating in
the conjuring of Paris and Helen before the Emperor and his court, are
again only spoken. By and large, music disappears from the dramaturgy of
Faust after the ‘Masquerade’. The scenes in Faust’s former study are straight
theatre, and the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’ of Act 2 plays out on ancient
soil, far removed from the Western experience of music. Of course even
here we have (in addition to the musical imagery of the dialogues) the
singing of the Sirens (parodied ‘to the same tune’ by the Sphinxes), as well as
the chorus of the Nereids, Tritons and other mythological ensembles, up to
the mighty final chorus sung by ‘All’. Yet it is hardly imaginable musically,
since what Goethe wants to conjure here is not the Nordic-Romantic
musical world but its countercosmos, whose musiké sounded nothing like
what modern listeners think of as music. Remarkably, no composer has ever
had the daring to set this mythological cosmos to music. Schumann’s Faust
Scenes, for instance, skip straight from the first act to the fifth.
The third act, Helena’s ‘Classic-Romantic Phantasmagoria’, with its
change of scenes from Menelaus’ palace to Faust’s medieval castle, gradually
exchanges – thematically as well – the formal model of Greek tragedy for
that of modern opera. At the bottom of this ‘paradigm shift’ is Goethe and
Schiller’s fundamental notion that music is the exemplary art of modernity,
just as antiquity had been the heyday of the visual arts. The genre laws of the
visual arts are thus more congruent to naïve or classical poetry, while the
rules of music correspond more closely to those of sentimental or Romantic
poetry. Schiller speaks in his treatise on ‘Naïve and Sentimental Poetry’
about the ‘dual relationship of poetry with music and plastic art. . . .
According to whether poetry either imitates a given object as the plastic
arts do, or whether, like music, it simply produces a given state of mind,
without requiring a given object for the purpose, it can be called plastic or
musical.’9
Modern musical poetry arises from the marriage of Faust and Helena.
With the birth of Euphorion, music in the Western sense is born. The stage
directions between 9678 and 9679 read: ‘Pleasing, purely melodic music of
stringed instruments is heard from the grotto. All listen attentively, and soon
seem deeply affected by it. From this point to the pause after v. 9938 there is full
Hidden comedy, covert opera 229
musical accompaniment.’ And now Phorkyas alias Mephisto appeals to the
ancient listeners, who are moved by a hitherto unkown feeling:
Höret allerliebste Klänge,
Macht euch schnell von Fabeln frei!
Eurer Götter alt Gemenge,
Laßt es hin! es ist vorbei. (9679–82)
Now Euphorion enters, the genius of modern musical poetry. This whole
scene with its sequence of arias, duets, tercets and ensemble numbers
involving the chorus follows an unmistakably operatic design, closing
with the four-stanza funerary chant of the chorus. All ends, therefore,
with the fatal fall of Euphorion.
230 dieter borchmeyer
The specifically musical expression of death is, according to a note made
by Beethoven in the draft of Egmont, the pause. Goethe employs it here as
well, and with the highest tragic pathos: ‘Complete pause. The music ceases’
(after 9938). While in an opera the music has to resume after a general pause,
however long it may be, this musical pause in Goethe’s Helena act does not
end. The music dies away once and for all, Helena and the chorus return to
their ancient modalities, and Panthalis bids good riddance to the now, in
her eyes fortunately, ‘dead’ music: ‘We’re rid at last of magic spells / And of
that roar of jingling, complicated notes / That disconcert the ear and, even
more, the mind’ (9963–5).
We can pass over Act 4; apart from some ‘martial music’ in the back-
ground, it is Faust’s least musical act. Only in Act 5 does the music, with the
singing Lynceus, gradually return. The midnight scene with Care – the first
one Schumann set to music after ‘Pleasant Landscape’ – marks a renewed
movement back towards musical dramaturgy. This becomes more obvious
in the subsequent scenes with Mephisto and the lemurs, and with Faust’s
interment and the chorus of angels. The final scene (‘Mountain Gorges’), in
which singing as such is nowhere thematized, presents itself less as an opera
than as a metaphorical oratorio, the musical allure of which need not be
gone into any further here.
What Goethe said (in reference to Orpheus, who built houses with the
sounds of his lyre) about architecture – he called it ‘silenced music’ – could
also be said about large parts of Faust. If not silenced, it is at least silent
music. This is true not only of its dramaturgy, but also of its thematics and
symbolism. Out of Faust’s dense musical mesh of images at least two motifs
can be highlighted here. From the very beginning, the ‘Dedication’ follows
the rhapsodic–epic tradition in presenting the poetry to come as Gesänge
and Lieder (songs), and ascribes to the latter a cathartic effect for the poet
himself:
Es schwebet nun in unbestimmten Tönen
Mein lispelnd Lied, der Äolsharfe gleich,
Ein Schauer faßt mich, Träne folgt den Tränen,
Das strenge Herz, es fühlt sich mild und weich. (27–30)
not es
Translated by John Noyes and Hans Schulte.
1. Goethe, Faust, ed. & trans. Stuart Atkins, Collected Works, vol. ii, Princeton
University Press, 1994. All further references to Faust are by line number to this
edition. Other English translations provided by John Koster are referenced as
JK.
2. Mikhail Bakhtin, The Bakhtin Reader. Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev,
Voloshinov, ed. Pam Morris, London: Edward Arnold, 1994, 235.
3. Ibid., 235.
4. Karl August Böttiger, Literarische Zustände und Zeitgenossen. Begegnungen und
Gespräche im klassischen Weimar, ed. Klaus Gerlach and René Sternke, Berlin:
Aufbau, 1998, 251.
5. Johann Peter Eckermann, Conversations with Goethe, ed. Hans Kohn, trans.
Gisela C. O’Brien, New York: Frederick Ungar, 1964, 141.
6. Goethe’s Letters to Zelter, with Abstracts from Those of Zelter to Goethe, trans.
A. D. Coleridge, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1887, 202.
7. Goethe, Correspondence between Goethe and Schiller, 1794–1805, trans. Liselotte
Dieckmann, New York: P. Lang, 1992, 251.
8. Goethe, Maxims and Reflections, trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders, London:
Macmillan, 1908, 172.
9. Friedrich Schiller, Naive and Sentimental Poetry, trans. Julius A. Elias, New
York: Frederick Ungar, 1967, 133.
234 dieter borchmeyer
10. Goethe, Essays on Art, ed. John Gearey, Collected Works, Princeton University
Press, 1994, iii, 199.
11. Goethe’s Letters to Zelter, 221.
12. Goethe, Selected Poems, ed. Christopher Middleton, Princeton University
Press, 1994, 255.
13. Goethe’s Letters to Zelter, 293.
14. Ibid., 293–4.
15. Ibid., 474.
chapter 15
The self, known in Western thought primarily as the soul, became, partic-
ularly under the influence of Rousseau, interiorized in the second half of the
eighteenth century. Troubled by the moral irresponsibility that accompa-
nies identity so interiorized that it is unknowable to itself, Goethe explored
alternative models of selfhood from the early 1770s on. Werther analyses the
solipsism of the modern self, while Egmont offers a notion of theatrical
identity – the self as a role to which one commits, at least for a time.1 The
questions surrounding Faust’s identity have always been central to the Faust
legend: the Faust of the chapbook is, after all, a sinner who barters his soul
for knowledge. One way to think of the modernity of Faust is to say that
Goethe substitutes interiorized identity for soul, and self-knowledge for
knowledge in the traditional schema.
The questions that have swirled around the morality of striving in the
Faust scholarship might be better understood as problems that Goethe
recognized with modern subjectivity. An unknowable self can only develop
blindly at the behest of nature; it will inevitably come into conflict with a
social world predicated on the control that arises from self-knowledge. The
Lord of the ‘Prologue in Heaven’ locates Faust’s capacity for salvation in his
participation in the eternal motion of a nature that never stands still but
always changes in time. At the same time, the Lord acknowledges the
concomitant violation of the human moral code inherent in such striving –
‘Man errs as long as he strives’ (317).2 The problem, for Goethe, is not
inability to know the moral code, but the relationship between epistemo-
logy and morality, between knowledge and action. But Goethe takes the
problem a large step beyond Rousseau, for the connection of human
striving to the eternal motion of nature ties the essential ineffability of the
interior self to the ineffability of the cosmos. Faust faces a double dilemma –
to know the unknowable self and to know unknowable nature. If science is
the way of knowing nature, and art of knowing the self, Faust needs them
both. Thus this chapter investigates the relationship of art to science in
235
236 jane k. brown
Faust – in particular that of theatre to Goethe’s experimental method – and
the importance of both for understanding Goethe’s notion of identity.
At the end of Act 3 of Part ii, Helena dissolves in Faust’s embrace, and her
dress becomes a cloud that carries him away from Greece. Mephistopheles in
the meantime removes the mask he has worn during the act to reveal that
Faust’s entire affair with Helena has been a play-within-the-play, pure theatre.
At the beginning of Act 4, the cloud deposits Faust at the top of the Alps and
withdraws eastward, looking more and more like a recumbent goddess or
even Helena as it goes. Then a different cloud, a wispy, high one appears,
that Faust readily identifies with Margarete, his ideal beloved from Part i
of the drama. The descriptions of the billowing cumulus cloud associated
with Helen and the cirrus that represents Margarete derive from the cloud
classification system of Luke Howard (1772–1864), still basically in use
today.3 Here this scientific system represents the two women whom Faust
has cast to represent his own ideals, and thus, in a certain sense, his own self.
This prominently located cloud imagery thus connects identity both to
science and to theatre.
Identity is, perhaps surprisingly, central to Goethe’s scientific method.
Normally since the seventeenth century the experimental method has been
oriented towards validating a hypothesis, but for Goethe the fundamental
problem was the role of the observer or, in the Kantian terminology of the
time, the problem of the subject and the object. In these terms there could
be no accurate scientific perception of the object, the other, unless the
mediation of the subject, the observing self, could be taken into account. In
Faust also the search for knowledge turns out really to be the search for
knowledge of the self and its relation to the other, or of the subject and its
relation to the object. As Faust learns, achieving knowledge of the subject is
anything but trivial: it takes a long lifetime and about 12,000 lines of
difficult poetry to learn that a self exists only in the present and is thus
always in flux, always unstable. Because they change shape so freely and are
so difficult to describe objectively, clouds are a particularly good image for
connecting problems of identity and objective knowledge. By linking the
clouds to the particular personal identities of Faust’s two beloveds, Goethe
pushes the basic problem to the extreme: both identity and phenomenon –
that is, both subject and object – are unstable.4 How can an unstable
observer ever establish objective knowledge of an unstable phenomenon?
The cloud monologue in Act 4 thus addresses Goethe’s fundamental
question regarding experimental methods. I shall show how it connects
Goethe’s scientific and theatrical concerns by describing first the connec-
tion of the subject–object problem in Goethe’s general scientific essays to
Theatricality and experiment 237
Faust, then by exploring identity in Faust – how it is a problem – and then
how it is theatrical. After that I shall return to stabilize the clouds.
Faust i the sea is a ‘mirror-flood’ (700) that attracts Faust to new worlds,
and, in the vanity mode, Frau Marthe, mother of all vices, invites Margarete
to come to her in order to parade before the mirror in her jewellery (2888).
Reflection in ‘Night’ catches both aspects simultaneously: when Faust is
Theatricality and experiment 247
rejected by the Earth Spirit, he laments: ‘I, reflection of the Godhead, who
thought myself already / So near the mirror of eternal truth / Rejoiced in my
heavenly glory and radiance’ (614–16). The capacity of the mirror to reflect
eternal truth is distorted by the unwarranted substitution of Faust’s self in
place of the Godhead.22 Thus the two older meanings of the motif barely
raise the subject–object problem.
But when the mirror actually appears on stage as a symbol, something
new happens. When Margarete finds the first casket of jewels, she puts on a
necklace and steps up to the mirror. She indulges in vanity for only two lines
(‘If only the earrings were mine! / You look so different in them’, 2796–7),
then quickly shifts to an almost mystical incantation of gold: ‘For gold
contend, / On gold depend / All things and men . . . Poor us!’ (2801–3). She
sees in the mirror not herself, but the heightened self she could be with the
addition of gold. Part ii makes it amply clear that gold is the equivalent of
the light of the sun, ineffable Truth. Margarete thus sees herself idealized.
The point is even more obvious when Faust stands before the magic mirror
in the ‘Witch’s Kitchen’. He sees in the mirror not himself, but a recumbent
Venus. Yet the figure awakens not his lust, as one would expect from a
magic mirror and despite Mephistopheles’ predictions, but his sense of the
ideal; he addresses the figure in the same language he uses to address the sign
of the Macrocosm. Like Margarete, Faust does not indulge in vanity (self-
satisfaction), but sees in the mirror a projection of his imagination, the very
ideal he is about to project onto Margarete. In each case what is seen in the
mirror is not an identity, in the sense of a self-as-is, but rather an imagined
role to be played, in both cases by Margarete. The fact that Faust projects his
ideal identity across the gender boundary emphasizes even more the impor-
tance of imagination in generating identities that are in truth roles.
In Part ii reflection becomes a more objective form of knowledge. The
paradigmatic formulation comes, like all paradigms for Part ii, in the first
scene, ‘Pleasant Landscape’, when the glittering stars are described as
‘reflected’ (4646) in the lake. We might first read the phrase as a traditional
Renaissance personification – the stars are the eyes of heaven. But nature is
already personified in this scene, in the nature spirits who sing this line to
Faust; the stars are only the natural objects they describe. Reflection is of
the object by the object – no subjects involved, just as in the late poem
‘Dämmrung senkte sich von oben’ (Dusk Descended from on High),
where ‘Blacker still the darkness grown / Reflects within the lake’s deep
skies’. Mephistopheles peers about him in the ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’,
and the indecency, ‘reflected in his eyes’ (7085), almost overwhelms him,
as the sunrise almost did Faust at the beginning of Part ii. The subject
248 jane k. brown
has apparently no engagement in this process; instead, the reflection pen-
etrates the viewer from outside his self. The Emperor sees himself reflected
in a Counter-Emperor (10407): only then, he says, does he ‘feel’ – not
‘imagine’ – his own potential greatness. The small shift in rhetoric is telling.
Reflection is now, as so often in late Goethe, a state of being.
At the same time, the mirror is no longer glass, but water.23 Water is
already reflective in Part i, but in Part ii its role is foregrounded more
explicitly. The paradigmatic moment, again, is the rainbow in ‘Pleasant
Landscape’: its colourful ‘Abglanz’, reflection and refraction simultane-
ously, represents all human life. In Act 2 Faust has two visions of Leda
and the Swan: as the conception of Helena they represent his deepest-rooted
desire – his subconscious, perhaps his inmost identity. Both feature the
surface of the water, which reflects the beauty of the mother of Helena
(6912, 7284). In the first, completely subconscious vision, a dream, the
water is described as crystal, but in the second description this last remnant
of the mirror’s former artificial character falls away. Homunculus must live
in a crystal phial because, he tells us, he is artificial: ‘What is artificial
requires confinement’ (6884). Hence we may conclude that the process of
mirroring in the water has become, by contrast, completely natural. The
reflective surface of the water is invoked twice when the members of the
Greek chorus dissolve into nature at the end of Act 3 and explicitly renounce
all claim to human identity (9999 and 10010). Mirrors began in Faust as
objects before which figures are costumed for their roles; they end as the site
at which role dissolves into nature.
The cloud monologue with which I began is the culmination of the
motif, the final manifestation of identity reflected in water. Now the water
is barely even water, but water vapour, and the clouds, unstable in shape as
they now are, reflect ‘fleeting days’ great meaning’ (10054). They represent,
of course, the memory of Helena, whose robe we have seen turn into these
very clouds at the end of the preceding scene. They exist objectively in the
play, they are connected objectively with Helena. Faust need supply no
subjective component to give them meaning. And yet, subject to tempo-
rality in their constant changes of shape, they also represent – reflect – the
profound significance of human history. If the mirror began as the solid
otherness of the world in contrast to the self, that objective other has now
become completely fluid. If the self is unstable, so is the nature in which it
mirrors itself. Both are unstable, because both exist only in time. Kant
suggested to Goethe that art and nature be seen as equivalent categories; so
Goethe’s mirror image shows us that self and world must also be seen as
equivalent or at least analogous categories – both are fluid enough to exist in
Theatricality and experiment 249
time, and both nevertheless are capable of mirroring something more
permanent than itself on its surface. While both the water and the self
have depths, what can be known of them is only what lies on the surface.24
Whatever permanence and stability either the world or the self has, it is
ineffable and can only be comprehended from the summation of the
different temporary manifestations. With this insight, Goethe’s experimen-
tal method and his notion of identity as a series of theatrical roles come
together. To conceive the self as a series of roles on the stage of the world, or
as a series of roles taken on to experiment with different points of view –
literally, different places to stand – in order to observe the phenomenon of
life, comes to the same thing.
