Although Goethe portrayed his Faust as a Renaissance scholar, the original legend on which he based his story displays surprisingly little interest in the past and even less in the ambitions of the humanistic movement. But to obtain an accurate picture about the legacy of Renaissance humanism in the legend, we need look at Faust as a necromancer, a role in which Faust appears most prominently as a humanist. As a necromancer Faust tries to raise spirits of antiquity from the realm of the dead, and he seems to look to the ancient world as a superior age. The early authors of the Faust story did not look with approval on such efforts, however. In this way humanism found itself in a dangerous position, linked to those who were accused of diabolical magic and persecuted in an age of widespread witch hunts. Whether humanism could survive in this process is debatable. Nevertheless, the story of necromancy—popular in the Renaissance and gradually inherited by the magician Faust—serves as a convenient way to investigate the fate of Renaissance humanism in the history of the Faust legend.

Responding to a whim of the emperor, Goethe's Faust turns to Mephistopheles with an urgent demand to perform the feat of necromancy, specifically, to conjure up the spirits of Helen and Paris from the distant past of antiquity.

Der Kaiser will, es muss gleich geschehen,
Will Helena und Paris vor sich sehn;
Das Musterbild Manner so der Frauen
In deutlichen Gestalten will er schauen.
Geschwind ans Werk! ich darf mein Wort nicht brechen.

The Emperor bids, there must be no delay,
Helen and Paris he must see straightaway;
Ideals female and male, ideally mated,
He would inspect distinctly corporated.
To work! I must not be foreswom or feckless.
(Part 11, lines 6183-6187)¹

Goethe was well aware that this incident had its roots in the earliest Faust legend.² His revival of the old story of necromancy serves to realize a poetic encounter of two worlds and ages: Faust, representing the Christian world, and Helen, the spirit symbolic of antiquity. Faust's necromancy reflects Goethe's own infatuation with the rich cultural achievements of antiquity; it is an expression of his humanism. The arduous path to the encounter with Helen, the tentative and brief companionship, and its ultimate dissolution show that this humanism is problematic, but Goethe saw in the attempt to recover antiquity a noble striving and ambition.

Goethe's point of reference was the popular puppet play, which had made a strong impression on him during his childhood in Frankfurt. Because Goethe did not find the condemnation of Faust in the popular form of the legend justifiable, he, like his predecessor Lessing, set about to retell the story of the Renaissance magician in a radically different way. There is almost no evidence that he seriously studied the original Faust stories of the sixteenth century; only the scene of Leipzig student life ("Auerbachs Keller") reflects the direct impact of specific Faust anecdotes.³ Goethe believed that awareness of Renaissance magicians gave a reliable basis for creating a convincing image of his Faust. He was not far off the mark by suspecting that the reputation of the original Faust suffered gross distortions from attacks of fanatical religious detractors. Goethe saw the need to rehabilitate the Renaissance magician.

Goethe's Faust sees magic as a way to gain access to knowledge, love, and power. Because he was aware of the Renaissance magicians Agrippa and Paracelsus, Goethe could reliably base the fictional characterization of his hero on the evidence of genuine sources from the time in which the original Faust lived. But another Renaissance magician, Johannes Trithemius, of whom Goethe was probably not aware, is of far greater importance in preparing the outlines of the experiment in necromancy. Although Trithemius's role as a catalyst is buried deep in the earliest stages of the legend's evolution, it is impossible to reconstruct the evolution of the scene of Helen's reappearance from the realm of the dead without treating the life and reputation of Trithemius, the controversial abbot of Sponheim.

