Faustus E-Book

Leo Ruickbie

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2011

Beschreibung

Five hundred years ago a legend was born. The seeker after forbidden knowledge is lured into signing a pact with the Devil. He enjoys the fruits of his deal in wild adventures, riotous high-living and in the arms of beautiful women, but cannot escape his end in the fiery clutches of Satan. That is the story that has inspired genius, high art and popular culture around the world, from Beethoven to Cradle of Filth. Hundreds of performances of Goethe's Faust are staged nightly. Souls are even put up for auction on eBay. The legend of Faustus has assumed a life of its own. But is it the real story? In the first major biography in five hundred years, Dr Ruickbie reveals the truth behind the infamous legend and uncovers the true identity of the man who scandalised sixteenth century Europe. Against all our wildest imaginings Faustus was not a charlatan, nor was he in league with the Devil. We should not think of him as the pact scribbling diabolist, but as a renaissance magician, albeit controversial and condemned by his peers. In an age of spiritual hunger, economic collapse, war and prophecies of doom – an age not unlike the Renaissance – it is a story for our times.

Leseprobe

FAUSTUS

FAUSTUS

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF A RENAISSANCE MAGICIAN

LEO RUICKBIE

I will tell thee things to the terror of thy soul, if thou wilt abide the hearing.

– P.F., The Damnable Life and Deserved Death of Doctor John Faustus, 15921

To the girl in the graveyard.

First published in 2009

The History Press

The Mill, Brimscombe Port

Stroud, Gloucestershire, GL5 2QG

www.thehistorypress.co.uk

This ebook edition first published in 2012

All rights reserved

© Leo Ruickbie, 2009, 2012

The right of Leo Ruickbie, to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

This ebook is copyright material and must not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, leased, licensed or publicly performed or used in any way except as specifically permitted in writing by the publishers, as allowed under the terms and conditions under which it was purchased or as strictly permitted by applicable copyright law. Any unauthorised distribution or use of this text may be a direct infringement of the author’s and publisher’s rights, and those responsible may be liable in law accordingly.

EPUB ISBN 978 0 7524 7346 8

MOBI ISBN 978 0 7524 7345 1

Original typesetting by The History Press

Contents

Acknowledgements

1 A Renaissance Scandal

2 Born of the Devil (1466)

3 The Diabolical Faculty (1472–1489)

4 The Magus Arrives (1500–1506)

5 Sex Crimes in Kreuznach (1507)

6 Harrowing Times (1507–1512)

7 The Hellbrand of Erfurt (1513)

8 Meeting Mephistopheles (1514)

9 Deal with the Devil (1514)

10 The Philosophers’ Stone (1516)

11 The Court Magician (1519–1522)

12 The Planets Collide (1523–1525)

13 All the Victories in Italy (1521–1527)

14 On the Road to Exile (1527–1528)

15 Entertaining the Emperor (1529–1530)

16 The Fugitive (1530–1534)

17 Baptism of Blood (1534–1535)

18 Beyond the Black Forest (1535–1536)

19 The Wages of Sin (1537–1538?)

Epilogue: A Damnable Life?

Notes

Select Bibliography

Acknowledgements

No book is just a book and this present work is no exception. It is the sum of many years of my life, the result of thousands of kilometres of field trips, the distillation of a million pages of centuries of research and writing, and the cause of my meeting many generous and interesting people. When I began I had no idea of the road ahead, but it has been a journey made significantly easier by the helpfulness of the people I encountered along the way, some of whom it is my pleasure to thank here.

Mechthild Berkemeier, Stadtbibliothek, Bad Kreuznach; Vanessa Dippel, Büdingen; Uschi Flacke, Altweilnau; Rosa Gema, Historisches Dr Faust Haus, Bad Kreuznach; R. Haasenbruch, Halle-Wittenberg University; Heike Hamberger Director of the Faust Museum and Archive, Knittlingen; Susann Henker, SLUB/Deutsche Fotothek; Petra Hesse, Leipzig University; Mr and Mrs Hochwald, ‘Fausts Geburtshaus’, Knittlingen; Thorsten Hofrath, Verbandsgemeindeverwaltung Simmern-Hunsrück; Alexandra Ilginus, Herzog-August-Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel;Vladimir Josipovic, Destinacije.com; Gudrun Kauck, Wächtersbach; Harald Kramer, Bürgermeister, Stadtroda; Günter Kroll, Universitätsbibliothek Frankfurt am Main; Tobias Küenzlen, Ephorus, Maulbronn Monastery; Heinrich Laun, Bad Kreuznach;Valeria Maria Leonardi, Sovereign Military Order of Malta; Tim Lörke, Faust Museum and Archive, Knittlingen; Edyta Paruch, Dr Franz Moegle-Hofacker, Hauptstaatsarchiv, Stuttgart, Jagiellonian University, Kraków; Petra Pauly, Stadtbibliothek, Bad Kreuznach; Kristin Pietzner of Wittenberg-Information; Julius Reisek, Heimatwissenschaftliche Zentralbibliothek, Bad Kreuznach; Hans-Rudolf Ruppel, Stadtarchiv Korbach; Dr Klaus Rupprecht, Staatsarchiv Bamberg; Dr Schieck, Helmstadt; Dr Edith Schipper, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich; Dr Beatrix Schönewald, Stadtmuseum, Ingolstadt; Prof. Dr Wilfried Schöntag, Stuttgart; Dr Steffen Schürle, Boxberg; Sylke Titzmann, Stadtverwaltung Stadtroda; the family Trch, Zum Löwen, Staufen; Dr Michael Vesper, Geschäftsführer, Bad Kreuznach Tourismus und Marketing; and U. Weck, Touristinformation Trittenheim.

I wish to single out Professor Frank Baron of Kansas University for his generosity in taking the time and trouble to read my manuscript and discuss some of the finer points of interpretation. Especial thanks are also due to my friends Holger Kempkens and Cordula Krause. At the end of that trail, it is also my pleasure to thank my editors at The History Press, Sophie Bradshaw, Simon Hamlet and Jo Howe, who have all worked on the project with great enthusiasm. But most of all my greatest thanks are reserved for my wife, Dr Antje Bosselmann-Ruickbie, who has often and patiently travelled with me on this quest into a dark and disturbing corner of the past.

1

A Renaissance Scandal

Lightning tears the sky asunder. Electric veins of heaven’s quicksilver beat a furious, fiery pulse. Thunder, like the demon’s drumroll, rumbles in the black, starless sky. The wind howls in the treetops like a chorus of the damned. His candles guttered and snuffed out, his carefully drawn circle spotted and smudged by rain, his nerves in shreds, the magician cries aloud in ancient tongues with names of gods forsaken and words unknown. In a fanfare of shrieks and moans – of the wind in the trees or souls in hell he cannot discern – in the flicker of thunderbolts hurled by a disapproving God, out of flames and grotesque shadows a figure resolves itself. He has delved into every science and mastered all human knowledge to bring himself willingly to this brink of madness and eternal damnation.