Faust’s monologue at the beginning of Act 4 introduces the last of Faust’s
transformations in the play. Right after this speech he identifies the seashore
as the venue for what turns out to be his last adventure, his final act of
striving to drain swamps and provide land for a free and active people. It is
not a more important, culminating or more typical adventure than any of
the others, but yet another in the series of roles Faust has played. For it to be
superior or definitive would not be in the spirit either of Faust’s theatricality
or of Goethe’s scientific method. As researcher in Faust he lays before us the
series of Erfahrungen. They are all equivalent but, laid out next to each
other, they enable us to see the underlying pattern, the natural law. Faust’s
divided and unstable identity appears to be integrated, and the theatricality
of Part i begins to appear more objective in Part ii – not because anything
becomes more real, but because more and more figures in the repeated
reflections of stage and mirror render the pattern that is the natural law ever
more visible. Thus we have seen Margarete, Helena, Galatea and all the rest
before that anti-climactic mystification, the ‘eternal feminine’, is spoken.
The articulation of such profound and ineffable truths cannot help but
seem simultaneously banal and esoteric. Natural laws, like theatrical roles,
must be ‘angeschaut’, to use Goethe’s word, must be seen, to be believed.
Identity is thus equivalent to natural law, or the subject to the object. Or
is it? Surely it defeats the purpose to be so reductive. The elimination of the
self, Entäußerung, as a scientific term reduces the observer to an unthinking
eye. This is the reflexive self-contemplation at which the mirror imagery in
Part ii arrives. But in the theatre Entäußerung means to take on a role in
the world. It means to create exteriority, to make the ineffable concretely
visible, to give it body: Homunculus in search of a body to house his spark
of life is the paradigmatic example of the process of theatricality. The true
self, like the thing in itself, is the equivalent of natural law, but the focus of
the two discourses is different. Experiment gazes inward towards what
250 jane k. brown
remains constant as the phenomenon is observed from different points of
view, while theatricality makes whatever is constant in the self visible to the
spectator in a series of roles. Experiment is epistemological; theatricality is
representational. Theatricality and experiment in Faust are thus reciprocal
and complementary processes, as identity and natural law, subject and
object are reciprocal and complementary phenomena.
notes
1. I have discussed Goethe’s reservations about Rousseau’s morality in Goethe’s Faust:
The German Tragedy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986, 81–3, and, at greater
length, in ‘Goethe, Rousseau, the Novel and the Origins of Psychoanalysis’,
Goethe Yearbook 12 (2004), 111–28. On identity as role in Egmont, see my
‘Egmonts Daemon’ in Ironie und Objektivität. Aufsätze zu Goethe, Würzburg:
Königshausen & Neumann, 1999, 14–32.
2. HA 3, 317. All further references to Faust are by line number to this edition. All
translations are mine unless otherwise indicated.
3. Goethe’s interest in meteorology is well documented: he wrote about it, set up a
network of weather stations in the duchy of Weimar and kept a chart of local
barometric pressure pinned to the wall of his bedroom. His admiration for
Howard’s work is also well known; he even wrote poems about it.
4. Indeed, they remind us that the first appearance of Helen in Act 1 of Part ii as
shade was even less stable.
5. ‘Die Einwirkung der neueren Philosophie’ (The Influence of Modern
Philosophy), HA 13, 27. All subsequent citations to Goethe’s scientific essays
are to this volume. On Goethe’s interest in Kant, see Géza von Molnár,
‘Goethes Studium der Kritik der Urteilskraft. Eine Zusammenstellung nach
den Eintragungen in seinem Handexemplar’, Goethe Yearbook: Publications
of the Goethe Society of North America 2 (1984), 137–222; also Nicholas Boyle
demonstrates repeatedly in Goethe. The Poet and the Age, vol. ii, Oxford:
Clarendon, 2000, Goethe’s affinities for Kantian thought. An essay of 1792,
‘Der Versuch als Vermittler von Objekt und Subjekt’, sees art and science as
parallel in contrast (13, again 18), while a 1794 sketch for a never-published essay,
‘Inwiefern die Idee: Schönheit sei Vollkommenheit mit Freiheit, auf organische
Naturen angewendet werden könne’, attempts to capture for the natural scien-
ces the language of aesthetics (21–3).
6. Goethe, ‘Der Versuch als Vermittler’, HA 13, 10–11.
7. In the essay ‘Anschauende Urteilskraft’, which evokes the creative Earth Spirit
at the loom of time (30). The ethical aspect of Faust also enters into these
parallels, because Goethe explicitly connects the Kantian distinctions with his
own principle ‘Tun und Denken’ in ‘Einwirkung der neueren Philosophie’,
HA 13, 28.
8. Goethe, ‘Der Versuch als Vermittler’, HA 13, 10.
9. Ibid., 15–16.
Theatricality and experiment 251
10. Ibid., 12, 18.
11. Ibid., 13: ‘I might add that knowledge, like an enclosed, spring-fed pond,
gradually rises to a particular level such that the best discoveries are made not
by people, but by the age.’
12. Ibid., 18.
13. Goethe, ‘Erfahrung und Wissenschaft’, HA 13, 23–5.
14. Ibid., 25. Emphases mine.
15. Thus Faust can also say things like ‘You have gained no relief unless it flows
from your own soul’ (568–9), ‘Here I am human, here I can be so’ (939), ‘Oh, if
only you could read in my inner self’ (1031).
16. ‘That I learn what holds the world together in its innermost core, see all cause
and effect’ (382–4).
17. NB Faust ‘feels’ himself to be like the Spirit, but the Spirit insists on compre-
hension – a different kind of self-knowledge. Faust returns to this theme in the
later amplification of this passage: ‘I, image of the Godhead, that already /
Thought itself so very close to the mirror of eternal truth, / Admired its
heavenly glory and clarity, / And shook off my earthly casing; / I, more than
cherub, whose free power / To flow through the veins of nature / And to enjoy
the life of gods by creating / Had already arrogated to myself in anticipation –
how I must now atone!’ (614–21).
18. Wilhelm Meister takes on the role of Shakespeare’s Henry V, Prince Harry, as
he leads his band of actors, in outlandish costumes, into the hands of outlaws in
an episode that is clearly an exercise in experimental identity. Wilhelm Meisters
Lehrjahre, Book 4, chapter 5.
19. In his recent production of both parts of Faust, Peter Stein had the role of
Mephistopheles played by two different actors with totally different personae,
and it worked brilliantly.
20. I take this concept from the central thesis of Benjamin Bennett’s Goethe’s
Theory of Poetry. Faust and the Regeneration of Language, Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 1986.
21. Beginning in the fourteenth century, mirrors were also used as tools by
painters for developing perspective, for scaling, proportion and framing
scenes to create pictures; this technical use does not, however, seem to become
a metaphor for identity as other uses did. For a survey of the history of
mirrors, see Benjamin Goldberg, The Mirror and the Man, Charlottesville:
University Press of Virginia, 1985; for an excellent history of the mirror
in European culture, see Sabine Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror. A History,
trans. Katharine H. Jewett, New York and London: Routledge, 2001. A
more specialized version may be found in Herbert Grabes, Speculum,
Mirror und Looking-Glass. Kontinuität und Originalität der Spiegelmetapher
in den Buchtiteln des Mittelalters und der englischen Literatur des 13. bis 17.
Jahrhunderts, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1973. On magic mirrors, see Melchior-
Bonnet, The Mirror, 213–15.
22. Cf. also ‘What you call the spirit of the times / Is basically your own spirit / In
which the times are reflected’ (577–9).
252 jane k. brown
23. Mirrors only become consistently glass rather than metal or polished stone in
the late sixteenth century with the spread of Venetian glass. The term con-
sistently used in this and the seventeenth century is crystal (Goldberg, The
Mirror and the Man, 139; Melchior-Bonnet, The Mirror, 18). The water-mirror
in which Narcissus is trapped is its own independent commonplace of the
tradition of mirror imagery. It represents, however, not excessive subjectivity or
the depths of the self, but selfishness and self-love. See Emblemata. Handbuch
zur Sinnbildkunst des XVI. u. XVII. Jahrhunderts, ed. Arthur Henkel and
Albrecht Schöne, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1976, 1627–8.
24. Thus, in a closely related image, when Goethe’s fisherman sinks into the
water at the end of his poem ‘Der Fischer’ (HA 1, 154), his fate must remain
unknown. All that can be said is that he was never seen again.
chapter 16
goethe’s rhetoric
The modern restriction of rhetoric to a ‘rhetoric of tropes’ seen as a
‘modernist return of rhetoric’, or ‘rhetoricality’ in an overall sense is
historically derived from a ‘discontinuity within tradition’, from a ‘histor-
ical gap’ between Enlightenment and (post-)modernity.1 It postulates an
‘end of rhetoric’ in the era of Romanticism. Goethe’s rhetoric is situated in
a crucial period, when this tradition still exists but aesthetic theories and
stylistics are bringing it to an end. Theories of staging, even Goethe’s
famous and most disputed ‘Regeln für Schauspieler’ (Rules for Actors),
are seen apart from their rhetorical tradition and context. Goethe himself
never underestimated the art of persuasion. His rhetoric marks an epoch in
the history of rhetoric. Rhetorical theory can be traced up to his concept of
Weltliteratur, which proves to be a cornerstone of a new nineteenth-century
rhetoric.2
Introducing the term of rhetorical actio, the last stage of the opus
rhetoricum, as a leading concept into an analysis of Goethe’s major work
Faust opens rhetorical analysis anew to questions of ‘performance’, theatri-
cality, musicality and mediality. In fact, the Romantic era of transition can
be examined as a period of aesthetic and medial transformation of rhetoric
itself. Rhetoric in Goethe’s Faust has to be examined not only as a relic of
tradition, but also as a formative and performative element in a process of
transformation of rhetoric, from classicist through Romantic to modern
rhetoric.
Faust scholars know that Faust, Goethe’s character, is a great rhetorician.
Wagner, his famulus, admits his superior ars rhetorica, his undisputable
firma facilitas. He strives to profit by this art. But when Wagner states ‘The
comedian may teach a priest’ (527), Faust answers ironically ‘If the priest is
a comedian’ (528).3 Homiletics are revealed as histrionic in using the
rhetorical tropes of irony. In response to Wagner’s statement ‘Actio makes
253
254 helmut schanze
the orator succeed’ (546), Faust disputes this art: ‘Intelligence and good
sense will express / Themselves with little art and strain’ (550–1). But on
closer examination, Faust’s anti-rhetoric not only reveals itself as tropical,
but also as rhetorical criticism in poetic form. To conceal art is a genuine
principle of ars rhetorica itself, a topos: ars est celare artem.
Mephistopheles, his counterpart, is a superb rhetorician as well. By
rhetorical devices he persuades even the Lord to put Faust on trial.
Mephistopheles also ‘likes’ to talk about the Lord ironically: ‘It’s very courtly
in so great a Lord as He / To talk so like a man even with the Devil’ (352–3).
And when Margarete denies being a ‘young lady’, Faust praises her humility.
The courtly art of greeting and addressing is rhetorically ironized. Faust’s
discourse with Margarete is, technically, a perfect rhetoric of seduction, but it
uses the elements of the new rhetoric of passion, the core of the Romantic
concept of love. Faust is conceived as ‘Don Juan’ and romantic lover in one
person, and he acts rhetorically in this double role.
Faust and Mephistopheles are virtuosi at playing with rhetorical registers.
Irony, using the argument of the counterpart, is truly a rhetorical device,
although it is used against rhetoric itself. By this strategy, the hierarchy of
Renaissance rhetoric is rhetorically proven to be outdated. The very prin-
ciple of the ‘Renaissance man’, his personal striving for knowledge, his
individualism, has sown the germ of decay into the hierarchical order of
speech, into the law of ‘decorum’, the relation between status and style,
codified in the social pyramid from the king, the noblemen and the
burghers down to the peasants, from sublimity to simplicity and humility.
This was taught and used in the epistolary art, even in Goethe’s time, and he
used it in his ‘official letters’ to the emperor, the princes, his great archduke
and his colleagues.
Faust i and ii are poetic documents of a new rhetoric and its critique. In
his schematic synopsis of the unfinished scenes of Part ii, sketched in
December 1826, Goethe announces their future performance ‘with all the
features of poetics and rhetoric’ (444). This implies actio too. In the
dramatic form chosen by Goethe, rhetoric – the art of prose – is not a
nostalgic remembrance of past orality, as it is in the ‘romantic book’. The
difference between the book and theatre is action. Written and even printed
drama has to be put into action in the full sense of the word. Action, which
has to follow the draft of a speech, not only reveals a theoretical term and
practical stage of production, it is also an inherent principle of Goethe’s
work, the performative principle itself.
Actio in an overall sense is a principal concept in Goethe’s Hauptgeschäft
(main task) from its very beginnings. Faust praises actio in translating the
Rhetorical action 255
opening words of the Gospel of St John: ‘Im Anfang war die Tat!’,
translated by Stuart Atkins as ‘In the beginning was the Act’ (1237).
Action gave birth to the world. This is the credo of power, which is in
fact the credo of the powerful word, the dynamic principle, the very
energeia. In Faust’s second ‘Study’ monologue (1224–37), ‘action’ super-
sedes mere words (‘das Wort’), mere meaning (‘Sinn’) and mere dynamics
(‘Kraft’) .
Renaissance literature, as Heinrich F. Plett has argued, forms a theatrum
elocutionis, a theatre of the word. It lacks actio in the rhetorical sense. In
Wordsworth’s definition, poetry is ‘emotion recollected in tranquillity’;4
actio becomes a process of the inner life. Bodily actio has to be re-established
in written poetry by powerful poetic means and mainly by figurative,
energetic speech. It appeals to the imagination of the reader by poetic
imagery, by words and by bodily language.
Drama has to go further, since it entails close relations between rhetorical
action and dramatic action. The orator is, in fact, an actor. Persuasion has to
be established not only by words, but also by the musical dimension of
speech, by scenic devices, and by the actor’s body, gestures and voice. The
actor plays his role, and he plays with the imagination of the public.
Renaissance and post-Renaissance drama is printed literature and acted
play. It is ‘romantic’ in a broad sense, and ‘antique’ too, imaginative and
physical. It is concerned with a double public, the public of readers and the
public in the theatre.
In conceiving the tragedy of the ‘Renaissance man’, Goethe had to work
on two levels: literary imagination and physical representation. If Faust and
Mephistopheles are conceived both as perfect rhetoricians, they have to
play, as a perfect rhetorician must do, different roles.5 The roles of Faust and
Mephistopheles are roles of role-players; they act not only one role, but a
multiplicity of roles.
As a ‘Romantic’ and modern work, Goethe’s tragedy surpasses the rules
of classical dramatic unity, of character, of place, of time, and of Greek,
Roman and Renaissance rhetoric, by using the Romantic imagination and
modern theatrical devices. The Helena act, for example, spans three mil-
lennia, starting at Troy and ending in the political tragedy of the Romantic
poet (Byron) on the battlefields of Greece, in Messolonghi. The drama of
antiquity, the plays of the Middle Ages, Elizabethan theatre, Baroque ‘world
theatre’, ‘operatic’ scenes, modern theatre of the interior and even the pre-
cinematic apparatus of phantasmagoria are united.
If we take a closer look at the history of Goethe’s actio itself – the
‘performance’ (Ausführung) of the work – there is a crisis of rhetoric that
256 helmut schanze
deserves attention. The planned ‘great oration’ before Persephone, Faust’s
bid for Helen as New Orpheus, was never realized. His great address to his
‘people’ finds only the public of the spectres. And in the end Faust’s actions
and Mephisto’s quaerela have proved to be in vain: ‘A great expense, for
shame! is thrown away’ (11837).
Goethe, of course, knew his Aristotle; as poet, jester and director in one
person, he discusses dramatically the theatrical and the operatic apparatus,
opsis and melopoiia. He didn’t like operatic people, dull dogs on stage, but he
used them whenever possible, even with the poodle in Faust. He knew the
misunderstanding – or true understanding – of Greek drama as
Gesamtkunstwerk. He dreamed that Mozart might compose music for his
Faust and – to the chagrin of some scholars devoted to Wagnerism – he also
named Meyerbeer as a contender for this eminent task.
