Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Goethe, Faust
>
Faust Week 1 - Part 1, Dedication through Faust Study (ii)

One question I had is whether Goethe intended one of the characters to represent him, or whether, which is the reading I like at least initially, he saw the three characters as three parts of his own character (and, really, of every intelligent person, the Director representing the urge to produce, the Poet representing the urge to reflect, and the Merryman representing the urge to play or recreate.
I chortled almost constantly over the whole interplay of the director wanting to push his minions to get something on stage NOW because the audience is out there waiting, the poet wanting time to write a great work which will "kindle every heart," and the Merryman just seeming to have fun tweaking the poet's tail.

I have two thoughts on this, or rather, a thought and an image. The first is what I was taught in high school about Shakespeare: that he had exalted and profound things to say about the human condition, but he also wanted to entertain the groundlings with crude jokes and plot twists. To me this sounds a bit like the Poet and the Merryman.
The second is the image in Plato's Phaedrus of the chariot driver trying to control his horses, one of noble character, and the other driven by passions and desire. The Director seems to have a similar problem. The horses in Plato's image represent parts of the soul, and in a similar way the Poet and the Merryman might represent parts of Goethe's soul and indicate what he is struggling with in the play. (Perhaps it also foreshadows what the character Faust will struggle with as well?)

One question I had is whether Goethe intended one of the charac..."
:) Yes. The prelude was a fun read for me too.
The Manager's NOW attitude: "What's left undone to-day, To-morrow will not do."

That's funny. I was thinking the same thing, about Goethe's style of writing being very similar to Shakespeare's. A bit satirical sometimes, and just purely humorous at other times.

Our ability to think, to choose, to reason, in short, our mind is what sets us apart from all beasts.
"Life somewhat better might content him, but for the gleam of heavenly light which Thou hast lent him: He calls it Reason - thence his power's increased, to be far beastlier than any beast."
It is sad that we have that unique ability, but too often we choose wrong.
"As long as he on earth shall live, so long I make no prohibition. While Man's desires and aspirations stir, He cannot choose but err."
I found the last two lines a very humorous end to a very philosophical Prologue.
"It's really kind of such a noble Lord so humanly to gossip with the Devil!"
Can you tell me about your own interpretations?

I love that.

Sounds like Apollo's son Phaethon to me...
Or of Helios, if you prefer.

Our ability to think, to choose, to reason, in short, our mind is what sets us apart from all beasts.
"Life somewhat better might content him, but for the gleam of heavenly lig..."
It's this "gleam of heavenly light" that makes humankind curious about things, always wanting to know more. This is, in part, what gets us into trouble: "Man ever errs while he strives."
But it is the Lord who has given this gleam of reasoning to us, so can it be all bad?
On a similar note, the Lord gives Mephistopheles permission to "play the deuce" with Faust. Why does He do this?

The Lord (to Mephistopheles) : Then, too, enjoy free visitation;
I never did abominate your kind.
Of all the spirits of negation
the rogue has been least onerous to my mind. l. 336
In this scene the devil is the willing instrument of the Lord, an actor of sorts. Somebody has to play the bad guy, right?

It reminded me of the story of Job. God makes a bet with his arch-rival.

I would say He does it out of vanity. The prologue is based on the Book of Job, which for me contains some of the most beautiful language in the Old Testament but which is also hard to stomach. Basically, God is so sure of Job's loyalty that he accepts Satan's wager and puts Job to the test - which an omniscient God would have no need to do - by shattering his life to pieces. The same happens here in Faust when God says - I'm using the Gutenberg translation:
"Then stand abash'd, when thou perforce must own,
A good man in his darkest aberration,
Of the right path is conscious still."
It is all about proving a point to Mephistopheles, for whom God strangely enough has a soft spot.

In the original, God refers to Mephistopheles as a "Schalk", which from the 18th century meant something like a joker, a prankster. Originally it meant "bondsman, vassal, minion" and in the Middle Ages its meaning was very negative, namely "villain, scoundrel".

It reminded me of the story of Job. God makes a bet with his arch..."
YES! I was going to post the same thought!

I've been thinking about that too... it seems that Goethe presents the devil in a way that makes reader think that he is only there to "play the bad guy"
Like you said, somebody has to.

Our ability to think, to choose, to reason, in short, our mind is what sets us apart from all beasts.
"Life somewhat better might content him, but for the gleam ..."
the Lord: "A good man, through obscurest aspiration, has still an instinct of the one true way."
I don't know if I misinterpreted anything, it takes a while to get used to Goethe's style of writing and sometimes I have to read it over to understand it better, but I think that in the same way God allowed Satan to tempt Job, He is also allowing Mephistopheles to "play the deuce" because He believes that ultimately Faust will find his way back.
And this is why I love book clubs, it makes me think more about things, instead of just reading it and then forgetting about it later.

