BIBLICAL BORROWINGS IN GOETHE'S 'FAUST': A HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THEIR INTERPRETATION

As any survey of the secondary literature on Goethe's Faust will demonstrate, our understanding of the work and of the author's intentions has not increased linearly during the two centuries in which it has been subjected to critical exegesis. Even broadly based differentiations between successive stages in Faust criticism, such as Hans Titze's distinction between periods of 'philosophical', 'philological', and 'philosophic-aesthetic' enquiry into the drama,^ cannot do justice to the vast range of individual interpretations that Faust has elicited since its publication. From the earliest days to the present, the judgements that have been passed on the work have ranged from relendess condemnation to unmitigated praise. Few aspects ofFaust have led to such extreme clashes of opinion as has the author's treatment of religious themes. This is because the function of religion in Faust is intimately bound up with the vexed question of how the drama is to be understood. From the outset, two views have been heard on this subject, according to which Faust may either be a model of the striving individual or and this alternative is virtually irreconcilable with the former standpoint his career may be interpreted as a warning against presumption and excess. This polarization of atdtudes to Faust began as soon as the first fragment was made avadlable to the pubKc. The praise that it earned from Schiller and other appreciadve readers must not allow the misgivings with which it was spoken of in other circles to be overlooked. EvenWieland doubted the work's prospects of success,^ and Jean Paul expressed the opinion that the drama was directed against such elements of 'Titanen-Frechheit' as its author could only too easily discover within himself.^ Of all the remarks made about Faust Part i in the first few years following its publication, it was probably the passage in Germaine de Stael's De VAllemagne that did most to enhance the negative impression which many of Goethe's contemporaries had formed of the drama. Her undisguised enthusiasm for a work which she read as a parody of traditional beliefs made that work appear suspect in the eyes of many German readers. In her eyes, Mephistopheles is the true hero of the play and his ironicjd view of the world one of its main interests: 'Le diable est le heros de cette pifece . . . II y a dans les discours de M6phistophel4s une ironie infernale, qui porte sur la creation tout entifere, et juge Tunivers comme un mauvais livre dont le diable se fedt le censeur.'* For her, there could be no doubt that Faust was not to be taken as a good example 'La pifece de Faust cependant n'est certes pas un bon modfele' and she confidendy predicted how the work was going to end; 'L'intention de I'auteur est sans doute . . . que la vie de Faust soit sauv^e, mais que son ame [sic] soit perdue' {De I'Allemagne, ii, 220 and 216). So, gradually.
' Hans Titze, Die philosophische Periode der deutschenFaustforschung {iSiy-iSjg), nebst kurzen Vberblickm iiiier die phihlogische wid die philesophisch-dsthetische Periode zur Sekuchtung der Gesamtenbeicklusg der

<lattschenF<mstfittlologie bis zur Gegenwart (dissertation, Greifiwald, 1916, reprinted Leipzig, 1963). * See Widand's letter to Freiherr von Retzer of ao June 1808, in Goethe in sertratdichen Brie/en seiner Zeitgenossen. Auch eine Lebensgeschichte, edited by Wilhelm Bode, 3 vols (Berlin, 1918-21, reprinted Berne, 1969), n, 161 f. ' Letter to F. H. Jaeobi, 4 October 1809, Jean Pmds SdmUiche Werke, 33 vois (Berlin, 1927-63), in/6, P-57. e la Baronne de Stael Holstdn, De I'AUemagm, 3 vols (London, 1813), 0,177.

830

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Faust'

