¹ The term “Faust Book” is used here in reference to that composition which is available to us in two versions copied from the same exemplar. They are: the Spieß Book of 1587, or Historia Von D. Johann Fauslen … in Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts, Nos. 7–8b, ed. Robert Petsch (Halle, 1911); and the Wolfen-biittel MS., or Historia und Geschicht Doctor Johannis Fausti… ed. Gustav Milchsack (Wolfenbuttel, 1892–97). We shall be referring often to the introduction and notes of the Petsch edition as “Neudruck.” Following Petsch, we shall call the Spieß Historia “H,” and the Wolfenbuttel MS. “W.”

² The more important documents are contained in Philip M. Palmer and Robert P. More, The Sources of the Faust Tradition (New York, 1936). The extract from the Heidelberg matriculation records is on pp. 86 f. This work will later be referred to as “Palmer and More.”

³ In Scheible's Kloster, Vol. ii (Stuttgart, 1847), 275–804. We shall refer to this work with the standard abbreviation “Wi.” A good description of Wi and a detailed comparison with H is given by Julius Dumke, Die deulschen Faustbiicher nebst einem Anhange zum Widmanschen Faustbuche (diss. Leipzig, 1891), pp. 34–63. Unfortunately, Dumke, like most other scholars, scarcely heeds what Wi thought was the most important part, the tedious Erinnerungen. See also Wilhelm Dirks “tjber Widmans Volksbuch vom Doktor Faust,” unpubl. diss. (Greifswald, 1919).

⁴ Faust Book research owes its greatest debt to Petsch. These are his articles which deal with evaluation of the Faust Book: “Die Entstehung des Volksbuches vom Doktor Faust,” GRM, iii (1911), 207–224; his introduction to the Neudruck (pp. xi–xlv); “Lercheimer und das Faustbuch,” Beitrâge, xxxix (1914), 175–188; and “Magussage und Faustdichtung,” in Gestalt und Form (Dortmund, 1925), pp. 225–259.

⁵ Das altesle Faust-Buch (Berlin, 1884), pp. iii f.

⁶ Georg Ellinger, “Zu den Quellen des Faustbuchs von 1587,” Zschr.fiir vergleichende Literaturgeschichte und Renaissance Literatur, N.S. i (1887–88), 156–181; Siegfried Szamatôlski, “Zu den Quellen des âltesten Faustbuchs,” Vierteljahrschr. filr Literaturgeschichte, i (1888), 161–195—containing: Szamatôlski (“Kosmographisches aus dem Elucidarius”), Hartmann (“Fausts Reisen”), Stuckenberger (“Verse aus Luther”), Bauer (“Verschiedene Anklâge. Dasypodius”), Schmidt (“Agrippa. Homer”); Adolf Bauer, “Brant und noch einmal Dasypodius,” Vierteljahrschr. filr Literaturge-schichte, IV (1891), 381–383; Ludwig Frânkel, “Entlehnungen H. G. H aile im âltesten Faustbuch,” ibid., pp. 361–381; S. Szamatôlski, “Faust in Erfurt,” Euphorion, ii (1895), 39–57; Erich Schmidt, Faust und Luther (Berlin, 1896); Milchsack's introduction to W (1892–97): S. Singer in his review of Milchsack, Archiv, c (1898), 388–391. These are the contributions which, within a space of ten years, brought to light almost all the printed sources for the Faust Book.

⁷ Gesammelte Aufsatze (Wolfenbiittel, 1922), col. 121.

⁸ Euphorion, v (1898), 741–753.

⁹ “Die Entstehung des Volksbuchs vom Doktor Faust,” pp. 214 f.

¹⁰ Petsch's own inferences were highly successful (Neudruck, pp. xxiii–xxxvii).

¹¹ Which he had before him in two editions, A and C (Dumke, pp. 38–40).

¹² Of the comparisons which Petsch provides (Neudruck, pp. xviii–xxii), only Beilage 1 is designed to show agreement of Wi with W as opposed to H. Neither point here seems very significant. W and Wi share the turn of speech (generally used by Wi, anyhow) mein Herr Fauste, where H has only mein Fauste. Also, W and Wi contain the word Meet, absent in H. This may well be attributable to coincidence suggested by context, but, as we will show below (p. 355), an assumption that Wi had here indeed used the same source as W

¹³ Widmaris “Wahrhqfftige Historia” would still not necessitate the further assumption that Wi had access to a stage U of the Faust Book. Wolff (Faust uni Luther [Halle, 1912] pp. 142 f.) likewise relies upon a chapter which cannot have been in L, namely that silly tale of the charmed castle at Anhalt (H 44a—see Neudnick, p. xli, for Petsch's stronger comments). Chapter H 44 reminded a copyist of another story he knew, so that he promptly inserted it here. It is not impossible that Wi had the same source used by that copyist. But we do not need to assume this, for here too Wi's agreement with W as opposed to H is infrequent and superficial, involving only words easily suggested by context.

¹³ See my “Vergleich der beiden âltesten Texte des Volksbuchs vom Doktor Faustus,” forthcoming in Zeitschr. fiirdeutsche Philologie. H. G. Haile

¹⁴ The scope of this paper does not allow outline of criteria for distinguishing between components of L and folktale. Since we are primarily concerned here with Petsch's hypothesis, it seems fair to accept his own judgments in this matter, and we refer to his excellent analysis (Neudruck, pp. xxiii–xxxvii). Typical tales which he perceived to be the work of L are: H 50 (da einem Bawrn 4, Rader vom Wagen in die Lufft hingesprungen) as opposed to tales using the same raw material in hackneyed form, H 36 and its duplicate H 40; or H 56 (Von einem Versammleten KriegBkeer) as opposed to the silly repetition H 35 as well as to those which do not go beyond the crude form of the popular straw-animal motif, H 39 and its repetition H 43.