So Goethe says that he’s not sure the theme still interests him. But the play itself insists on being finished. Moreover, the old drafts (the wavering shapes) he is working on, remind the poet, almost 50 now, of his youth. And of the friends to whom he used to read his lines. He is overwhelmed by bitter-sweet memories. What does he care for an audience he does not know, for anonymous readers (that's us). What I have is meaningless, and what is lost seems real.
So I take it that Faust is dedicated to the friends of yore, and maybe to his own lost youth as well. Rereading the dedication, I find it touching. At the same time I wonder whether Goethe would have found the courage to pick up Faust again had he known the whole undertaking would take him another 35 years to complete.
Albrecht Schoene, the editor of my edition, says that - to a certain extent - we may consider Faust I to be an early work finished at a late date, and Faust II a late work, started early.
This is the chronology:
• ±1770: Goethe is working on early drafts
• 1775: moves to Weimar, here he sometimes reads parts of Faust to friends
• ±1777: miss Goeckhausen copies an early version of Faust I - rediscovered and published in 1887 as "Urfaust"
• 1786-88: Goethe in Italy
• 1790: publication of "Faust: Ein Fragment" - from Faust I
• 1797: Goethe starts working to finish Faust I
• 1805/06: major style shift in Goethe’s poetry ??
• 1808: first edition of Faust I
• 1825-31: Goethe working on Faust II
• 1828/29: second, revised, edition of Faust I
• 1832: Goethe dies
• 1833: posthumous first publication of Faust II

• 1825-31: Goethe working on Faust II
• 1828/29: second, revised, edition of Faust I
• 1832: Goethe dies
• 1833: posthumous first publication of Faust II ..."
This is interesting. I take it to mean that the version of Faust II we have now is basically a draft that Goethe was working on before his death. At the same time, he also continued revising Faust I. Both Parts were unfinished, and had he lived longer, there would have been more revisions.


Thanks, Tristam. I'm a little suspicious of Arndt's rhyming translation, but it sounds like "rogue" is pretty close to the original here. So far I'm finding Arndt's translation to flow very well, but without any knowledge of German I can only hope that he is also translating the meaning accurately.

As part of my degree in applied linguistics, I looked at the challenges of translating in general (and irony in particular). And of all the books I read on the topic of translation, as well as my own experiences studying 5 other languages, poetry is one of the most difficult things to translate. Most of the scholars I read stated that when the languages differed in rhyme/rhythm vs. meaning, its up to the translator to decide. Basically, should the translator try to convey the beauty/rhyme/rhythm of the poetry as seen in the original language and possibly sacrifice meaning or should the translator do the reverse?
Now with languages as similar as German and English I don't imagine it'll be a big issue but it does come up. For example, when Mephistopheles meets Faust, Faust asks what Meph's name is. Now here's where it gets tricky, the original says 'Wie nennst du dich?'; which if my very rusty German is correct, translates to something like 'How are you called?'. Now as a translator should one keep the more accurate but more awkward sounding English or should one go with something sounds more natural in English (i.e. 'What's your name?')? Also, something that I'd like to consider, is 'Wie nennst du dich?' the standard/common phrase for asking for someone's name? (I don't know enough about German or Faust to answer my own question.) And if it is common, then wouldn't the more colloquial version of English (while less accurate in word-to-word translation) be better as it matches the feeling of the language?
Personally, I prefer the beauty and rhythm over accuracy but others may disagree with me. On a side note, I often prefer annotated versions of poetry that include the reasoning behind the translator's choices.

As part of my degree in applied linguistics, I looked at the challenges of translating in general (and irony ..."
I agree with you.. as long as we get the gist of what the poem is saying, I don't mind the translations being not word-for-word. The version I am reading is of Bayard Taylor's, "translated, in original meters" so that keeps the rhythm of the poem and most of it rhymes.

Of human thoughts and knowledge mine, in vain
And if I now sit down in restful leisure,
No fount of newer strength is in my brain:
I am in no hair's-breadth more in height,
Nor nearer to the Infinite."
Faust reminds me of Solomon in Ecclesiastes..
Ecclessiastes 1:9
What has been will be again; what has been done will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.
They both are yearning for something, but they don't really know what exactly they are yearning for, and what for. They feel restless and weary from their constant and passionate yearning for something more, more, more.