A deal is struck between mortal man and infernal power. The parchment pact soaks up the bloody signature like an eager vampire, drawing out the soul to its ruin. In exchange for that insubstantial thing – so hard to find, so easily given – the magician is leased a demon to do his every bidding. Together they travel the world in a riot of adventures. The scholar has shed his study like a chrysalis and revels in the traditional hedonism of wine, women and song. He produces wonders for the entertainment of students, lords and even the Emperor himself. He enjoys fame and fortune, and the favours of a veritable harem, including the most beautiful woman of them all, Helen of Troy. Too late the wastrel laments as the hourglass runs out. He is damned. God has stopped up His ears and barred the gates of heaven. The Devil will redeem his pact.

The seeker after forbidden knowledge is lured into signing a pact with the Devil. He enjoys the fruits of his deal, but cannot escape the clutches of Satan. The story is well known. It is so well known that it has spawned a whole genre, an industry even. The great names of every form of creative endeavour have turned their keen minds to Faustus. From unrivalled dramatists such as Shakespeare’s contemporary, Christopher Marlowe, and the giant of German literature Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, to artists such as Rembrandt and Eugène Delacroix, to musical geniuses such as Ludwig van Beethoven and Richard Wagner – all have been inspired by the story of Faustus to produce masterpieces. It was no exaggeration when the former Dean of Princeton Graduate School, Professor Theodore Ziolkowski, argued that the Faustus myth has been central to the formation of Western consciouness.1

The number of written works is staggering. Alexander Tille’s monumental catalogue of references to Faustus runs to 1,152 closely printed pages, covering only the years up to the eighteenth century, whilst Hans Henning’s bibliography of works attributed to or about Faustus runs to two weighty volumes. It has been estimated that three million printed pages have been devoted to Faustus, approximating something like 20,000 books. Goethe’s Faust alone is believed to be one of the most quoted works of literature, as well as one of the most reprinted, reproduced and re-enacted. It has been claimed that every night around 300 productions of Faust are performed on stages across the world. From German, French and British sources, Tille also catalogued a total of 700 artistic representations of Goethe’s Faust, and that was more than a hundred years ago.

Almost 600 operas and pieces of classical music have been based on the story of Faustus. At least thirty modern recording artists spanning the genres from pop to death metal have released thirty-one songs or albums directly employing the name ‘Faust’. The story of Faustus was quite possibly the first to be immortalised on the silver screen in 1896 and in the relatively brief history of cinema 67 directors in 13 different countries have produced a total of 81 films on the theme. Then there is a boardgame and more than ten video and computer games. Beyond reading, hearing, watching or playing things Faustian, one can wear Mephisto shoes, drink Faust beer, or eat ‘Faust Brand Choicest Sockeye Salmon’ from Washington State. In his influential Decline of the West (1918), Oswald Spengler even developed a social theory situating us in a Faustian Age.2

Whilst the creative arts have often found paths to enlightenment and redemption in the modern ‘Faust’, popular usage of the term ‘Faustian’ is almost wholly negative. The connection between the Devil and the German roots of the story inevitably lead to references to the Nazi regime, exemplified by Klaus Mann’s Mephisto (1936), while others tap into the Spenglerian characterisation of modernity, which may not be so very different. The idea of the ‘Faustian bargain’ has even found its way into treatments of US foreign policy and genetics. ‘Faust’ has become the metaphor for everything modern, from modernity’s great achievements to its darkest horrors.

The story of Faustus has, like a Renaissance magician’s homunculus, assumed a life of its own. But is it the real story? After following the trail of Faustus through the historical references to him and the places he supposedly visited I have come to believe that the man – the legend we call ‘Faust’ today – is not the same as the Faustus who lived some five hundred years ago. The image made famous through the works of the great artists and reproduced in myriad forms is false.

From out of the shifting morass of legend emerges a will-o’-the-wisp as illusory as the great spirit he claims as companion and familiar. At the very moment Faustus appears in recorded history he is given the worst sort of reputation, and as with the dog with the bad name he is hung ever after. Look up any dictionary or encyclopedia and what does one read about Faustus? That single word ‘charlatan’, again and again.

There can be no denying that Faustus was a sixteenth-century scandal. He claimed to be the greatest living master of the forbidden art of necromancy who, with his magic, could rival all of the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus. He caused uproar amongst his contemporaries and was accused of the worst crimes and character flaws they could imagine. Their reaction was also a scandal. Ever since the judgement of history has been against him and it has been wrong. Just what evidence is there for the invocation of Mephistopheles, the pact with the Devil and all the other outrages he is alleged to have committed? To be sure, he was no saint, but the Devil is not always as black as he is painted. Whilst a full biography may be overdue by some five hundred years, so also is a critical, unbiased examination of his life.

Not only is the person of Faustus misunderstood, but any re-evaluation of him is also a re-evaluation of the Renaissance. Since Dame Frances Yates’ pioneering study of Giordano Bruno in 1964, placing the occult at the heart of any understanding of the Renaissance, little work has been undertaken to develop this insight, especially as regards the early years of the Northern Renaissance. Although recognised as an ‘icon of modern culture’ by Professor Osman Durrani in 2004, Faustus is absent from general histories of his own times and poorly represented in even more specialist works.3 Writing in 1979 Professor Wayne Shumaker of the University of California at Berkeley remarked ‘I have come to believe that the traditional understanding of Renaissance thought is, if not wrong, no more than half right’. Faustus is part of that other half. Faustus represents the forgotten and even hidden side of his age. To find the real Faustus is to find the real history of that period.

Although critical to developing a keener understanding of these complex times, it is no easy task. As a biographical subject Faustus presents several challenging problems. We know of him entirely through the words of others, few of whom were even remotely sympathetic and most downright hostile. Everything we know of him is either secondhand and biased, or clearly fabulous. This has given rise to two approaches to Faustus: to take him almost entirely as a literary creation, or to strip him down to only that which can be proven. Both approaches have their drawbacks and ultimately fail to reveal the complex character of both the person called Faustus and the times in which he lived.

