SOURCE: "The Making of the Historia von D. Johann Fausten: The Trial of Faustus: The Legacy of Witches and Learned Magicians," and "The Making of the Historia von D. Johann Fausten: The Contributions of Johann Spies to the Historia," in his Faustus on Trial: The Origins of Johann Spies's "Historia" in an Age of Witch Hunting, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1992, pp. 110-46, 157-68.

[In the following excerpts, Baron reads the 1587 Historia as a text primarily concerned with the mid-sixteenth-century debate concerning witchcraft and with the struggles between opposing religious factions. He also presents evidence suggesting that Johann Spies may have been more than just the chapbook's printer.]

The Trial of Faustus: The Legacy of Witches and Learned Magicians

Johannes Manlius presented the violent death of Faustus at the devil's hands as early as 1562, stressing the horrible fate of a man who, ignoring the obvious dangers, invoked and used evil spirits. Manlius established a potientially beneficial social function for the exemplum of Faustus. He presented motifs that set the stage for later developments. But Johann Weier and Augustin Lercheimer (for whom Manlius served as a source) placed Faustus in a context that promised to add new motifs. Unlike other exempla collections, these two books represent contributions to the witchcraft debate. The inclusion of Wittenberg source materials on Faustus in these collections sets the stage for the convergence of two previously distinct components: Faustus and witchcraft.

Johann Weier (Weyer), a physician practicing in a small duchy north of Cologne, served Duke William of Jiulich-Cleve-Berg for twenty-seven years. With the Duke's protection, he dared to attack some fundamental assumptions about witchcraft. He questioned the reality of fantastic actions, such as the witches' sabbath, devil pact, and copulation with the devil, which, he contended, existed only in the imagination. He attributed the reports about them in part to the desperation of people under the threat of torture and, to an even greater degree, to an illness toward which, he believed, women were especially susceptible: melancholia, a derangement of the mind caused by the influence of the devil. The devil was responsible for the fantasies of witches. Ignorance made the work of the devil easier. With these arguments Weier defended the women accused of witchcraft as innocent people unjustly persecuted.

Despite these efforts, it would be a mistake to see Weier as a rational, enlightened thinker in the modern sense. His collection of exempla is just as rich in fantastic diabolical deeds as are the Wittenberg sources that he took over without critical analysis. Thus, we find the Wittenberg anecdotes about Faustus, magicians, and witches transmitted here with little change. It is important to see that Faustus, who was included in the 1568 edition of Weier's book for the first time, entered a new context. He was still the diabolical magician, as Luther had labeled him, but now he was grouped together with other learned magicians in one category, which Weier singled out for attack. In contrast to the witches, who were ignorant and innocent, the magicians were great sinners, who turned to the devil despite their learning. The learned magicians should have known better. Weier urged the authorities to persecute these magicians. Clearly, Weier hoped to shift the focus of the witch hunting from those who were most threatened and most vulnerable to those who were few in number and often under the protection of high-ranking people. It is difficult to measure whether Weier's arguments were able to stem the tide of witch hunting to a significant degree, but their impact probably set the stage for later mutations in the stories and feats associated with Faustus.

Weier argued against the reality of the devil pact, and he generally excluded the Wittenberg devil pact stories and avoided explicit references to confessions about pacts of witches. Although Weier did not explain how learned magicians obtained the aid of the devil, he must have thought that this was possible without resorting to a pact. Weier saw Faustus as a great sinner and was the first author to bring his name into the witchcraft debate.

When we turn to Augustin Lercheimer's exempla collection and consider it from the perspective of the same questions, we realize that an important change has taken place. Like Weier, Lercheimer argued that witches were ignorant, sick, deluded by the devil, and therefore innocent. Both Weier and Lercheimer see the ignorance of women as a fact that speaks best in their defense. Like Weier, Lercheimer was one of the few scholars who dared to take the dangerous position against witch hunts. Unlike Weier, however, he believed in the reality of the devil pact, and as a student at the University of Wittenberg (and a friend of Melanchthon's), he could recall and relate Luther's and Melanchthon's devil pact stories.¹ He used them to illustrate the guilt of the learned magician, and thus he was able to revive and intensify Weier's polemic against such magicians. The pact conception served to illustrate the sin on which authorities should focus.

Lercheimer applied the rhetorical weapon of the pact consistently against learned magicians. In this context Faustus appears to have been a victim of the witchcraft debate and Lercheimer's efforts to achieve more humane treatment of witches.

The history of witch hunting and the evolution of the image of Faustus may be seen at first as two distinct lines of development. As a result of a repeated restructuring of historical materials, these lines came together, leading to a convergence in the context of Lercheimer's work. Here the essential plot of the Faustian story is present: the concept of the pact, the dangerous idea of a contract with evil forces to transcend human limitations for the sake of power and knowledge. This concept was shaped by the imagination of persecution and fear, and to a lesser degree by the literary imagination. The Faustian pact has formed the consistent point of departure for the rich tradition of Faust literature until the present time.

Two stories illustrate the stages leading to the Faustian pact as the plot of the Historia.

A. Jena

The devil pact incident of Jena took place in 1558, just two years before Melanchthon's death. It is plausible that Melanchthon himself received news of the incident from Jena. Manlius, who narrated it in 1562, might simply have copied a passage from Melanchthon's correspondence. On the other hand, this may simply be one of those instances in which Manlius did not rely on his teacher but on some other source for information. As in the case of the Erfurt and Valerius Glockner stories, we are able to recognize a historical event at the core of the report. Manlius places it immediately after the Erfurt story and makes a special point of the similarity. After a certain carpenter died, his family accused his physician of responsibility for the death.

When the magician was examined, under torture, concerning his crime, he confessed everything, especially that he had killed the carpenter who once had harmed him, and that he had learned his magic from a little old woman living in the vicinity of the Harz forest. He also confessed that the devil was continuously at his side, advising him whenever people were about to come to him, telling him how he should treat all his patients. After these things were ascertained, he was impaled and burned.²

If Manlius had been aware of Aegidius Melcher's original Erfurt report, he might have been struck even more by the similarity between the Erfurt and Jena incidents. He evidently noted some common features beyond the "fact" of the devil pact: the deceptive behavior of the devil-inspired magicians and the successful capture of the evildoers.

We find once again that the primary source of information about the pact is an interrogation leading to a confession. As in the Erfurt incident, torture is used to obtain information; this information undoubtedly developed from the charges and suspicions of the magician's enemies. The confession enabled the report to become a coherent and consistent narrative. In the earliest report, the Erfurt sinner is not explicitly designated as a magician. For Luther the magician's association with diabolical magic becomes a certainty because of the "facts" emerging from the victim's confession.

In this respect, the Jena situation is similar. We can observe how a confession induced under torture transforms a physician into a magician. At first, it is stressed that the physician restores many rich people to health. Because of the death of a patient, suspicions arose and charges were made. That the physician poisoned his patient intentionally is, of course, conceivable, but the physician's defense of himself is totally repressed. Only after torture does he "explain" that he had used the devil's help to treat his patients. This explanation was probably inspired by the delusions of those who interrogated and accused him. In the sixteenth century such trials transformed many accused people into magicians.³

In Andreas Hondorff's version of the Jena story (first published in 1568), the physician is shown more emphatically as a diabolical magician from the start; information obtained from his confession and related in the earlier versions at the conclusion is revealed here at the beginning.⁴

In contrast to the Erfurt story, the Jena account does not leave any sign of hope. There is no indication that the soul of this confessed sinner might yet be saved. The cruel punishment by impalement gives the impression of an irretrievable loss. In this narrative we are confronting the unmitigated judgment of the court; we miss Luther's and Melanchthon's interpretation of the circumstances in a wider religious context, in which the way to salvation is not entirely closed off.

Johannes Weier published a version of this story in De praestigiis daemonum. He obviously felt that the behavior and punishment of the Jena magician fit neatly into the context of his arguments; the magician's fate illustrated how learned magicians should be treated. He thought that they were supported by a passage about the diabolical activities of Faustus. Weier reduced Manlius's text by almost half. The introductory remark that the physician had helped many is eliminated. There is no mention of torture as a means to gain a confession. Weier's version strengthens the impression of a harsh, merciless treatment.⁵

As we consider stories of the l550s and 1560s, we see the hostile attitude towards the learned magician emerging with greater clarity and stronger emphasis.

B. The Devil in Glass

In 1562, Johannes Manlius related a brief story about a physician who sought out the devil, whom he imprisoned in a flask and consulted concerning things about which he was not sure. The devil helped him become a successful doctor. He was able to amass a great deal of wealth. Before his death he wanted to do penance, but, like Ajax, he was overcome by an insane furor, and, continuously calling upon his true ally, he shouted horrible blasphemies against the Holy Ghost. Finally, in this fit of madness, he died.⁶

In Manlius's publication this story is placed immediately before the Erfurt story and hence in proximity of the Jena report, to which it bears a striking resemblance. Both narratives show a doctor who seeks to cure his patients; this story combines the search for knowledge with the motivation of greed.

This story contains elements that are absent in its medieval antecedents. For example, the dimension of intellectual curiosity is a motivation not present in the earlier stories. Manlius's magician practices medicine and is driven by a passion to master the secrets of his trade. Thus, Manlius prepares the way for the identification with Paracelsus. The Zimmerische Chronik presents this aspect of the story vaguely. We know only that one day the nobleman went out into the forest and wanted to experiment. With the idea of experimentation we are a step nearer to the curiosity of Faustus, and we note the simultaneous change in the ending of the narrative, turning the fate of the magician, who managed to survive in the Middle Ages, into a tragic one in the sixteenth century.⁷ Although we can no longer trace the contemporary origins of this story precisely, the new elements show a strong similarity to the content of the Jena report, suggesting that they were at least inspired by similar experiences.

