¹ H. G. Haile, “Widman's Wahrhafftige Historia: Its Relevance to the Faust Book,” PMLA, LXXV (Sept. 1960). Fn. 6 reviews the research done at that time.

² Historia vnd Geschicht Doctor Johannis Fausti … (Wol-fenbiittel, 1892–97).

³ Historia Von D. Johann Fausten …, in Neudrucke deutscher Literaturwerke des XVI. und XVII. Jahrhunderts, Nos.7–8b (Halle, 1911).

⁴ H. G. Haile, “Die bedeutenderen Varianten in den beiden âltesten Texten des Volksbuchs vom Doktor Faustus,” Zeitschrift fur deutsche Philologie, LXXIX, 4 (1960), 383–409.

⁵ Examples of such work are: Geneviève Bianquis, Faust à travers quatre siècles (Paris, 1935); Eduard Castle, “Faust im Wandel der Jahrhunderte,” Chronik des Wiener Goethe-Vereins, LV (1951), 1–8; Eliza M. Butler, The Fortunes of Faust (Cambridge, Eng., 1952); and Charles Dédéyan, La thème de Faust dans la littérature européene (Paris, 1954), to mention only a few.

⁶ Modern work in this direction stems from Robert Petsch, “Der historische Faust,” Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, ii (Jan.-June 1910), 99–115. Rudolf Blume wrote a number of articles dealing generally with the historical validity of Widman's Faust. They are listed, and their more important conclusions are applied, in “Der geschicht-liche Wagner in den âltesten Volksbuchern vom Faust,” Euphorion, xxvi (1925), 9–21. Blume later published: “Hat der geschichtliche Faust in Heidelberg studiert und promoviert?” Mein Heimatland (1925), pp. 130–131 (this is not the last article in which Faust is claimed for a particular part of Germany); and “Deutungen und Erlâuterungen der wich-tigsten Eigennamen in den âltesten Uberlieferungen und Volksbuchern vom Faust,” Zeitschrift fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins, N.F. XL (1927), 273–301. The most important views on the historical figure are represented by. Max Buchner, “Auf den Spuren des geschichtlichen Faust,” Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, xv (1927), 61–65; Ernst Beutler, “Georg Faust aus Helmstadt,” Goethe-Kalen-der, XXIX (1936), 170–210; Will-Erich Peuckert, “Dr. Johannes Faust,” Zeitschrift fiir deutsche Philologie, LXX, 1 (1948), 55–74; and Hans Henning, “Faust als historische Gestalt,” Jahrbuch der Weimarer Goethe-Gesellschaft, N.F. xxi (1959), 107–139.

⁷ Ernst Beutler, whose inferences concerning the historical Faust are still among the most probable, speaks of the Faust Book in the following manner: “Nichts, gar nichts steht in diesen Blättern mehr von dem Faust, der etwa ein halbes Jahrhundert vorher gestorben war, es sei denn dies, dafi von ihm gesagt wird, er sei ein grofier Astrolog gewesen, und dafi ein paar Orte genannt werden, an denen jener nachweislich sich aufgehalten. Wie bei sinkender Sonne der Mensch einen grofien Schatten wirft, undeutlich im Umrifi—weithin ver-dâmmernd—gespenstig wachsend—, aber nichts identisch ist an diesem Schattenbild mit dem Kôrper, der den Schatten hervorruft, so verhâlt's sich auch bei diesen beiden Faust-gestalten. Es ist nur noch Sage und nur noch Erdichtung und nirgends mehr ‘Historia’.” (“Georg Faust aus Helmstadt,” p. 198). This distinction, basic to any orderly investigation of the Faust Book, could scarcely be made more eloquently; but I tried to stress it further (“Widman's Wahrhafftige Historia,” p. 355).