Evidence for the life of Faustus is found in a handful of historically authenticated sources. In the last hundred or so years of serious research into the figure of Faustus, only seven contemporary references to him have been discovered. He was first mentioned in 1507 by the Abbot Johannes Trithemius (1462–1516), and by the Abbot’s friend Conradus Mutianus Rufus (conventionally just Mutianus, 1471–1526), in 1513. His name then appeared in the account book of Georg III Schenk von Limburg (1470–1522), Bishop of Bamberg, in 1520, but it was eight years before the next references emerged, both coming within days of each other. The first appeared in an entry in the meteorological journal of Prior Kilian Leib (1471–1553) for 5 June 1528, the second in the official records of the city of Ingolstadt for 15 June 1528. Nuremberg made note of him in its records for 1532. Finally, Joachim Camerarius (Joachim Liebhard, 1500–1574) referred to him in a letter dated 1536. When the physician Philipp Begardi came to write of him in his Index Sanitatis (published 1539) he stated that Faustus was already dead.

The author of the first reference to Faustus, Abbot Trithemius, is an interesting and complicated case. He was simultaneously a leading magician and a high-ranking churchman, who both condemned and practiced astrology, and who was accused of necromancy and criticised others for it. At a time when aristocratic patronage was paramount, Trithemius was not slow in playing the game, including mounting political attacks against rivals. As much as he condemned those who ‘noisily catch the attention of kings and princes’ he repeatedly presented his credentials to the great and the good with a boastfulness unbecoming in a monk.4 He was also a consummate networker who at one time had the ear of Emperor Maximilian I and could count amongst his friends and acquaintances many of those who later expressed ill will towards Faustus, such as Mutianus. He was a mass of contradictions.

Trithemius’s letter was a singularity. It was the only time in his voluminous writings that he spoke of Faustus. The initial enquiry and response – if they were made – of his correspondent Johannes Virdung von Haßfurt (c.1463–c.1538) have been lost. But Trithemius did make references that extended beyond the written page. He referred in his letter to a list or document – a sort of business card – that Faustus conveyed to him and had already sent to Virdung. Trithemius could not just invent what he liked about Faustus, since Virdung already had some account of him, significantly from Faustus himself. This does not mean that Trithemius pulled his punches. His invective was strident. However, to convince Virdung, Trithemius would find it difficult to stray from the details about Faustus that they both shared. This is what makes his letter the single most important historical source.

Whilst most of the references to Faustus are hostile, others show different aspects of his reception; together they present a complicated mosaic only imperfectly preserved. A further reference from the matriculation records of the University of Heidelberg of 1509 has been discounted for reasons that will be outlined later. In addition to these there are several more references in the writings of contemporaries – some of whom may have met him – and near-contemporaries published up to the close of the sixteenth century. These are a collection of stories, the Tischreden (‘Table Talk’) of the Reformation leader Martin Luther (1483–1546), the lectures of his disciple Philipp Melanchthon (1497–1560), a letter from the aristocratic adventurer Philipp von Hutten (1511–1546), various semi-historical chronicles, a demonological treatise and a bill of sale for a house in his possible hometown. Even in this small pile of paper there are innumerable clues to the wider sphere of Faustus’s life and the trajectory of his career.

The legend began with the first written reference. At the moment he entered recorded history, Faustus entered into legend. It started with Trithemius’s poison pen and was shaped through the mounting negative reports of others. However, the lineaments of what we might call the classical legend were not sketched until after the Devil had collected his due.

Luther and his circle were discussing the question of Faustus at least as early as the mid-1530s. Nicolaus Medler noted Luther’s reaction when Faustus was mentioned during one of their conversations between 1533 and 1535, but Luther chose to talk about the Devil rather than the magician.5 Antonius Lauterbach (1502–1569) recorded a conversation of 1537 about magicians and the magic art, and ‘how Satan blinded men’, in which Faustus was mentioned as being connected with the Devil. Of course Luther immediately saw Faustus as an agent of Satan – there is nothing too surprising in that – and turned the conversation round so as to be able to boast about himself. What is of interest is that Luther was the first person on record to link Faustus with the Devil. Trithemius may have started the legend, but he kept Old Nick out of it. Johannes Aurifaber (1519–1575), who published Luther’s comments in 1566, introduced Faustus as a black magician – the first known use of the description. Medler had earlier simply called him a magician. Faustus himself had apparently been styling himself as a necromancer since 1506 – as noted by Trithemius in 1507 – and the term nigromancer (‘Nigromantico’) was recorded for the first time in the Nuremberg city records of 1532. The widespread confusion between necromancy (divination by the dead) and nigromancy (black magic) makes these terms less straightforward and less damning than ‘black magician’. The earliest references in the letters of Trithemius (1507) and Mutianus (1513) employed the Humanist rhetoric of folly against Faustus. It took the Devil-haunted Luther to involve him in the Teufelspolemik. It is here in the Tischreden of Luther that we can locate the transformation of Faustus from learnéd magician into diabolist.

The new diabolical Faustus would cause an unnamed monastery to be haunted with the Devil’s aid and would die savagely at the hands of his master in the work of Johannes Gast (d.1552), Protestant theologian and Deacon of St Martin’s in Basel. Writing in 1548, he amplified the diabolical connection, adding an entreaty against becoming ‘slaves of the Devil’. Although published after Faustus’s lifetime, we must not exclude the likelihood that Gast was telling these stories as part of an oral tradition long before they found their way into print. As a Protestant clergyman, Gast could not help but be influenced by Luther’s focus on the active role of the Devil and may have heard from others some account of that ‘table talk’ about Faustus. His Sermones Convivales were immensely popular and played a key role in cementing the image of the diabolical Faustus.

Count Froben Christoph von Zimmern (1519–1566/7) told a similar story of monastic bedevilment caused by the ‘black magician’ Faustus in his Zimmerische Chronik, written around 1565. As a reliable source, the Chronik has its supporters and detractors.6 However, Froben’s personal involvement in the black arts suggests that he knew what he was talking about and he supplied a level of detail concerning Faustus’s end that we find nowhere else. As to Faustus’s worsening reputation, Froben did nothing to ameliorate it.

The Dutch born physician and demonologist Johannes Wierus (Wier or Weyer, 1515–1588) would also contribute much to the growing legend of Faustus. Wierus was a former student of the physician and occultist Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486–1535), who was himself an erstwhile disciple of Trithemius. Agrippa introduced him to the works of his master and no doubt to some of his opinions on other matters too. It is this connection that one feels strongly in what Wierus had to say about the magician in his De Praestigiis Daemonum (‘On the Illusions of the Demons’ or ‘On Witchcraft’). First published in 1563, it was in the fourth edition of 1568 that Wierus raised the topic of Faustus. Arguing against the crime of witchcraft and in particular that old women could be capable of it, Wierus stressed the culpability of the learnéd magicians – another reason why he was not sympathetic towards Faustus. His turn of phrase also implies that he could have said more. He added important information on where Faustus was supposedly born and died, but elected to concentrate on a comical beard-burning incident, probably because it took place near his own hometown of Graves on the River Meuse (Maas), and adds that Faustus called the Devil his brother-in-law.