Although the confessions of those accused of magic inspired such stories, the authorities, who promoted trials against magic, had definite ideas about what should be contained in such confessions. As early as 1437, a decretal of Pope Eugene IV condemned the magicians, whose image lives on in these stories: "They sacrifice to demons, adore them, seek out and accept responses from them, do homage to them, and make with them a written agreement or another kind of pact through which, by a single word, touch, or sign, they may perform whatever evil deeds or sorcery they wish and be transported to or away from wherever they wish. They cure diseases, provoke bad weather, and make pacts concerning other evil deeds."⁸

Although Lercheimer's book does not use the stories of Jena or the "Devil in Glass," his comments about about learned people, especially physicians, who try to rise above others seem to be influenced by them.

Also findet man Artzet die aller kranckheiten vrsache vnd heilung, aller kreuter vnd anderer artzeney krafft, vnd wirckung wilen wollen, daß jnen kein patient absterbe, sind mit zimlicher kunst nicht zu frieden: die lafen sich mit dem teuffel ejn.…⁹

In the first chapter of the Historia Faustus is introduced as a physician who has been able to help many people. Against the background of a tradition of diabolical physicians, this willingness to be helpful may not have helped his image at all. Achievements in learning in all forms (Faustus has a doctorate in theology from Wittenberg) have become suspect. The strong element of exaggeration in the description of Faustus's learning should not surprise us. It corresponds to the persistent patterns of change that the phenomenon of the exempla collections promoted. These popular books, to which Weier's and Lercheimer's works belong, tended to borrow from each other. Individual stories were influenced by other stories with which they were grouped, hence the similarities among all stories discussed here. Above all, there is a tendency to exaggerate in support of the editor's particular focus. Georg Lukacs has referred to this phenomenon in the evolution of a legend as the predictable pattern of exaggerations of historical facts ("vollkommen gesetzmäßige und notwendige Obertreibung der realen Fakten").¹⁰ Behind the exaggeration of Faustus's learning and desire to learn is the fear of the devil and the need to warn against learned magic. The authors of the legend were intent on showing that scholarly magicians should know better than to dabble in diabolical magic.

Accounts with similar content were available in many forms, not only by word of mouth or the exempla collections considered here. They were, of course, used in the widely distributed theoretical tracts to promote persecution. They were reported about regularly in the early form of today's newspaper, the newe Zeitung.

Within this genre, the particular form of warning literature developed, the schreckliche newe Zeitung, in which reports about witch confessions played a central role. The genre has not received the scholarly attention it deserves as a factor in the evolution of the Historia. Recently Stephan Fuissel pointed out its relevance. He cited a "newspaper" of 1560 and showed that the text introducing the story of a devil pact is similar to corresponding passages in the Historia. The anonymous author of the report speaks of the facts that should serve to warn against diabolical magic, and, like the author of the Historia, he quotes the familiar passage about the devil as a roaring lion, who seeks to destroy man (1 Peter, 5).¹¹ There is evidence that this is just one example of an entire genre of warning literature. An illustrated single-leaf "newspaper" appeared in Wittenberg in 1540 about the execution of four witches with a similar warning.¹² As we approach the time of the Historia, such reports about witchcraft cases increase. As Wolfgang Behringer has shown, the year 1590 experienced powerful waves of witch panics throughout Germany. This phenomenon is reflected in the newspapers of the time.¹³

The recognizable historical basis or common denominator of all these stories and reports is the struggle against witchcraft. If we look at the common trials of witchcraft, we can find the original elements that inspired them. The trials in combination with torture or the threat of torture produced a constant stream of confessions. News of confessions was a daily experience of life in the sixteenth century. Often they were called voluntary confessions, but this category included confessions made under the threat of torture. Such reports were a direct result of questions put to prisoners and the radical restructuring of the facts of their lives into imaginary accounts.¹⁴

One decisive factor in these developments was the set of questions used in the interrogations. Lists of questions have survived. Many questions point to the main outline of the Faust story and its motifs.¹⁵ There were routine questions about a pact and many questions about conspiracies, flying to witches' meetings, destroying crops, and other destructive activities. The lists provide evidence that the second pact that Faustus makes, which has its precedent in Lercheimer's book, is not a figment of the literary imagination. It appears that the concept of the second pact was an attempt of interrogators to explain why a suspect, who had confessed to participating in witchcraft, might wish to recant. The questions used in Eichstadt to interrogate witches are clearly designed to blame activities on the devil behind the scenes, influencing the accused, who might wish to retract after a pause in the torture. The interrogator is instructed to ask: "80. Does she remember the confession she made? 81. What is the reason for her to retract? 82. When did such hopeless attempt occur to her? Who had given her the advice? Did the evil spirit suggest it to her? What did he say when he was with her? 83. Were there other people to give her that advice? Who? She should give the correct response so that it will not be necessary to get the truth out with torture. 84. She should think of her salvation, since she will not escape the authorities; after all, it is better to suffer a temporal punishment here on earth than to get eternal punishment beyond."¹⁶ The "real" violence is seen to be inflicted by the devil. The devil is thought to threaten the witch so that she does not confess the "truth." The drama of the interrogation created and propagated new explanations of what was "really" happening. The second pact idea could explain to the interrogator and to the outside world how cruel the devil was. It made it easier to grasp why a witch might be intransigent. Its later appearance in the Historia, after the attempted conversion by the pious old man, may be seen as another instance in which the Faust story became a beneficiary of the witch persecution.

Although the conception of a second pact may appear to be new for Faustus when it appears in Lercheimer's Bedencken, it was not a novelty in the history of witchcraft. For example, Ludwig Milich in his Zauberteuffel, printed in 1563 in Frankfurt, discusses just such a renewal:

… ist dern Teuffel an soicher widerholeten verbindung etwas gelegen. Denn wenn ers bey dem ersten pact alleyn liess bleiben, kondten die hexen wider abfallen, vnd sich zu Gott bekeren. Dan er aber darfur bawen kunde, so ist jhm vonnöthen, daß er nicht ablasse, Sondern erinnere sie offt des gethanen Eydes, vnnd bringe sie je langer je tiefer inn sein eygenthumb vnnd dienstbarkeyt.¹⁷

The affinity between Lercheimer's and Milich's understanding of the second pact suggests that it was a common conception of witchcraft persecution.

Similarly, the pastor's attempt to bring the sinner back into the fold is firmly set in the ritualistic sequence of events in the witch trial. It was the pastor's sad duty not only to console the prisoner but also to persuade him or her that the best way to save the soul was to confess.¹⁸ The appearance of a pious man is a constant feature of the Wittenberg devil pact stories and of the saints' legends on which they relied, but these stories also had strong contemporary support in the daily experience of the witch trials.

In a plausible manner, Friedrich Spee, who had first-hand knowledge of the treatment of witches, explains the myth of the diabolical magician's violent death. According to Spee, the torturer (that is, executioner) is the ultimate source of the idea that the devil strangled the victim. He who had himself tortured the body beyond recognition, is the witness and source of the devil's deed. The claim excuses him and appears convincing to those who see the horrible result.¹⁹ The image of the devil strangling his victims is one that Luther used frequently.²⁰ Like the other motifs of the Faust story, it was promoted by the exempla literature and the witch trials; both sources tended to reinforce each other by a process of reciprocal influence.

The brutal methods of witch persecution represented myth-producing machinery. Theorists of witchcraft constantly reminded the authorities about the "real" world of the witches and how to deal with that "reality." Because the captured sinner was joined in prison by the devil, who attempted to take the sinner's soul to hell, the authorities had to try to counter him with a genuine conversion. In his Hexen Büchlein, Jacob von Liechtenberg advises the authorities how best to prevail in this great struggle.

Weiter ist zumerken, was zu der Hexen, Zauberer gefengknuß auch todt geburt, so bald sie gefangen, kompt jhr Ascendent [that is, the devil], trost sie etwan, wie er sie erlosen wolle, damit sie inn vnglauben standhafft sein vnnd bleiben, dieweil er jr noch zu seinen grewel bedarff, spricht jr freundtlich zu, wiewol er sie mehrmals betreugt, dann offt Gott das nicht haben will, damit der grewel aufgehebt, noch laßt sie der teuffel nicht, damit sie nicht zu Gott bekert werden, daher er jr etwann den halß abwurgt … auff das ist vonnoten[,] das man gut sorg vnd acht auff sie hab, mit gottes wort hefftig tröst …²¹

Here again the devil helps to explain the resistance of the prisoner to confess, the reluctance to become part of that mythical world that will certainly mean death. Liechtenberg describes the essential elements of the drama that the anonymous author imposes on Faustus's last struggles. On the one hand, the devil holds on to the sinner with his deceptive tricks (ready to strangle his victim). On the other hand, the authorities need to console and to teach that God's mercy can overcome even death. Though the authorities had to force their victims to confess their participation in the witches' fantastic world and rituals, the author of the Historia took on the task of applying the mythical experience of those victims to Faustus. He had to transpose the images and the drama of those real sinners to the imagined world of Faustus. Because the anonymous author believed that the struggle between the devil and the authorities was real, not imaginary, he had no difficulty in imposing the legacy of witchcraft persecution on Faustus.