I've come to believe that a poetry translation is an original work in itself. Some works are simply impossible to translate, and the best a translator can do is try to mirror the original.
We struggle with translation a lot in this group because we read texts fairly closely, so we tend to err on the side of accuracy. The beauty of the works suffers a bit for this. A notorious example of the translator erring on the side of meaning is Nabokov's English translation of Eugene Onegin. It's painstakingly accurate, and almost no one likes reading it.

I agree with others that the conversation btw God & Mephisto was probably inspired by the Book of Job. Tristram @12 had called it God's "vanity" as a reason for taking the wager, but I would say it was more confidence in His creation AKA Mankind, that no matter how much Man veers from the path to God (righteousness, salvation etc) that he will always strive to move back on the right track.
In addition to agreeing with most comments about the Prologue in Heaven, I also felt that those characterizations are as applicable today as apparently they were in Goethe's time. The Director/Producer thinking of the bottom line, what will bring the customers to the play, the Poet worried about the artistic integrity of the effort & the Clown pointing out that one could achieve both goals but add a little levity, please. That is how I read that part superficially. Is there a deeper interpretation of the section or symbolism?

The director also seemed a bit cynical:
"Do not forget for whom you write!
They come when they are bored at night,
Or gorged on roasts and relish, spice and capers,
And-this is the most wretched plight-
Some come right after having read the papers.
They come to us distracted, as to a masquerade,
Propelled by nothing more than curiosity,
Their dresses and their jewels, the ladies would parade,
And act without salary."
Should we, as attenders, be offended? :p
My next thought is, Goethe's Faust does not just struggle. I think he is manic depressive!! The scene in the study opens with him in despair. A few struggles later he sees a symbol of the macrocosm and is elated! A few seconds later, he is disgusted with the symbol and turns the pages to find a new symbol! He's on he crest of a wave again. The. He calls a spirit and is frightened. Some more struggles later, he seizes upon a potion (alcohol?) and "soothed are all my pains". Then The bells and choir...and on and on. :-)
I wonder if he is simply too much alone? When he goes to the city gates, the throngs of people seem to restore him.
"Here I am human, may enjoy humanity."
Does a fascination with the dark arts run in the family? Faust says to Wagner abou his father, "In his black kitchen he would fuse
After unending recipes,
Locked in, the most contrary brews."
And is there any significance to all of this occurring on Easter?
After Mephisto appears Faust says:
"For such a semi-hellish brow
The Key of Solomon will do."
Any idea what the "Key of Solomon" is? Wisdom?
Also curious how believable you guys think Goethe's demon is? :-) He comes dressed as a scholar. Seems harmless enough, but he says:
"Yet always fresh new blood will circulate again.
Thus it goes on-I could rage in despair!"
Does admitting such a thing take away his "angel of light" appearance? Or does it make him seem "honest"? He draws Faust into conversation by making him curious...pretty sly.
Anyway, those are my thoughts and questions so far.


While I haven't seen The Omen your comment reminded me of Harry Potter and how the black dog was a bad omen. So that make sense. Thanks!
Genni wrote: "Goethe's Faust does not just struggle. I think he is manic depressive!!"
Christopher wrote: "He definitely seems like a person who struggles with perhaps being a bit over-educated and sees himself positioned in a hierarchy somewhere above common men and women yet forever below immortal spirits/gods."
These comments reminded me a bit of Stephen in Ulysses; is this association between too much knowledge (perhaps) and being over-emotional something that authors often write about (e.g., is there something in life that is compelling them to write about this kind of person). Or is that we just happen to be reading books that have that theme so close together?
Genni wrote: "Any idea what the "Key of Solomon" is? Wisdom?"
Since I had the same question, I decide to google it. Here's what wikipedia has to say: "The Key of Solomon (Latin: Clavicula Salomonis, Hebrew: Mafteah Shelomoh [מפתח שלמה]) is a grimoire incorrectly attributed to King Solomon. It probably dates back to the 14th or 15th century Italian Renaissance. It presents a typical example of Renaissance magic." However, my five minutes of research could be wrong.

While the archangels sing a song in praise of God’s creation, Mephisto is mocking it - the world is in such a sorry state that even the Devil must pity man. God answers that he is sick and tired of this negative attitude. Take Faust for instance, he makes a lot of mistakes, but he will come to see the light. Eventually. Now that’s a challenge Mephisto cannot leave unanswered.
I like Tristram’s suggestion that God lets the devil have his way out of vanity - Gods vanity seems as good an explanation for our existence as any other. But I do not think it’s part of Goethe’s 'discours'. The more orthodox idea is that challenging and testing mankind is the Devil’s regular job (in fact, it is a bit strange that Mephisto asks explicit permission, as if he fears that God will not play by his own rules).
God refers to Faust as his 'servant' (like Job), but I’m not sure about his attitude towards Faust. Job is tested to prove his unflinching faith in adversity, but Faust is an altogether different case. What seems at stake is his moral integrity while being seduced by offerings too rich to refuse. Meanwhile, Goethe is also turning the traditional Faust material inside-out. The legend warns us that if we strive for more knowledge than we need, we will pay dearly. Goethe’s enlightened God however seems to have no problem with science, he even praises human ambition. Man should value his gifts, he should not vegetate!