Around 1570 or 1575 a Nuremberg schoolmaster called Christoff Roshirt (or Rosshirt) the Elder collected his own tales about ‘Doctor Georgio Fausto dem Schwartzkünstler und Zauberer’ (‘Doctor George Faustus the Black Artist and Magician’) and added them as an appendix to Luther’s Tischreden for the years 1535–1542 – a period that encompassed Luther’s first recorded mention of Faustus. Roshirt unmistakably identified Faustus as a black magician, although he only mentioned the Devil twice.

The next source is a chronicle begun in the mid to late sixteenth century by Reichmann. His brother-in-law Wolf Wambach was responsible for two sections referring to Faustus, written after 1570, probably around 1580. Unfortunately this so-called Reichmann-Wambach Chronicle is now lost and known only through the Chronicle of Thuringia and the City of Erfurt written by Zacharias Hogel (1611–1677). Because of this we cannot be certain whether and to what extent Hogel may have interpreted or otherwise changed the original.

Adding shovelfuls of brimstone to his account of Faustus, Hogel/Wambach amplified the diabolical connection more than ever before. Where Roshirt had sprinkled his text with two references to the Devil and Gast with three, Hogel/ Wambach saturated his with eleven, adding such other terms as ‘black magician’ and the piquant ‘hellbrand’.

Whilst stories like Gast’s and Roshirt’s were no doubt told around stove and hearth in taverns and homes across the country, with occasional references creeping into the chronicles of the period, the first full account of Faustus emerged some forty years after his death. It is only in the work of a Nuremberg scribe written around 1580, the Historia vnd Geschicht Doctor Johannis Faustj des Zauberers (‘History and Story of Doctor Johannes Faust the Magician’), that we have the first surviving Faustbook,7 the so-called Wolfenbüttel Manuscript, now preserved in the Herzog-August Bibliothek in Wolfenbüttel. However, the relatively good condition of this manuscript suggests that it did not go through many hands.

In 1587 pacts with the Devil were hot news. A widow called Walpurga Hausmännin had been tried in Dillingen that year and ‘upon kindly questioning and also torture’ confessed to having revelled with the ‘Evil One’ and committed innumerable blasphemies and forty-three counts of infanticide in his name. She told the judge that events first began in 1556 when, after a night of carnality with the Devil, he commanded her to sign her soul over to him and for ink scratched her below the left shoulder, drawing blood: ‘To this end he gave her a quill and, whereas she could not write, the Evil One guided her hand...’8 The unfortunate Walpurga was torn with red-hot irons before being burnt at the stake. Such was the climate in which the later legends of Faustus were forged. The generosity of the Humanist spirit that had informed the early years of the sixteenth century had given way towards its end to a religiously embattled anxiety that seemed to find release in the persecution of witchcraft.

In 1587 a different kind of ‘hot metal’ was busy in nearby Frankfurt am Main. The Zangmeister (‘song master’) Ludolphus Lüders, writing from Brunswick on 30 October 1587, recorded that an edition of what he called doctoris Johannis Fausti historia was being sold at the Frankfurt Fair for nine Saxon ‘gute groschen’ and was quickly selling out.9 This Historia von D. Johann Fausten, dem weitbeschreyten Zauberer und Schwarzkünstler – literally, the ‘History of D[r] Johann Faust’ the famous Magician and Black Artist’ – was printed by Johann Spies (d.1623) in Frankfurt.10

Although published anonymously, Spies himself is often credited with authorship. Spies, however, identified a mysterious ‘friend in Speyer’ as the source for the book. Spies said that he had written to him enquiring about material on Faustus and that this friend had replied with all or part of the manuscript that Spies printed. Despite the attribution of the ‘friend in Speyer’ as the source, he intended Faustus to be seen as the author. The subtitle read ‘Compiled and Printed, Mostly from His Own Writings’. The Historia is highly derivative and clearly more of a compilation than an original creation. There is no ‘author’ as such. There are obvious borrowings from Sebastian Brant’s Narrenschiff (‘Ship of Fools’), Hartmann Schedel’s Buch der Chroniken (‘Book of the Chronicles’), Martin Luther’s Tischreden and Augustin Lercheimer’s Christlich bedencken (‘Christian Concern’), and a telling similarity with the Wolfenbüttel Manuscript.11

The book is chaotic by today’s standards and weakly plotted. There is little regard for any sort of chronology other than following the obvious progression from birth to death. After setting the scene of the scholarly road to ruin, the book sermonises relentlessly on the sin of transgressing the Reformation worldview, but also has didactic interests revealed in the discussion of astronomy and the travel guide loosely appended to Faustus’s life. It entertains the reader with a number of anecdotes about duping peasants and Jews, and playing tricks on noblemen.

Now seen as fiction, the book presents itself as the biography and occasionally autobiography of a real person. This was an age when strict divisions between fiction and non-fiction were not applied and the writer or compiler had no qualms about presenting imaginative creations as truths. However, we cannot see it entirely as a work of entertainment as some have done.12 Spies’s express purpose in printing this book – as he revealed in its dedication – was to warn others against the dangers of straying from the path of Christianity as redefined by Luther. To this extent it was an old-fashioned morality play with a new subject, shot-through with didacticism and sharpened by the propagandist into a diatribe against the Church.

The Historia ridiculed the Pope in Rome and the Sultan in ‘Constantinople’. It named the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V as a patron of the black arts and defamed nobles like Fabian von Dohna and the Prince of Anhalt. However, von Dohna and Anhalt were not Catholics, they were Calvinists. Augustin Lercheimer – the pseudonym of Hermann Witekind (1522–1603) – another Heidelberg Calvinist, immediately picked up on this and interpreted the Historia as an attack on Calvinism. In 1597 he called it a libellous book that encouraged curious young men to follow Faustus’s example. In 1596 a case involving the student David Lipsius (Leipziger), whom we shall meet again later, brought to light exactly such a misuse. Lercheimer was himself instrumental in transmitting stories about Faustus in his Christlich bedencken of 1585 – even before it influenced the Historia – and here, in particular, he believed that Luther and Melanchthon had been defamed.13 The most interesting thing in Lercheimer’s reaction is how Spies’s warning against diabolical magic was also seen as an incitement to practice it and that, in one sense, has always been the literary appeal of Faustus as a subject.