258 helmut schanze
Under the complexity of actio we have to accept a controversial triad of
rhetoric, poetics and music, and at least three different concepts of action in
Faust: rhetorical, poetic and musical. They all form a unique ‘staging’ and
‘music’ which is ‘rhetorical’ at the beginning, corporeal on stage and multi-
medial in further medializations at the end.
He [Kayser] brought with him the symphony for Egmont, and so I experienced a
revitalization of my fundamental interests, which at the present time were
more than before, out of necessity and preferences, directed against the musical
theatre. (HA 11, 435–6)
262 helmut schanze
Goethe tried to enlist the composer’s help for the ‘performance’ of his
musical works of the early Weimar years: Erwin und Elmire, Claudine
von Villa Bella and Scherz, List und Rache. He obviously tried to go
further than the old intermezzo, envisioning a new form of Singspiel. But
Kayser definitely failed in achieving the new form of musical comedy
Goethe intended. Kayser composed, in Goethe’s words, ‘nach altem
Schnitt’ (in an old-fashioned manner). But Mozart more than matched
his intentions:
When Mozart came on the scene, all our striving to confine ourselves to the simple
and controlled was in vain. The Entführung aus dem Serail overwhelmed everything
[schlug alles nieder], and in the theatre nobody ever spoke of our carefully crafted
piece again. (HA 11, 437)
‘Schlug nieder’, in Goethe’s cryptic words, means also a real, personal
depression – in terms of psychopathology, a depressing defeat of the genius
of the musical word by the genius of music.
In musical performance, Goethe is restricted to words. He created
musical words, and he gave ‘literary’ advice to composers. This advice, or
musical framing, is to be found in the text itself, and beyond it. It is to be
formulated in the framework of the old musical genres of ‘intermezzo’ and
‘opera’. It uses the conventional stage directions and the formalism of
musical comedy before Mozart, but is clearly intended to be performed
using the musical means of the post-Mozart era. Goethe used the forms of
madrigal, lied, Singspiel and even operatic arias very consciously. On the one
hand, Goethe had to refer to conventions; on the other hand, he set his
hopes on the genius of musical performance.
In a true speech an orator plays all the parts – moves through all the characters –
through all situations – only for the sake of surprise – in order to observe the
object from a new side, to provide the audience with an illusion, or to convince
it of something; a speech is an extremely vital and witty, variant tableau of
internal observations on an object. The orator will ask, then answer, then he
speaks and enters into dialogue, then he narrates, then he appears to forget the
object, only to return to it suddenly, then he pretends to be convinced, only to
resort to cunning undermining, then becoming simply moved, courageous – he
addresses his children – he acts as if it were all over and done with – then he
speaks to the peasants, to one then another, even with lifeless objects. In short, a
speech is a monologic drama.
Novalis, Schriften, ed. Paul Kluckhohn and Richard Samuel, Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer, 1968, iii, 648–9.
6. The Poetics of Aristotle, trans. S. H. Butcher, London: Macmillan, 1895.
7. See Michael Davis, Aristotle’s Poetics. The Poetry of Philosophy, Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield, 1992, 45; Helmut Schanze, ‘Opsis und Melodia.
Zum “Apparat” und zur “Medialisierung” ’, in Das Musiktheater in den audio-
visuellen Medien, ed. P. Csobádi, G. Gruber, J. Kühnel, U. Müller, O. Pangl,
F. V. Spechtler, Salzburg: Mueller-Speiser, 2001, 80–91. Ulrich Gaier, in a
forthcoming study on Anthropology of Poetics, derives this triad of definitions
from Plato’s positions in his dialogues Phaedrus and Politics.
8. See Goethe’s aide-mémoire for the Duke of Sachsen-Weimar-Eisenach, Carl
August, 1783. Goethe confirmed the legal arguments of the time and the legality
of the sentence, but he did not take part in the ‘processus’, as was recently argued
by Günther Jerouschek, ‘Skandal um Goethe?’, in Goethe-Jahrbuch 2004,
Weimar: Böhlau, 2005, 253–60.
9. Goethe, conversation with Eckermann, 6 June 1831. Goethes Gespräche. Eine
Sammlung zeitgenössischer Berichte aus seinem Umgang, auf Grund der Ausgabe
266 helmut schanze
und des Nachlasses, ed. Flodoard Freiherrn von Biedermann, rev. and ed.
Wolfgang Herwig, Zurich: Artemis, 1965.
10. See Helmut Schanze, ‘Christlich-kirchliche Figuren. Zur poetologischen
Bedeutung mittelalterlicher “Bilder” für Goethes Spätwerk’, in Kunst als
Kulturgut. Die Bildersammlung der Brüder Boisserée – ein Schritt in der
Begründung des Museums, ed. Annemarie Gethmann-Siefert and Otto
Pöggeler, Bonn: Bouvier, 1995, 206–11.
11. Goethe’s ‘Musical Theatre’ has recently drawn major attention. See Tina
Hartmann, Goethes Musiktheater. Singspiele, Opern, Festspiele, Faust,
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004. See also my book on Goethe-Musik, Munich:
Fink, 2009.
12. See also Detlef Altenburg, ‘Fürst Radziwills “Compositionen zu Göthe’s Faust”.
Zur Geschichte der Schauspielmusik im 19. Jahrhundert’, in Festschrift
Christoph-Hellmut Mahling, ed. Axel Beer et al., Tutzing: H. Schneider,
1997, 25–35, esp. 27. Altenburg also counts 20 per cent ‘musical’ text in Faust i .
13. See Helmut Schanze, Faust-Konstellationen. Mythos und Medien, Munich:
Fink, 1999, 93.
14. Jacques Derrida, La Verité en peinture, Paris: Flammarion, 1992, 73.
15. See Erika Fischer-Lichte, ‘Vom Text zur Performance. Der performative turn
in den Kulturwissenschaften’, in Schnittstelle. Medien und kulturelle
Kommunikation, ed. G. Stanitzek and W. Vosskamp, Cologne: DuMont,
2001, 111–15.
chapter 17
Directors are not supposed ‘to lose their way in libraries’ – that’s what an English
critic recently claimed. We have the impression that you don’t care much about
such wisdom. How exactly did you prepare for the staging of this difficult work?
Peter Stein: I’ve prepared for it all my life. In high school we read Faust i ,
of course, and my teacher had this great idea and told us that Faust ii wasn’t
for us – so I really got curious and dug in. I didn’t understand much, but
I knew that this was an incredible mountain to climb. I made a number of
attempts over the years to get on top of it, through seminars, the available
commentaries etc., but did not get much further. In 1969–70, Faust was on
a very short list for a Schaubühne production (Berlin – see ‘Contributors:
Peter Stein). I worked hard for it and at it, but again couldn’t pull it off. In
1985, I left Berlin for Paris and got involved with a medieval project. I was
reminded of much in Goethe’s play, re-read the whole thing and suddenly
found myself inside the text. I could read it almost like a newspaper, without
commentary. Apparently I had to go through various Faustian phases of
culture and life myself before I could find my orientation and pass it on
to actors.
Did you consult literary historians in preparation for your production?
Stein: Of course I did. As soon as I could read the text, the literature
became important. So I studied the commentaries by Schöne, Gaier,
Lohmeyer etc., but always came to the point where re-reading was more
interesting and productive.
Traditional scholarship presented you with a ‘heroic’ image of Faust, while
more recent criticism tends to project an immoral, self-centred exploiter. How
did you steer your own way through these alternatives?
Stein: I find this whole discussion rather stupid. Obviously, both ele-
ments in his character struggle with each other, that’s the very theme of the
play. Taking sides is completely un-Goethean. ‘Whoever strives in endless
toil’ (11936–7) is very ambivalent, of course – it is the destiny of his higher
nature, and yet it destroys the world. For a theatre director, this is no
267
268 peter stein
problem: he or she is used to thinking in contradictions. The paradox
is fundamental to the theatre, and that’s why it corresponds to human
existence. So I have never been interested in positions and taking sides; and
I find it hilarious how such a deeply conflicted and flawed character like
Faust could become a figure-head of German imperialism.
I cannot think of another piece of classical literature that has been read and
produced as selectively as Faust.
Stein: Nobody could read Faust ii ! That is one of the main reasons.
And yet a number of themes in Faust ii have come to the surface and are
accessible to young people – like environmental problems, the aimlessness
of our existence, the pitfalls of capitalism . . . old stories that read like our
own modern diary.
. . . a central theme of our book: Goethe’s prophetic genius . . .
Stein: . . . incredible! Especially if you add the reflections in Wilhelm
Meister, Maximen und Reflexionen and elsewhere. It makes you very humble.
You split the two main figures, and had each of them represented by two
actors. What was your reason?
Stein: With Faust, that is obvious: he goes through a transformation, so
we have the young and the old Faust. The doubling of the Mephisto figure
implies that he is not a person at all but a position, or a view of things, which
can appear in infinite incarnations.
The same, of course, this shifting from role to role, has been said about Faust.
Stein: Naturally. But there is a very clear line running through all his roles.
I absolutely had to avoid jumping on that bandwagon and denying Faust a
personal centre. That would not even work dramaturgically. Faust has to be
strengthened, he is the one who is talked about inside and outside the play. It
was a fundamental mistake of Gründgens’ production to claim the central
power of the play for himself, as Mephisto, and reduce Faust to his humour-
less victim. In fact, it was almost criminal how Gründgens imposed himself
on the history of Faust productions. So we had to weaken Mephisto’s power,
assign a more primitive, shallow and square devil to Adam Oest, and the
intellectual, more dangerous one to Robert Hunger-Bühler.
In fact we had four Mephistos: the black dog and the ugly woman
(Phorkyas) in Act 3 should be counted as well. We tried to emphasize the
fact that Mephisto actually shrinks in the course of Part ii, becoming the
constantly griping and grumbling assistant to Faust’s projects.
Let’s look at the principles of your work. German reviews like to deride
Werktreue (faithfulness to the author’s text) and Literaturtheater (literary
theatre). What is your position?
Directing Faust: an interview 269
Figure 17.1 ‘This is my wager.’ – ‘Here’s my hand.’ (Photograph from the Stein
production, 2000–1)
Stein: I’ve never understood that. If you allow shouting theatre and
onanistic theatre, why not literary theatre as well? Especially since the
dramatic art of Europe is part of its literature.
Why Europe, specifically?
Stein: Well, there is no other ‘theatre’. Everything else is of relative or
local interest. Only European theatre has a world-wide echo, precisely
because of its literary foundation. If you destroy that, of course, you need
not wonder why this universal meaning disappears. Why this literary
‘faithfulness’ has fallen into disrepute is beyond me.
You have been the object of such attacks yourself.
Stein: Sure, they call me names, describe me as an imbecile, and yet they
cannot change me or eliminate me. Such polemics are launched by fools and
agitators who have no clue about literature. Fools can make theatre, too,
which then itself turns into foolish agitation, or silly and infantile antics. To
me, Werktreue (faithfulness to the text) is a very constructive and yet also
relative term – I prefer Autortreue (faithfulness to the author). I am attempt-
ing to understand the author’s textual intentions, and this understanding
already implies a modern awareness and aesthetics. Systematic ‘moderniza-
tion’ would be counterproductive, since our interest in the theatre expects
270 peter stein
the unfamiliar, the strange and puzzling story of other times and places –
that’s the same with literature.
And yet it seems that in contemporary productions the strict actualization of
the historical text has now become the norm.
Stein: This is the flip-side of democratization, this shallow sameness
spreading globally through the media, this standardization of perception
and reception which blocks any effort of original thought. Everything must
be made familiar – ‘Aha, this means this.’ Anything enigmatic is eyed with
suspicion. So my directorial colleagues start with familiar preoccupations
and say, ‘This and that has to be found or invested in those classical texts,
otherwise they can’t tell us anything.’
They don’t understand much, it seems, about hermeneutics. Gadamer has
shown us how our modern consciousness, in its process of understanding, moves
into the horizon of a cultural text to reconstitute itself. And Albrecht Schöne has
demonstrated [in this book!] how such a productive fusion takes place, with
Faust so remarkably ‘at home’ in our own time. While scholars have known this
for many decades, directors still believe they have to erase the historical horizon
from a play in order to achieve ‘presence’.
Stein: Suggesting ‘presence’ is indeed essential. The stage is populated
with people of our own flesh and blood, with legs that drive cars and eyes
that are accustomed to television screens. But they become engaging only
when their modernity is discovered through their strange deeds in strange
times and places. Mephisto’s carpet takes Faust not only to Greece but
3,000 years back in time – that is funny and fascinating, and releases creative
imagery with modern validity. But our theatre producers would rather take
it apart and ruin it, like boys do with toys. They are clearly not educated
enough and are without an intellectual conscience – just people who are
permitted, by the highly subsidized system in countries like Germany, to do
what they want. This is terrible, because it supports the audience’s worst
tendencies: not to reflect, not to wonder, not to be amazed. And just to say,
‘Oh there I am, yes that’s me.’
Directors like to ‘dust off classical plays’ (in Brecht’s words), partly through
sometimes drastic cuts. But you have recently presented the two mightiest
German classics complete and uncut.
Stein: I have to correct that: 10 per cent of Wallenstein was cut. But
nobody (except the Steiner gang) has ever staged both parts of Faust uncut,
so that was a great experiment in trust. I really felt like an art critic who
describes the structure of a painting as exactly as possible in order to find
perspectives and metaphors for his or her own existence. A literary scholar,
of course, could do something similar, but drama as a performing art – the
Directing Faust: an interview 271
Figure 17.2 Helena and Phorkyas in Sparta. (Photograph from the Stein
production, 2000–1)
Figure 17.3 Mountain Gorges: the heavenly spiral. (Photograph from the Stein
production, 2000–1)
(and requiring a stage far larger than Michael Jackson’s) – the planning
alone cost me 100,000 Marks (see Figure 17.3).
No, I didn’t spare the budget, but I always insisted on staying within
Goethe’s imagery and perceptions. Goethe researched possible stage repre-
sentations of the Earth Spirit himself and found a suitable laterna magica
projection developed in Paris. We followed his descriptions, created smoke
and projected the image onto the smoke – that was the Earth Spirit. It was
fun to explore how far we could go with the technologies that had been
available to Goethe himself.
We are very interested, finally, in your understanding of Faust as ‘tragedy’.
Modern productions (like that of Thalheimer recently) like to present the
protagonist as some kind of autistic person or egomaniac, incapable of tragedy.
Do they have a point? Faust does not seem to suffer, learn or feel remorse. He
seems oblivious, insatiable and blind even in the face of his own grave.
Stein: First, I don’t know anyone who is not egocentric and autistic, so
this definition does not apply. What is decisive is how it translates into
action. Faust’s action is a verdict against human activity as such. The futility
of all human ‘striving’ becomes evident – here we have the tragic founda-
tion. The reference to Greek tragedy is quite obvious. The famous law of the
Directing Faust: an interview 277
Oresteia, the pathein-mathos, means that man acts, and he has to act because
otherwise his life is not guaranteed. But the decisions which human beings
take according to their insights and possibilities are punished by the gods.
Life itself becomes a matter of irony, as life-to-death. Man tries to learn and
adjust, for which he is punished again. Faust’s ‘striving’ is, of course,
cathartically reconstrued in the end, which seems outside Greek tragedy.
Seems – but implicitly you find it there, too. Also, the individual, Faust, is
never the tragic target. It is essential that we understand him as the
representative of the human condition. Then suddenly a new dimension
opens up, tragedy fills the space, and we are part of it.
Faust’s character does betray an increasingly consuming blindness towards the
consequences of his own deeds.
Stein: Sure. But we have to consider that the whole thing is constructed
like a kind of Bildungsroman (novel of education), with important expe-
riences happening in phases or stages. And Faust works through it without
revealing his reactions to the consequences. This was clearly not of vital
interest to the author. So we don’t know what Faust thinks about his role
in the Gretchen tragedy or about the collapse of his financial reform. His
life goes on. Psychologically, I have to confess, this does not pose a
problem to me. I see myself portrayed in Faust. I find myself incapable
of drawing any conclusions from my productivity, or working out its
mistakes in any consequential way, either personally or intellectually.
Many people have great problems with this Faustian ‘deficit’, and if we
take Freud’s understanding of humanity it looks bad, since this whole
process of self-consciousness is missing in the Faust saga. But to me it is
clearly Goethe’s method to propel this life of action, drive it further and
further, until at the end everything is turned into derisive laughter: every-
thing Faust seemingly achieved, his victories in war, his invention of
capitalism, his creation of a free society, ends up in his grave. This is
powerful tragic sarcasm.