Of all the motifs that may be considered a legacy of witchcraft persecution, the conception of the devil pact is central. It is the nucleus of the Faustian plot, the unifying idea that draws the diverse motifs together. Although it was certainly unique to apply it retroactively to Faustus, it would be an oversimplification and perhaps even wrong to credit Lercheimer and the anonymous author with the invention of this unifying idea. As we have seen, it had its constant reminder and precedent in the confessions of witches. Its existence and threat as a contemporary social problem was spelled out in the legal codes.

According to Christian Thomasius, an outspoken critic of witch persecution in the seventeenth century, the saints' legends played a decisive role in preparing the the witch hunts. They were the basis for the myth of the devil pact and the "evidence" used to convict the accused.²² Up to the middle of the sixteenth century, witchcraft that did not result in harm to anyone was not generally punished by death. But the concern about the spread of witchcraft brought about the institution of stricter measures. In 1570, professors of the University of Wittenberg debated the problem. They discussed the theories of Johann Weier, and they attributed the reported activities of witches to their sick imagination. They rejected Weier's attempts to excuse or diminish the guilt of the accused. One reason used to reject Weier was that he was not a lawyer but a physician.

Deß Wieri rationes seyn nicht sehr wichtig, als der ein Medicus, vnd nicht ein Jurist gewesen, So ists ein geringes Fundament, daß meynet, die Weiber werden nit leiblich zum Tantz vnd Teuffels Gespenste geführt…

These deliberations have survived; Johann Spies believed that they were important, and he himself printed them in 1599.²³ The new laws in Saxony that resulted from these deliberations were stricter and placed the devil pact in the foreground of the perceived dangers.

Alldieweil die Zauberei hin und wieder heftig einreißt, und nicht allein in gemeinen beschriebenen kaiserlichen Rechten, sondern auch in gottlicher Schrift zum höchsten verboten ist, demnach ordnen wir, so jemand in Vergessung seines christlichen Glaubens mit dem Teufel Verbundnis aufrichtet, umgeht oder zu schaffen hat, daß dieselbige Person, ob sie gleich mit Zauberei niemand Schaden zugefugt, mit dem Feuer vom Leben zum Tode gerichtet und gestraft werden soll.²⁴

The Palatinate followed suit in setting down the same harsh punishment for a crime that had no visible result.

Sintemal die Gottliche Maiestat nicht allein durch fluchen vnd schweren, welches zwar zum höchsten billich zu bejammern, sondern auch höher verletzt vnd geunehrt wirdt, wann der Mensch vn Gott gar abfellt, vnd sich auß desselbigen Bundt, dareyn er bey der heiligen Tauff genommen worden, thut, vnd mit dem Sathan wissentlichen verbindet, So statuiren, ordnen vnd befehlen wir hiemit, so jemandts solcher gestalt seinen Christlichen Glauben, darauff er getaufft, fursetzlicher weise verleugnet, mit dem Teuffel Bundtnuß machen, oder demselben vmbgehen vnd zu schaffen haben, Zauberey vben, vnd treiben, Viehe oder Menschen, mit oder ohne Gifft beschadigen, dessen auch vberwiesen, oder sonsten gestendig seyn, auch sich also befinden würde, daß derselb oder dieselbe vom Leben zum Todt mit dem Fewer gericht vnd gestrafft werden sollen.

Johann Spies printed this law in Heidelberg as part of the new laws for the Palatinate in 1582.²⁵ Spies was thus one of those who worked hand in hand with authorities to promote measures that would make the crime of the devil pact too costly to commit. His Historia was part of a strategy of warning and threats as well as merciless action. In this sense the book does not appear simply as a profit-making venture. Serious religious and social concerns were in the background and in the message of this work. In religion, literature, and law Spies and his book stood for a strict, uncompromising approach.

Before the end Faustus has an opportunity to repent and save his soul. Just as in some of the devil pact stories we have considered and in the witch trials in general, a pious Christian makes an attempt to bring Faustus back to the fold. For Luther and Melanchthon this is an essential part of such stories; here Christian faith is asserted against the onslaught of the devil and the subsequent conversion, which assures the salvation of the soul, confirms the truth and triumph of that faith. This is the crucial climax of such stories, in which the narrator has the opportunity to express the most effective response to a serious crisis of faith. In a time of religious discord it was an opportunity to show which religion could best meet the challenge of the devil.²⁶

In the matter of converting Faustus, the Historia deviates from its source in significant ways. Augustin Lercheimer describes different attempts to convert Faustus. In one passage he describes a visit Faustus had made to Melanchthon's house and shows how the reformer had warned Faustus to change his ways. At the same time, Lercheimer attaches an anecdote about a pious old man who had made the same attempt, this story was taken over from Luther, who had not made any link to Faustus. In another passage Lercheimer also speaks of Faustus's stay in Wittenberg during the time of Luther and Melanchthon. Faustus was allowed to stay in that city; the influence of the reformers was the best hope for a conversion (" … das ließ man so geschehen, der hoffnung, er würde sich auß der lehr, die da im schwanggieng, bekeren vnd beßern").²⁷ How the anonymous author uses this "historical" information in his narrative reveals that he is not willing to retain all that he found. He makes significant changes.

Lercheimer

Der vnzuchtige teuffelische bube
Faust, hielt sich ein eil zu
Wittebergk, kamm etwann zum
Herrn Philippo, der laß jm dann
einen guten text, schalt vnd
vermanet jn daß er von dem ding
beyzeit abstunde, es würde sonst
ein böse end nemmen, wie es
auch geschahe.… Ein ander
alter Gottsförchtiger mann
vermanete jn auch, er solte sich
bekeren. Dem schickte er zur
dancksagung einen teuffel in sein
schlaffkammer, da er zu bett
gieng, daß er ja schreckete.
Gehet vmbher in der kammer,
kröchet wie ein saw. Der mann
war wol gerüst im glauben,
spottete sein.

Historia

Chapter 52

Ein Christlicher frommer
Gottsförchtiger Artzt, vnd
Liebhaber der H. Schrifft, auch
ein Nachbawr deß D. Fausti, Als
er sahe, daß viel Studenten jren
Auß vnd Eingang, als ein
schlupfwinckel, darinnen der
Teuffel mit seinem Anhang, vnd
nit Gott mit seinen lieben Engeln
wohneten, bey dem Fausto
hetten, Name er jme fur, D.
Faustum von seim Teuffelischen
Gottlosen wesen vnd furmemmen
abzumahnen.

Chapter 53

[Faustus ist] dem guten alten
Mann so feind worden, daß er
jhm nach Leib vnd Leben stellete.
.. Denn gleich vber 2. tag
hemach, als der fromm Mann zu
Bett gienge, horete er im Hauß ein
groß Gerömpel, welchs er zuvor
nie gehört hette, das kompt zu
jhm in die Kammer hinein,
kürrete wie ein Saw, das triebe es
lang. Darauf fieng der alt Mann
an deß Geists zu spotten …

On a superficial level, the changes are mechanical. From the attempts of two individuals to convert Faustus the Historia makes just one. What was described in a single short paragraph in the source is expanded to fill almost two chapters. Such revisions are characteristic.²⁸ But what is unexpected is the elimination of all traces of Melanchthon in the efforts to convert Faustus. With this deliberate action the anonymous author acted in defiance to a long tradition that went back beyond Lercheimer. As early as 1562, Manlius linked the name of Melanchthon to the biography of Faustus. He introduced his sketch about Faustus by stating that the magician had been born in Cundlingen.²⁹ Manlius was a pupil of Melanchthon, and his assertions carried weight within the exempla tradition and with Lercheimer as well. The anonymous author had to have good reasons for rejecting Melanchthon as the spiritual leader who plays a pivotal role in the life of Faustus. In the 1580s such a rejection could mean only one thing: the author of the Historia did not accept Melanchthon as the ideal spiritual leader; for him Melanchthon represented, instead, an unacceptable deviation from pure Lutheran doctrine. The rewriting of his sources at this particular point identifies the author as an orthodox Lutheran, who opposed the tendency of moderation represented by Lercheimer and other Philippists. As one who rejected Melanchthon, the author was firmly in the religious camp of Johann Spies. In fact, the elimination of all traces of Melanchthon as a moral authority was essential before any book could appear in Spies's press. On the subject of Melanchthon, Spies was uncompromising.

As we have seen, his publication of Melanchthon served primarily to highlight the fact that Melanchthon betrayed the cause of Lutheranism after Luther's death.³⁰ When Spies wrote in the dedication to the Historia that he had not yet seen the story of Faustus told in a proper fashion, he was probably thinking primarily about the lack of a full-length biography (" … hab ich mich selbst offtermal verwundert, daß so gar niemandt diese schreckliche Geschicht ordentlich verfassete …"). But he was undoubtedly aware of Lercheimer's publication, which had appeared in Frankfurt during the previous year. Thus, he must have thought of the need to eliminate Melanchthon as the moral force that struggles against the devil in Faustus's life.

The controversial issue of Holy Communion—about which Melanchthon was thought to deviate from Luther—occurs in the final scene of the Historia when Faustus seems to be reenacting Christ's last hours. Faustus asks his Wittenberg students and friends to join him for a "last supper." After food and wine, he asks them to stay with him for a while as he prepares to die.³¹ Thus, like the Philippists, Calvinists, and Zwinglians, Faustus, too, betrays Christ by making a travesty of Holy Communion.