But it is not only knowledge Faust is striving for. He is busy throwing out the Enlightenment ideals of balance, law and ratio in favor of the new Romantic obsessions with Raw Nature - Death and Eros. If he just could escape his study (that is, the bounds of discipline) and live life to the fullest! In short, he wants everything, and he wants it now.
And if that's not possible, when his dabbling in Black Magic fails, he prefers suicide (the drink is poison!). He is saved by the bell: Christ is arisen. It's Easter morning and the journey is about to begin (the next thing that Goethe will turn around: it won’t be Vergil who is going to accompany our hero).

There was a brief discussion in the Preliminaries thread about Faust being an ideal prototype in German literature. I wonder what it was that they considered "ideal"? Was it the education? The struggle? The mood swings? :-)

Ah, yes. Google. I can only be ashamed of my laziness. Thanks, Tiffany. :-)

Yes, he seems to experience life briefly at the city gates.

I can think of three reasons why Meph. chooses the poodle as his disguise: one: it’s a black, two: it has a lot of hair (smelly sometimes), three: it’s clever. However Goethe’s poodle may not be the sorry creature we see in dog shows. He may instead have thought of a traditional shepherd-poodle like these:

Here I must repeat an annecdote, illustrating Goethe’s somewhat narrow-minded attitude toward dogs. Goethe was, as you may know, for many years director of the Court-Theater in Weimar. That is, until in 1817 his leading actress, Caroline Jagemann, suggested the production of a fashionable play featuring the just as fashionable star Rudolf Karsten and a poodle by the name of Nero. Goethe refused, pointing at article 14 of the theater’s regulations (written by yes, Goethe), stating that no dog was allowed on the premises. Unfortunately Caroline happened to be the duke’s lover, so Goethe was asked, just for once, to make an exception. Instead, the old poet resigned in disgust.

"Yes, resolute to reach some brighter distance,
On Earth's fair sun I turn my back!
Yes, let me dare those gates to fling asunder
Which every man would fain go slinking by!"
If not by understanding her works, he, so much he desires it, will by his flesh become one with Nature.

I was also under the impression that many supernatural beings often were disguised in the form of an animal. Dogs and cats being the most common. Didn't witch hunters often point to some stray living with or near a person as their "familiar" a channel or "evil" spirit assistant?

I also got the same impression. Goethe clearly portrays Faust as an exponent of Romanticism. He is disappointed in science and regards feelings as more true than scientific facts. The rise of Romanticism also brought about a renewed interest in esoteric writings and the occult.
He also seems to be a very proud man. When he summons a ghost, he is scared and is hurt because the ghost does not see him as his equal. This leads Faust to the bitter conclusion that he is no god. This makes him very vulnerable for temptation by Mefistofeles and brings to mind the promise from the devil to Eve in Genesis 3:5 ("Ye shall be as gods").
Later on Faust starts to translate the Gospel of John and decides that he does not like the line: "In the beginning was the word" and decides to change it. The fact that he thinks that the changes he makes in the text are better than what God had written, also shows the proud nature of Faust. It could even be a sign of grandiosity. And that would support Genni's observation that Faust is manic depressive. Grandiosity is often present when someone is in a manic state.
Most of the readers in the time that Faust was published were familiar with the bible. So they would have known that the bible teaches that God despises the proud and that He had very clearly forbidden any occult practices. After seeing this start of the play, they would know that it was inevitable that Faust would stumble and fall later on in the play.

I'm reading the translation by Tony Kline, and the devil is refer to as a joker.
"Those like you I've never hated.
Of all the spirits who deny, it's you,
The Joker, who's most lightly wighted."
This translation is really different from the others here.
I found both prologues humorous, and thought that everything sounded like a game God is playing.