the view gained ground that Faust was intended as a satirical play in which selfconfident hedonism is caricatured and condemned. This position was, however, no longer tenable once the second part of the drama had appeared. The continuation of the play, which had eagerly been awaited for many years, aroused no small amotmt of contempt and ridicule when it was finally published after Goethe's death, especially as the salvation of Faust was felt to be incongruous with the sum of the misdeeds that he had perpetrated during his lifetime. Also, it had been expected that the complete work would deal vth profound religious questions and contain Goethe's final profession of faith.* It is for this reason that Wolfgang Menzel saw fit to judge the work on the strength of the scenes depicting Faust's death and salvation. Menzel is an extreme example of the reaction against Groethe which set in during the latter years of the poet's life and continued until the middle of the nineteenth century, and, in some cases, for much longer. He pours relendess scorn on all aspects of Faust's redemption, which he regards as totally unmerited, since Faust is a 'vomehmer Lustling' who has spent his life in the clutches of superetition. Yet he also attacks Goethe for not having presented a convincing portrayal of the hereafter. Surely, if he disagreed with Faust's salvation, he should have been gratified rather than outraged by Goethe's evocation of a non-Christian heaven ? But he berates the poet for having fobbed off his readers with a cheap sham, a 'Madchenhimmel' where Faust is received with a display of 'bengalisches Feuer' and other 'WeihnachtsherrUchkeiten'. Such offences against Christian ethics allow him to conclude his study by lashing out af the 'asthetischer Heliogabolus'fi-omwhose mind this vision of an effeminate heaven had sprung, where there was no trace of Cjkxi and aH masculine values were entirely lacking (ni, 328, 333, and 343). If Menzel's Protestant sensibilities had been offended by the pardon meted out to the sinner in thefinalscene, many Roman Catholic critics were no less vociferous in condemning what they saw as a misuse of the divine prerogative of grace. A prime example of the biting sarcasm with which the newly published second part of Faust was greeted in Catholic circles is Michael Leopold Enk von der Burg's Briefe uber Goethe's Faust (Vienna, 1834). He rebukes Goethe for having ventured into the realms of theology while opposing its teachings as well as those of pure Reason; the 'greatness' oi Faust lies only in the vast dimensions of its portrayal of decline and destruction (pp. 64 and 29). Naturally enough, these adverse reactions to the play as a whole had the effect of provoking a stream of counter-responses in which it was given a more favourable Eissessment. It is in this second wave of Faust criticism that critical analysis of the religious elements in the work has its origins. The critic who could prove that religious themes are treated seriously by Goethe would obviously be in a good position to refute Menzel's claim that Faust was the work of a Heliogabalus. So it happened that the first attempts to comment on the significance of the biblical and religious material in Faust arose not so much from a recognition of their intrinsic significance as from the pressing need to counter the arguments of Goethe's &natical detractors. Two books played an important part in achieving this aim: Friedrich Wilhelm Riemer's two-volume biography, Mitthdltmgen uber Goethe
' See, for example, Wol%ang Metizd, Die deuticht IMeratm, 4 vols (Stuttgart, 1836), m, 328: 'Im Wilbeim Meister bezeichnete Gothe sein VerhalttiiB zu dieser, im Faust zu jener W d t . . . ' .

O. DURRANI

831

(1841), and Ferdinand Deycks's commentary on Fausi, of which the first edition appeared in 1834. Ricmer's study of Goethe is a document with a very definite bias. In it, he defends all aspects of Goethe's character against the accusations of his opponents. A lengthy discussion of the poet's 'Religiositat' figures among chapters extolling hb 'Uneigennutzigkeit', 'Dankbarkeit', and 'Wohltatigkeit'. Riemer makes no bones about the causes that persuaded him to publish these observations; he claims that while Lessing, Wieland, and others were allowed to deviate from the norm without incurring severe stricture from their readers, Goethe had become the victim of a witch-hunt. Quoting Menzel, Riemer complains, 'er muB sich als Atheisten, ja als unsittlichen Menschen, als einen Heliogabai verschreien lassen'. In order to refute these criticisms, Riemer sets out to demonstrate that it was Goethe's constant endeavour 'sich dem Hochsten zu nahem'. He does this by reminding his readers of the religious themes and subject matter in such diverse places as 'Poetische Gedanken uber die Hollenfahrt Jesu Ghristi', 'Der ewige Jude', 'Bekenntnisse einer schonen Seele', Wilhelm Meisters Wanderjakre, and at the end oi Faust,findingin these and other works substantial evidence of Goethe's sympathy for the early Christians, and also for Lutheran Protestantism. For example, Riemer is able to defend Goethe's well attested aversion to the crucifix by referring to the first Christians, and showing that they, too, did not venerate Christ crucified. In the course of his arguments he also picks out quotations from Faust in order to prove a point; so, for example, the carefully expurgated lines 'Wo es thront, hinzubeten es lohnt' from the scene 'Felsbuchten des agaischen Meers' (see Faust, lines 8206-8) are adduced as evidence of Groethe's tolerance in religious matters.'^ So it was that Riemer set a pattern which many future admirers of Goethe were able to follow: his statements on religion were quoted out of context, and his objections to certain aspects of Christianity could sometimes be construed as resulting from a desire to return to the origins and essentials of the faith. Those isolated works in which religious themes occurred could be set up as examples of the poet's inherent religiosity. In addition, Goethe's putative religious temperament couid be cloaked in vague, metaphysical terminology; Riemer's description of Goethe striving 'sich dem Hochsten zu nahern' is typical of the euphemistic formulations with the help of which he, and others after him, endeavoured to restore Goethe's reputation as a religious thinker. Ferdinand Deycks has the distinction of having produced the first fuil-length commentary on Parts i and n of Goethe's Faust; this appeared in the autumn of 1834. The author's Vonede makes it clear that the principal intention behind this commentary is to combat the influence of Enk's Briefe uber Goethe's Faust by demonstrating that the piay embodies '[eine] zum Grunde liegende sittliche und religiose Ansickt'. Because of this commitment, Deycks tends to dwell on those aspects of the play that can be used to illustrate the pious intentions of its author. The parallel between the 'Prolog im HLmmel' and the Book of Job is underscored, Faust's reply to Gretchen's question about religion is construed as evidence of his 'Frommigkeit', and the concept of 'das Ewig-Weibliche' is paraphrased as 'die reijte Hirtgebung