⁸ “Das Faust-Buch von 1587: seine Entstehung, seine Quellen, seine Wirkung,” Zeitschrift fur deutsche Lileratur-geschichte, VI, 1 (1960), 26–57. Here Henning uses his earlier work on the historical Faust as his springboard. His simplification of the Faust Book stemma is independent of mine, which appeared later in the same year.

⁹ Such discoveries no longer seem likely, not so much because of the remoteness of the sixteenth century, as because the Faust Book was not willingly discussed in its day. The fate of the two Tubingen students who popularized the Faust Book in rhymes is well known. The obscure history of the Wolfenbtittel MS indicates in another way the aura of danger which surrounded magical writings. We can be reasonably certain that it was acquired for Herzog August the Younger by one of his agents in South Germany, most probably Philip Hainhofer in Nuremberg and Augsburg; yet there is nowhere a mention of it in the lists sent to the Duke. It must have been purchased around 1620, the date which appears on the first page in a hand other than that of the scribe, because in 1619–20 August's letters to Hainhofer stress his interest in magical books in general and most particularly in Trithe-mius' Sténographia. Although he was finally able to acknowledge receipt of the Steganographia, we find no mention of it in the apparently complete file of dealers' catalogues of books sent to Wolfenbiittel. Our best explanation of this fact probably lies in August's statement that the book ought not to be sought in Heidelberg: “Von Heidelberg, kan ich das auto-graphum der Steganographiae nicht erlangen; sintemahl, der vorige Bibliothecarius, Franciscus Junius [1545–1602—the father of the philologist] selbiges mit andern magicis libris, aufi unverstande dem Vulcano committiret.” Who is to guess what Faust materials Junius thus disposed of? Who is to estimate how many righteous Juniuses countered heresy with fire? What was the real extent of such losses?

¹⁰ In this case we have the source, Hartmann Schedel's Weltchronik, which speaks of “Mayland … herdisshalb dem gepirg gelegen Gallie.” The exemplar for W and H did not speak of Gallia, however, for H contains “Meyland in Italiam.” W, although he agrees with Schedel, clearly had the same exemplar as H, for he writes: “Meylandt doch Galliae zuestendig.” If, as Henning suggests, W is the original Faust Book and hence a direct copy from Schedel, the word doch cannot be explained. If, as Henning supposes, H is descended from W, we must expect H to contain Gallia instead of Italia. This and similar evidence for the existence of a common exemplar X was established over a half century ago, and Henning is obliged to explain such things before dismissing X from the Faust Book stemma.

The purpose of my article “Die bedeutenderen Varian-ten …” was indeed to show that W is less corrupted than H, in that the editor of the latter felt free to alter and to omit passages. Nevertheless, we must often rely on H for correct readings, because W contains many minor errors, too—apparently hearing errors made during dictation. Here are a few examples, which only confirm the traditional theory that H is not descended from W, but rather uses the same exemplar independently. W 14: “Noch ain Gayst ist bey vnns Asmodaeus Der Mann jnn Vnkheuscheit getôdt.” H 15: “Noch ist ein Geist Asmodeus genannt, der hat sieben Mann in Vnkeuschheit getôdtet.” This is another case where we have the source, reproduced in an appendix to Petsch's Historic. (Quetten, p. 163) : “Auch haben wir den geist Asmod, der getôt hat .vij. mann in irer vnktischen begird.”—W 16: “Die Hell der Frawn Bauch / Vnnd die Erdt wirdt nicht stan.” H 16: “Die Helle, der Frawen Bauch, vnd die Erden werden nimmer satt.”—W 56: “Die guet jungkhfraw wardt mit jupitters pfeyl durchschossen.” H 54: “Die gute Jung-frauw war mit Cupidinis Pfeilen durchschossen.”—W 59: “Siben Teufelische Hecubas oder Concubinas.” H 57: “Siben Teuffelische Succubas.”—W59: “Damit Er allé weybsbilder schôn macht.” H 57: “Darmit er aile Weibsbilder sehen môchte.” There is also the well-known Schedel excerpt in Chapter 26, where W and H both wander from their source (Quetten, p. 172). Schedel: “sigpogen.” W: “Schwibogen.” H: “Steigbogen.” Cf. also the following passages [italics mine]:

¹¹ It is not enough merely to point to the careless style of chap books in general, for the Faust Book is not a typical chap book: Inge Gaertner, “Volksbucher und Faustbticher: eine Abgrenzung,” diss. (Gottingen, 1951). It is entirely true that Petsch's over-complicated stemma has led to extremes, as when Friedrich Schmidt, “Die Historia vom Doktor Faustus: Stufen und Wandlungen,” diss. (Gottingen, 1950), adds yet a fourth ancestor of W and H to Petsch's three, but Henning does not solve the problem by merely dismissing earlier research and stating that we possess the original.

¹² Euphorion, V, 741–753.

¹³ Expansion of L with excerpts from compendia of the day and with folk tales about Faust as well as other sorcerers. See Petsch's introduction to the Historia, esp. pp. xxiii-xxxvii; his article “Die Entstehung des Volksbuches vom Doktor Faust,” Germanisch-Romanische Monatsschrijt, III (1911), 207–224; and my article on the Wahrhafftige Historia. Concerning the language of X, see: Herbert Mtiller, “Historia Doctor Johannis Fausti: eine sprachliche Untersuchung der beiden âltesten deutschen Fassungen des Faustbuchs nach der darin zur Geltung kommenden Mundart,” diss. (Rostock, 1923).

¹⁴ Generally, our most accurate rendition of X. See my “Die bedeutenderen Varianten …,” pp. 405 f.

¹⁵ An editing of X; deletion of certain morally questionable passages (the beginning of H 52 = W 54; or all of W 62); addition of occasional preacherly commentary.

¹⁶ Forthcoming in the Erich Schmidt Verlag is my diplomatic edition of the Faust Book according to the Wolfenbiit-tel MS. There I have made such inferences with respect to the entire original Faust Book. Quotations from the Faust Book in this paper, however, are from Milchsack's edition except where otherwise noted. His editing is not good—and his orthography in particular is faulty—but for the moment no other edition is available.

¹⁷ But cf. Eugen Wolff, Faust uni Luther (Halle, 1912), for the thesis that the Faust Book is a Catholic roman à clef.

¹⁸ Petsch's second appendix to the Historia, pp. 158–235, contains a reproduction of “Die wichtigsten Quellen” in convenient form. We shall refer to it here as “Quellen.” This excerpt is reproduced on p. 165. See also the textual juxtapositions on pp. xxi-xxii.

¹⁹ Quellen, pp. 162 f. See also: Siegfried Szamatòlski, “Zu den Quellen des âltesten Faustbuchs,” Vierteljahrsschrift fiir Literaturgeschichte, i (1888), 166 ff.; and Gustav Milchsack, Gesammelte Aufsatze (Wolfenbiittel, 1922), col. 137.

²⁰ See Petsch's introduction to the Historia, pp. xxix f. on Chapter 6 (=H 7), and xli on Chapter 46 (=H 47).

²¹ “Dr. Faustus und Alexander,” Deutsche Vierteljahrs-schrift, xxv (1951), 27–39.

²² “Zu den Quellen des âltesten Faustbuchs,” pp. 161 ff.

²³ Milchsack's Gesammelte Aufsatze, col. 137.

²⁴ See Petsch's introduction to the Historia, pp. xxv-xxxvii.

²⁵ Milchsack, Historia, pp. ccclx ff., was even able to show that Chapter IS uses words and turns of speech identical with familiar passages from Luther's writings. See also Erich Schmidt, Faust und Luther (Berlin, 1896).

²⁶ I showed above, p. 182, how X enters still another chapter—21—in which Faust is again able to circumvent Mephosto's refusal; and we saw how, according to L, it is Mephosto who is to initiate further discussion—Chapter 22—on a subject which corresponds with the devil's own interests.