Spies brought out a second edition of the Historia in 1589 with six new chapters derived from the Erfurt legends of Faustus’s invocation of the Homeric heroes, the offer to restore the lost comedies of Plautus and Terence, the demonic flying horse, the production of wine from holes in a table, Doctor Klinge, and the Leipzig legend of Auerbach’s Cellar. Like a snowball rolling down a hillside, Faustus accrued tales as he passed through subsequent editions. In all, it went through twenty-two editions, spawned a sequel, and was adapted and translated into several languages. Even before he could issue a second edition, the Historia was pirated. Carolus Battus (Karl Batten, 1540–1617) produced a Dutch translation in 1592 – with the addition of some helpful dates to the various incidents described. When Victor Palma Cayet (1525–1610), professor of Hebrew at the Collège de Navarre in Paris, brought out a French edition in 1598 (spiced with some of his own anti-Protestant remarks), he was accused of having made a pact with the Devil himself and tried for witchcraft. In 1599 Georg Rudolf Widmann (also Widman, fl. 1560–1600), a councillor in Schwäbisch Hall, published three volumes totalling 671 pages, almost three times the size of Spies’s original, adding more stories from Roshirt and Luther.

Whilst Widmann’s version – successively condensed into more readable forms, first by Johann Nikolaus Pfitzer (1674) and then anonymously (1725) – would eventually inspire Goethe, it was the English edition of Spies that would lead Marlowe to produce his most famous work. Printed in London in 1592, the translator was simply identified as ‘P.F. Gent’ (i.e. ‘Gentleman’) and to this day his identity has not been discovered. P.F., however, was not content to merely translate. With all the swagger and bravado of the stereotypical Elizabethan, he produced a very free translation, or more accurately, adaptation. He threw out some of the dull theological material, elaborated and contracted as he saw fit, interjecting his own anecdotes and descriptions. In particular, P.F. frequently gave us his unflattering opinion of the Germans.

In this welter of different stories, many of them also told about other magicians at different times, there are references to contemporary events and to things Faustus might have done, or was believed to have done. Most significantly many of these stories, so often carelessly dismissed as ‘legendary’ and hence untrue, are exactly the sorts of things that were not only attributed to magicians, but, more importantly, claimed by them as well. As we will see, many of the legends about magicians, and Faustus in particular, often derive from or are paralleled in their own discourse – the texts on magic written by or for the magicians themselves.

Finally, there is a large body of work bearing the name of ‘Faust’ as author. The first of these was Doctor Faustens dreyfacher Höllenzwang (‘Doctor Faust’s Threefold Harrowing of Hell’) supposedly published in Passau at the unfeasibly early date of 1407. Eighteen examples referred to in this book are included in the bibliography, but more might be counted. The best research has so far revealed forty-five works in manuscript and another forty in print, not all of which are extant.14 Centres of origination or publication are most commonly Lyon, Passau and Rome, but surprising examples, such as London and Wittenberg, are also found.

An immediately recognisable feature of these Faustian books of magic or grimoires is the dramatic titling. The persistent use and re-use of such phrases as the ‘Threefold Harrowing of Hell’ and the ‘Black Raven’ make these names almost as important as that of their reputed author in identifying this particular magical discourse. As exciting as these texts seem in authenticating the existence and career of Faustus, it is beyond doubt that they are the work of later authors cashing in on the legend.

Most of the texts use the later form of ‘Johannes’ or a variation of it in the title and none use the authentic ‘Georgius’, which suggests a post-Faustus date of composition – after 1538. Most of the texts use the name ‘Faust’ as an advert and incentive in a way that is usually alien to authentic works – Agrippa did not call his most famous book Cornelius Agrippa’s Occult Philosophy – but are symptomatic of what we call ‘celebrity tie-ins’ today. The earliest printed work is dated 1607, whilst the earliest manuscript is dated to around 1650. Based on their palaeography the majority of the manuscripts have been ascribed to the eighteenth century, while a great many of the printed works appeared in the antiquarian Johannes Scheible’s vast compendium Das Kloster of 1845–9. We will discuss the more interesting of these texts as they occur in the chronology of Faustus as a way in which to see how a Faustian grimoire genre was developing and being retrospectively fed back into the life of their alleged author.

All of the sources concerning Faustus that have come down to us have to be handled cautiously. What defines an event as either history or legend is the extent to which its occurrence can be verified, but our proof rests entirely on what has been said and written down, and what we can read between the lines. There is little hard truth to be found – there rarely is in any human life – and so this work must also be an evaluation of the possibilities.

The contemporary and near-contemporary sources were, for the most part, all written by scholarly men who enjoyed the respect of their peers. The temptation then is to trust their opinion, but as will become apparent, they were not above ruining the reputations of others as it suited them, especially those writers influenced by Trithemius. Their arguments against Faustus were all ad hominem, ‘to the man’, and in no way objective. Faustus represented something antithetical to their worldview, and if there was no explicit conspiracy against him, then, in sociological terms, the ‘in-group’ was at the very least closing ranks on an outsider. This was done in a manner reminiscent of the general outrage that attended Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim (1493–1541), the man known more simply by his assumed title of Paracelsus.

Today, through the confusion of later legends about Faustus, it is only too easy to lose sight of the man. Myths grow like weeds in the path of one’s career. I should know. I have seen those legends grow in my own path, albeit on a less dramatic scale than Faustus. It began one year at a garden party held to celebrate a neighbour’s birthday in the late 1990s. At such events the question always arises of ‘And what do you do?’ Naturally I told the curious of my PhD work on modern witchcraft. The next year on the same occasion one guest was overheard to say to another that she should be careful about what she said because a ‘wizard’ lived next door. Within a year a perfectly harmless conversation about academic research had turned me into a practitioner of magic. When an academic in our own ‘enlightened’ age can so easily become a magician, then how much more so a wandering scholar in the Deviltormented period five hundred years ago? It is a final caution to sensitise us to the problems of deciphering the life of Faustus.

In writing this biography I have taken a new approach. I have tried to see Faustus and his world from the magician’s perspective as much as possible, and not that of the modern literary specialist, as has so frequently been the case in the past. Here especially I think of the Cambridge don E.M. Butler who pioneered research on the subject in English, but who allowed a sceptical perspective as well as an uncritical approach to the sources to colour her interpretation with sarcasm and disparagement.

This does not mean that I do not look for rational explanations, especially as a means of allowing the modern reader to see into the complex world of the times. Much of what Faustus is supposed to have done can be interpreted as trickery, and such techniques were certainly known in Faustus’s age. Whereas today we have a far more sophisticated understanding of the magical entertainer’s trade, in the sixteenth century only the small elite initiated into the secrets thought such deceptions were anything other than a display of ‘real’ supernatural magic. Gali-gali men in Egypt still perform the same trick of turning staffs into snakes that Moses and Aaron used to amaze the Pharaoh, and we do not think it a miracle. When Faustus apparently caused people to think that their noses were bunches of grapes we can either dismiss it as ‘legendary’ as has been the norm so far, or realise that any stage hypnotist today could do the same and that, therefore, Faustus could also have accomplished such an illusion. Both Paracelsus and Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592) were particularly aware of the apparently magical power of the imagination. That said, we should not see Faustus as simply the sixteenth-century version of a Copperfield or a Blaine, because his alleged self-representation was on a higher level than that of a fairground conjurer, putting him at the forefront of the ‘science’ of his day – Hermeticism, alchemy and astrology – and directly into competition with the Church’s interpretation of reality.