Trithemius, the Benedictine monk, historian, bibliophile, biblical scholar and controversial humanist, was a frequent guest at a number of secular courts. His consultations with his prominent contacts was, however, not what one might expect from a pious abbot; they often dealt with magic, a topic Trithemius treated extensively in books and letters. He confided to men like Philipp, the count of the Palatinate, Joachim I, the margrave of Brandenburg, and Emperor Maximilian the secrets of his mystical, philosophical magic. But Trithemius insisted that his magic was natural magic, not diabolical magic. He condemned necromancy in no uncertain terms. He asserted that the conjuring of dead spirits entailed a previous arrangement, a pact, with the devil. In response to questions about the spiritual world posed to him by Maximilian, Trithemius elaborated on the sinful activities of necromancers. Ironically, he who advised the emperor on necromancy (see his book of eight responses, which appeared in print in 1515) was remembered later in legendary accounts not as an opponent of necromancy but as its practitioner.⁴

There are other ironic twists of the complex and colorful history in the evolution of the anecdotes devoted to necromancy. Trithemius's consistent position as an enemy of diabolical magic and necromancy is reflected in his famous letter about the historical Faustus; he condemned the magician Faustus, who boldly claimed to be the great authority for all necromancers ("fons necromanticorum").⁵ Trithemius saw in this boasting the indication that Faustus was a fraud. He thought that it was foolish and even a sign of madness to speak of oneself as an expert in necromancy.⁶ Despite his uncompromising condemnation of Faustus, Trithemius reported an anecdote that reveals that Faustus's magical experiments had a humanistic dimension. Faustus had reportedly claimed that if the works of Plato and Aristotle were lost, he would be able to restore them to an even more elegant form than in the original. This boast of an ability to recover treasures of ancient wisdom and eloquence clearly reflects the influence of Renaissance humanism, and this element is a consistent component in all stages of the evolution of the legend up to the time of Goethe.

Later generations did not remember Trithemius's arguments and pious distinctions. They remembered primarily his interest in magic, which, to be sure, was seen as diabolical; Trithemius became a servant of the devil. Hostile rhetoric of enemies of the Catholic Church set the stage for Trithemius's extraordinary metamorphosis: the enemy of Faustus became transformed into Faustus himself.

The fate of Trithemius was not an isolated incident. As in the case of most other stories and motifs that found their way into the Faust Book of 1587, Historia von D. Johann Fausten, the earliest and most influential developments took place in the Protestant camp, in Wittenberg under Luther's and Melanchthon's influence. The monk Trithemius became a convenient target of anti-Catholic polemics. Many passages of the Historia of 1587 can be traced directly back to pronouncements or anecdotes of the Wittenberg reformers. For example, the devil pact, the basis for the plot of the Faust story, had its source in widely circulating Wittenberg devil pact stories. Characteristically, such anecdotes or motifs were kept alive, transmitted, and adapted not only by word of mouth; they were often published in exempla collections designed to help Protestant pastors in preparing sermons. These publications provide an accurate record of the progress of the different components that ultimately converged in the Faust story as we know it today.

On March 29, 1539, in the course of a table conversation, Luther gave his views about necromancy. He was asked whether Samuel had really been brought back to life through necromancy. Luther responded: "No, for it was an apparition. The confirmation is found in the Book of Moses, according to which God forbade the quest for truth from dead spirits." After explaining that he saw the experiment as the work of the devil, Luther adds, "A certain magician produced in a show for Maximilian all dead emperors and kings including Alexander the Great."⁷ For Luther, the crucial question focused on the witch of Endor, who aided Saul in his efforts to speak [to] Samuel's spirit, and he shows that such experiments do not succeed in recovering the true form of the dead spirits; the apparitions were for him delusions inspired by the devil. He confirmed Trithemius's view that such experiments were diabolical. Luther established the essential features of this legend: of a necromancer at the court of the emperor and the conjuration of famous spirits from the world of antiquity.

Luther does not indicate who the magician is. If he had known that it might have been a monk, he certainly would have welcomed the opportunity to give his anecdote an antimonastic dimension. He used the image of the monk as a devil in other contexts.⁸

In the 1550s Philipp Melanchthon related this incident at the court of Maximilian in a different way. Like Luther, Melanchthon was unaware of the necromancer's identity. He refers to the magician as a nigromanticus, implying that he agreed with Luther's view that such activities were diabolical. In contrast to Luther, Melanchthon supplies many details.