Gerald Strauss has suggested still another way in which the religious controversies of the time might have influenced the Historia. Strauss tries to understand the paradoxically negative image of student and religious life in Wittenberg, the seat of Lutheranism. When Augustin Lercheimer reacted to the Historia in 1597, he was most upset by this particular aspect. As one who had studied in Wittenberg in Melanchthon's time, he knew that life there was much more disciplined. In this respect the Historia was slanderous. Strauss sees the accession of a new ruler for Wittenberg as a possible reason for the unfriendly attitude toward that city: "In 1586 the situation in Saxony had suddenly changed.

August's successor, Christian I, had abandoned his father's crusade against Philippism and moved toward a compromise on the theological points in dispute. This outraged the orthodox …"³² Scenes of constant eating, drinking, and frivolous activities could have been an attack on the turn of events and new conditions in Wittenberg.³³

Although the religious controversies clearly motivated the author in the adaptation of his sources, the need to warn against and persecute those who dabble in magic remains the persistent motivation behind the Historia. The function of the conversion attempt is crucial; it portrays the authorities as benevolent and merciful. By rejecting this offer of mercy, the sinner shows conclusively that he belongs to the devil and the devil can do with him as he wishes. This is clearly the view expressed in the preface, which portrays the story of Faustus as a trial of a person whom the authorities failed to prosecute.

Wer auch jemals Historien gelesen, der wirt befinden, wenn gleich die Obrigkeit jr Ampt hierin nit gethan, daß doch der Teuffel selbst zum Hencker an den Schwartzkünstlern worden.³⁴

Thus, the Historia describes the deserved fate of the learned magician who, as Weier and Lercheimer argue in a different context, too often enjoys the favor of the courts. So that no one may think that such sinners escape without punishment, there are stories in the Bible as well as exempla collections that prove that the devil serves as executioner; he kills those that the authorities do not. The authorities, the author of the preface, and the Historia all operate on the assumption that the devil is actually present in the dramatic struggle for the sinner's soul. All of them are believers, and in this sense they too are victims of the witchcraft legacy, not being aware of the myth-producing cycle they have inherited and help to propagate.

In general, the background of the Historia does not present a simple and harmonious picture. Many conflicts and interests left their imprint. Above all the Renaissance and the Reformation were catalysts. The story reflects intense struggles about religion. But the unifying impulse, even if not altogether successful, did not originate in the religious sphere. The choice of topic, that of a diabolical magician, automatically brought the phenomenon of witchcraft persecution into play. It is this phenomenon that dictated the appropriate motifs, images, and patterns of thought. In a sense, the biography of Faustus became a retroactive trial for witchcraft. In the manner of witches Faustus was submitted to interrogation that forced him to confess. His biography was restructured progressively over a period of about fifty years. Inasmuch as he was a learned magician and not an ignorant witch he deviated from the stereotype. But the exaggerated emphasis on his learning is not intended to exonerate him but to magnify his responsibility and justify his merciless fate. The crucial legacy of witchcraft persecution was the conception of the devil pact. It provided the basis of the Faustian plot and made it possible to integrate the diverse adventures and diabolical "miracles" against the background of the great mythical struggle between evil and divine forces. It provided the unifying idea for material that defied unity. The discovery and exploitation of the pact was the imaginative contribution of the anonymous author, and it has made the life of Faustus a story of lasting impact.

The Contributions of Johann Spies to the Historia

Spies probably contributed more than just a letter of dedication. It is generally assumed that the title page and marginal glosses were his work. Taken as a whole, they may be seen as a final concerted effort to insure that the reader understands the text properly. The author of the glosses follows the action as if he were present and participating in the events narrated. Usually the glosses are purely descriptive, but sometimes they express considerable emotion.

Chapter 6: [Faustus signing the pact]: 0 HERR Gott behut.

Chapter 22: Teuffel du leugst, Gottes Wort lert anders hievon.

Chapter 24: Denn es war nur eine lauter Phantasie oder traum.

Chapter 52: Der Teuffel feyrt nicht.

Chapter 53 [At the second signing of the pact]: Behut Allmachtiger Gott.

Chapter 68: [When Faustus addresses his friends before he dies]: deß Teuffels Brüder; Judas Rew.

In his preface of 1598, Spies uses the phrase "Es feyret wol der Satan auch nicht," and indicates by choice of expression, if not by any originality of wording, that he could well be the author of the glosses. What is common to these responses is intensity, engagement, and zeal, presenting the modern reader with an incongruous situation. The printer, fully aware of the deliberate inventions of his text, responds to the events as if they had really occurred. Is it all a pretense? Deceptive manipulation of the reader? Or is it excessive piety, after all? Was it possible to participate in the creation of a fantastic narrative of half-truths and deliberate fiction and then proceed to take it seriously as if it were a real threat to life and soul? As fantastic as this paradoxical behavior may seem, it was not far from the common experience of sixteenth-century life. It was this process that authorities promoted in persecuting witches: creating conditions of horrible crimes and guilt, then justifying radical measures to eradicate the causes that they themselves had created. Deliberate invention and manipulation combined with piety to threaten and force society to submit to the control of authority. Spies and his collaborator(s) carried out on another plane what was a matter of course in the daily trials that took place in those days. If Spies did not sincerely believe that the events of his book had happened, he did believe that they could have happened; they were similar to events he had heard about. If the deliberate inventions of the Faust story reflect business considerations, the expressions of piety in the glosses were intended to overshadow them and leave the reader with the final impression of a religious message. If we take the evidence of Spies's career seriously, we have to accept the frame and context he assigned to the adventures of Faustus as a sincere effort.

In taking the diabolical magic of Faustus seriously, Spies had Luther's support and a long tradition of theoretical witchcraft theories, exempla handbooks for preachers, and the popular schreckliche newe Zeitungen. Spies did not act alone; he represented a longstanding tradition that stressed the existence of diabolical phenomena and the need to warn against it. Georg Lukacs reflected on the crystallization of the Faust figure from the Lutheran struggle against dangerous tendencies.

Denn alle Überlieferungen der Faust-Sage stammen "aus Feindesland": es sind Lutheraner, begeisterte Anhanger der Reformation, die die Renaissance-Legende—die tragischen Konflikte der schrankenlosen Forderungen des aus dem Mittelalter befreiten Menschen nach Allwissenheit, nach unbeschrankter Aktivitat, nach unbegrenztem Genuß des Lebens—vom Standpunkt der religiösen Suindhaftigkeit soicher Bestrebungen behandelten, die aus dem tragischen Helden der Renaissance ein abschreckendes Beispiel modelten.¹

Lukacs sees the image of Faustus evolving from a long struggle. His interpretation supports the view that Spies did not act alone; the Historia simply gave a new form to an old struggle in which many participated.

One could debate whether there really was a Renaissance legend or tragic hero, to which Spies and the enemies of magic were responding. Within the long tradition of stories about Faustus in Wittenberg, starting with Luther, people saw Faustus in terms of his dealings with the devil.² They identified him with such Renaissance magicians as Trithemius and Agrippa, who, like Faustus, were in league with the devil. With Weier's and Lercheimer's attacks on learned magic, the sinful ambitions of the Renaissance magician were conjured up. In this sense, Lukacs might be close to the mark when he sees the Faust story as a condemnation of the tendencies or ambitions to enjoy limitless activities, knowledge, and pleasure. Trithemius, Agrippa, Paracelsus, and other Renaissance magicians might be seen to represent such ambitions. The Historia articulates these tendencies in terms of the Formula of Concord. At the end, Faustus laments the tendencies that brought him to his inevitable downfall: the excessive reliance on reason and free will ("Ach Vemunfft vnd freyer Will").³ The Formula of Concord, which Spies published in Heidelberg and wanted to publish again in Frankfurt, condemned these ambitions.⁴

The preface, "Vorred an den Christlichen Leser," has the character of a sermon. It begins with a description and condemnation of diabolical magic, written in the style of Luther's pronouncements on that topic.⁵ Biblical quotations abound, and only at one point does the author quote a contemporary source. He uses anecdotes from Weier's De praestigiis daemonum to illustrate that dealings with the devil are punished brutally by the devil himself. The quotation cannot be used as evidence that the author was particularly well acquainted with Weier's views or that he agreed with his theories of witchcraft. Weier serves as a convenient resource.⁶ Weier's book appeared in a new edition, as a companion volume to the witchcraft compilation De venificis in 1586. Spies's competitor in Frankfurt, Nicolaus Basse, printed both works, and the two together probably contributed to essential source material for the preface as well as for the book.

The preface to the Historia is not signed. The consensus is that the author was a Lutheran minister. Robert Petsch, for example, assumes that this is the case when he describes the authors of the two parts as one and the same person: "… er war hochst wahrscheinlich ein lutherischer Geistlicher und seine Vorrede ist eine rechte Strafpredigt wider die Zauberei."⁷ Similarly, Hans Henning quotes from the preface about necessary precautions, but he sees no need to make distinctions about authorship: "Ja, der Autor war sich bewußt, daß selbst diese massive Wamung noch nicht ausreichen möchte. Er hat deshalb gefahrliche Beschwörungsformeln im Text ausgelassen. Zusammengefaßt werden diese Gedanken noch einmal im letzten Absatz der 'Historie."'⁸

The view that the author of the preface was the author of the entire book seems persuasive. The assertions at the end of the preface certainly imply a strong control over and involvement with the text of the Historia.