It was out of frustration with the fact that there was no biography of Faustus, as such, that this book was born. So much of the existing literature was hard to find, in foreign languages, or written for specialist audiences; the information was scattered and the interpretations of it conflicting. It took years to go through it all and still there were so many questions left unanswered, so many possibilities unexamined, and the entire context of his complex life unexplored. Behind a cage of other peoples’ words I sensed an unquiet and discontented spirit move. Bars of prejudice and locks forged in ignorance had too long kept the truth from us. It was time to let the real Faustus out.

2

Born of the Devil (1466)

He appeared in 1507. Without warning he walked into the pages of history, already infamous and condemned, already a legend. We do not know with absolute certainty where or when he was born, died, or went in between those two dates. Scholarly arguments have even been put forward to prove that he did not exist at all and today many people believe that he was entirely the figment of Goethe’s imagination.1 But they would be wrong. Before there was the legend, there was a man called Faustus.

A miraculous birth is the beginning of every great spiritual career. Whilst virgin-births were common in antiquity, who else but Faustus could be thought to have been born in several places at once and at different times as well? It is no more than the confusion of the past, but out of such things arise great myths.

Sometime in the late fifteenth century, somewhere in the fractured rivalry of the Germany of that time, a man was born who would challenge Merlin, Simon Magus, and perhaps even King Solomon himself to the exalted and accursed crown of magic. We think of him now as Johannes Faust, or just simply Dr Faust, but the first written reference, a letter dated 1507, called him ‘Magister Georgius Sabellicus Faustus Junior’. Throughout the sixteenth century the man we tend to think of as Faust was called Faustus by his contemporaries and near-contemporaries.2

Is there a difference between Faust and Faustus? Faust is a German surname and there are people to this day who bear it. Although Faustus is also an historically recorded surname, it has generally been assumed that Faustus is simply a Latinised form of Faust. Latinised names were highly fashionable among Humanist scholars and other educated people of the sixteenth century.

If Georgius had really wanted to Latinise the German surname Faust – which means ‘fist’ in English – he would have added more than just a suffix and translated the whole name into pugnus, the Latin for ‘fist’. It has also been suggested that the name Faustus is a reference to Knittlingen – a contender for his place of birth. Knittlingen comes from Knittel (Knüttel, modern Knüppel), a club, which, via the Latin fustis, is supposed to give ‘Faustus’, but ‘Fustis’ itself would be more obvious if this was indeed meant. There is also a persistent and false rumour that Faustus was the printer Johannes Fust (d.1466). Hadrianus Junius (Adrien de Jonghe, 1511–1570) first suggested the connection and it still occasionally resurfaces. Apart from having a different first name, Fust also died long before the magician ‘Faustus’ appeared in the historical record.

In Latin faustus means fortunate or auspicious, which makes it an apt name for a fortune-teller. But there are lots of good epithets to choose from; why should anyone choose this one? The clue lies in the fact that Faustus called himself Faustus Junior. If he wanted to be known as the ‘Fortunate’ he would hardly have called himself ‘Fortunate Junior’. To whom, then, was he acknowledging seniority and why?

We have no reliable evidence that there was an actual relative of Faustus practising magic in Germany before 1507 or after. Of course, just because we cannot find him does not mean that he did not exist, but it does reduce the likelihood. The more plausible explanation is that ‘Faustus Junior’ was not so much a name as part of a job description, making deference to another sort of predecessor going by the same name.

It is in ancient Rome that we find the earliest recorded usages of the name ‘Faustus’. There was a goddess called Faustitas – a name derived from Faustus – who protected the fields and ensured a good harvest, and there were at least three families going by the name of Faustus. One appeared to die out within a generation, the other was high-ranking but unremarkable, only the third, from the time of the Emperor Nero, holds out any promise.

The family comes to light in the fourth century CE writings attributed to Clement of Rome (d. c.98 CE).3 It was popularised in Germany in two medieval retellings of the Simon Magus story that would have still been well-known in Faustus’s day.4 There are conflicting accounts of who Simon Magus was, but he is generally described as a sorcerer of Samaria, converted to Christianity by Philip. He gave the word ‘simony’– the buying or selling of ecclesiastical preferment – to the English language by his alleged request to buy the power to impart the Holy Ghost from the Apostles and was reprimanded by Peter (Acts 8:5–24). According to Clement’s later story, Simon Magus posed a much greater threat to nascent Christianity during the reign of Nero (54–68 CE) and a magical feud was fought between Simon Magus and Peter, culminating in the sorcerer’s death. In this story Clement’s father was called either Faustus or Faustinianus and his two brothers Faustinus and Faustinianus or Faustus.5 The brothers play little part, but the father Faustus/inianus takes on the semblance of Simon Magus to be first used by Simon Magus against his enemies and then by Peter to discredit the real Simon Magus.

Given their relative obscurity, it is unlikely that Faustus Junior thought he descended from either of the first two Roman families or saw them as in some way his spiritual or intellectual ancestors. Clement’s father Faustus/inianus is more interesting because he links Faustus Junior with the Simon Magus story. However, Faustus/inianus is both Simon Magus and not Simon Magus; he has his appearance but is not the man himself, he both helps Simon Magus and speaks against him on behalf of Peter. If Faustus wanted to link himself directly with Simon Magus through the use of ‘Faustus’ this would have been a confusing nomenclature to employ.

There was also a Faustus the Manichæan. We know of him through Augustine of Hippo (354–430), reformed profligate and Christian saint, who mentioned his acquaintance with him in Confessions and vigorously denounced him in his Reply to Faustus the Manichæan written around 400 CE. During the 470s a certain Faustus, Bishop of Riez, was embroiled in theological controversy. But neither are serious contenders. The young Georgius’s imagination was surely uninspired by these dead heresies and captured by something else entirely.

In 1496 one of the most popular pieces of Renaissance pastoral poetry, known widely in Germany and elsewhere, was published. The so-called Bucoliques had been written by an Italian Humanist called Publius Faustus Andrelinus (1462–1518). Andrelinus had early made a reputation for himself as professor of rhetoric and poetry since taking up his post in Paris in 1489 where a number of students from Germany had attended his lectures. Andrelinus could also count among his personal friends such influential figures as Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam (c.1466–1536), the Renaissance Humanist par excellence. He also lectured on astrologia (i.e. both astronomy and astrology in our uses of the words), publishing a treatise on the influence of the stars in Paris in 1496.