Hearing Hector and Achilles praised for their strength, Melanchthon's emperor desires to see Homer's great heroes. There happens to be an nigromanticus at the court, and this magician of the black arts is willing to make the images of Hector and Achilles appear, provided he is rewarded and there is silence during his show. The emperor is seated on a chair in a circle. The nigromanticus conjures from a book; at once Hector's ghost appears, knocking at the door and making the whole house shake. Then Achilles appears, and the two heroes confront each other threateningly. Before leaving, both men bow before the emperor. The show is not over; now David, the psalmist of biblical antiquity, appears, but he does not bow to the emperor. Ironically, Melanchthon has the nigromanticus state the moral of the story. The magician explains to the emperor that, since David is an ancestor of Christ, his kingdom surpasses all others.⁹

By conjuring the ghosts of Hector, Achilles, and, especially, David, Melanchthon shifts the focus from the question of imperial ambitions, which the fame of Alexander represents, to literary and religious issues. But Melanchthon was not entirely original in his deviation from Luther's version. Conjuring up the ghosts of Hector [and others] was by this time a standard motif of stories about necromancy. In the first decade of the sixteenth century, Gian Francesco Pico della Mirandola referred briefly to a magician's representation of the duel between Hector and Achilles.¹⁰ Trithemius treated necromancy sarcastically, remarking that there were those who promised to conjure up Hector and Alexander the Great."¹¹ Thus, we may assume that Melanchthon did not simply invent this story; most of what he said drew upon a well-established tradition. Certain components of Melanchthon's narrative belong to the ritual of a necromancer's show: exacting a promise of silence during the performance, drawing a magic circle, and reading incantations from a book. It is possible that some magicians of this time actually staged shows with convincing images, using light effects, mirrors, smoke, and optical illusion. We are reminded of Benvenuto Cellini's vivid account of necromancy (his efforts to see his lost beloved again).¹² But there are unique elements that Melanchthon himself probably contributed. In attributing greed as a motivation to the nigromanticus, Melanchthon exhibits a tendency characteristic of his other anecdotes.¹³ Most striking is Melanchthon's elaboration on Luther's story by speaking of the appearance of David. The conjuror himself slips into the role of a moralist, and thus the story becomes a little sermon to demonstrate the superiority of the biblical kings over the pagan heroes. Renaissance humanism—a weak influence in any case—recedes into the background.

In the 1550s the anonymous necromancer acquired an identity. In 1557 Caspar Goltwurm, a Protestant pastor and a former student in Wittenberg, published the first known printed version of the anecdote, and he identified the necromancer as the abbot of Sponheim. The new, elaborate version of a popular story reveals Luther's as well as Melanchthon's influence, combining elements found in the two independent sources. Although the reference to magician Trithemius is new, even this contribution may have profited from Melanchthon's influence. Melanchthon had been responsible for speaking out against Trithemius as a diabolical magician in a different context. He told his students a story that he claimed to have heard personally: "Pirckheimer told me once that his father had been part of a delegation with the abbot of Sponheim, and when they came into a sordid-looking inn near the Franconian forest, a friend and companion said to the abbot in a joking way, 'My dear abbot, could you fetch for us a sumptuous dish of well-cooked fish?' The abbot knocked at the window and said: Bring a dish of good fish quickly. A little later someone came and presented a magnificent dish of pike. The abbot sat down and ate, but the others abstained."¹⁴ Johannes Manlius published this story about Trithemius and placed it immediately before the biography of the diabolical Faustus.¹⁵ In the Historia of 1587 Faustus performs the same kind of trick (Cf. chapters 9, 44, and 47).¹⁶ Thus, the anecdote of the magical dish was finally inherited by Faustus. The case of necromancy represents at first a development in the direction of Trithemius. Like Faustus, Trithemius also drew devil stories into his orbit. Ultimately, Faustus proved to be the more powerful magnet.