Damit aber alle Christen, ja alle verniinfftige Menschen den Teuffel vnd sein Furnemmen desto besser kennen, vnnd sich darfur huten lemen, so hab ich mit Raht etlicher gelehrter vnd verstendiger Leut das schrecklich Exempel D. Johann Fausti, was sein Zauberwerck für ein abscheuwlich End genommen, für die Augen stellen wöllen[.] Damit auch niemandt durch diese Historien zu Fuirwitz vnd Nachfolge mocht gereitzt werden, sind mit fleß vmbgangen vnnd außgelassen worden die formae coniurationum, vnnd was sonst darin argerlich seyn mochte, vnnd allein das gesetzt, was jederman zur Warnung vnnd Besserung dienen mag.⁹

The author of the preface claims to have made the decision to make the story available to the public, and before publication he takes it upon himself to exclude original material or even to excise certain sections. Finally, he is able to promise his readers that he will soon provide a Latin translation. Because the preface documents its sources, in contrast to the narrative of the Historia—and this tendency sets it apart from the narrative that follows—the preface has the obvious function of providing the basis for judging diabolic magic. This function makes a scholarly approach appropriate.¹⁰

The literal interpretation of the dedication and the preface allows us to reconstruct the sequence of events leading to the publication of the Historia.

1. Responding to general interest, Johann Spies makes repeated inquiries among his scholarly acquaintances whether a book about Faustus existed.
2. At last, a good friend in Speyer sends him a manuscript with the request that Spies publish the work as a frightening exemplum and warning.
3. The friend in Speyer writes the preface, indicating that he had consulted scholarly acquaintances about publishing such a book, that he eliminated provocative passages, and that he would soon provide a Latin translation.

This sequence assigns an active contribution to the friend in Speyer, and it raises the question of his identity once more. Hans Henning has reviewed attempts to solve the question of authorship; it becomes evident that they generally lack supporting evidence.¹¹ Helmut Hauser's proposal that Conrad Lautenbach might have played an active role in the shaping of the Historia provides what other theories have not had: texts for comparison. Lautenbach probably participated in the process of censorship that preceded publication. Having worked closely with Spies in Heidelberg and continuing to do so in Frankfurt, he also fulfills the requirement of a good friend. But Lautenbach did not reside in Speyer; he lived in Frankfurt. Even more problematic is that his texts do not show the stylistic features characteristic of the Historia's prose.¹²

A literal interpretation of the introductory segments forces readers to conclude that the author lived in Speyer. There is no doubt that Spies had friends there. As early as 1574, Spies had contacts with Friedrich Ochsenkopf, a printer from Speyer. In 1586, Nicodemus Frischlin, working closely with Spies (publishing four different works in that year) visited Speyer on two occasions.¹³ Somewhat later, at the latest in 1602, Spies's son Johann Philipp Spies established a press in that city.¹⁴

Any interpretation of the Historia must take account of the possible existence and crucial role of the "friend in Speyer." On the other hand, that kind of interpretation povokes a number of questions. There is the possibility that the unnamed "friend in Speyer" was fictional to protect those most responsible for the book. After all, a publication such as the Historia entailed risks, as a number of contemporary reactions clearly demonstrated.¹⁵ Questions are justified, especially about the last passage of the preface and the last phase of the events before publication.

1. Why did the author of the preface have to consult scholarly persons before publication? In his dedication Spies indicates that this is something that he himself was doing.
2. Why does the author of the preface speak of concern about public's reaction? Was this not a matter for Spies, the printer and publisher, to worry about?
3. If the author of the preface was the author of the entire book, why did he eliminate parts of it? Was this not again a matter for Spies to worry about, decide, and carry out? After all, he had to deal with questions of censorship and negotiate about it with the council of ministers and the city council.
4. Was it not Spies's business to promise the publication of a Latin translation of the Historia?

These questions suggest that the author of the preface was encroaching on Spies's areas of responsibility. The final assertions of the preface appear more logical and appropriate if we assume that the author of the remarks was not "the friend in Speyer" but Spies himself.¹⁶ The manner in which the preface expresses the act of consulting scholarly advisors can be ascertained as an expression that Spies liked to use. I have italicized what Spies and the author of the preface express with very closely related words.

Spies

Dedication

Historia

hab ich nicht vnterlassen bey
Gelehrten vnd verständigen
Leuten nachzufragen … mit
begeren, daß ich dieselbige als ein
schrecklich Exempel … durch
den öffentlichen Druck
publicieren vndfürstellen wollte

Preface

Historia

so hab ich mit Raht etlicher
gelehrter vnd verstendiger Leut
das schrecklich Exempel D.
Johann Fausti, was sein
Zauberwerck für ein
abscheuwlich End genommen, fur
die Augen stellen wöllen

Preface

Paradeißgartlein

1588

vielen guthertzigen, verständigenvnd gelehrten Leuten

The polite plea of the "friend in Speyer" described in Spies's dedicatory letter appears to contradict the authoritative assertions of the preface. But if we assume that Johann Spies wrote the dedication as well as the preface, these two introductory segments present a coherent logical unit. Both express intensity of feeling about the value and the purpose of the book. Spies, who by his inquiries initiated the project, dedicates the book and then, after the dedication, also takes the steps that protect it after printing. He emphasizes that he had consulted responsible people. Spies makes sure that the content does not offend religious sensibilities and asserts his right to publish a Latin translation. Above all, he establishes the sermonizing tone that characterizes the beginning and end of the Historia.

If we consider the six other available German dedicatory letters of Spies's, we observe that each combines the dedication and preface into a single unit. In every case Spies provides details about his book, pointing out its religious meaning and justifying its publication in terms of biblical texts. The Historia is unique for Spies in that it contains an isolated letter of dedication. In this case Spies appears to have made special arrangements about the preface, for which he ordinarily assumed responsibility with great zeal. The argument that the preface is crowded with quotations from the Bible and appears to be the work of a minister, though the dedication lacks this dimension, has been used to separate the author of the dedication from that of the preface.¹⁷ The awareness of Spies as an intensely religious person who could write in the style of a minister puts this question in a different light. We see him as a printer and publisher intent on making all his books serve the cause of Christianity. The addition of thirteen biblical passages on the subject of diabolical magic in his 1588 edition of the Historia suggests the same tendency. The form of Spies's other prefaces suggests that here he simply separated into two parts what he was accustomed to doing in a single introductory text. By leaving the second unit unsigned he removed from himself the ultimate responsibility for the details in the book; he had an escape clause. Although this line of argumentation does not eliminate a role for the friend in Speyer, it does remove him from the authorship of the preface.

The thesis that Spies was the author of the preface forces us to revise the postulated sequence of events. Accordingly, Spies might be seen as the one who again consulted scholarly acquaintances and acted on their advice, eliminating provocative passages. Because Spies was required to submit his work for censorship, it is likely that he sought support from influential citizens of Frankfurt.¹⁸ The unavoidable threat and pressure of censorship makes it likely that he took precautionary measures. The assertion that potentially risky passages had to be excised refers to just such a measure. We need not take the promise of a Latin translation seriously. Such a work never appeared. But the promise indicated the desire to have readers consider this publication worthy of scholarly interest.

Whether the thesis of Spies's authorship of the preface is accepted, it is a fact that closely coordinated formulations of purpose link the dedication, the preface, and many sermonizing chapters of the Historia. The evidence justifies the conclusion that the final coordinating effort probably took place in Frankfurt under Spies's supervision. The view that Spies played a major role in the rewriting of the sources is not original. Thomas Mann, for example, asserted that Johann Spies probably compiled the entire Historia, basing his view primarily on the Spies's dedication, the text of the story, and his understanding of its background in the history of printing.

Nach Erfindung der Buchdruckerkunst im 15. Jahrhundert war der Stoffhunger groß für den neuen, so breite populare Moglichkeiten bietenden Apparat. Das mnuligste Zeug war eben recht, die sensationelle junge Technik zu speisen, und um nur zu produzieren, machte der Drucker oft selbst den Verfasser. So ist das alteste Faust-Buch, vom Jahre 1587, wahrscheinlich vom Buchdrucker Spies in Frankfurt selbst kompiliert.¹⁹

Mann's hypothesis is difficult to prove or disprove. The awareness of Spies's career, background, interests, and religious zeal does not necessarily make Mann's opinion more convincing. Harry Gerber, who wrote a short biographical sketch of Spies in 1950, arrived at the same conclusion as Mann did. Like Mann, he provided little solid evidence for his argument that Spies was the author.²⁰ The fact that Mann's and Gerber's views have been generally ignored shows that more evidence is needed before they are taken seriously. Despite the lack of desirable evidence, the thesis of Spies's authorship for the sermonizing and polemical parts of the Historia deserves consideration.

To attempt to prove on the basis of stylistic analysis that an anonymous text was written by a certain author is risky. For the modern reader it is easy to detect in Spies's prefaces a characteristic tendency to elaborate with clusters of synonyms. The same tendency can be ascertained for the Historia, at least for the segments that are not taken from other sources. This common trait appears to call for an effort to employ a statistical study to prove or disprove Spies's authorship. But if one examines the style of contemporary authors, one finds that Spies's prose was not unique, as it might at first appear, especially in contrast to the sources he uses.²¹ Whatever results a statistical study would yield, its conclusions could be easily disarmed by the objection that Spies was one of many whose prose had similar features. The only conclusion that might survive such a debate is that Spies cannot be discounted as the author. That conclusion is possible even without the help of a statistical study of style.