That there was a well-known Humanist using this name at this time makes this a simpler and more obvious derivation. Faustus Junior could draw upon Andrelinus’s reputation as a Humanist and as an astrologer, something that would be important to him in his future career. It was all the more necessary to adopt the sobriquet ‘Junior’ because in 1507 when this form is recorded – the only time it is recorded – Faustus ‘Senior’, that is, Andrelinus, was still alive.

According to Trithemius’s letter, Faustus also called himself Sabellicus. As with the name ‘Faustus’, people have looked to place names, titles and previous holders of the name to unravel the mystery. The most common explanation is that it is derived from the Sabine Hills in Italy because of its associations with witchcraft for the ancient Romans. The usual interpretation is wrong.

There was another Sabellicus. The Humanist Marcantonio (or Marco Antonio) Coccio (1436–1506), adopted Sabellicus as a nom de plume derived from his place or region of birth. Remembered now for his histories, he was in his day also known as an editor of classical works. It is unlikely that he intended to conjure up images of Sabine sorcery. Sabellicus would certainly have been known in German intellectual circles. The influential and much-feted German Humanist Conrad Celtis (also Celtes, 1459–1508) met him in Venice in 1486 and many of his works were in new editions in the sixteenth century – Trithemius even owned one of them.

Digging deeper into Sabellicus’s life we discover an interesting association in his past. Together with the Humanists Julius Pomponius Laetus (1425–1498) and Bartolomeo Platina (1421–1481), the future librarian of the Vatican, Sabellicus was involved in the foundation of a semi-pagan academy in Rome around 1457. Laetus had just succeeded the controversial Laurentius Valla – indicted seducer, pederast, and opponent of Christian morality – as professor of eloquence at the Gymnasium Romanum and gathered round him fellow spirits to adopt Greek and Latin names, meet on the Quirinal to discuss classical questions and celebrate the birthday of Romulus and the foundation of Rome. The academy’s constitution was similar to that of a priestly college in ancient Rome, and Laetus accordingly styled himself pontifex maximus.

Sensing heresy, republicanism and paganism in the activities of the academy, Pope Paul II moved to crush it. Laetus, Platina and the others were imprisoned and tortured in the castle of Sant’ Angelo. Sabellicus escaped and went on to become prefect of the Library of San Marco in Venice. Here is a much more attractive figure to an aspiring young magus. If Faustus chose the name of one well-known Humanist as one of his sobriquets, it makes it all the more likely that he chose the other on the same grounds. Interestingly, Andrelinus was also a student of Laetus, making Faustus’s choice of both of these names more than just coincidence, since both lead to the very roots of the Humanist movement.

The name Faustus gave himself was a Renaissance code. He used the terms ‘Sabellicus’ and ‘Faustus’ because they would arouse certain associations in his audience and that audience was undoubtedly intended to be an educated one – even if that was not always the case. He used a Latin form that immediately connected him with the Humanists and the practice established by the Gymnasium Romanum. His choosing Sabellicus and Faustus specifically associated him with the former’s role in a pagan revival and the latter’s influential work on astrology – one was a mystic and the other an occultist.

Faustus Junior wished to present himself to the world as a Humanist philosopher with mystico-magical trappings. By associating himself with the distinguished Humanists, Faustus Junior could display his own learning as well as evoke that of the others. He could also lessen some of the stigma attached to his other advertised accomplishments by laying claim to a respectable academic pedigree.

A Mysterious Birth

The man who called himself Georgius Sabellicus Faustus Junior was born in the late fifteenth century, of that almost everyone is agreed. As to when exactly is a more contentious issue. It comes as no surprise that there are a number of wildly differing opinions as to the exact date. Depending on whom one reads, we find the years 1465– 1468, 1478, 1480, 1490 and 1491 – covering a span of just over a quarter of a century.6 As to where he was born, at least six different locations have been forwarded.

The most compelling evidence as to when he was born comes from Faustus’s own name and comments attributed to him. Little can be learnt from his various assumed titles, but his first name gives us an important clue. Georgius (Georg or George) is also the name of a saint, which takes on added significance when we realise that it was common practice at the time to name a child after the saint’s day on which it was born. In the Christian calendar the feast day of St George is held on 23 April. In the fifteenth century this festival rivalled Christmas in its popularity, and it is therefore probable that Faustus was born on 23 April.

Some years later, Kilian Leib (who shall be discussed in detail later) recorded a statement apparently made by Faustus himself that gave some clue as to the year of his birth. Faustus did not directly refer to his birthdate, but made an astrological remark upon the type of people born at a particular time and the man who recorded it thought that Faustus was also talking about himself. The astrological reference suggests that Faustus was born when the Sun and Jupiter were conjunct in the sign of Taurus. This took place three times on 23 April in the late fifteenth century: in 1466, 1478 and 1490.

He could not have been born in 1490 because of the extent of the claims he is reported to have made in 1506 when he would only have been sixteen. That leaves only 1466 and 1478. The average life expectancy of those who survived childhood was fifty-seven.7 Therefore, someone born in 1466 would, on average, have been expected to live only until 1524, whilst someone born in 1478 would have been expected to live until 1536. Of course there were exceptions: Erasmus was born in 1466 and lived until 1536, and the Greek scholar Andreas Johannes Lascaris (1445–1535) lived to the age of ninety.

The first report of Faustus’s death was published in 1539 and we have documented references that he was still alive after 1524. If he had been born in 1478 he would have been around fifty-eight when he died. If he had been born in 1466 he would have been around seventy. The age of fifty-eight is closer to the average, but, according to the semi-historical Zimmerische Chronik, Faustus was reputed to have lived to a great age.

We would also expect that if Faustus had been born in 1466, then there would have been more references to him, especially before 1507. There are earlier references, long overlooked because they do not use the name Faustus, but the real name of the man who would later adopt that title. First, however, to answer the question of when he was born we must first discover where he was born, for, as we shall see, the one explains the other.

The birthplace of Faustus is hotly contested. Civic pride is at stake here as well as tourist revenues. To try and find the answer I looked through the sixteenth-century texts making reference to Faustus.8 Running my finger across the densely printed black letter script, I found that of these only fifteen made any mention of where Faustus came from. Eight authors mentioned Kundling (or some variation of the name), one said ‘helmstet’, another said ‘Helmitheus Hedelbergensis’, one mentioned Heidelberg and a document of 1509 indicated Simmern. We can immediately discount the latter – it is a false identification with an unrelated student of Heidelberg called Johannes Faust from Simmern (Kreisstadt Simmern-Hunsrück since 1966), but we are still left with too many options.