When Johannes Aurifaber published Luther's table talks in 1566, he profited from Goltwurm's contribution. He followed Goltwurm's lead in identifying the formerly anonymous magician as the abbot of Sponheim. Aurifaber elaborates on Luther's original statements in another way: While Luther only named Alexander the Great as one of the conjured ghosts, Aurifaber names also Julius Caesar and, surprisingly, Maximilian's first wife and queen, Anne of Bretagne, whom Maximilian had married in absentia. Before the marriage could be consummated, much to the emperor's embarrassment, the French king captured her in 1491 and proceeded to marry her himself.¹⁷ Aurifaber's revisions of the original text were motivated evidently by the new political situation; after Luther's death, the emperor's actions against the Protestants caused disillusionment and evoked a more critical stance against him.¹⁸

The proliferation of stories about necromancy at the imperial court is difficult to trace after its publication in many popular books. The variations are too numerous, and the motivations behind the innovations (if they are indeed innovations) are not always evident.… The story is in a constant state of flux in the sixteenth century.¹⁹ It is not a simple matter to identify the causes and patterns of change, but the changes are clearly not arbitrary; they are dictated by the needs of a particular time and place in which the story is narrated. The story serves a function, and before the changes can begin to make sense, that function needs to be understood.

The story of necromancy, like the many other stories dealing with diabolical magic and the lives of the so-called diabolical magicians, such as Trithemius, Faustus, and Agrippa were popular themes of the Protestant exempla collections.²⁰ The most famous and popular publication of this sort was Aurifaber's edition of Luther's table talks. This book was widely used and quoted. There were many other such books; they were popular reference books in the libraries of pastors. The stories that illustrated principles of religious life and doctrine provided the raw material for sermons. In this way the stories circulated not only from book to book but also by word of mouth. The context in which the stories appeared imposed certain persistent features: (a) Since the stories served the rhetorical aims of preaching, the narratives consistently conclude with a clearly stated moral lesson. (b) The Protestant authors exploited the stories as polemical weapons against Catholicism. (c) Written in the time of intense witch hunting, the stories labeled the necromancer as a diabolical magician, who actually made contact with the devil to perform his feats. (d) The stories display, at best, a cautious and respectful opinion about the responsibility of the emperor; at other times, they imply that he is guilty of curiosity.

The ideals of Renaissance humanism could hardly fare well under these circumstances. Whatever the historical Faustus and Trithemius may have contributed as humanists, their links to scholarly interests were forgotten. They are not pioneering scholars who discover the ancient sources of wisdom. What remains is the inclination to see antiquity as a superior age. But the effort to recover that age is certainly not applauded; it is even branded as a dangerous and sinful curiosity. For example, Augustin Lercheimer referred to the necromantic experiment as "gefahrlichen fuirwitz," an expression that takes us very close to the characterization of Faustus in Historia of 1587. Chapter 2 of that book shows Faustus speculating day and night, wanting to explore heaven and earth and being motivated by curiosity and recklessness to undertake conjurations.²¹ Barbara Könneker has argued persuasively that this Faustus is not the image of the modern scholar and scientist; the narrator's primary purpose is to describe the magician's obsessions with the devil and black magic.²² The Faustian curiosity and humanism may appear very progressive and praiseworthy in Goethe's Faust, but in the sixteenth century they are labels that pious authors use to condemn magic and witchcraft.

The idea that Faustus's necromancy could bring to light Helen, the ideal of feminine beauty, seems to have evolved in gradual stages. Aurifaber was the first to describe the abbot of Sponheim conjuring up the figure of a woman, the wife of Maximilian. Lercheimer thought that this woman was the much-bereaved first wife of Maximilian, who had died in an accident. Hans Sachs is the first known source to name Helen, the most beautiful woman ("das aller-schonest weib"). In this the Historia followed suit: Faustus responds to requests of his students to see Helen, who was stolen from her husband and for whom the destruction of Troy took place (chapter 49). Somewhat later, Faustus possesses this Helen as a concubine (chapter 59). These experiments and adventures are not intended to inspire admiration; they show, instead, how easily the devil led men to a life of sensual pleasure. The belief that the devil could use an image of Helen to entice men into sin found its way into a report on a Cologne witch trial of 1590, probably under the influence of the Historia.²³ This interest in Helen has nothing to do with literature or scholarship; Helen had been transformed into a witch.