It seems that this darkened vision of Faust in his last act corresponds to the old
Goethe’s deepened scepticism concerning ‘modernity’.
Stein: I wonder. I have never been particularly interested in Goethe’s
biography. But I know that keeping up the pace and working on in all kinds
of adversity, even of his own making, was very much his style of living. And
so this was Faust’s behaviour as well, right until death. I experienced much
of twentieth-century Germany, saw unbelievable destruction and depravity,
and yet life went on, shockingly as if none of this had happened, and the
country was accepted back into the family of nations. It would have
happened even without self-searching and guilty confessions.
278 peter stein
But once again: if Faust just muddles on, how can he be eligible for tragedy?
The tradition of the tragic genre implies conditions like freedom, character,
pathos, hubris, sacrifice, fate and guilt informed by some transcendent belief
system – these are not present any more, not in our time, nor in Faust’s behaviour
as you’ve just described it.
Stein: It’s hard for me to respond, since I have never understood tragedy
like that, in relation to some transcendence. In Greek tragedy, heaven is
totally humanized. You cannot encase tragedy in some religious or philo-
sophical system. The tragic situation is simply a protagonist confronting a
superior power against which any struggle would be futile – like nature,
societal forces and of course death. It is therefore inconceivable to me why
tragedy presented in the theatre should have lost its credibility with the
audience – in my opinion, the very opposite is the case. The tragic frailty of
the human race has come into the focus of our consciousness like never
before.
I did not make myself clear enough – I thought we were talking about the
‘tragic’ as a viable aesthetic concept in modern theatre. I do believe that you
‘pulled it off’ with your Faust interpretation. The mystery frame helped, Faust
had a free choice, etc. But tragedies aren’t really written any more, and past
tragedies tend to be turned into travesties by our directors. Why? Because we are
lacking a basis for the ‘pathos’ which can only arise from individual freedom.
His or her suffering and death bears witness to a higher spiritual order and can
therefore be cathartic. Schiller’s Maria Stuart, after much suffering before her
unjust execution, finds herself free at last to sacrifice herself to a moral world
order. ‘Tragic dignity’ is a lost concept today (when we talk about ‘tragic
accidents’ etc.). But its determinants – like freedom, pathos, guilt and catharsis –
are still powerfully present in classical plays. How do you put them on the
modern stage?
Stein: Well, I have my problems with Schiller. No, if I talk about tragedy,
I mean Greek tragedy; everything else is imitation or deviation. Chekhov
tried to create a tragic figure, and the situation is that someone sees his
existence determined by powers against which he can do nothing. And yet
he must, and will, continue the fight. There are theoretical switches in
people’s brains today that were installed in the eighteenth or nineteenth
century. The bourgeois tragedy of the Enlightenment cannot easily be
understood nowadays, but the globalized tragedy is understood – it is dished
out every day. In fact we invite this tragedy and walk into it with open eyes.
We live this paradox where black becomes white and vice versa, and it
always changes. It is no coincidence that over these last twenty years more
Greek tragedies have been performed than ever before. I took part in this
Directing Faust: an interview 279
movement, too: my Oresteia production stirred up many things. People
simply understood, although I did not ‘modernize’ the text. It speaks to our
so-called democracies – we see, for instance, in the Eumenides what a fragile
achievement a democratic court really is. It assembles itself through such
tricks and lies and betrayal and corruption that the mechanism itself breaks
down and is barely – and only temporarily – saved by personal pleading and
pressures.
Are you involved in such a project right now?
Stein: I’ve just finished one, in Greece and in Greek. I would love to
continue directing in that country, especially since the people embrace my
work with incredible enthusiasm – as if I were their ‘tragic god’. You have to
understand, of course, that several plays of the canon have to be staged there
every year, and nothing good can come of that.
Mr Stein, we thank you very much for this conversation.
n ot e
1. This chapter was revised and translated by Hans Schulte.
chapter 18
The moment when Faust is finally allowed to hold Helena in his arms (he is
in fact paralysed by her, according to Mephisto, who watches with equal
amusement and impatience), they are seated on a little, gold-covered sofa on
a plinth under a canopy. ‘Now the soul does not look forwards nor back-
wards / The moment counts –’, says Faust, played by Bruno Ganz with a
touch of inner salvation and inner emotion (9381–2).1 And Helena, played
by Corinna Kirchhoff as equally moved by events and lost in the moment,
adds, ‘it is our happiness’ (9382).
Faust believes he has held this feeling of time-melting, moment-filling
happiness in his hands once before: in Part i of the tragedy, when the devil
helped him to understand and gain the ‘model of all women’ (2601), which
led him to indulge in ‘the sweet pain of love’ (2689). Margarete (Gretchen)
is played by Dorothee Hartinger as the epitome of naturalness, which is
only possible on stage, not in reality. On stage, the home for this happiness
is represented by a simple wooden bed, covered with a white, creased
bedcover which triggers in Faust a feeling of ‘awesome ecstasy’ (2709) and
seduces him into the high-flown yet honest words ‘I wish that I had hours to
spend here’ (2710). Gretchen’s bed is placed in a highly visible position
centre stage, surrounded by little houses in the background – it is a
measured area of happiness, the poverty of which enables Faust to recognize
‘abundance’ (2693). He calls it ‘bliss in a dungeon’ (2694). With these
words Faust already anticipates the real dungeon ending this bliss; he
doesn’t know it, but he does have some dark foreboding of it. The
set also underlines Faust’s foreboding: the dungeon in which Margarete
will be imprisoned at the end of Part i bears a striking resemblance to
Gretchen’s bed in size and shape; the latter is a cube with bars made of steel
stakes, its floor is covered with straw like an animal’s cage, and it takes up a
lonely spot on the stage. From the much-hoped-for delight has come the
much-feared horror, and from the sweetness has indeed come pain.
280
Peter Stein stages Faust 281
Faust, on the other hand, has not become wiser. In Peter Stein’s pro-
duction, Faust is certainly able to learn, but this knowledge does not protect
him from further suffering: for Stein, Faust is a tragic character in a
comprehensive as well as a more fundamental sense. This Faust is a man
driven not only by the two souls in his breast, but also by a destiny of
inescapable recurrence. Even before making the bet with Mephisto he
reveals his motto to the devil: ‘If on a bed of sloth I lie contented / May I
be done for then and there!’ (1692–3). That is why he will repeat the
Gretchen encounter with Helena, in another guise and maybe under
other circumstances, but nevertheless it will run a similar course. At least
according to Stein – if not necessarily according to Goethe.
It is a clear directorial decision to make Faust find his ostensible happi-
ness with Helena at a place comparable to that of the encounter with
Gretchen. In this version, Helena is embodied by Corinna Kirchhoff,
who is graceful but distant and unapproachable. She is a ‘noble lady’
(9360), wrapped in golden clothing and with elaborately plaited hair, in
contrast to Gretchen, who has naturally curly hair and wears a skirt of coarse
material and a modest blouse. This time their different backgrounds and
different ways of thinking and feeling are signalled not only by their speech
patterns and choice of words, but also by their manner of speaking and
gestures. As far as Faust is concerned, they are both ‘passion’s essence’
(6499), leading him, what’s more, to the brink of ‘madness’ (6500) – to
such an extent that Mephisto feels compelled to admonish his pupil:
‘Control yourself and don’t forget your part!’ (6501). Although Faust
might believe that Gretchen, like the ‘lovely form’ (6495) in the ‘Witch’s’
Kitchen’, might be just a ‘feeble counterfeit’ (6497) of Helena’s beauty, he
does hope that with both of them his ‘dread ordeal’ with the Mothers (6489)
will turn into ‘glorious reward’ (6489). However, he is to be deluded in this
and by this – at least in Peter Stein’s production. The text depicts Helena as
the noble and universally desired representative of classical antiquity, in
contrast to Gretchen, who is a ‘simple girl’ (2644) of the people. Helena is
conceived as a heightening – a Steigerung in Goethe’s language – of the
Gretchen figure, and consequently Faust becomes an Entwicklungsfigur, a
character that continues to develop and realize its entelechy. Peter Stein, on
the other hand, emphasizes the resemblance between the two ideal women.
From Goethe’s point of view, Helena combines the spirit of antiquity and of
the Middle Ages. He allows her to remain a Greek symbol, a woman who is
then kidnapped by medieval horsemen. Faust encounters her in her coun-
try, but in his time. Thus she comes to signify the blissful moment of
timelessness. Stein, on the other hand, positions this timeless moment by
282 dirk pilz
placing Helena in the Gretchen context. And not content with that, the
production conceives the whole plot as a network of references going
backwards and forwards, not really as a linear development but rather as a
complex interweaving of symbols, action and scenes. It is in small details
that these differences from Goethe’s text become clear. The chain fixed to
Gretchen’s dungeon is the same one that chains Lynceus (played by
Michael Rotschopf ) when he kneels before Helena, praising her in the
‘Inner Courtyard of a Castle’ scene. Helena’s golden gown quite noticeably
resembles the light in the scene, where Faust (played by Christian Nickel)
encounters Gretchen for the very first time. And then there are the knights
surrounding the sofa–throne of Helena who wear the armour that dangles
from a cross-beam in the fourth act of Faust ii and, along with an overturned
chair hung from the top of the stage at the beginning, hints at the bottom-
less abyss over which Faust wanders. In precisely the same way, the elevated
sofa upon which Faust (now played by Bruno Ganz) and Helena solemnly
experience the bliss of the moment points to Margarete’s dungeon-bed.
Helena too will lose Faust, because he does not understand how to be
satisfied by and with her. Mephisto, in Robert Hunger-Bühler’s interpre-
tation a vain and sly daemon, urges him on, as his restless motor. Only
death will bring peace.
At first glance, some of these may be insignificant details of the costumes
designed by Moidele Bickel or of the set designed by Ferdinand
W. Wögerbauer and Stefan Mayer. The details, however, reveal crucial
aspects of the basic concept of Peter Stein’s interpretation. He views Faust as
an example of the all too humanly tragic nature of man; he knocks Faust
down from his pedestal of pretended uniqueness and at the same time lifts
him up as an outstanding literary example of tragedy.
All this is quite different from what the German critics usually empha-
sized. The reviewers were harshly critical of the fact that Stein did not
change the structure of the 12,111 verses of Goethe’s Faust, which required a
total performance time of 23 hours. Such phrases as ‘slavish fidelity to the
text’, ‘literary theatre’ and ‘Goethe idolatry’ were used against such an
undertaking. The critics referred to Stein’s inherent unwillingness or inabil-
ity to take on board the latest stylistic developments in theatre.
The simple fact of staging Faust without making any attempt to shorten
it is not necessarily worth commenting on, whether or not the director is an
outstanding and famous one such as Peter Stein. Stein’s Faust would not
deserve our discussion had he not come up with an independent interpre-
tation of the text. Admittedly, the excessive physical and mental demands
exacted by this lengthy performance could occasionally lead the viewer to be
Peter Stein stages Faust 283
unclear about the director’s real intentions. And sometimes the audience
would feel that the production attempted to speak primarily to their sensual
desires, namely by the actors’ explicit manner of speaking and moving, by
means of the sumptuous pictures and by the exuberant lighting designs of
Heinrich Brunke, and Vera and Konrad Lindenberg. Such scenes as the
‘Masquerade’, which allowed the audience to marvel at an illuminated
quadriga, or the elaborate setting of ‘Auerbach’s Cellar’ are clear indications
of a certain love for stage effects.
Nevertheless, Stein’s essential artistic concept not only holds the whole
project together, but also reveals an understanding of the text which
presents a great gain for the stage. The fact that Goethe scholars have laid
the foundations makes this gain even more relevant. The realized text lights
up with numerous cross-references which are prefigured but not predeter-
mined. This is interpretation, not slavery. It is in fact a mode of under-
standing which Hans-Georg Gadamer defined in his theory of
hermeneutics: the art of interpretation lies in the ability to weigh the specific
‘volume’ of a text and thereby unveil its poetic truth. Its moment of truth
comes at the point of realization (Vollzugswahrheit). The performing arts
have the task of presenting the textual prefiguration in a given sensory
material through a unique re-creation. This way the ‘character of an original
creation’ is attained.2
It is precisely in this respect that Stein adheres to the original and yet
achieves an original work of theatrical art that does so much more than
follow Goethe’s ‘intentions’. The multidimensional meaning that Stein
creates reveals an image of Faust that not only refers back to the tragedies
of antiquity, but also looks forward to the present, to reveal the tragic
elements there as well. This is also the reason for the double casting of
Bruno Ganz as the older and Christian Nickel as the younger Faust. The
essential connection that draws the Faustian states and phases together is the
tragic line: it is not an exclusive concept of Faust as a failed and despairing
aged scholar, but clearly encompasses the generations, a whole lifetime.
The scenes in which both Faust performers appear together – such as the
‘Walpurgis Night’ scene in Part i – clearly reveal this aspect. This is a scene
in which the concepts and coordinates of time and space appear to be
abolished so that the past can appear alongside the future and the heavenly
can meet the earthly (or even the underworldly). According to the director’s
logic, it is precisely in the extraordinariness of this situation that the
ordinariness, the tragic nature of man, is most clearly revealed. The
‘Walpurgis Night’ scene, for example, uses the stage principle of simulta-
neity to account for the ‘volume’ (Gadamer) of the Faustian experience,
284 dirk pilz
beyond all probability, and to look behind the façade of the phenomenal.
Stein brings out a whole raft of dancing figures to serve that purpose: we see
characters wearing Baroque wigs, young people crouching on car tyres and
grilling sausages, witches riding on broomsticks through the mist and,
finally, Faust equipped with a radio microphone. These are all conflicting
stage elements that make up a contradictory whole and are dramaturgically
interlinked by recurring props and by repeated postures, gestures or stage
elements. This whole is indeed contradictory, as the individual elements are
in their separate spheres. Nevertheless, it is a whole, since it delineates the
fullness of Faust’s tragic nature. Belief in the existence of a whole is as
important as doubting its existence.
This technique of juxtaposition is characteristic of the entire production.
The most striking parallels are those between the beginning and the end. As
the play opens, concentric metallic circles hang over the small stage rostrum
that is surrounded by the audience on four sides. There is also a ladder
coming out of the sky that very much suggests Beckett’s Krapp’s Last Tape.
At the end, in the ‘Interment’ scene, these circles open up to make a
descending spiral. So the kingdom of heaven has descended to earth, leaving
no path for man to ascend to heaven but only for heaven to descend to man.
This also symbolizes the limits of man’s power, limits that once more refer
to the foundations of tragedy.
To understand this tragic foundation of the Faust production, we need to
explain Peter Stein’s concept of tragedy, because it reveals most clearly the
anti-fashionable character of this production. It seems to be a commonplace
of present-day theatre to regard tragedy as a dead genre – despite the fact
that many theatre directors, not only Peter Stein, continue to stage trag-
edies. If those advocating the death of tragedy are right, then this genre
should no longer exist, as contemporary authors and directors assure us that
tragedies are nothing more than witnesses to past times. At the same time,
the Greeks and Shakespeare are suitably updated, and Schiller, Goethe &
Co. are docked with the present. But the structures and meanings of
tragedy, we are assured on all sides, are hopelessly chained to yesteryear.
‘A tragic hero is a man who creates and destroys himself. The man of today
is able only to conform’, writes Imre Kertész in his Galeerentagebuch, and his
views are widely representative. The man of today is a functional man.
‘Nothingness pervades his fate, since the meaning is lacking which provides
the basis for tragedy.’3 Tragedy is lost.
Over half a century ago, in 1955, Friedrich Dürrenmatt poured some of
this history of loss into his story ‘Die Panne’ (The Breakdown) in the form
of an axiom: ‘Fate has left the arena of performance to lurk backstage,
Peter Stein stages Faust 285
beyond a valid dramaturgy . . . Now there is no longer a threatening god, no
justice . . . just traffic accidents, or dykes that burst as a result of bad
construction. Or there is an explosion in a nuclear power station caused
by an absent-minded lab assistant or badly built core.’4 God is dead,
technology reigns. But technology without God does not allow for tragedy.
At best it can be resurrected as a farce or a comedy.
According to Peter Stein, this is ‘utter nonsense, old men’s pessimistic
reflections that have nothing to do with theatre. Traffic accidents, dyke
breaches – these are incarnations of fate! If, in a modern mass democracy,
there is a collection of individual tragedies and no superordinated fate, then
this has nothing to do with fate leaving the stage; it is simply presenting
itself in a different way.’5 Virtually any human existence, according to Stein,
bears the nucleus of tragedy, as the paradoxical nature of human life is
death: ‘Man is born to die.’ For Stein, this paradoxical nature is summarized
in the formula ‘to do, to suffer, to learn’ – his own translation of the pivotal
passage from the Oresteia.6 It does not simply sum up the core of ancient
tragedy, but the core of the tragedy of all time. First, because ‘man has no
other option but to learn . . . To change, to adapt onself is a law of nature.’