I would not see his re-translation of the Gospel of John as sinful and a sign of pride, though, since "logos" can have different meanings, although, admittedly, not the ones he comes up with at the end, and so his attempt at translation John becomes a symptom of what he is striving for, i.e. finding what holds the world together.
Faust is quite a typical Romantic hero in a way in that he is on the look-out for the universal principle of life - "was die Welt im Innersten zusammenhält" (cf. above). He has found science - i.e. Enlightenment - wanting in that there is still something about life that cannot be explained rationally - and he is also bent on experiencing rather than only explaining and examining life. Also his belief that there is one single principle at the bottom of it all, is, I think, typical of Romantic artists, who have a holistic approach to life and indulge in metaphysics.

And what about:
"Part of that power which still produceth good, whilst ever scheming ill"?
"Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft."
Does this mean that whatever happens is good and that the devil is just another divine tool? That is rather cynical an idea and worthy of the devil.

"Part of that power which still produceth good, whilst ever scheming ill"?
"Ich bin ein Teil von jener Kraft, die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft."
Does this mean that whatever happens is good and that the devil is just another divine tool? That is rather cynical an idea and worthy of the devil. "
This is the approach that Milton takes as well, that evil is an instrument of God. I suppose the alternative would be a kind of Manicheaism where good and evil are on an equal footing and one never knows if God or the Devil will win the day. I read the Prologue in Heaven, as well as Mephisto's comment here, to signify that this is not necessarily an even fight -- though Mephisto has a role to play in God's plan, the outcome will still be determined by God.
On the other hand, I haven't read to the end. Maybe there is a big surprise in store!

Okay, I see why Goethe may have choosen a poodle, especially if he was afraid of dogs already.

That seems the Calvinist understanding. Personally I find the idea of human freedom as a limit on God's omnipotence more convincing.
Reminding me of that famous telegram: "BETTER DROWNED THAN DUFFERS IF NOT DUFFERS WONT DROWN" (capitals are copied - E'man surely knows whence).
Is Faust a duffer?

Then, I'd like to drone on on that quotation a bit. The way I understood it, it is supposed to mean that the devil may well be trying to do his own thing but in the end it will turn out that he has acted ad maiorem dei gloria and executed God's higher plan. Ironically, he seems to be aware of it and also of the fact that he is not able to destroy mankind lock, stock and barrel. The fact that he is, at the bottom of it all, an agent of God also becomes clear when he asks God if he may tempt Faust. - All this might be of importance later on when we talk about the ending of Part I and contemporaries' reactions to it.
Personally, I rather dislike this notion and I would favour a more Manichaean view of God and the Devil as two separate powers, maybe even deadlocked in certain situations. Otherwise you would have to see God as the author of Evil. If you aren't into Manichaeism, you might want to chuck the Devil altogether and put it all down to human stupidity against which even God may prove powerless.

Interesting that as he makes the pact with Mephisto, he again exerts some control by changing the wording to reflect if he is no longer striving or aspirational and declares that he ever should reach such a state of pleasure that he wants to linger, that would be the day for him to die.
Last comment, I did find the conversation btw the student & Mephisto to be quite humorous. I had to look up the Latin phrase he used, translation: You shall be like God, knowing good and evil. Hmm isn't that the just of what the Devil said in tempting Eve?

Great food for thought.

:) You have expressed your thoughts very well! It is really helpful to have read the Bible because there is so much references to it.

"Nichts Bessers weiß ich mir an Sonn- und Feiertagen
Als ein Gespräch von Krieg und Kriegsgeschrei,
Wenn hinten, weit in der Türkei,
Die Völker aufeinanderschlagen.
Man steht am Fenster, trinkt sein Gläschen aus
Und sieht den Fluß hinab die bunten Schiffe gleiten;
Dann kehrt man abends froh nach Haus
Und segnet Fried und Friedenszeiten."
"On holidays and Sundays naught know I more inviting
Than chatting about war and war's alarms,
When folk in Turkey, up in arms,
Far off, are 'gainst each other fighting.
We at the window stand, our glasses drain,
And watch adown the stream the painted vessels gliding,
Then joyful we at eve come home again,
And peaceful times we bless, peace long-abiding."

"Mein Freund, die Zeiten der Vergangenheit
Sind uns ein Buch mit sieben Siegeln.
Was ihr den Geist der Zeiten heißt,
Das ist im Grund der Herren eigner Geist,
In dem die Zeiten sich bespiegeln."
"To us, my friend, the ages that are pass'd
A book with seven seals, close-fasten'd, are;
And what the spirit of the times men call,
Is merely their own spirit after all,
Wherein, distorted oft, the times are glass'd."
It's brilliant how Faust here points out how every age re-invents its own history in terms of its own values and beliefs.
Books mentioned in this topic
Millennium Approaches (other topics)Authors mentioned in this topic
Caryl Churchill (other topics)Tony Kushner (other topics)
There is a lot to discuss here, so let's get to it!