The author of the Historia of 1587 is not known. Johann Spies, the printer and publisher in Frankfurt, undoubtedly exerted influence on the final shape of the book. He belonged to the orthodox wing of the Protestant movement, and his book about Faustus reflects his own consistent opposition to any deviation from Luther on religious issues. For example, he eliminated all traces of Melanchthon's name from the legend of Faustus. Hence it is not surprising that the book abandons respectful treatment of the emperor, a feature of Melanchthon's version of the necromancy story. The emperor of the Historia displays visible pleasure from the necromantic show. He is now identified as Charles V, an emperor who was not kindly disposed to the Reformation and who was thought to have betrayed Luther. The Historia criticizes this emperor as a friend of necromancy.

Many factors played a role in shaping the legend. Paradoxically, Goethe's Faust, the highly respected scholar and humanist, is far removed from the figure of the diabolical magician in the sixteenth-century story. He was primarily the victim of polemics in a time of religious discord. Thus, Luther's direct influence is evident in many places in the Historia.

But ultimately the strongest single catalyst in the evolution of Faustus into Trithemius and Trithemius into Faustus was the witch craze. The fact that necromantic shows could be produced by means of optical illusion did not penetrate into general consciousness. The legend was born in an age that was convinced of the constant threat of the devil. Mysterious, destructive forces were devil's work, and magicians and necromancers such as Faustus and Trithemius were servants of the devil. Goethe recognized that the legend of Faustus was a story born of fear; in response, he himself became the necromancer who conjured up the spirit of the Renaissance scholar from a time before his image was distorted by layers of religious conflict, prejudice, and superstition.

Notes

¹ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust. A Tragedy, trans, by Walter Amdt and ed. by Cyrus Hamlin (New York: Norton, 1976).

² Goethe wrote in 1826, as he worked on the completion of his Faust, "Die alte Legende sagt namlich und das Puppenspiel verfehlt nicht, die Szene vorzuführen, dass Faust in seinem herrischen Ubermut durch Mephistopheles den Besitz der schönen Helena von Griechenland verlangt und ihm dieser nach einigem Widerstreben willfahrt habe. Ein solches bedeutendes Motiv in unserer Ausführung nicht zu versaumen, war uns Pflicht …" Goethe, Goethe. Faust, ed. by Erich Trunz (Munich: Beck, 1981), III, 439. Harold Jantz's book is disappointing in the treatment of the Renaissance sources of Goethe's Faust. Jantz focuses on Nicolaus Cusanus and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola, who show general affinity to Faust but had no direct impact on the Faust legend. Renaissance magicians who exerted direct influence, such as Trithemius, Paracelsus, and Agrippa, are not given serious attention. Harold Jantz, Goethe's Faust as a Renaissance Man: Parallels and Prototypes (Princeton, 1951).

³ The stories on which this scene is based are found together in a Faust Book of the seventeenth century, Georg Rudolph Widman, Das argerliche Leben und schreckliche Ende des vielberüchtigten Ertz-Schwartzkünstlers D. Johannis Fausti, vermehret durch Joh. Nicolaus Pfitzer (Nürnberg: Endter, 1674). Cf. also edition by A. von Keller, in Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, (Tübingen, 1880), vol. 146, 284-85, 300-03, and 438-39. Frank Baron, Faustus. Geschichte, Sage, Dichtung (Munich: Artemis, 1982), pp. 113 and 144.

⁴ Johannes Trithemius, Liber octo questionum ad Maximilianum Caesarem (Oppenheim, 1515), f. Fij. Cf. Klaus Amold, Johannes Trithemius (1462-1516), in Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte des Bistums und Hochstifts Wiirzburg (Wiirzburg: Schoningh, 1971), vol. 23, pp. 180-200. Noel L. Brann, The Abbot Trithemius, 1462-1516 (Leiden: Brill, 1981), pp. 27-31. For a general treatment of the topic of Faust and necromancy see Hans Henning, "Zur Geschichte eines Faust-Motivs," in Festschrift für Wolfgang Vulpius (Weimar, 1957), 53-62. I have also treated this topic in an earlier essay. I stressed the significance of Lercheimer's story about Trithemius as a source for the Historia. Frank Baron, "Faustus und Trithemius: Begegnungen in Geschichte und Sage," in Johannes Trithemius: Humanist, Abt, Magus, in Bad Kreuznacher Sypmposien I, ed. by Richard Auemheimer and Frank Baron, to appear soon.