But more importantly, ‘a process of learning is always followed by an action.
Even after you have learned something you have to take action again – and
to suffer, because nothing good ever comes of action.’7
This is the situation for Faust. A universal law is revealed in the specific
Faustian situation. In Stein’s production it is even indicated by the manner
of speaking and is especially striking in the first, most famous monologue of
Faust. Bruno Ganz, dressed in a long, black robe and initially sitting in a
leather armchair with large wheels, stands up in front of a high wall of
papers, books and manuscripts that is enveloped in mists, first in a white,
then a blue and finally a green light. This Bruno Ganz speaks the lines ‘I’ve
studied now, to my regret’ (354) in a balanced rhythm; balanced because his
dark rolling voice admits the high tone of classical tragedy as well as ironic,
even mocking nuances which have become popular today as a means to
distance roles and the characters. It is as if Ganz kept the Faust figure in a
suspension between the various worlds of stage and performance, as if he
was already circling those existential and experiential modes which the inner
and outer action was holding in store. Bruno Ganz speaks as if his character
already has a premonition of what will happen, but is unable to translate this
feeling into certain knowledge. He too – especially he! – must take action
and as a consequence, according to Stein, must suffer. He is a tragic
character because he believes he knows everything, but has to learn that
through action he must suffer and make suffer. It is quite correct to see the
286 dirk pilz
analogy with the present. The scientific community today in its Faustian
blindness believes that it has ‘the world’ in its grip, although it is forced to
admit the self-deceit on a regular basis.
But that is not the only issue Stein is concerned with: by no means can his
production be tied to simple contemporary references – these are just
directorial hints. The shifting character of Faust is decisive for the dramatic
structure of the project, as it presents Faust as an all-in-one figure – not as
the fixed centre of a static production, but as the projection plane of all
thought and vision in this massive drama. In his character all the dimensions
developed in the unfolding action are united; all the other characters can be
seen as Faustian attributes in this context. They even ‘quote’ Faust in their
manner of speaking and performing: Helena uses his ‘high’ tone, the young
Faust leans towards his impetuous expression and Gretchen finds the level
of naturalness. Only Mephisto – played by Robert Hunger-Bühler and by
Johann Adam Oest – has really been divided into two roles. He is related to
Faust as the opponent who imitates him, while at the same time Faust
himself knows how to adapt to Mephisto. Faust and Mephisto are mirror
figures: their reflections always relate to each other, perhaps with fissures
and distortions, but relating to each other mimetically. Mephisto is more
than the representative of the dark side of the Faustian figure, just as Faust is
more than the victim of a diabolic pact. Mephisto also plays the part of
Faust’s leader, whereas Faust puts Mephisto under pressure in the way he is
pressurized by him.
Faust is essentially an all-in-one figure, but not, for Stein, a mixed and
moderated character. On the contrary. Since he assembles in himself a
totality of feeling, thought and experience, he becomes the stage of all the
conflicts that surround and happen to him and the action. This, too, is
tragic for Stein: Faust’s character has no ability to reconcile, there is no
prospect of any higher harmony, he is and remains a tragic figure. This
highlights again Stein’s definition of tragedy. The tragic process can never
come to an end; its cathartic effect aims not at cleansing the affects but at the
creation of consciousness. Stein therefore supports a concept of tragedy and
catharsis which decisively differs from Goethe’s own. For Goethe, the
pleasure specific to tragic catharsis is based on ‘aussöhnende Abrundung’
(conciliatory conclusion).8 It thereby takes up the classicist notion of whole-
ness and harmony: the unity of the autonomous piece of art is equivalent to
the metaphysical whole.9 In Stein’s production, however, conflicts are not
rounded off or transcended into harmony, but fully exposed in an open
process. Although his chorus mysticus speaks of the ‘symbol’ of transience as
well, it is meant not as a reconciliatory ending but as an accentuation of the
Peter Stein stages Faust 287
tragic nature of Faust and humanity: the choir stands on the steel path
forming a spiral, and the most important word in those last verses is ‘the
unachievable’ (12106), which, according to the text, has become an ‘event’
and a revelation of tragedy. Exactly because Faust is the all-in-one character
and has absorbed every single conflict, there is no possible reconciliatory
ending: Faust dies, the conflicts which have been played out remain. The
essence of these conflicts is the irreconcilable side-by-side of death and life,
striving and arriving, happiness and desire. It is a whole, but a contradictary
(and not a harmonized) whole. Where Goethe gives us an antiphony of
conflicting voices, Stein gives us a polyphony of images and voices, a
concerted and orchestrated dramaturgy.
Stein’s production committed itself to this credo in several regards. Like
the relationship between the characters of Faust (and Mephisto), the
relationship of the scenes to each other is styled in accordance with the
law of contradictory unity. The sequence of the scenes is not dissolved in a
flawless continuity because Stein sets strong and distinct cuts and breaks,
without running the risk of arbitrariness. This cutting technique, also
borrowed from film, is already reflected in the multitude of different stages.
Nearly every stage type in theatre history is introduced: the picture-frame
stage, the central platform, the three-quarter-round, the ancient theatre
forum, the traverse, or an open scenario where the actors mingle with the
audience. Each type triggers different means of perceiving and receiving; no
single form is privileged. This also works for Stein’s non-hierarchical and
non-harmonious concept. It should not be mistaken, however, for a non-
referential coexistence of different types of presentation. The secret heart of
the play is always its tragic foundation, personified by the figure of Faust.
Like the diversity of the stage presentation and therefore audience recep-
tion, the palette of figure formations is displayed as a panorama of theatrical
appearances, always bound to specific metres. Stein stages the classical choir
(as, in the third act of Part ii, the choir of the Trojan women, which does
not consist of ‘figures’ in the modern sense), he depicts the Emperor (Stefan
Baumecker) as a stereotype of fading power. Characters such as the She-
Apes (Gisela Salcher and Daniel Keberle) are symbols turned into strong
figures acting expressively; Erichtho (Ana Kerezovic), Manto (Schirin
Sanaiha) and Panthalis (Elke Petri) become allegories in their manner of
abstract de-individualized speaking. Even more clearly, the figures of
Galatea (Tanja Kübler) and Lilith (Melanie Blocksdorf ) are not only
naked, but are in fact just pictures, appearances without any individual
traits. The frequent masks have a similar function, especially in the
‘Masquerade’ scene. All these serve not only the theatrical realization, but
288 dirk pilz
also the shaping of an all-too-human tragedy in the character of Faust. This
way Stein finds a form or, rather, he finds a meta-form by way of quoting
different forms. He reveals a Faust within his Faust that could be described
as the figure of figures, a melting-pot of what is possible theatrically. Theatre
itself makes an entrance: Stein depicts and reflects its potential by making
full use of it.
This is what makes Stein’s project so markedly different from other
attempts in more recent theatre history: they almost exclusively experiment
with the transfer of Goethe’s drama to an obviously contemporary context.
Volker Lösch, for example, had Faust ii (Faust 21 as he called it) premiered at
the Staatstheater Stuttgart in February 2006, where he used the original text
to launch a separate discussion: ‘What are you afraid of?’ ‘Why is going to
war necessary?’ ‘What are the good aspects of capitalism?’ Such were the
questions that Lösch asked the citizens of Stuttgart. They were at first a tool
to prepare a production which would short-circuit the Goethean universe
with the reality of Baden-Württemberg [Stuttgart is the capital of this
German federal state]. It was also zeitgeist-research into the realm of
people’s thoughts. Lösch brought unformulated preconceptions resident
in the mentality of the participants to light and integrated the results in his
production; there was a choir on stage that alternately spoke the drastically
shortened Goethean text or the subtext of the actors (see Chapter 19 in this
volume).
This is how Lösch always does it: he stages his work in a concrete context.
For his production of Gerhard Hauptmann’s Die Weber (The Weavers) at
the Dresdner Staatsschauspiel (in October 2004), which was famous for
having created a scandal, he worked with a choir of amateur actors who were
unemployed in real life. His production of Dogville (based on the film by the
Danish director Lars von Trier) in Stuttgart in October 2005 put a local
manager (of Mercedes-Benz) and Swabian folk songs on the stage. This idea
was as simple as it was superficially convincing: for Lösch, theatre cannot
take place in a void, there is no stage play without political, ethnic or
regional implications. According to him, theatre has the power to irritate
at the point where unspoken thoughts are expressed. He therefore not only
collected the answers to his questions, but opened them up to debate by
means of a big choir thundering at the audience. In Stuttgart, the choir
consisted of nineteen amateur actors and ten members of the ensemble – as
public representatives.
However, Lösch’s method of using the text as a source for contemporary
discussions failed this time, primarily because his new version of Faust was
reduced to slogans and obvious associations. Faust’s transformation from
Peter Stein stages Faust 289
scholar to world ruler was used to launch a simplistic critique of global-
ization; the invention of paper money served to ridicule economic thinking.
In his production of Die Weber, Lösch derived the inserted texts from the
literary characters. Here, with Faust, he simply pastes the texts onto the
characters. Goethe’s original text was not charged with our present, but
rather trivialized by contemporary and random comments. The machinery
of the choir began to stutter because it had been fed all kinds of possible and
impossible material. That did not lead to the intended irritation. Helena
entered as a pretty choir of brides, Thomas Eisen and Ursula Renneke as
Philemon and Baucis were two eco-naïfs after Eisen had partly played
Mephisto and partly sung in the Faust choir, while Renneke had been
‘Miss Stuttgart 21’ and a stripper – all this offered more slapstick out of the
rag-bag rather than political friction. Reflection and discussion remained
superfluous, especially since the normally provocative difference between
amateurs and professionals could only be established by their degree of text
control. The congenial connection with content, usually Lösch’s forte, was
cut. Faust resisted this kind of abuse.
On the other hand, Michael Thalheimer’s Faust i (October 2004) and
Faust ii (a year later), both produced at the Deutsches Theater Berlin,
showed that a concentration on one motif or one line of thought does not
necessarily go awry, but would create revealing difficulties. For Faust i ,
Thalheimer had decided to concentrate on the Gretchen plot, and thus to
produce a Faust as a complete contemporary. More wrapped than dressed in
a beige shirt, he walked at a measured pace to the front of the stage, where he
stood and remained silent for a very long time – until he changed his posture
by straightening his hollowed back, glanced into the audience and cau-
tiously tried his first words, ‘Habe nun, ach!’ (354, I’ve studied now, to my
regret). There is no doubt that this tall Faust with the furrowed face has
been deeply involved in the study of science and philosophy. But does this
make him a wiser man than all the ‘doctors, magisters, officials and priests’?
He was unable to utter the words. He knew that we can know nothing, but
he also knew that nothing and nobody could ever change this fact. No
Mephisto, no Gretchen, no magic potion. This Faust (Ingo Hülsmann) had
learned his postmodern lesson: everything is in vain because everything is
built upon coincidence. Everything is as much a reason to despair as it is to
be happy. This alternately whispering and screaming Faust was well beyond
belief in otherness. And yet, being confronted with Gretchen’s question
about his religion he could not help but give the answer that he would
always repeat: earth without any heaven is hell. This state of mind charac-
terized him both as a comic and as a tragic character; he was more an
290 dirk pilz
inhabitant of Beckett’s world than of the German classical period – an
absurd anti-hero, sometimes amusing in his gymnastics of despair. And
when he later got involved with the devil, it was just another game for him:
he knew the outcome already. In the end, Gretchen was not saved. Instead,
Faust spoke words from Part ii: ‘What we have as life is many-hued
reflection’ (4727). It’s all just a game: the truth, the devil, love – it’s all
imagined.
What was exciting and stimulating in Thalheimer’s production was the
way he depicted a Faust who was overenlightened, and therefore he exactly
continued the bad game – out of a boredom or hopelessness that had
become his status quo. Moreover, Faust was no German oddball, no
flipped-out ideologue. All the figures that crossed the stage over the course
of two hours had been contaminated by the toxin of negativity. Even before
speaking the first line to her beloved Heinrich, Gretchen (Regine
Zimmermann) knew the end of their story, so she simply pretended to be
in love. Wagner (Peter Pagel) asked his master all the questions, although he
already knew the stale answers. Accordingly, the devil (Sven Lehmann) was
more of a slimy coach than a powerful seducer. He directed a play that
followed his rules: love, impregnate, leave.
With this production concentrating on the love(less) story Thalheimer
drove all metaphysical whims out of Faust. Out of the quintessentially
German protagonist he created a homeless man of the present, who checks
off life like a business appointment. That’s why the action was cut in favour
of the unhappy Gretchen story. The accents were set, by a good ensemble,
on naked existentialism, and poured into cold choreography. For an hour
this absurd tragi-comedy was played out in front of a black, turning
cylinder, which then revealed its great round emptiness: a bed in the middle,
a cross behind. The figures in it appear like forgotten ideas.
Thalheimer’s method of subjecting the text to a rigid rhythm and forcing
the actors to execute a programme of action rather than present a dramatic
plot almost became a mannerism. In his Three Sisters he actually missed the
core of the play with his method and was unable to deliver more than an
elaborated doubling of the text. This time, however, his surgical cuts had
uncovered a Faust who sometimes provided just good effects, but mostly the
rich potential for irritation. He treated his subject-matter like a physician
observing an interesting pathological case: sober and with no regard to the
person. The result of this autopsy of Faust: a homo egoisticus. A lost
candidate.
Apparently, even massive cuts can bring a text back to life. But they can
also suffocate the text if the creative intervention cuts to the quick and kills
Peter Stein stages Faust 291
it with directorial ideas instead of reviving it. That is precisely what
happened with Thalheimer’s production of Faust ii set on Olaf Altmann’s
cold and functional stage. There were three Faustian threads: the first one
was Faust as a cool observer of the Emperor’s court at the time of the
invention of paper money, combined with the creation of man by man
himself; the second plot was Faust under the spell of the beautiful Helena,
trembling yet hopeful (Nina Hoss played Helena as a drug-addicted angel of
revenge); the third plot depicted Faust as a domineering colonizer doomed
to fail. This time, Thalheimer reduced Ingo Hülsmann’s figure to a present-
day footnote: Faust the unredeemed contemporary. This thematic and
formal reduction contained a wealth of political material: money, genetic
engineering, an imperial war. Thalheimer clearly politicized Faust ii, but
those political ideas were bereft of their context. That made them incom-
prehensible, victims of Thalheimer’s form. Faust served as a demonstration
of a stage language rather than as a transmitter of meaningful content. The
attempt to reduce Faust ii to slogans had to fail, since all these slogans lose
their power outside their context. They become nothing more than
headlines.
Apart from these productions there have been other projects that were
entertaining in the best sense of the word: Jan Bosse’s ironically embued
production of Faust i at the Hamburger Schauspielhaus in 2004 is one such
example. Other productions have been conceptually ambitious: Hasko
Weber’s Faust i at the Staatsschauspiel Stuttgart in October 2005 depicted
Faust as an epitome of the postmodern question of identity. Both produc-
tions focused on only one aspect of the whole in order to find a viable
theatrical form.
Peter Stein’s production, on the other hand, delivers poetic messages
about the tragic fate of man – the sort of messages that would defy any clear-
cut explanation. The length of the performance, the abundance of tableaux
and scenes, of moods and reflection taxed and even overtaxed the audience’s
capacity. Stein’s production of Faust was like Faust himself: it challenged by
overtaxing. This was precisely Stein’s admiring interest in this piece of
theatre. We might say, with Manto, ‘I love those who strive for the
unattainable’ (7488).
not es
Translated by Nina Peters.
1. All references to Faust are by line number to HA.
2. Hans-Georg Gadamer, ‘Wort und Bild – so wahr, so seiend’, in Gesammelte
Werke, Tübingen: Mohr, 1993, viii, 391.
292 dirk pilz
3. Imre Kertész, Galeerentagebuch, trans. Christina Viragh, Reinbek b. Hamburg:
Rowohlt, 1999, 8 f.
4. Friedrich Dürrenmatt, ‘Die Panne. Eine noch mögliche Geschichte’ (1955), in
Gesammelte Werke, Zurich: Artemis, 1996, v, 271.
5. Peter Stein, ‘Zum Tode geboren. Ein Gespräch mit dem Regisseur Peter Stein
über Theater, Tragödie und das Los des Menschen – von Dirk Pilz’, Theater der
Zeit 10 (2005).