A strong argument that Johann Spies was indeed the author of the Historia is the close correspondence between his vigorous promotion of orthodox Lutheran positions throughout his career and the similar tendencies expressed and implicit in the Historia. A cursory comparison of Spies's writings and the text of the Historia confirms the existence of close parallels.

Spies

Vorrede

Der Psalter Dauids

1583

Wiewol soiches [Der Psalter
Dauids] hemach die ungelehrten
Mönche vnd Nonnen zu grossern
Aberglauben vnd Abgotterey
mißbrauchet, vnd ein
vnverstandig vnnutz Geplarr
darauß gemacht …

Historia

Chapter 8

Er [Mephostophiles] ging im
Haus vmb wie ein feuriger Mann,
daß von jm giengen lauter
Fewerstramen oder Stralen[.]
Darauf folgete ein Motter
[Gebrumm, Gemurmel] vnd ein
Geplarr, als wann die Mönch
singen, vnnd wuste doch
niemand, was für ein Gesang war.

The quotation from the preface of Spies's 1583 edition of the Psalms reflects the historical view of a pious Lutheran that ignorant monks, representing Catholicism, misused or distorted their musical heritage. Their destructive activities are seen in stark contrast to Martin Luther's valuable contributions to church music. Mephostophiles, appearing to Faustus in a monk's garb, appropriately brings with him in chapter 8 music that reminds one of the senseless clatter (Geplairr) that monks make. Both texts clearly draw on a tradition of Lutheran polemics. There is no need to assume that the same sentiment and imagery stem from the same person. But the precise correspondence in word and thought certainly emphasizes that the two texts express close agreement. This agreement should be seen in relationship to the repeated statements, by both Spies and the author, that the life of Faustus is an example of diabolical evil and that it serves as a warning to all Christians.

The author of the Historia presents the account of Faustus's life as a reliable historical document. The wording used in the devil pact has the legalistic language that Spies himself used in his letter of recommendation for Nikodemus Frischlin.

Spies, 1588

Letter for Frischlin

Dessen hab ich mich zu warem
Vrkund mit eigener hand
vnderschrieben …

Historia

Chapter 6

Zu festem Vrkund vnnd mehrer
Bekraftigung, hab ich diesen
Receß eigener Hand geschrieben,
vnderschrieben …

Such correspondences of commonplace words or phrases cannot help to solve the question of authorship. But if many correspondences exist in the context of strong ideological parallels, they certainly confirm at least a close collaboration between Spies and the author. It is difficult to imagine that the book could have been written without a series of consultations.

The purpose of this study has been more modest than to attempt to identify the author of the Historia. If the anonymous author was able to keep his secret from his contemporaries, the secret is not likely to emerge 400 years later. Nevertheless, Johann Spies was the publisher and printer. It was his book in many respects; in his dedication he makes a special point of his personal interest. He claims to have discovered the possibilities of the topic; his inquiries acted as a catalyst. The policies of his press set the conditions for books that appeared in it, guaranteeing that the story of Faustus would promote the positions of "pure" religion, that is, those of militant Lutheranism. Spies's career presents an influential background and context for the Historia.

The origins of the Historia cannot be reduced to a simple formula or a single frame of reference. A best seller meant different things to different people, and the Historia offered something for almost everyone. Above all, it put the story in touch with universal human problems. Just as the career of Spies forms the context for the Historia, so the phenomenon of diabolical magic and the persecution of witches in the sixteenth century forms the background for the plot. As the early reactions to the Historia show, this subject could become provocative in unpredictable ways. Fear of such consequences is implied in the preface and best explains the retreat of the author into anonymity. Censorship asserted itself even before the book appeared.

These backgrounds and influences form the outlines for the powerful currents of persecution, religious zeal, and profit interests; these currents converged at the point when the Historia was born.

Notes

¹ "'… ich (will) erzelen was ich von dem frommen hochgelerten Herm Philip. Melanthon neben andern viel hundert studenten, gehöret habe." Binz, Augustin Lercheimer and Lercheimer fol. 35r.

² "Cum vero magus in tortura de suis sceleribus peractis examinaretur, totum negocium confessus est, in primisque quod interfecisset illum fabrum, qui semel ipsum laeserat, et quod magiam suam a quadam vetula in vicinia Harciniae sylvae habitante didicerat. Item semper ipsi affuisse diabolum, de hominibus ad ipsum advenientibus commonefacientem et inspirantem ei, quid praesentibus & absentibus, ipsumque consulentibus largiri deberet. His itaque compertis palo infixus, & combustus est." Johannes Manlius, Locorum communium collectanea 35-36. Cf. Brückner 464, 475, and 495.

³ Evidence that trials and confessions encouraged the development of the Faust story is provided by a story about a magician in Naumburg. The magician confessed to having performed magical feats that were later attributed to Faustus. For example, it is said that he allowed his leg to be pulled out, a story told earlier by Luther. Andreas Hondorff, Promptuarium exemplorum (Frankfurt: Schmidt, 1580) fol. 74r. Cf. Fiissel and Kreutzzer 261-262 and Robert Petsch, Das Volksbuch vom Doctor Faust (Halle: Niemeyer, 1911) 203. The first edition of Hondorff's book appeared in 1568. Another source suggests that the pact story "Devil in Glass" could have had similar origins. Wolfgang Brückner writes about a certain Nicomachus who confessed under torture that he gave up Christ and served the devil; finally, he lost his mind and died a painful death. Cf. Epitome historiarum fol. 119r, described in Brückner 491.

⁴ "Anno 1558. Ein halbe Meil von Jhena is auch ein Warsager oder Zauberer gewest, dem der Teuffel die Kreuter angezeiget. Item es hat jm auch der Teuffel, der stets umb jm gewesen, allwege eingegeben, was dieser den Leuten rahten solte, hat also vielen Leuten in Kranckheiten geholffen." Andreas Hondorff, Promptuarium exemplorum fol. 72v. In Spies's Latin edition of this work (Theatrum historicum) this story appears on pp. 141-142. The same story is also found in Jodocus Hocker, Der Teufel selbs (Ursel: Henricus, 1568) 267-268, with Manlius cited as the source. Cf. Brückner 475.

⁵ The publication of a German translation of Weier's book provides another characteristic pattern of transformation. We have a case of faulty copying, which leads to a considerable distortion of the original information. Manlius reported that the physician had learned his craft from a little old woman living in the vicinity of the Harz forest ("in vicinia Harcinae silvae"). Weier mistakenly replaced an a with an e: "non procul Hercinia sylva." But finally, in the translation of Johannes Fuglin, this becomes "nit weit von dem Schwartzwald." Johannes Weier, De praestigiis daemonum (Basel: Oporin, 1568) 144 and in German, translated by Johannes Fuglin, (Frankfurt: Basse, 1586) 94. If such a rapid metamorphosis of the written text is possible, one may wonder how many much more rapid and radical changes can occur as stories are transmitted by word of mouth. We can better understand how in the Zimmerische Chronik names and places for very similar stories can be so different. At any rate, the change in this instance is not entirely arbitrary. Fuglin's work was published in Frankfurt; characteristically, the change brings us closer to the geographical vicinity of the new narrator.

⁶ Manlius 34. In Jansen Enikel's world chronicle, written about 1289, we find Vergil dealing with devils trapped in a glass flask. This story appears in countless variations, eventually and is absorbed in the legends about the magician and physician Theophrastus Paracelsus. It also survived in Grimm's fairy tales. The Zimmerische Chronik, which was written between 1565 and 1566, tells about a nobleman from Almanshofen. It is noteworthy that this version, like the story told by Manlius, reports an end at the hands of the devil. Philip Strauch (ed.), Jansen Enikels Werke, in: Monumenta Germaniae historica (Hannover, 1891) 3,1: 462-463. Also in: D. Comparetti, Virgilio nel Medio Evo (Florence: "La Nuova Italia," 1946) 2: 198-199. The same story was told later about Paracelsus. Cf. Anton Birlinger, Volkstümliches aus Schwaben (Freiburg: Herder, 1861) I: 213. Birlinger does not give a precise source for his story; he indicates that it was transmitted orally. Cf. Johannes Bolte and Georg Polivka, Anmerkungen zu den Kindermärchen und Hausmärchen der Brüder Grimm (Leipzig: Dieterich, 1915) 2: 414-422; Andreas Hondorff, Promptuarium exemplorum fol. 29r. Zimmerische Chronik 1: 476. A similar story is told by Johannes Weier about a Goslar teacher, who "studied the black arts of Faustus" and leamed how to capture a devil in glass. The story follows the narrative about Faustus and comes before the Jena story. Weier 143-144.