⁵ Early documents about the historical and legendary figure consistently refer to him with the name Faustus, not Faust.

⁶ Frank Baron, Doctor Faustus from History to Legend (Munich: Fink, 1978), p. 29. Cf. Karl P. Wentersdorf, "Some Observations on the Historical Faust," Folklore, 89 (1978), 201-23.

⁷ "Deinde interrogabatur, utrum ille verus fuerit Samuel resuscitatus? Respondit: Non, quia fuit spectrum. Nam hoc ita probatur, quod Deus in Mose prohibuit, ne veritas a mortui quaereretur. Sed fuerunt praestigia Sathanae formam viri Dei producentis, sicut quidam magus Maximiliano produxit omnes caesares et monarchas mortuos et Alexandrum Magnum in spectaculum." Martin Luther, Werke, Tischreden (Weimar, 1912-1921), no. 4450, conversation recorded by A. Lauterbach on March 29, 1539.

⁸ Baron, Faustus, p. 53.

⁹ "De nigromantico. O. M. Factum est quodam tempore mentio in aula Maximiliani Hectoris et Achillis, quos cum quidam ex cancellarijs vehementer laudarent et viros fortes et robustos praedicarent, dicit Maximilianus, se optare videre eorum effigies et corporis quantitatem. Fuit autem eodem tempore in aula Nigromanticus, qui ad quosdam nobiles dixit, se posse absque ullo periculo eorum effigies adducere … Post hos venit Dauid psalmista, omatus aurea corona regia, regio omatu incedens, portans Cytharam. Hic non adeo inuiso vultu incedebat sicut priores duo, ter cum praterijsset Maximilianum in sede Regia sedentem, nullum ipsi exhibuit honorem et euanauit. Interrogauit postea Nigromanticum Imperator, Quare Dauid sibi nullum exhibuisset Honorem? R[espondit], Dauidis regnum esse super omne regnum et Christum, aetemi Dei filium, ex Dauidis stemmate progenitus est. Ideo Dauidem nullum, honorem Imperatori exhibuisse." Gustav Milchsack, Gesammelte Aufsitze (Wolfenbüttel: Zwissler, 1922), pp. 248-49. Written down in Wittenberg in 1561-1562 by Hieronimus Coler. Since Melanchthon died in 1560, we may assume that Cö1er's notes contain Melanchthon's anecdotes of the late 1550s. A possible source for the conjuration of Hector and Achilles may be a text by Johannes Franciscus Pico della Mirandola: Another source may be Philostratus the Elder (ca. 2nd-3rd century A.D.) who has Apollonius of Tyana say that he offered prayers by which the Indian sages invoked departed heroes, and then the earth quivered slightly, and Achilles appeared in armor. The life of Apollonius of Tyana appeared in a number of editions in the early sixteenth century. Cf. Charles P. Eels (ed.), Life and Times of Apollonius of Tyana (by Philostratus the Elder), Stanford University Publications, Language and Literature, 2 (1923), p. 99. Johannes Weier referred to this event in his discussion of necromancy. Johannes Weier, De praestigiis daemonum (Frankfurt: N. Basse, 1586), p. 115. The passage in which Weier quoted Pico appears in the preface to the Historia. Cf. Fiissel, p. 10. Johannes Weier published Melanchthon's story essentially without change.

¹⁰ "Alium audiui ab eiusdem socijs qui viuunt adhuc, a daemone quinquaginta ferme ab hinc annis viuum asportatum nusquam comparuisse: dum curioso cuidam & male sano principi Troie oppugnationem repraesentare quasi in scaena pollicitus esset, Achillemque & Hectorem introducere proeliantes, & multis tamen id quaerentibus irritum negocium euenit." De rerum praenotione (first published in 1506/1507). Cf. Opera omnia (Basel: S. Henricipetri, 1601), II, p. 329. Cf. Brückner, p. 160.