6. Die Orestie des Aischylos, trans. Peter Stein, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1997, 23.
7. Peter Stein, ‘Zum Tode geboren’.
8. Goethe, Nachlese zu Aristoteles’ Poetik, HA 12, 343.
9. Ulrich Port, Pathosformeln. Die Tragödie und die Geschichte exaltierter Affekte
(1755–1888), Munich: W. Fink, 2005, 38.
chapter 19
Figure 19.1 The three young men as Faust. (Photograph from the Stuttgart
production, 2005–6)
he is reminded of his youth. The memory of the feeling of unity with the
world that he experienced as a child brings him back to the world, and the
wish to live prevails over his despair. ‘Die Erde hat mich wieder’ (784, I am
earth’s again), he announces. At this decisive moment of Faust’s story, the
Stuttgart production of Faust i splits Faust into the one who survives (he
does not drink the poison) and the two who go the way of destruction and
death in order to return as alter egos of Faust – they become the two
Mephistopheles who accompany Faust and lead him to Margarete.
Thus in the production of Faust i we presented the idea of reducing
the multitude of options that lay in the character of Faust. By joining
Mephistopheles, Faust gets rid of parts of his human qualities; the reduction
of moral and psychological constraints is the foundation of his new career.
The emergence of Mephistopheles out of the two personalities of Faust who
have died allows for no external framing of the Faust story: there is no
‘Prologue in Heaven’ in this production. Therefore it is not the ‘pact’
between the Lord and Mephistopheles that – as a metaphysical force –
drives the story of Faust’s transformation in our production. The leading
metaphysical force, the ghost of the ghosts, became the character of the
Earth Spirit.
296 jörg bochow
wagner
The concept of the ‘trinity’ of Faust had further consequences for the
cast of characters. Attempting to reveal the solitude, the isolation of Faust,
the production settled him in a depopulated universe. There is only one
human figure Faust has contact with – his colleague, Wagner. This
colleague is eager to gain insight into Faust’s secrets, but on the other
hand he is careful enough to avoid looking for contacts with the daemonic
world. When Faust meets Mephistopheles, Wagner has to disappear. The
production of Faust i presented Faust as a restless but also an isolated
scholar: there is no room for students in his universe. Faust has already left
the centres of traditional academia. In his refuge, his self-inflicted isolation,
there is only Wagner to visit him. He cares for Faust, provides food and
interrogates him about his illegal experiments – he is the caretaker and the
ward in Faust’s retreat.
Staging Faust at the State Theatre Stuttgart 297
one by the end of the Gretchen tragedy. For Margarete there is no outcome
in Faust’s world except death.
Our production aimed at underlining the process of Faust’s colonizing of
Margarete and her resistance to this colonization. Faust, dressed in a suit
and a white shirt, enters Margarete’s bedroom, removes his trousers and
thus – half-naked – tries to overcome her religious concerns. When he gives
her the sleeping potion, the poison, she consciously takes it. Joyfully,
Staging Faust at the State Theatre Stuttgart 299
Margarete returns from the night with Faust, and in the following scenes
she is scorned by Marthe. Left alone, Margarete discovers that she is
pregnant. She climbs up onto the kitchen counter and jumps twenty, thirty
times in order to rid herself of her unborn child (see Figure 19.2).
During this attempt at an abortion she sings and cries out the lines
dedicated to the Mater dolorosa: ‘Ach neige, / Du Schmerzensreiche . . .’
(3587–8, Deign, O deign, / You who are sorrow-laden). After the unsuc-
cessful attempt at killing the unborn child, she goes to bed. Her brother
Valentin appears and is about to kill her by smashing her head with a
stone – but is unable to do so. After he is killed by Faust, he re-emerges as
a ghost and threatens to disclose Margarete’s guilt. It is he who transforms
her into a witch; he puts artificial blonde hair on her head and stuffs her
belly with the puppet of the unborn child. Then three masqueraded black
figures appear: as black angels they celebrate a black mass, the ‘Walpurgis
Night’. Margarete gives birth to the puppet-child, but the child is taken
away by the black figures. Margarete fights to get the ‘child’ back. When
she does get it, she saves it from the reach of the black figures by drowning
it. The ‘Walpurgis Night’ is over, and Faust shows his face – he was one of
the three black angels. Now he has already become indistinguishable from
the other ghosts – the two Mephistopheles. Half-hearted is his attempt at
rescuing Margarete from her imprisonment. There remains only one way
to rescue her: when Mephistopheles says ‘She is judged!’ Faust takes a
pillow and suffocates her, replying to Mephistopheles, ‘She is rescued!’
This line belongs originally to the Lord – in Goethe’s text Faust simply
flees from Margarete’s cell. Thus the performance burdens Faust with the
full responsibility for murdering and ‘rescuing’ Margarete.
Faustian universe. The epic structure, the concept of collage and the
performance of the group – these are the aesthetic foundations of this
production.
n ot e
1. Faust i was premiered on 30 September 2005, directed by Hasko Weber. Set
design: Cary Gailer; costumes: Regine Standfuss; music: FM Einheit; drama-
turgy: Jörg Bochow. Faust 21 (Faust ii) was premiered on 25 February 2006,
directed by Volker Lösch. Training of the chorus: Bernd Freytag; set design:
Cary Gailer; costumes: Carola Reuther; dramaturgy: Beate Seidel.
chapter 20
In this exceptional, possibly unique, theatrical venue, with its wood, its simple
forms, its artisan severity and its poetic atmosphere which continues to affect me,
for over three years we’ve been creating not only theatre productions but also, I
hope, a new relationship between performance and actors, between actors and
spectators, between the magic of make-believe and the clarity of critical commit-
ment. A critical commitment which is never cold and ascetic or purely academic,
but always an attempt to communicate, to express ideas and emotions, to make
proposals, to embark on little-known paths. (Strehler, 20 January 1990)3
Situated in Milan’s artistic quarter, the Teatro Studio was an old variety
theatre before being restored for Strehler’s company. It differs from the
traditional teatro all’italiana (with its proscenium arch framing the stage and
separating it from the audience). Here, the acting area stretches out into the
audience seated in circular fashion in direct, intimate communication with
the actors, as in classical Greek theatre. A high ceiling makes for the creation
of scenographic areas, as in Goethe’s ‘Prologue in Heaven’ (see Figure 20.1).
Downstage, a huge curtain opens onto a deep inner stage.
The theatre then, when necessary, made it possible to alternate short and
long perspectives. In the central arena Goethe’s words were thus able to
resound with their full dramatic force, above all in the monologues and
dialogues illuminated by a single spotlight in the dark of the empty stage. In
other cases, by contrast, the backcloth revealed striking sequences of distant
landscapes, such as the idyllic, limetree-dotted hill of the Philemon and
Baucis episode, or mythic apparitions (the Sphinxes, the Mothers).
308 laura caretti
Figure 20.1 Prologue in Heaven. (Photograph from the Strehler production, 1989–91)
I’m aware that we are confronted with a theatricality that relies on different
necessities, different styles of performances, different expressive languages. But
what we have always is a work rich in asymmetries, variables, brimming with
imagination, extremely intricate and complex but conceived absolutely for the
theatre, for the stage, to be acted, body and voice, intelligence and heart, by the
actors.9
Challenging the stage conventions of his time, with this highly composite
work Goethe deliberately intended to expand the creative resources of
theatre itself. Strehler was ready to take up this challenge, to put to the
test all the potentialities of stage art. He admiringly recognized the greatness
of the work; and with (in his words) ‘humility’ and ‘love’ he worked
together with his actors to bring it to life on the contemporary stage.
It was idle, he said, to persist in discussing whether or not the play is
performable: the spectators themselves confirm that Goethe’s Faust is
made for the theatre and that it speaks in a way that stirs audiences even
today.
At the same time, the difficult work of translation confirms the theatrical
effectiveness of Goethe’s poetry. Strehler’s excellent knowledge of German
meant that he was able to produce a script which avoids the monochord
literariness of other Italian versions and which aims to give polyphony back
to the word.10 The result is a translation free of archaisms, clear in its intent
Strehler’s Faust in performance 311
to communicate with a present-day public, yet remaining faithful to the
original (‘My translation has one sole purpose, besides textual correctness:
to be born above all for the stage, that is, for the live voices of the actors’).11
Printed words translated into spoken words make up a script which, above
all in the first part, is deliberately left naked, merely ‘said’ by the actors. In
this form of ‘dramatic reading’ spoken from the lectern, Goethe’s text
becomes the true demiurge of the stage: it gives material life to the charac-
ters, reveals their inner selves, visually conjures before the mind’s eye of the
audience illusory phantasmagoria.
In Part ii, by contrast, when Faust enters history, more space is given to
the theatricality of the scenes. And thus in some cases the ‘director’s
imagination’ influences his choice of lexis. A case in point is the Fourth
Hag, Care (‘Die Sorge’), who torments and blinds Faust in the closing
stages of the play. Here, by giving her the name ‘Angoscia’, Strehler
accentuates the interior nature of the confrontation: he sees her as Faust’s
female double, a projection of his guilty despair. The struggle between the
two takes place in a ring, in a hand-to-hand combat which is also a violent
embrace. It would of course be wrong to imagine that Strehler completed
the whole translation single-handed before starting rehearsing.12 The words
were endlessly tested out, tuned and even altered on stage. Very often,
while acting or directing, he revised a line, reordered the words, constantly
bent as he was on achieving a translation that would preserve the expressive
power of the original. The stage version thereby became an integral part of
the staging process: work in progress pursued in collaboration with the
actors.
a dramaturgy of fragments
Strehler’s belief that Goethe’s Faust is ‘an epic tragedy’ that can find its full
expression in the visual language of the theatre did not, however, prevent
him from foreseeing how arduous the enterprise would be. He was well
aware that the project would require ‘many years’, and that in this long
period the great poem could only gradually be revived on stage. He saw
Faust as a work with many doors that could not all be opened together. He
began with a selection of certain sections, adding to the title of his produc-
tion of Part i the word ‘fragments’ (Faust frammenti). Goethe’s Faust was
explored as an immense creative resource from which to draw characters,
situations, images. The fragments were lifted from the pages and each unit
carefully inserted into a new dramatic texture. Some were tried out on stage
and then put to one side, while others were immediately included or
312 laura caretti
excluded. In the end, this process of selection and montage became the basis
of Strehler’s dramaturgic work, a compositional metodo which left room for
additions and variations: ‘The performable material that we’ve found before
us is so vast as to require not so much “cuts” as “omissions”, to be kept in
reserve for next year’s research, naturally following the same method that
has accompanied our work so far.’13
On close examination, we can see that the ‘fragments’ are actually single
scenes or whole clutches of scenes with minimal cuts within the chosen
episodes. Strehler calls them the ‘bones’, the ‘pillars’, the ‘embryos’ of the
production. With these selected threads, he worked with his company for
five years (from 1987 to 1992), weaving together the web of his production of
the two parts of the poem.
The resulting structure which evolved in this way was then able to
include other pieces of the mosaic.14 This was Strehler’s purpose: to con-
tinue his journey, adding other fragments to the play during rehearsal.
Goethe’s written Faust was thus transformed into a ‘rappresentazione in
continuo divenire’ (performance in continuous development). We know
now that at a certain point the plan to enlarge the view to an ever-broader
spectrum of the poem stopped. After the first 2,000 lines of Part i others
were added, in successive performances; in the end, of Goethe’s 12,111 lines
6,500 were staged – a cause for pride, however, if one considers that in his
production, which Strehler had the good fortune to see in 1957, and which
was considered complete, even the great Gustaf Gründgens actually cut
away more than half the poem.
If we look at the table on page 313 of the chosen fragments we can see that
various sections were omitted. Yet despite these leaps, the tension of the
performance never slackened; in some cases (for example, the Gretchen
episode) it was actually intensified. The theatre lights flashed on certain
moments of Goethe’s work, and the selected scenes followed each other in
quick succession, as in a musical composition. The production never
once gave the impression of being unfinished, or slack. I would call
Strehler’s Faust an ‘opera aperta’ (to use Umberto Eco’s illuminating
expression, which is equally applicable to Goethe’s work): an ‘open work’
coherent in its dramaturgic design, powerful in its impact on our eyes,
minds and emotions. ‘The openness (apertura) and dynamism of a work’,
writes Eco, ‘consist in its receptivity to various acts of integration, concrete
complementary elements, channelling them a priori into the game of a
structural vitality which the work possesses even if in its unfinished state,
and which appears valuable even for diverse and multiple possible end
results.’15
Strehler’s Faust in performance 313
Faust, fragments: Selection of scenes in Strehler’s production (in bold type)
Dedication FAUST PART ii
Prologue on the Stage ACT 1
Prologue in Heaven Pleasant Landscape
FAUST PART i The Emperor’s Court
Night Throne Room
Outside the City Gate Masquerade
Study 1 Garden
Study 2 Dark Gallery
Auerbach’s Cellar Brightly Lit Rooms
Witch’s Kitchen Great Hall
Street 1 ACT 2
Evening High-Vaulted, Narrow Gothic Chamber
A Walk Laboratory
The Neighbour’s House Classical Walpurgis Night
Street 2 Pharsalian Fields
Garden On the Peneius
A Summerhouse Sphinxes
Forest and Cave Peneius
Gretchen’s Room Chiron
Marthe’s Garden Manto
At the Well ACT 3
A Shrine Palace of Menelaus in Sparta
Night Inner Courtyard of a Castle
Cathedral Arcadia
Walpurgis Night ACT 4
Walpurgis Night’s Dream High Mountains
Dreary Day, Field On the Foothills
Night, Open Country The Rival Emperor’s Tent
Dungeon ACT 5
Open Country
Palace
Deep Night
Midnight
Great Courtyard before the Palace
Burial
Mountain Gorges
Figure 20.2 Faust and Helena’s veil. (Photograph from the Strehler production, 1989–91)
Figure 20.3 ‘My lovely young lady, may I venture . . .?’ (Photograph
from the Strehler production, 1989–91)
320 laura caretti
garden, while Gretchen plays the last scene alone as a delirious stream of
consciousness. The lines are ‘played’ on a lectern and the scenery is left to the
stagecraft of Goethe’s words. The dialogues become solos:
There, a sole actress, in an almost absolute void, with a lectern, interprets, reads,
speaks, performs in diverse styles – from Stanislavskian identification to Brechtian
epic – her own part and that of Faust. One of the hardest ‘dramatic-interpretive’
exercises I know. (Strehler, 20 January 1990)24
Giulia Lazzarini begins as if reading from Goethe’s book, but then turns
away from it, as if she had been led to an imaginary scaffold, her hands tied
behind her back, her body bent, ready for the axe. Her performance is a
prodigious shifting of voices, tones and emotions. She is the loving young
girl who has given herself to Faust, the woman burdened with grief, beset by
terror, afflicted by haunting memories. Faust’s presence in the prison is
evoked in a delirium of fear, love, guilt and resignation. Her dialogue with
him is made real and imaginary at the same time. He is there, he grabs her
violently by the arm trying to force her out of her prison, yet she remains
utterly alone with her hallucinations. She seems overwhelmed by contrast-
ing emotions, tormented by the recollection of her drowning baby, torn
between desire for and horror of her lover. The solo voice of the actress turns
the dialogue into a visionary dream of reunion and a nightmare of separa-
tion. There is a subtle link between the roles played by the same actress in
the second part of Strehler’s production: she is the soothing Ariel who
comforts and revives the fallen Faust.25
She is Poetry, as against the power of money. Dressed in a harlequin’s
costume borrowed from a painting by Picasso, she offers the audience the
luminous sparks of her verses. Later in the story, she plays the part of the
generous, peaceful Baucis. All these characters, with their gift of love, stand
against the driving urge to grab and to destroy. They seem perilously fragile
in the cruel world they inhabit, yet they cannot be conquered. They are the
antagonists, not simply the victims. In the end, Faust–Mephistopheles’
dreams of power and possession fail. Only Care (Angoscia), also played by
Giulia Lazzarini, envelops and possesses Faust’s heart. She is Faust’s last
companion.
notes
1. Giorgio Strehler, ‘La nostra ricerca sul Faust continua’, in Faust frammenti parte
prima, Milano: Piccolo Teatro, 1989–90 (pages are unnumbered). This article,
dated 20 January 1990, is printed in one of the two programme-books devoted
to the presentation of Part i and Part ii (Parte prima e Parte seconda) of his Faust,
edited by the Piccolo Teatro, on the occasion of the 1989 and 1991 perform-
ances. In addition to Strehler’s director’s notes and critical remarks, these books
include other essays by critics and writers, as well as splendid photographic
documentation by Luigi Ciminaghi. These two programme-books, together
with the scripts containing Strehler’s unpublished translation of Goethe’s
Faust i–ii, unpublished letters, photographs and videos are part of the rich
documentary material of the staging of Goethe’s Faust kept in the Archivio
Multimediale del Piccolo Teatro di Milano (hereafter AMPT).