¹⁵ Edition “B.” Cf. Fr. Zarnke, “Bibliographie des Faustbuches,” in Braune's edition (Halle, 1878) of the Spiefi Book or in Goetheschriflen (Leipzig, 1897), pp. 258–271.

¹⁶ Siegfried Szamatôlski, “Faust in Erfurt.”

¹⁷ They are: Wi ii, 20 and W 62; Wi in, 3–4 and W 70.

¹⁸ Concerning W 62, see Neudruck, p. xxxvi; concerning W 70, see p. xli.

¹⁹ The Massacre of St. Bartholomew (24 August 1572) is prophesied.

²⁰ “Lercheimer und das Faustbuch,” p. 188: Es bleibt also dabei, dafi Lercheimer … stellenweise gleiche quellen benutzte wie U ….“

²¹ Wi ii, 20 and W 62 both treat of a husband gone to the Holy Land in accordance with a drunken vow, detained, and brought back just in time to prevent his wife's remarriage. Faust renders the false groom impotent on the wedding eve, and the husband surprises his wife at the church on the wedding day. In all other features the tales differ. W involves one Johann Werner von Reuttpuffel from Bennlingen, married six years to Sabina von Kettheim before his absence of five years. Although alive in Egypt, he then is reported dead. Sabina mourns three years more and would remarry. Faust, with the aid of a magic mirror, acquaints Johann with the situation. The marriage bed is described most lasciviously. Faust brings Johann back. Although the false groom is later killed in battle, Johann remains jealous, for his wife “hab dennoch bey jme geschlafien, der Sie betast, greifft, So er aber vber sie mechtig hett kommen konnen, solliches auch volbracht hett.” —With Wi, this tale, told by an unnamed nobleman from Leipzig when he learns of Faust's death, has a tone of quiet melancholy. The nobleman recalls having met his wife-to-be (nor is she named) at Dresden, whither Faust had once spirited him. This spouse is married only one year before the departure. His imprisonment is in Byzantium. Here a kinsman dies after five years, but it is the spouse who is reported dead. The wife soon accepts a proposal of marriage. Mephisto must fetch the spouse back (the mirror motif being absent). A banquet given by Faust is described. The ineffectual bridal bed is treated most decently. The pointe with Wi involves the wife's mistaking her husband for a ghost when he returns. Wi iii, 3–4 and W 70 both involve prophecies by Faust, generally portentous for the Papacy. They have nothing else in common. Nevertheless we should be at a loss to explain the coincidence in W and Wi of a very few words had not Dirks (pp. 36 ff.) established Wi's source at the point in question: Osiander, Eyn wunderliche Weyssagung, von dent Babsttumb, wie es yhm biß an das endt der Welt gehen sol … (1527) —suspected by Petsch (Neudruck, pp. 222 and 247). In this case, U does not come into question. Both W (or X) and Wi drew, at least indirectly, upon Osiander. This source being established, the differences between W and Wi are too great to permit the assumption of any closer relationship.

²² Singer, in his review of Milchsack, was the first to perceive that another source than Schedel lay behind H 22. The passage in question is printed in Neudruck, pp. xviii f.H. G. Haile

²³ Harold Jantz, “An Elizabethan Statement on the Origin of the German Faust Book,” JEGP, u (1952), 137–153, calls attention to the fact that we have good reason to believe the author of The Second Report of Doctor John Faustus (London, 1594) when he claims to have talked to the author of L. Concerning the translation into German, i.e., the Spiefi Book, “he saith manie thinges are corrupted, some added de nouo, some canceled and taken awaie, and many were augmented…. But as for his Obligation and the most part, it is certaine they are most credible and out of all question.” The authority of the Englishman thus not only fails to justify the intermediate version U, but his assurance that “the most part” of the Spieß Book is “credible and out of all question” makes even the existence of U improbable.

²⁴ For example, Wi omits certain sections of H, “sintemal auch in gleichen Historien schon ailes furgelauffen, das zu meinem Scopo dienen, vnd ich erinnerungs vnd warnungsweise wider die abschewliche Zauberey vnd Schwartzkunst Christlich vnd niitzlich mit gutem gewissen anziehen vnd gebrauchen kondte” (p. 645).

²⁵ We know very well that Wi took his tale of the students' quarrel (i, 45) directly from H 41. He claims, however, to have it from Wâiger: “Wie Waiger anzeigt war dieser hader aufi eyffer der Bulschafft entsprungen, da sie in trunckner weise den grollen aufistiessen. Wie dann von bulschafft vnnd drunckenheit niemahls etwas gutes ist kommen …” (p. 538). There follows then a long harangue against bulschafft, a motive not mentioned by H.

²⁶ Wi does not even refer to any book-length source. The Historia von Johan Waiger, to which Petsch attaches great importance, is not a source at all, but a book which Wi (Erinnerung to ii, 5) hopes one day to publish.

²⁷ Rudolf Blume has published extensively on Wi's relevance to the historical Faust. At the least, Blume was able to show that Wi's personal connections were certainly such as to provide rich source material. Blume's earlier articles are listed and summarized in: “Der geschichtliche Wagner in den âltesten Volksbiichern vom Faust,” Euphorion, xxvi (1925), 9–21.