¹¹ Klaus Arnold, "Additamenta Trithemiana, Nachtrage zum Leben und Werk des Johannes Trithemius, insbesondere zur Schrift De demonibus," Würzburger Diözesan-Geschichtsblätter, 37/38 (1975), 259.

¹² Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Werke (Weimar: Böhlau, 1890), vol. 44, 184-91 and 358-59.

¹³ Baron, Faustus, p. 73.

¹⁴ "O. M. Pirchamerus mihi aliquando marrauit, quod pater suus in legatione quadam profectus esset cum Abbate Spadanensi (sic) et cum uenissent iuxta syluam Franconum in sordidum diuersorium, quendam amicum Abbatis et socium itineris ioco dixisse ad Abbatem: domine Abbas, curate nobis lautum ferculum piscium bene coctorum. Ibi Abbatem digito fenestram pulsasse et dixisse: Afferas ocius ferculum bonorum piscium. Paulo post uenisse quendam ac per fenestram exhibuisse lupulae laute apparatum. Abbas apposuit et edit, sed reliqui abstinuerunt." Milchsack, p. 275. This anecdote was recorded sometime before 1555.

¹⁵ Baron, Faustus, p. 80. Johannes Manlius, Locorum communium collectanea (Basel, 1565), p. 38.

¹⁶ Stephan Fiissel and Hans Joachim Kreutzer (eds.), Historia von D. Johann Fausten (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1988), pp. 27, 89, and 95.

¹⁷ Von Samuel, so Konig Saul erschein, was es gewest. Doctor Martinus ward gefraget: "Da Samuel auf des Konigs Sauls Begehren von der Wahrsagerin ihm erschienen ware, ob es der rechte Prophet gewest?" Sprach er: "Nein, sondern ward ein Gespenst und boser Geist gewest. Welchs damit beweiset wird, dass Gott in Mose verboten hat, dass man die Wahrheit nicht soll von den Todten fragen, sondern ist nur des Teufels Gespuknis gewest, in der Gestalt des Mannes Gottes. Gleich wie ein Zauberer und Schwarzkuinstiger, der Abt von Spanheim, hatte zu Wegen bracht, dass Kaiser Maximilian alle verstorbene Kaiser und grosse Helden, die Neuen Besten, so man also heisset, in seinem Gemach nach einander gehend gesehen hatte, wie ein jaglicher gestalt und bekleidet war gewest, da er gelebet, unter welchen auch gewest war der grosse Alexander, Julius Casar, item des Kaisers Maximiliani Braut, welche der Konig von Frankreich Carolus Gibbosus ihme genommen hatte." Luther, Tischreden, no. 4450 (Aurifaber).

¹⁸ Goltwurm registered at the University of Wittenberg in 1539, in the year during which Luther's remarks on necromancy were recorded. Karl Eduard Forstemann, Album academiae Vitebergensis (Halle, 1905), p. 177. "Ich hab gelesen, das ein loblicher Christlicher Keyser gewest, wolches namen ich mit vleis hie für vbergehe, Welcher höchlich begert hat, das er die alten Helden und rittermessige Menner, Als Eneam, Agamemnonem, Priamum, Ulissem, Achillem, Hectorem, Scipionem, Hanibalem und andere mehr in jrer gantzen volligen Kriegsruistung und tapfferen gestalt sehen mochte, solches durch besondere Teufflische kunst und gespenst zu wegen zu bringen, begert er von einem geystlichen Abt, der solcher kunst vberaus erfaren und viel dauon geschriben, das er solches jme zu gefallen nicht wolle abschlagen … Dieses ist warhafftig durch den Abt von Spanheim beschrieben, auch von dem selbigen beschehen, Darauss man sihet, was der Teufel den Menschen für ein gebler für den augen machet vnd was er damit furhat aufzurichten, nicht anders denn die Menschen zubetriegen und in verfiihrung und abgottischen Aberglauben zu bringen und allerley Teufelisch mord und jamer anzurichten. Wie denn solches gnungsam zu vnsem zeiten unsere vielfeltige Teufel(i)sch gespenst aussweisen. Dauon hemach weiter meldung beschicht." Caspar Goltwurm, Wunderwerck und Wunderzeichen Buch (Frankfurt, 1557), f. yijv-yiijr.