2. Giorgio Strehler, ‘Faust frammenti parte seconda’, in Faust frammenti parte
seconda, Milano: Piccolo Teatro, 1990–1 (pages are unnumbered).
3. Giorgio Strehler, ‘La nostra ricerca sul Faust continua’.
4. Ibid.
5. In his notes Strehler repeatedly insists on the fact that Faust cannot be reduced
to a single interpretation and on the need to resort to a plurality of expressive
languages.
6. Giorgio Strehler, ‘Il progetto Faust’ (dated November 1988), in Faust fram-
menti parte seconda.
7. Relevant to this analysis was Claudio Magris’ essay on ‘Le metamorfosi di
Faust’, in Itaca e oltre, Milano: Garzanti, 1982.
8. Speaking of his direction of Shakespeare’s plays, he defines the staging as ‘a
critical operation written with the material of the theatre, with all the material
of the theatre, on a stage, and which presupposes another initial critical
operation which then takes precise form in the theatre work’. Giorgio
Strehler, Inscenare Shakespeare, Rome: Bulzoni, 1999, 9.
9. Giorgio Strehler, ‘Il progetto Faust’.
10. In a note dated Milan 18 March 1989 Strehler thanks the translators who have
preceded him, above all acknowledging his debt to the poet Franco Fortini’s
‘poetic, often dazzling solutions’ in his version of Goethe, Faust, Parte I e II,
Milan: Mondadori, 1970, 2 vols.
11. Giorgio Strehler, ‘La nostra ricerca sul Faust è incominciata’, in Faust frammenti
parte prima.
12. Strehler translated the first part, but for the second he worked in collaboration
with Gilberto Tofano, another director with wide cultural knowledge and a
talent for theatre translation.
Strehler’s Faust in performance 323
13. Giorgio Strehler, ‘Faust frammenti parte seconda’, in Faust frammenti parte
seconda.
14. Stuart Atkins also uses the image of a mosaic when speaking of Goethe’s work.
15. Umberto Eco, Opera aperta, Milan: Bompiani, 1962, 51–2.
16. In this long, typewritten letter, kept in the AMPT (Giorgio Strehler, Lettera a
Joseph Svoboda con indicazioni registiche sul disegno tecnico della struttura del
Faust, Frammenti parte seconda, 1990, unpublished, 14 pp., unnumbered),
Strehler proposes to Svoboda a whole series of illuminating scenic ideas to
solve the difficulties of Part ii of Faust (namely, the representation of Ancient
Greece, the tragedy of Helena, the war and above all the finale). Some of these
were duly staged, while others were discarded or modified. Strehler’s letter is an
exceptional document for the insight it gives us into his mental laboratory and
for understanding how his director’s vision always embraces the full range of
theatrical languages. Actors, scenes, lights and costumes coexist in his imagi-
native staging.
17. Giorgio Strehler, Lettera a Joseph Svoboda.
18. Gilberto Tofano, ‘Faust frammenti parte seconda: alle radici della storia
europea’, in Faust frammenti parte seconda.
19. Giorgio Strehler, ‘La nostra ricerca sul Faust continua’.
20. Strehler takes his cue for this leap in time from Gustav Gründgens, who had
already used rumba rhythms for this scene.
21. Giulia Lazzarini was Margarete, the flying Ariel, the Boy-Charioteer/Poetry,
Baucis, Care (Angoscia) and again Gretchen in the last scene. Tino Carraro was
Chiron and the offstage voice of God in the ‘Prologue in Heaven’. Gianfranco
Mauri played Wagner and Philemon. The first Helena was Eleonora
Brigliadori, and later the German actress Andrea Jonasson, Strehler’s young
wife, bestowed on the character her talent and beauty. When the scene required
many extras, Strehler cast the pupils of his theatre school.
22. As can been seen from his table of scenes, Strehler omits the ‘Prologue on the
Stage’.
23. Giorgio Strehler, Lettera a Joseph Svoboda.
24. Giorgio Strehler, ‘La nostra ricerca sul Faust continua’.
25. The actress descends, wafting down, suspended on a thread, as in Strehler’s
1978 staging of The Tempest. Regarding this production, see Pia Kleber,
Theatrical Continuities in Giorgio Strehler’s The Tempest, in Foreign
Shakespeare. Contemporary Performance, ed. Dennis Kennedy, Cambridge
University Press, 1993.
26. Giorgio Strehler, Lettera a Joseph Svoboda.
Select bibliography
Alewyn, Richard, ‘Goethe und die Antike’, in Probleme und Gestalten. Essays,
Richard Alewyn, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1982, 255–70.
Alt, Peter-André, ‘Aufgeklärte Teufel. Modellierungen des Bösen im Trauerspiel
des 18. Jahrhunderts’, in Die deutsche Tragödie. Neue Lektüren einer
Gattung im europäischen Kontext, ed. Volker C. Dörr et al., Bielefeld:
Aisthesis, 2006.
Altenburg, Detlef, ‘Fürst Radziwills “Compositionen zu Göthe’s Faust”. Zur
Geschichte der Schauspielmusik im 19. Jahrhundert’, in Festschrift
Christoph-Hellmut Mahling, ed. Axel Beer et al., Tutzing: H. Schneider,
1997.
Anglet, Andreas, ‘Der reflektierte Mythos in Goethes “Klassischer Walpurgisnacht”’,
Jahrbuch des Freien Deutschen Hochstifts 32 (1992), 142–4.
Arendt, Hannah, Eichmann in Jerusalem. A Report on the Banality of Evil, New York:
Viking Press, 1963. (German original: Eichmann in Jerusalem. Ein Bericht von
der Banalität des Bösen, Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt, 1978.)
Arens, Hans, Kommentar zu Goethes Faust ii, Heidelberg: Carl Winter Verlag, 1989.
Atkins, Stuart, ‘Goethe, Aristophanes and the “Classical Walpurgisnacht”’,
Comparative Literature 6 (1954).
Bennet, Benjamin, Goethe’s Theory of Poetry. Faust and the Regeneration of
Language, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.
Beutler, Ernst, Essays um Goethe, 4th edn, Wiesbaden: Diederich, 1948.
Birk, Manfred, ‘Goethes Typologie der Epochenschwelle im vierten Akt des
Faust ii’, Jahrbuch der deutschen Schillergesellschaft 33 (1989), 261–80.
Borchmeyer, Dieter, Goethe. Der Zeitbürger, Munich: Hanser, 1999.
Böttiger, Karl August, Literarische Zustände und Zeitgenossen. Begegnungen und
Gespräche im klassischen Weimar, ed. Klaus Gerlach and René Sternke, Berlin:
Aufbau, 1998.
Boyle, Nicholas, Goethe. The Poet and the Age, 2 vols., Oxford: Clarendon, 2000–6.
‘The Politics of Faust ii. Another Look at the Stratum of 1831’, Publications of the
English Goethe Society 52 (1983), 4–43.
Brittnacher, Hans Richard, Ästhetik des Horrors, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp,
1994.
324
Select bibliography 325
‘Goethe, Rousseau, the Novel and the Origins of Psychoanalysis’, Goethe
Yearbook 12 (2004), 111–28.
Goethe’s Faust. The German Tragedy, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986.
Buchwald, Reinhard, Führer durch Goethes Faustdichtung, 6th edn, Stuttgart:
Kröner, 1961.
Burdach, Konrad, ‘Faust und die Sorge’, DVJs 1 (1923), 1–60.
Correspondence between Goethe and Schiller, 1794–1805, trans. Liselotte Dieckmann,
New York: P. Lang, 1992.
Daur, Albert, Faust und der Teufel. Eine Darstellung nach Goethes dichterischem
Wort, Heidelberg: Winter, 1950.
Düntzer, Heinrich, Goethes Faust, Leipzig: Dyk, 1850.
Durrani, Osman, ‘The Character and Qualities of Mephistopheles’, in A
Companion to Goethe’s Faust: Parts i and ii, Columbia, SC: Camden
House, 2001.
Eckermann, Johann Peter, Conversations with Goethe, ed. Hans Kohn, trans. Gisela
C. O’Brien, New York: Frederick Ungar, 1964.
Gespräche mit Goethe in den letzten Jahren seines Lebens, ed. Otto Schönberger,
Stuttgart: Reclam, 1994.
Eissler, Kurt R., Goethe. Eine psychoanalytische Studie 1775–1786, trans. Peter
Fischer and Rüdiger Scholz, Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1987.
Emrich, Wilhelm, Die Symbolik von Faust ii. Sinn und Vorformen, 5th edn,
Königstein: Athenäum, 1981.
Falk, Johannes, Goethe aus näherem Umgange dargestellt, Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus,
1832.
Falkner, Silke R. ‘“Love only succors / Those who can love”. Mephisto’s Desiring
Gaze in Goethe’s Faust’, in Queering the Canon. Defying Sights in German
Literature and Culture, ed. Christoph Lorey and John L. Plews, Columbia,
SC: Camden House, 1998.
Firchow, Peter, ‘Conrad, Goethe and the German Grotesque’, Comparative
Literature Studies 13 (1976), 60–74.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika, ‘Vom Text zur Performance. Der performative turn in den
Kulturwissenschaften’, in Schnittstelle. Medien und kulturelle Kommunikation,
ed. G. Stanitzek and W. Vosskamp, Cologne: DuMont, 2001, 111–15.
Funck, Heinrich (ed.), Goethe und Lavater. Briefe und Tagebücher, in Schriften der
Goethe-Gesellschaft xvi (1901).
Gaier, Ulrich, Fausts Modernität, Stuttgart: Reclam, 2000.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe. Faust-Dichtungen, Kommentar I, Stuttgart: Reclam,
1999.
Gelzer, Thomas, ‘Aristophanes in der Klassischen Walpurgisnacht’, in J. W. Goethe.
Fünf Studien zum Werk, ed. Anselm Maler, Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1983.
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, Essays on Art, ed. John Gearey, Collected Works,
vol. iii, Princeton University Press, 1994.
Faust, trans. David Luke, Oxford University Press, 1987, 1994.
Faust. Kommentare, ed. Albrecht Schöne, Frankfurt: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag,
1994.
326 Select bibliography
Faust-Dichtungen, ed. Ulrich Gaier, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1999.
Faust i and ii, trans. Stuart Atkins, Cambridge, MA: Suhrkamp, 1986.
Goethe’s Letters to Zelter, with Abstracts from Those of Zelter to Goethe, trans.
A. D. Coleridge, London: G. Bell and Sons, 1887.
Maxims and Reflections, trans. Thomas Bailey Saunders, London: Macmillan,
1908.
The Autobiography of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, trans. John Oxenford, 2 vols.,
Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Gräf, Hans Gerhard, Goethe über seine Dichtungen. Versuch einer Sammlung aller
Äußerungen des Dichters über seine poetischen Werke, 3 Parts (6 vols.), Frankfurt
am Main: Rütten & Loening, 1904, repr. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1968.
Grappin, Pierre, ‘Zur Gestalt des Kaisers in Faust ii’, Goethe-Jahrbuch 91 (1974),
107–16.
Grimm, Gunter (ed.), ‘Der tausendjährige Faust. Rezeption als Anmaßung’, in
Literatur und Leser, Stuttgart: Reclam, 1975, 181–95.
Grotthuß, Jeannot Emil, Probleme und Charakterköpfe, Stuttgart: Greiner &
Pfeiffer, 1897.
Grumach, Ernst, Goethe und die Antike, eine Sammlung, 48 vols., Potsdam: Walter
de Gruyter, 1949.
Hamlin, Cyrus, Faust: A Tragedy. Backgrounds and Sources, New York: Norton,
1976.
Hamm, Heinz, ‘Julirevolution, Saint-Simonismus und Goethes abschließende
Arbeit am Faust’, Weimarer Beiträge 28 (1982), 70–91.
Hartmann, Tina, Goethes Musiktheater. Singspiele, Opern, Festspiele, Faust,
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2004.
Harzer, Friedmann, ‘“Hinweg zu Proteus!” Goethes “Poetische Metamorphosen” in
der Klassischen Walpurgisnacht’, in Goethe nach 1999. Positionen und Perspektiven,
ed. Matthias Luserke, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001.
Hederich, Benjamin, Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon. Reprografischer Nachdruck
[der Ausgabe] Leipzig, Gleditsch, 1770, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchge-
sellschaft, 1967.
Hölscher-Lohmeyer, Dorothea, Faust und die Welt. Der 2. Teil der Dichtung. Eine
Anleitung zum Lesen des Textes, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1975.
Iehl, Dominique, ‘Goethe et le grotesque’, Litteratures 12 (1985), 95–106.
Jaeger, Michael, Fausts Kolonie. Goethes kritische Phänomenologie der Moderne,
Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 2004.
Global Player Faust oder Das Verschwinden der Gegenwart. Zur Aktualität
Goethes, Berlin: WJS Verlag, 2008.
Jamme, Christoph, ‘“Alter tage fabelhaft Gebild”. Goethes Mythenbastelei im
Faust ii’, in Interpreting Goethe’s Faust Today, ed. Jane K. Brown et al.,
Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1994.
Jantz, Harold, ‘Goethe’s Last Jest in Faust: or, “Faust holt den Teufel”’, in
Festschrift für Detlev W. Schumann zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. Albert
R. Schmitt, Munich: Delp, 1970.
Select bibliography 327
Janz, Rolf-Peter, ‘“Vom Harz bis Hellas immer Vettern”. Mephistopheles in der
“Klassischen Walpurgisnacht”’, in Peter Stein inszeniert Faust von Johann
Wolfgang Goethe, ed. Peter Stein and Roswitha Schieb, Ostfildern: DuMont
Reiseverlag, 2000, 274–6.
Jaspers, Karl, ‘Unsere Zukunft und Goethe. Rede, am 28. August 1947 anlässlich
der Verteilung des Goethepreises der Stadt Frankfurt am Main gehalten’, in
Jaspers, Die Goethe-Schriften, Zurich: Artemis, 1948.
Jerouschek, Günther, ‘Skandal um Goethe?’, Goethe-Jahrbuch 2004, Weimar:
Böhlau, 2005, 253–60.
Keudell, Elise von, Goethe als Benutzer der Weimarer Bibliothek. Ein Verzeichnis der
von ihm entliehenen Werke, Weimar: H. Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1931.
Kiefer, Klaus H., ‘Balsamo, Giuseppe’, in Goethe-Handbuch, vol. iv/1, ed. Hans-
Dietrich Dahnke und Regine Otto, Stuttgart-Weimar: Metzler, 1998.
Kommerell, Max, ‘Faust Zweiter Teil. Zum Verständnis der Form’, Corona
7 (1937).
Geist und Buchstabe der Dichtung. Goethe, Schiller, Kleist, Hölderlin, Frankfurt
am Main: Klostermann, 1940.
Landeck, Ulrich, Der fünfte Akt von Goethes Faust ii. Kommentierte kritische
Ausgabe, Zurich: Artemis, 1981.
Litzmann, Bertold, Goethes Faust, Berlin: Fleischel, 1904.
Lohmeyer, Dorothea, Faust und die Welt. Der zweite Teil der Dichtung, Munich:
C. H. Beck, 1975.
Lützeler, Paul Michael, ‘Goethes “Faust” und der Sozialismus. Zur Rezeption
des klassischen Erbes in der DDR’, in Basis. Jahrbuch für deutsche
Gegenwartsliteratur 5, Frankfurt: Athenäum, 1975, 31–55.
Mahl, Bernd, Goethes Faust auf der Bühne, 1806–1998, Stuttgart and Weimar:
Metzler, 1999.
Martens, Wolfgang, Der patriotische Minister. Fürstendiener in der Literatur der
Aufklärungszeit, Weimar-Cologne-Vienna: Böhlau, 1996.
Mattenklott, Gert, ‘Der Medien-Mephistopheles. Gustav Gründgens als
Mephistopheles in Goethes Faust’, Theater heute 2 (2000), 23–7.
Michelsen, Peter, Im Banne Fausts. Zwölf Faust-Studien, Würzburg: Königshausen &
Neumann, 2000.