⁷ "Noch erschrockenlicher ist, das sich in solichem fal warhaftiglichen bei fünfzig jharen zu Cöln begeben mit ainem fürtreffenlichen doctor der arznei. Der hat groß guet und ehr mit seiner kunst bekommen; letzstlich aber, als die stund kam, do gesegnet er sein weib und kündt, bekannt, das er sich vor vil jharn dem bösen gaist ergeben, und durch dessen hilf und verhaißen hett er ain solche gelückliche pra[c]ticam gehabt; iezo müest er daran, da were seins lebens nit mehr. Gieng darauf in ain keller. Bald ward ain ungestimmes wesen im haus gehört; das weret ain halbe stundt nit, da vergiengs. Man gieng dem herren in keller nach, zu sehen, wie es umb in stünde; da fand man in todt uf der erden ligen und wardt im der kopf umbgetrait, das im das angesicht hunder sich sahe." Zimmerische Chronik 1: 577-578. This passage follows a few lines after the report about the diabolical magician Faustus. Cf. Luther, Tischreden no. 6809. Between the Faustus passage and this story the Zimmerische Chronik reports: "So hat der doctor … zu Marggrafen-Baden sich dieser kunst auch underwunden; als im aber die kunst felet und den gaist in ainem experiment wolt übertreiben und netten, ward er in die höche gefüert; da ließ er ine herab wider fallen; doch b[lie]b er bei leben." Lercheimer also followed in the footsteps of Melanchthon and Manlius: "Wir lesen daß der teuffel den Simon, den zauberer, (deßen in der Apostel geschichten meldung geschihet) hab zu Rom in der lufft ummher geführt, und jn fallen laßen, daß er den hals zerbrach. Wie er dem Faust thete zu Venedig, der aber mit dem leben davon kamm." Lercheimer fol. 29r-29v; Binz, Augustin Lercheimer 61. The theme of curiosity as a dangerous driving force is found often in Lercheimer's work: "… die menschen (sind) fürwitzig …, wollen wissen das sie nicht wissen sollen…" Lercheimer (1585), fol. 6v.

⁸ Peters 146. Cf. Joseph Hansen, Quellen und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Hexenwahns und der Hexenverfolgung im Mittelalter (Bonn: Georgi, 1901) 17-18.

⁹ "Also findet man Artzet die aller kranckheiten ursache und heilung, aller kreuter und anderer artzney krafft, und wirkung wißen wollen, daß jnen kein patient absterbe, sind mit zimlicher kunst nicht zu frieden: die laßen sich mit dem teuffel ejn, der zwar alle ärtzet und naturkiindiger auff erden in meisterschafft vbertrifft, der hilfft jnen wie und so fern er wil, und es jm von Gott zugelassen wird: aber nicht umbsonst, wie der außgang zu erweisen pflegt." Lercheimer fol. llv-12r. Binz, Augustin Lercheimer 24.

¹⁰ Cf. Frank Baron, "Georg Lukacs on the Origins of the Faust Legend," in: Peter Boerner and Sidney Johnson, Faust through Four Centuries. Vierhundert Jahre Faust (Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1989) 13-25.

¹¹ Stephan Fuissel, "Die literarischen Quellen der Historia von D. Johann Fausten." In: Das Faustbuch von 1587. Entstehung und Wirkung, ed. by Richard Auemheimer and Frank Baron. Bad Kreuznacher Symposien 11 (Munich: Profil, 1991).

¹² Frank Baron, "Ein Einblattdruck Lucas Cranachs d.J. als Quelle der Hexenverfolgung in Luthers Wittenberg," in: Joachim Knape and Stephan Fiissel (eds.), Poesis et pictura. Studien zum Verhdltnis von Bild und Text in Handschriften und fruhen Drucken (Baden-Baden: Koerner, 1989) 277-294, especially 288 and 293-294.

¹³ For example, Newe Zeitung aus Berneburgk, schrecklich vnd abschewlich zu hören vnd zu lesen, von dreyen alten Teuffels Bulerin, Hex[e]n oder Zauberinnen (s.l., 1580). Abraham Saur, Eine kurtze, treuwe Warnung, Anzeige vnd Vnderricht: Ob auch zu dieser vnser Zeit vnter vns Christen, Hexen, Zauberer, vnd Vnholden vorhanden: vnd was sie außrichten k[o]nnen, etc. (Frankfurt: Christoph Rab, 1582). Copies of both items are in Wolfenbüttel. The title page also has the biblical passage from I Peter 5. Saur regularly edited and published for Nicolaus Basse in Frankfurt. He was the editor of the previously discussed witchcraft compilation Theatrum de venificis of 1586. A law professor in Marburg, Saur published a book about the legal aspects in the application of torture: Peinlicher Prozeß (Frankfurt: Basse, 1580). In 1594 (possibly as early as 1589), a Cologne newspaper (Warhafftige newe Zeitung) reported about about a confession of an eminent citizen of Trier, Dr. Dietrich Flade. Cf. Baron, "From Witchcraft to Doctor Faustus" 1-21. For further examples of this genre cf. R.E. Prutz, Geschichte des deutschen Journalismus (Hannover: Kius, 1845), pp. 166-167. Martha J. Crowe (ed.), Witchcraft. Catalog of the Witchcraft Collection in the Cornell University Library (Milwood, New York: KTO Press, 1977) 412 and 592-593. Wolfgang Behringer, "Hexenverfolgungen im Spiegel zeitgenossischer Publizistik. Die 'Erweytterte Unholden Zeyttung' von 1590," Oberbayerisches Archiv 109 (1984): 339-360.

¹⁴ Recent archival research about witchcraft during the sixteenth century by the following scholars has been particularly useful for understanding the origins and context of the Historia: H.C. Erik Midelfort, Witch Hunting in Southwestern Germany 1562-1684 The Social and Intellectual Foundations (Stanford: University Press, 1972); Gerhard Schormann, Hexenprozesse in Nordwestdeutschland (Hildescheim: Lax, 1977); Carlo Ginzburg, The Night Battles: Witchcraft & Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth & Seventeenth Centuries, transl. by John & Anne Tedeschi (New York: Penguin, 1983), and Wolfgang Behringer, Hexenverfolgung in Bayern. Volksmagie, Glaubenseifer und Staatsrdson in der Fraihen Neuzeit (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1987).

¹⁵ For examples of such lists of questions cf. [J. Mundigl], Der Kelheimer Hexenhammer (1487) (Grunwald: Kolbl, s.a.). "Von der peinlicher Frag," in: A.L. Reyscher, Vollstandige, historisch und kritisch bearbeitete Sammlung der württember gischen Gesetze (Tübingen: Fues, 1841) 2: 326-339. "Fragenschema bei Eichstatter Hexenverhoren unter der Regierung des Fiirstbischofs Johann Christoph von Westerstetten 1612-1636," in: Ch. Hinckeldy, Strafjustiz in alter Zeit, in: Schriftenreihe des mittelalterlichen Kriminalmuseums Rothenburg ob der Tauber (Rothenburg: Schulist, 1980) 3: 213-215. Herbert Pohl, Hexenglaube und Hexenverfolgung im Kurfurstentum Mainz. Ein Beitrag zur Hexenfrage im 16. und beginnenden 17. Jahrhundert, in: Geschichtliche Landeskunde (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1988) 32: 302-315. Rossell Hope Robbins, The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (New York: Bonanza, 1959) 106-107.

¹⁶Strafjustiz in alter Zeit 215.

¹⁷ Ludwig Milich, Der Zauber Teuffel (Frankfurt: Lechler, 1563) 163. Cf. Milchsack, Gesammelte Aufsdtze col. 271.

¹⁸ "… sehr haufig werden Angeklagte durch Geistliche zum Gestandnis bewogen." Schormann 129.

¹⁹ Spee, Cautio criminalis 208-209.

²⁰ Baron, "Ein Einblattdruck" 278.

²¹ Jacob Freyherr von Liechtenberg, Hexen Bdchlein. Das ist, ware Entdeckung vnd erkldrung aller furnembster Artickel der Zauberey (s.l., 1575) 68.

²² "Dieses ist also der Ursprung der persuasion von der Zauberey, so mit dem Bündnüß des Teuffels verkniipfet: wiewohl kein Zweiffel ist, daß damahls verstandige Leute iuber solche Mahrlein gelachet haben." Christian Thomasius, Vom Laster der Zauberey. Uber die Hexenprozesse (Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1986) 146.

²³ Johannes Schneidewein et al., Illustres, aureae, solemnes, diuque exoptatae quaestionum variarum apud iuris utriusque interpretes controversarum decisiones & discussiones (Frankfurt: Spies, 1599), fol. 104v. A copy of this book is in the library of the Harvard University Law School. The book was published by Spies's son-in-law, Johann Theobald Schon wetter. Spies contributed a Latin introduction. He justifies the publication for those who may not be aware of its importance: "Benevolo lectori salutem precatur typographus Francofurt. Scio, benevole lector, non defuturos, qui vitio mihi versuri sint, quod has controversarum quaestionum resolutiones doctissimas, iussu illustrissimi principis, Dn. Augusti electoris Saxoniae, ab insigniter doctis viris, consistoriorum per Saxoniam iudicibus & assessoribus, non sine magno labore collectas, iam dudum mysterii loco habitas, nullo plane, aut eo sane exiguo consilio, publici iuris faciam tecumque communicem. Sed hi fortasse non noverunt, quanta operis huius utilitas sit, quantaque praestantia.…" Cf. Nikolaus Paulus, Hexenwahn und Hexenprozeß vornehmlich im 16. Jahrhundert (Freiburg: Herder, 1910) 56-57. The impulse for the more aggressive action against the devil pact may have originally come from Wuirttemberg. Gehring writes: "… die Carolina spricht vom Gebrauch der Zauberei ohne schadigende Wirkungen, die wurttembergische Landesordnung [1567] aber von einem 'Bundnis mit dem Teufel zu Nachteil und Beschadigung der Menschen, damit noch niemand Schaden getan' ist. Wir sehen, wie weit die Beschaftigung mit dem Thema inzwischen den Gesetzgeber gebracht hat: Das Bundnis mit dem Teufel scheint ihm als wesentliches Merkmal der 'Zauberei oder Hexerei', wie es jetzt heißt." Paul Gehring, "Der Hexenprozeß und die Tubinger Juristenfakultat. Untersuchungen zur Wurtt. Kriminalrechtspflege im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert," Zeitschrift für Wurttembergische Landesgeschichte 1 (1937): 169. Cf. Reyscher 2: 344 ff.