¹⁹ The following passage shows the first participation of Wittenberg. "So habe ich auch gehöret, das Faustus zu Wittenberg den Studenten und einem hohen Mann N. habe Hectorem, Ulyssem, Herculem, Aeneam, Samson, Dauid vnd andere gezeiget, die denn mit grausamer geperde und emsthafftem angesicht herfiir gangen und wider verschwunden und sollen (welches Luth. nicht gelobt) dazumal auch Fuirstliche Personen dabey gessessen und zugesehen haben." Wolfgang Butner, Epitome historiarum (Frankfurt, 1576), f. 115r. For the appearance of Helen see Hans Sachs, "Historia: Ein wunderbarlich gesicht keyser Maximiliani, 1, blicher gedechtnuss, von einem nigromanten." Hans Sachs completed the poem October 12, 1564. Cf. Hans Sachs, Werke, ed. by A. v. Keller and E. Goetze, Bibliothek des literararischen Vereins in Stuttgart (Tübingen, 1892), vol. 193, pp. 478-87. This poem was published for the first time in 1579. Cf. Karl Goedeke, Grundriss zur Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung (Dusseldorf: Ehrlemann, 1884-1953), v. 2, p. 436. Cf. Frank Baron, "The Faust Book's Indebtedness to Augustin Lercheimer and Wittenberg Sources," Daphnis, 14 (1985), 517-45.

²⁰ After the appearance of the Historia, the evolution of stories about necromancy becomes even more difficult to trace. The so-called Erfurt chapters in the expanded editions of 1587 and 1589 contain a description of Faustus conjuring up the heroes of antiquity, including Polyphemus; reminiscent of the historical Faustus, another chapter tells us of Faustus's offer to reproduce the lost comedies of Plautus and Terence. Cf. Fiussel, pp. 153-56. Faustus's necromancy is also treated in Stanislaus Samicius, Annales, sive de origine et rebus gestis Polonorvm et Litvanorvm (s.l.: 1587), pp. 67-68. Cf. Wolfgang Brückner (ed.), Volkserzählung und Reformation. Ein Handbuch zur Tradierung und Funktion von Erzählstoffen und Erzählliteratur im Protestantismus (Berlin, 1974).

²¹ "Wie obgemeldt worden, stunde D. Fausti Datum dahin, das zulieben, das nicht zu lieben war, dem trachtet er Tag vnd Nacht nach, name an sich Adlers Flügel, wolte alle Gründ am Himmel vnd Erden erforschen, dann sein Fuirwitz, Freyheit vnd Leichtfertigkeit stache vnnd reitzte jhn also, dass er auff eine zeit etliche zauberische vocabula, figuras, characteres vnd coniurationes, damit er den Teufel vor sich mochte fordern, ins Werck zusetzen, vnd zu probiem jm furname." Fiissel, p. 15.

²² Barbara Könneker, "Faust-Konzeption und Teufelspakt im Volksbuch von 1587," in Heinz 0. Burger and Klaus von See, Festschrift Gotftried Weber (Berlin: 1967), p. 168.

²³ ". at length the deuill sent vnto him a wicked spirit in the similitude and likenes of a woman, so faire of face and comelye of personage, that she resembled rather some heauenly Hellin (sic) then any mortall creature, so farre her beauty exceeded the choisest sorte of women, with her as with his harts delight, he kept company the space of seuen yeers, though in the end she proued and was found indeed no other then a she Deuil …" A true Discourse. Declaring the damnable life and death of one Stubbe Peeter, a most wicked Sorcerer, who in the likenes of a Woolfe, committed many murders, continuing this diuelish practise 25. yeeres, killing and deuoring Men, Woomen, and Children … Who for the same fact was taken and executed the 31. of October last past in the Town of Bedbur neer the Cittie of Collin in Germany. Trulye translated out of the high Duch, according to the Copie printed in Collin, brought ouer into England by George Bores ordinary Poste, the Xj. daye … of Iune 1590 (London, 1590), p. 9. This title is common to the two editions with minor differences in the British Museum and Lambeth Palace.