Molnár, Géza von, ‘Goethes Studium der Kritik der Urteilskraft. Eine
Zusammenstellung nach den Eintragungen in seinem Handexemplar’,
Goethe Yearbook: Publications of the Goethe Society of North America 2 (1984),
137–222.
Mommsen, Katharina, ‘Faust ii als politisches Vermächtnis des Staatsmannes
Goethe’, Jahrbuch des freien deutschen Hochstifts (1989), 1–36.
Natur- und Fabelreich in Faust ii, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1968.
Osterkamp, Ernst, Lucifer. Stationen eines Motivs, Berlin, New York: Walter de
Gruyter, 1979.
Paracelsus, Sämtliche Werke. Erste Abteilung: Medizinische, naturwissenschaftliche
und philosophische Schriften, ed. Karl Sudhoff, vol. xi, Munich and Berlin:
Oldenbourg, 1922–33.
328 Select bibliography
Reinhardt, Karl, ‘Die klassische Walpurgisnacht. Entstehung und Bedeutung’,
in Tradition und Geist. Gesammelte Essays zur Dichtung, ed. Carl Becker,
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960, 309–56.
Richter, Simon, Laocoon’s Body and the Aesthetics of Pain. Winckelmann, Lessing,
Herder, Moritz, Goethe, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992.
Sahlberg, Oskar N., ‘Goethes Faust. Homunculus und die Neuzeugung der
Schwestergeliebten’, The International Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal
Psychology and Medicine 13/1–2 (2001), 193–200.
Schanze, Helmut, Faust-Konstellationen. Mythos und Medien, Munich: Fink, 1999.
Goethes Dramatik. Theater der Erinnerung, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1989.
‘Goethes Rhetorik’, in Rhetorik zwischen den Wissenschaften, ed. G. Ueding,
Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1991.
Schieb, Roswitha, ‘Probentagebuch’, in Peter Stein inszeniert Faust, ed. Roswitha
Schieb, Cologne: DuMont, 2000, 144–51.
Schings, Hans-Jürgen, ‘Faust and the “God of the Modern Age”. Goethe as Critic
of the Faustian Urge’, Goethe-Jahrbuch der Goethe-Gesellschaft in Japan 43
(2001), 33–43.
Melancholie und Aufklärung. Melancholiker und ihre Kritiker in Literatur und
Erfahrungsseelenkunde des 18. Jahrhunderts, Stuttgart: Metzler, 1977.
Schlaffer, Heinz, Faust Zweiter Teil. Die Allegorie des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts,
Stuttgart: Metzler, 1981.
Schleif, Walter, Goethes Diener, Berlin and Weimar: Aufbau, 1965.
Schmidt, Jochen, Goethes Faust. Erster und Zweiter Teil. Grundlagen–Werk–
Wirkung, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1999.
Schmidt-Biggemann, Wilhelm, ‘Über die unfaßliche Evidenz des Bösen’, in Das
Böse. Eine historische Phänomenologie des Unerklärlichen, ed. Carsten Colpe
and W. Schmidt-Biggemann, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993.
Schneider, Steffen, ‘Mnemonische Imaginationen in Goethes Faust ii. Eine
Lektüre der Klassischen Walpurgisnacht’, Goethe-Jahrbuch 119 (2002).
Schöne, Albrecht, Götterzeichen, Liebeszauber, Satanskult. Neue Einblicke in alte
Goethetexte, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1993.
Schuchard, G. C. L., ‘Julirevolution, St Simonismus und die Faustpartien von
1831’, ZfdPh 60 (1935), 240–74 and 362–84.
Schulz, Gerhard, Die deutsche Literatur zwischen französischer Revolution und
Restauration, Part ii, Munich: C. H. Beck, 1989.
Snell, Bruno, ‘Arkadien. Die Entdeckung einer geistigen Landschaft’, in Antike
und Abendland, vol. i, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1945.
Stein, Peter, ‘Zum Tode geboren. Ein Gespräch mit dem Regisseur Peter Stein
über Theater, Tragödie und das Los des Menschen – von Dirk Pilz’, Theater
der Zeit 10 (2005).
Tobin, Robert D., ‘Faust’s Membership in Male Society. Prometheus and
Ganymede as Models’, Interpreting Goethe’s Faust Today, ed. Jane K. Brown
et al., Columbia, SC: Camden House, 1994.
Warm Brothers. Queer Theory and the Age of Goethe, Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2000.
Select bibliography 329
Volkelt, Hans, Auf freiem Grund mit freiem Volke stehen. Goethes Faust und
Deutschlands Lebensanspruch, Leipzig: Psychol.-Pädag. Institut d. Univ., 1944.
Volkmann, Ernst, ‘Gestalt und Wandel der Kentauren-Idee bei Goethe’, in
Lebendiges Erbe. Festschrift für Dr Ernst Reclam, ed. E. Reclam, Leipzig:
Philipp Reclam, 1936, 123–37.
Wegner, Max, Goethes Anschauung antiker Kunst, Berlin: Gebr. Mann, 1944.
Weinrich, Harald, Lethe. The Art and Critique of Forgetting, Ithaca: Cornell
University Press, 2004.
Williams, John R., ‘Die Deutung geschichtlicher Epochen im zweiten Teil des
Faust’, Goethe-Jahrbuch 110 (1993), 89–103.
‘Mephisto’s Magical Mystery Tour. Goethe, Cagliostro, and the Mothers in
Faust, Part Two’, Publications of the English Goethe Society 58 (1989), 84–102.
Wübben, Yvonne ‘“. . . und dennoch spukt’s in Tegel” – Zu Goethes Cagliostro-
Rezeption’, Goethe-Jahrbuch 119 (2002), 96–119.
Zabka, Thomas, ‘Dialektik des Bösen. Warum es in Goethes “Walpurgisnacht”
keinen Satan gibt’, DVJs 72 (1998), 201–26.
Faust ii – Das Klassische und das Romantische. Goethes ‘Eingriff in die neueste
Literatur’, Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1993.
Zagari, Luciano, ‘Natur und Geschichte. Metamorphotisches und Archetypisches
in der Klassischen Walpurgisnacht’, Bausteine zu einem neuen Goethe, ed.
Paolo Chiarini, Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1987.
Index
alchemy, 25, 42, 81, 82, 83, 85 emperor, Kaiser, 22, 44, 46, 62, 72, 78, 81, 223,
Arendt, Hannah, 38, 39 228, 241, 287
Aristotle, 231, 257 Emrich, Wilhelm, 78, 102, 111, 138, 152
Atkins, Stuart, xi, 52, 90, 126, 154, 323 Enlightenment, 6, 42, 43, 80, 81, 82, 89, 106, 121,
125, 156, 159, 178, 212, 278
beautiful moment, der schöne Augenblick, 3, 7, 59, entelechy, 3, 7, 57, 63, 78, 281
104, 167, 168, 200, 239 enthusiasm, 7, 8, 107, 122
Benn, Gottfried, 19 Euphorion, 6, 46, 80, 132, 135, 137, 171, 206, 228,
Berzelius, Jöns Jakob, 26, 31 229, 233, 263
blindness, blind, 6, 29, 58, 89, 104, 105, evil, das Böse, 7, 9, 32, 33, 51
109, 286 metaphysical, 32, 40, 48, 49, 50, 55, 61, 241, 297
Boisserée, Sulpice, 21 modern, 4, 32, 34, 36, 39, 56, 59, 60
Book of Job, 55, 57, 58, 86, 204 phenomenal, 32, 33, 35, 37, 38, 52, 56, 60, 79, 318
Borchmeyer, Dieter, vi, viii, xiv, 1, 9, 68
Boyle, Nicholas, 5, 78, 86, 250 fantastic errors, phantastische Irrtümer, 3, 7,
Brecht, Bertolt, 6, 17, 125, 198, 202, 205, 273, 293, 78, 112
307, 316, 321 Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, 43
Brown, Jane, vi, viii, 1, 6, 9, 152 Fischer-Lichte, Erika, 13
‘Forest and Cave’, 46, 48, 58, 61, 69, 105,
Care, Sorge, 75, 101, 102, 230, 243, 311, 320 218, 296
catharsis, 231, 233, 257, 286 French Revolution, 23, 27, 56, 61, 79, 80, 141
chapbook, Volksbuch, 42 Freud, Sigmund, 11, 68, 127, 277
Chiron, 2, 65, 116, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 130,
137, 143, 144, 145, 146, 149, 165, 170 Gadamer, Hans-Georg, 115, 270, 283, 291
classic, classical Gaier, Ulrich, v, viii, 4, 5, 8, 9, 138, 139, 152, 154,
classicist, 156, 163 187, 208, 265, 267, 297
Weimar, 51, 52, 172, 177, 206, 253, 286 Gestalt, 65, 66, 162, 163, 166, 170
‘Classical Walpurgis Night’, 2, 36, 73, 116, 122, God, the Lord, 3, 32, 33, 41, 44, 45, 46, 48,
138, 157, 160, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 185, 186, 49, 52, 55, 57, 60, 63, 64, 102, 199, 211,
204, 228 214, 318
colonization, 6, 20, 60, 66, 74, 298 good and evil, 4, 6, 37, 38, 40, 49, 50, 52, 199
Gretchen, Margarete, 63, 64, 65, 109, 298
daemon, daemonic, 4, 41, 42, 43, 44, 48, 79, 80, 85 figure, 64, 72, 75, 224, 240, 247, 280, 281, 297,
despair, 9, 94, 105, 197, 203, 283, 289, 295, 296, 311 299, 318, 320
Dichtung und Wahrheit, 41, 45, 50, 67 tragedy, 69, 72, 105, 106, 210, 217, 222, 240,
directorial theatre, 1, 6, 10, 11, 19, 206, 288, 291 243, 258, 277, 297, 298
Divina Commedia, 9, 65, 275 grotesque, 138, 154, 168, 178, 223
in ‘Classical Walpurgis Night’, 2, 142, 143, 146,
Earth Spirit, 4, 9, 48, 49, 55, 105, 206, 239, 247, 150, 152
276, 295, 299 meaning, 139, 140, 141, 151, 153
Eissler, Kurt, 175, 189, 190 Gründgens, Gustav, 7, 19, 203, 268, 312, 323
330
Index 331
Hederich, Benjamin, 116, 159, 192 ‘Mountain Gorges’, 95, 225, 230, 232, 233, 259,
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm, 6, 7, 115, 205 261, 263, 276
Helena, 137, 165, 168, 169, 271, 314 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus, 54, 224, 257,
act, 9, 105, 135, 163, 171, 212, 243, 255, 260, 262 261, 262
antecedents, 2, 61, 130 music, musical
figure, 37, 63, 130, 132, 160, 260, 280, 281, 282 aesthetically, 9, 10, 226, 227, 228, 231, 232
symbol, 130, 136, 172 composed, 54, 224, 225, 228
hermeneutics, hermeneutic, 13, 270, 283 poetic, 9, 227, 228, 230, 233, 259, 261, 263, 264,
Hölscher-Lohmeyer, Dorothea, 78, 154 271, 275
Homer, 18, 24, 116, 132, 165
Homunculus, 25, 26, 27, 31, 138, 143, 145, 151, 204, Napoleon Bonaparte, 7, 62, 79, 178
223, 242, 244, 248, 249 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 6, 40, 107, 205
nihilism, 9, 202
immortality, 3, 7, 75
industrial revolution, 30, 63, 85, 297 opera, 2, 8, 9, 65, 157, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 230,
inner light, 6, 89, 102, 105, 243 263, 315
Origen, 108, 109, 188
Jaspers, Karl, 6, 13, 23, 24
pantheism, 43, 51
Kant, Immanuel, 43, 121, 236, 237, 248, 250 Paracelsus, Theophrastus Bombastus, 3, 25
Kommerell, Max, 78, 101 Pelagianism, 50, 53
performance, performative, 10
Lavater, Johann Caspar, 82, 91 concept, 256, 263
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 6, 66, 205 deconstructivist, 10, 12, 206, 264, 274, 293
Liszt, Franz, 206, 225 review, 302, 309, 312, 315, 317, 318, 320
Lucifer, 3, 39, 42, 56, 181, 193 phantasmagoria, 2, 7, 111, 138, 143, 169, 171, 197,
201, 210, 255
magic Philemon and Baucis, 20, 27, 28, 34, 35, 38, 41, 50,
creative, 7, 82 58, 74, 99, 101, 197, 210
Mephistophelean, 3, 59, 79, 81 polarity, 4, 48, 50, 199
theosophic, 62, 80 ‘Prologue in Heaven’, 7, 41, 45, 48, 55, 57, 65,
Mann, Thomas, 17, 102, 118, 127, 213, 310 199, 204, 210, 211, 212, 227, 231, 307,
Manto, 8, 122, 158, 159, 160, 287 308, 318
Marlowe, Christopher, 42, 66, 154, Proteus, 26, 32
205, 310 psychoanalysis, 25
Marx, Karl, 21, 22, 303
Medusa, 2, 80, 154, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, Renaissance, 7, 9, 62, 138, 140, 144, 151, 154, 179,
166, 167, 169, 171, 172 205, 217, 244, 247, 254, 255
memory Romanticism, 6, 19, 255
cultural, 12, 68, 69, 70, 73, 76, 273, 274 period, 3, 253
Faust’s, 68, 295 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 58, 84, 235
Mensch, der gute, 3, 211 Russell, Jeffrey Burton, 1
Middle Ages, 66, 132, 171, 201, 281
modernity, modern, 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 55, 146, 164, Saint-Simonism, 5, 6, 86, 88
169, 188, 202 salvation, 48, 50, 51, 70, 74, 75, 77, 108, 188, 193,
early, 2, 57, 202 197, 199, 207, 211, 214, 222, 235, 241
Goethezeit, 2, 30, 74, 79, 80, 85, 87, 201, 228, Satan, 39, 42, 43, 55, 57, 58, 59, 185, 204, 219,
253, 264, 277 221, 222
present, 2, 3, 4, 13, 40, 77, 205, 235, 270, Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph, 48,
293, 306 107, 209
Western, 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, 57, 105, 125, 152, 156, 171, Schiller, Friedrich, 8, 9, 43, 90, 121, 177, 205,
172, 187, 197, 198, 204, 205, 207, 293 226, 228
Moritz, Karl Philipp, 70, 71, 116, 127, 142, 206 Schings, Hans-Jürgen, v, ix, 5, 6, 7, 8, 93, 112
Mothers, the, 62, 63, 64, 81, 82, 83, 85, 111, 242, Schlaffer, Heinz, 5, 138, 152, 208
243, 281 Schmidt, Jochen, 5, 39, 78, 208
332 Index
Schöne, Albrecht, v, ix, xiv, 1, 4, 5, 8, 39, 82, 99, totalitarianism, 13
100, 108, 111, 112, 127, 138, 139, 152, 185, tragedy, 168, 169, 217, 325
192, 267 disputed, 9, 68, 209, 210, 211, 223, 224,
Schuchard, Gottlieb C. L., 5, 78, 86, 87 284, 285
Schumann, Robert, 206, 224, 225, 227, 228, 230 Faust’s, 8, 199, 233, 278, 281, 282, 286, 314
schwankende Gestalten, wavering shapes, 4, 41, 46, structural, 6, 11, 65, 68, 94, 97, 199, 205, 208,
60, 62, 65 210, 231, 256, 257, 275, 276, 278, 284, 286,
Spinoza, Spinozism, 43, 48 311, 315
Stein, Peter trickster, 49, 50, 51, 52, 212, 213, 214, 221
as a director, 1, 11, 12, 143, 207, 208, 281, 283, two souls, 9, 114, 198, 239, 281
285, 287, 291
on directorial theatre, 6, 11, 270, 272 ultimate formulae, 3, 4, 22
on Faust, 7, 268, 270, 275, 276, 277, 281 Urfaust, 6, 42, 43, 51
Strehler, Giorgio, 10, 12, 313, 315, 316, 317, 318, utopia, 3, 8, 63, 85, 87, 88, 135, 223, 321
319, 321
striving, Streben wager, 41, 51, 55, 57, 58, 59, 74, 94, 104, 197, 199,
for the absolute, 3, 4, 6, 8, 30, 243, 254, 276, 277 200, 204, 207, 218, 269
self-centred, 88, 235, 267 Wagner, Richard, 52, 213, 225, 227, 257
Weinrich, Harald, 68, 69
technology, 3, 59, 61, 85, 87, 88, 172 Wieland, Christoph Martin, 141, 174, 175, 189,
Thales, 26, 27 221, 222
Thalheimer, Michael, 10, 289, 290, 291, 297 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim, 164, 165, 166,
theatricality, theatrical, 9, 243, 244, 250, 253 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 328