²⁴ Paulus 54. Cf. Hermann Theodor Schlett, Die Constitution Kurfurst Augusts von Sachsen vom Jahre 1572 (Leipzig, Brockhaus, 1857) 315-317.

²⁵ [Pfalz. Ludwig VI], Churfurstl. Pfaltz Landtrechtens [5. Teil: Criminalia] (Heidelberg: Spies, 1582) f. 9r. Carl Georg v. Wachter, Gemeines Recht Deutschlands (Leipzig: Weidmann, 1844) 56.

²⁶ Johann Nas, a Catholic polemicist, used the theme of the converting Faustus to poke fun at Wittenberg. It was clearly a Catholic narrator who attributed the attempt to convert Faustus to a monk in the "Erfurt stories," added in the new edition of the Faust Book in 1587 (not in 1589). Baron, "The Faust Book's Indebtedness" 533-534.

²⁷ Lercheimer fol. 36v-37r and 44v.

²⁸ In the passage that relates Faustus's pact with the devil Lercheimer also describes the devil pact of the Wittenberg student Valerius Glockner. These two people become one person in the Historia.

²⁹ Baron, Faustus 57.

³⁰ Spies expressed this in unmistakable terms in a preface of 1592: "Lutherus equidem, magnus ille Germaniae Vates, saepe id in ipso desidaravit, pusillanimitatemque ipsius non raro iusto zelo reprehendit: et prudenti patientia ita toleravit & gubemavit, ut, dum ipse in vivis esset, Philippus nunquam contra Lutheri doctrinam quicquam in quoquam articulo committere ausus fuerit.… Libuit ergo, ut rectius constaret, quid de hac controversia sentiendum sit, etiam has duas quaestiones, a clarissimo & in re sacramentaria exercitatissimo theologo, Domino lohanne Matthaeo, paulo ante obitum pertractatas, in vulgus emittere. Et licet in iis demonstratur, Philippum vel tandem a Lutheri doctrina secessionem fecisse …" Preface by Johann Spies to Johannes Mattheus, Quaestiones duae: prima. Num doctrina Philippi Melanchthonis de Coena Domini sit quaedam media sententia inter Lutheri doctrinam, et Calvini dogma: sicuti quorundam est opinio, qui dicunt, se non esse Calvinistas, sed sequi sententiam Philippi dogma de coena domini: an vero in doctrina Lutheri constanter perseveraverit (Frankfurt: Spies, 1592).

³¹ Urs Herzog sees the ritualistic aspect of Faustus's last actions and shows them to be the basis for the final passages in Thomas Mann's Doktor Faustus. But by calling Faustus's death a worthy death he appears to be influenced by Mann's presentation. "Dieses Leiden und Sterben ist mehr als wurdig, denn es ist nachgebildet der Passion des Erlosers, der mit seinen Jungern das Abendmahl gehalten hat, bevor er für sie gestorben ist …" Wirkendes Wort 27 (1977): 29. Cf. Müller 1425.

³² Gerald Strauss, "The Faust Book of 1587: How to Read a Volksbuch" 35. Gustav Milchsack's view that Faustus is simply a mask for Melanchthon has not been accepted. Although his interpretation is false in many places, Milchsack was undoubtedly correct in pointing out the author's militancy against Melanchthon. Milchsack, Gesammelte Aufsatze cols. 130-134. Cf. Helmut Arntzen, Satire in der deutschen Literatur (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1989) 1: 193-194.

³³ The question arises, however, about the logic behind attacking contemporary Wittenberg in a book that treats a period in which Luther was firmly in control. A certain degree of reservation about this interpretation is justified.

³⁴ Füssel and Kreutzer 10.

Notes for "The Contributions of Johann Spies to the Historia"

¹ Baron, "Georg Lukacs" 14.

² Baron, "Georg Lukacs" 22.

³ Füssel and Kreutzer 114.

⁴Die Bekenntnisschriften 776-781.

⁵ Füssel and Kreutzer 183. Luther writes: "Wiewol alle Sunde sind ein Abfall von Gottes wercken, damit Gott grewlich erzörnet vnd beleidiget wird, Doch mag Zeuberey, von wegen jres Grewels, recht genant werden, crimen laesae Maiestatis diuinae, ein Rebellion, vnd ein solch Laster, damit man sich furnemlich an der Gottlichen Maiestet zum höchsten vergreift." Fiissel and Kreutzer 218.

⁶ Conrad Lautenbach, who wrote an introduction to one of Weier's works, shows that it was possible to recommend Weier for reading without necessarily sympathizing with all his theories. As Lautenbach describes Weier's contribution, there was not much provocation involved. Lautenbach takes the controversial edge from the work. See pp. 33-34 above. The Historia owes to Weier and Lercheimer the link between learned and diabolical magic, but the spirit of tolerance that motivated Weier is not evident in the story of Faustus.

⁷ Petsch xliii.

⁸ Henning, Historia lii;. Maria E. Müller also makes the same assumption: "Der anonyme Autor führt diese gegenlaufigen Intentionen bereits in seiner 'Vorred and den Christlichen Leser' als gewissermaßen apriorische Koordinaten ein." Müller, "Der andere Faust" 573. Müller is in agreement with Heidrun Opitz on this question. Cf. Heidrun Opitz, "Die Historia von D. Johann Fausten von 1587," in: Winfried Frey et al., Einfuhrung in die deutsche Literatur des 12. bis 16. Jahrhunderts (Opladen, 1981) III: 242. Klusemann agrees with the view that the preface is written in the style of a sermon. Eberhard Klusemann, Sprache und Stil als Mittel der Textkritik. Untersuchungen zur "Historia von D. Johann Fausten" (editio princeps von 1587) (Diss. Marburg, 1977) 91.

⁹ Füssel and Kreutzer 12.

¹⁰ It should be pointed out, however, that the details given about Faustus's death do not agree precisely. Whereas the preface reports the devil's killing Faustus by twisting his neck, the text itself provides no such detail. The preface draws here on the exempla tradition that included the influential biographical sketch by Manlius.

¹¹ He considers Magister Andreas Frey, a teacher in Speyer and a writer linked to Wilhelm Werner von Zimmern. Henning, Historia xl-xlii.

¹² Hauser, "Zur Verfasserfrage" 151-173. Similar objections can be raised against Hauser's more recent suggestion of Sebastian Brenner. Helmut Hauser, "Sebastian Brenner, Bearbeiter der Historia" Günther Mahal (ed.), Die "Historia von D. Johann Fausten" (1587) (Vaihingen: Melchior, 1988) 37-51.

¹³ Frischlin made contact with Bishop Eberhard von Dinheim (later Frischlin dedicated his edition of Horace to him), Georg Ulrich von End (Kammergerichtsassessor), and Thomas Friedberger (Hofsekretar). Strauß, Leben und Schriften 364-374.

¹⁴ Johann Philipp Spies signed a petition in Frankfurt in 1602 as a citizen of Speyer. Gerber, "Johann Spies," p. 34. Cf. Berger, "Neue Funde," p. 69. For that year there is a record of requests by Johann Philipp Spies for imperial privilege to print books. Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Impressoria, Karton 67, fol. 11lr-119v. Cf. Kastner, "Valentin Kobian und Johann Philipp Spies" 195-201.

¹⁵ Müller, Romane 1363.

¹⁶ Harry Gerber assumes that Spies was the author of the "Vorred an den Christlichen Leser" and then goes on to formulate his hypothesis that Spies was probably the author of the text of the Historia as well. Gerber 32 and 34.

¹⁷ "Der Stil zeigt deutliche Unterschiede zur Widmungsvorrede von Spieß. Im Predigtstil der Zeit abgefaßt. Die zahlreichen rhetorischen Mittel (Sentenzen, Exempel) legen es nahe, in dem Verfasser dieser Vorrede einen Geistlichen zu vermuten." Fussel and Kreutzer 183.

¹⁸ See pp. 61-62 above. The Frankfurt records of the censor for the period in question have been lost.

¹⁹ Thomas Mann, "Über Goethes 'Faust,'" in: Schriften und Reden zur Literatur, Kunst und Philosophie (Frankfurt: Fischer, 1968) 2: 299.

²⁰ "Damit kann man wohl auch auf den in der Vorrede ungenannten Bearbeiter einen Schluß ziehen. Seine betont streng lutherische Einstellung kann für Spies selbst zutreffen, da sie zu seinen sonstigen Verlagswerken vortrefflich paßt. Die Darstellung von Fausts Wirken als abschreckendem Beispiel für die Christenheit liegt ganz in der Denkungsart von Spies begrundet. Die teilweise unkritische Verwertung gelehrter Dinge entspricht seinem Bildungsgange." Gerber 34.

²¹ Hermann Gumbel uses the Historia extensively as one of its sources, and for that reason his study is particularly valuable. Hermann Gumbel, Deutsche Sonderrenaissance in deutscher Prosa. Strukturanalyse deutscher Prosa im sechzehnten Jahrhundert (Frankfurt: Diesterweg, 1930; repr. Olms, 1965). Emil Dickhoff, Das zweigliedrige Wort-Asyndeton in der älteren deutschen Sprache (Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1906). Although Hans Pliester's study focuses on the Baroque period, it covers the sixteenth century. Hans Pliester, Die Worthiufung im Barock (Bonn: Röhrscheid, 1930).