Faced with this confusion the Faustbooks had their own answer. The Wolfenbüttel Manuscript of around 1580 and Spies’s Historia of 1587 gave ‘Rod’ and P.F. in his 1592 translation of Spies – and Marlowe after him – said the town was called ‘Rhode’. In 1599 Widmann gave the name of a market town called Sondwedel in Anhalt, identified as Salzwedel in today’s Saxony-Anhalt,9 but we can dismiss this because of its late date, Widmann’s general unreliability, and not least because he is alone in this opinion. While the references to a place called Kundling outnumber all the others, things are not as simple as they appear – with Faustus they never are.

A certain Roda – renamed Stadtroda in 1925 – lays claim to having once had within its environs the house where Faustus was born. The house was still standing until the late nineteenth century when, according to one unverified story, it was dismantled and sent to Chicago for the World Fair in 1893, and subsequently destroyed by fire.10 Today there is a small exhibition in the town’s museum where a depiction, which may or may not be accurate, of a modest two storey building is shown.

Despite the half-timbered evidence that may have once graced Stadtroda, we can largely discount the birthplace given in the legendary material of Wolfenbüttel, Spies, and P.F.’s English translation. These are not historical documents and differ sharply from the information given in those that are. Furthermore, of all the many Rodas none of them can be proven to have been identified as the birthplace of Faustus prior to the appearance of the Wolfenbüttel Manuscript around 1580. It is not clear why the anonymous author of the Faustbook should have picked Roda, but the proliferation of Rodas may have been the target, since no one could easily check if what was said was true.

Karl Schottenloher, director of the Royal-Bavarian court and state library in Munich, did not believe that Roda was Faustus’s birthplace either. In 1913 he reconstructed a new location based on a close analysis of contemporary sources. Reading a journal entry written by Kilian Leib, the prior of Rebdorf Monastery, for July 1528, Schottenloher saw Faustus described as ‘helmstet’. However, Christian August Heumann had argued as early as 1742 that we should read the word as ‘Wirtebergensis’, meaning ‘from Württemberg’. At the risk of ruining my eyes, I closely scrutinised this inky sigil, painstakingly comparing each form to other letter shapes in Leib’s journal. I can now agree with Schottenloher: Leib wrote ‘helmstet’. But Schottenloher went further to interpret this as ‘helmstetensis’, meaning ‘from Helmstet’.

Schottenloher connected this with a letter written by Mutianus to Heinrich Urbanus in 1513 where he called Faustus ‘Helmitheus Hedelbergensis’.11 This connection led him to suggest an entirely different place of birth. Mutianus’s letter only survives in the copy made by his correspondent Urbanus and the difficulty is that when he wrote ‘Helmitheus Hedelbergensis’ he appeared to invent two new words. As it stands the phrase is near unintelligible. In 1742 Heumann argued that ‘Helmitheus’ was a misspelling for ‘Hemitheus’, which he thought meant ‘half-god’. This view has tended to prevail and in English ‘Helmitheus’ is routinely translated as ‘demi-god’.12 Although probably unaware of Mutianus’s letter, Marlowe accidentally made poetry of the phrase when he had his Faustus exclaim: ‘A sound magician is a demi-god’ (1.1.63).

Then there is the question of ‘Hedelbergensis’. In the nineteenth century the German philologist and historian of literature Johann Düntzer argued for an alternative reading of what he thought was ‘Hedebergensis’ as ‘Hedelbergensis’, which was what Mutianus had written in the first place, meaning ‘of Heidelberg’.13 This gives us the bizarre title of the ‘demigod of Heidelberg’ and based on the poor report of some of his contemporaries, most commentators from Heumann onwards have happily agreed that this indicates that Faustus was a confirmed charlatan.

Schottenloher was rightly dissatisfied with the demigod interpretation. The crucial point is that Mutianus’s letter only survives as Urbanus’s copy. Thus what we have is Urbanus’s interpretation of what Mutianus wrote, leaving much room for speculation.14 Bringing the two parts of the riddle together Schottenloher suggested that the references to ‘helmstet’ and ‘Helmitheus Hedelbergensis’ meant that Faustus actually came from a town called Helmstedt near Heidelberg.15 The Heidelberg connection is independently supported by reference to ‘Haidlberg’, i.e. Heidelberg, in the Ingolstadt document of 1528. There is nowhere called Helmstet or Helmstedt today, but the town Helmstadt, which is indeed near Heidelberg, has historically been referred to as Helmstatt and Helmstet. In 1975 it became Helmstadt-Bargen.

All this careful detective work is flatly contradicted by Johannes Manlius. In 1563 he published an account of what he said were the lectures of his teacher Melanchthon in which he is reported to have said that Faustus was born in Kundling. If one looks at a map of modern Germany there is no such place as Kundling to be found. The clue to its whereabouts again comes from Manlius. He said that Faustus came from Kundling near Melanchthon’s birthplace. It is well-documented that Melanchthon was born in the town of Bretten in the modern federal state of Baden-Württemberg. This Kundling near Bretten is unmistakably today’s Knittlingen. There was a tendency to treat place names casually by today’s standards. Many of the other variations of Faustus’s birthplace given in the sixteenth-century sources have been used for the modern town of Knittlingen at some time in the past. At least forty-five variations of the name Knittlingen have been recorded, including Kundling.

When Manlius published Melanchthon’s words in 1563, Faustus was already long dead. None of the surviving contemporary sources made mention of Kundling (or similar) and all of the many later references to Kundling can be traced back to Manlius’s publication. The great weight of independent references to Kundling suddenly becomes one, so just how far can we rely on what Manlius claimed Melanchthon had said?

Melanchthon’s reputation as one of the foremost theologians of the Reformation, second only to Luther, has tended to sway opinion from the last half of the sixteenth century to the present day, but his stories concerning Faustus are largely fantastic. Through Manlius he reports in all seriousness feats of flying in Venice and magicianeating in Vienna. Nor was Melanchthon unbiased, calling Faustus ‘a wicked beast and sewer of many devils’. Other information he gave on where Faustus supposedly went to university has also proven to be false. The motivation behind his Faustus stories was led by an agenda and told ‘for the sake of the young men that they may not readily give ear to such lying men’. Melanchthon is far from reliable, and through Manlius another layer of interpretation and potential manipulation is added.16

It could be argued that even if Leib did write ‘helmstet’ and this did refer to Helmstadt-Bargen, then Knittlingen could still be implicated because in the fifteenth century many inhabitants of Knittlingen were serfs of the Palatinate lords of Helmstadt.17 Furthermore, Heidelberg, 56 kilometres away, could just as easily encompass Knittlingen as it could Helmstadt, because until 1504 Knittlingen lay within the borders of the Palatinate, which was ruled from Heidelberg. The lords of Helmstadt also owned land around Eichstätt near Leib’s monastery of Rebdorf.