' Friedrich Wilhelm R i e m e r , Mittheilimgen Uber Goethe. Aus mUndlichen und schriftlichen, gedmckten und

"ngedrucktenQueUeniSvols (Berlin, 1841),!, iia-50, especially 112,135,145.

832

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Faust'

an das Gdttliche des Christenthums'. Even so, Deycks feek obliged to point out to his readers that Faust is not an exemplary character; like Werther, he is not to be emulated, but to be taken as a warning. Appendices provide information about such matters as the lives of the saints mentioned at the end of'Bergschluchten', and a small number of other biblical parallels are noted.^ It was Deycks who initiated the study of biblical allusions in Faust. The results of his enquiries are to be found in the second, augmented and corrected, edition of his commentary (1855). In this, the legend of Dr Faustus is traced back to the biblical tradition of the temptation of Christ by Satan (Matthew 4. 8), and a few direct allusions to the Bible are recorded. The differences between thefirstand second editions of Deycks's commentary are an indication of the new approach to the criticism of Faust that came about in the middle of the last century. Sweeping generalizations and personal opinions gradually come to be replaced by the close study of details deemed to be significant, Deycks's discussion of the devil in the Bible, the older Faust chapbooks, and the similarities between these and the life-stories of St Cyprian and Theophilus of Adana are all manifestations of the tremendous interest in Quellengeschichte that was being kindled at the time. After Deycks, all these supposed sources are referred to over and over again in the works of the exegetes and editors. Another of Deycks's contributions to the evaluation of the religious content of the drama is his attempt to identify biblical quotations in the text. This 'scientific' method, based on the positivistic belief that in literature as in the natural sciences it could be profitable to break the material of one's study down into its smallest components, was, as we shall see, developed further by subsequent critics, many of whom made it their concern to comb through Goethe's works in search of ever more quotations from the Bible. For Deycks, however, this is still a means of demonstrating that the underlying thought is Christian in its tenor. He cites passages from the Psalms to show that Faust's doubts in 'Marthens Garten' are shared by accepted religious authorities (Psalms 13. i; 52. i). The extent of his bias may be gauged from the following comment on Faust's reaction to the Easter bells: 'Wer es noch nicht weiB, mag auch da erkennen, mit welchen festen, unzerreiSiichen Banden Goethes Seele, trotz aller Naturlust, an dem chrisdichen Grundton hing' (second edition (Frankfurt, 1855), P- 37)The prolific Goethe-exegete Heinrich Duntzer entered the arena not long after Deycks with a commentary whose tide shows that the author's main concern was still to defend the work against the criticisms of Goethe's detractors: Gothe's Faust in
seiner Einheit und Ganzheit wider seine Gegner dargestellt first appeared in 1836, and

formed the basis for Duntzer's future, highly successful FrlSutenmgen. He is more concerned than Deycks, whose study he has obviously read, to strike a balance between making the play sound attractive to a Christian audience for example, by discussing the orthodox features in the 'Prolog im Himmel' and acquainting them with some of Goethe's non-Christian ideas. While stressing the importance of the Prologue, and, indeed, suggesting that 'Der Herr' may be equated with the Chrbtian God, he also declares that Christianity is subordinated in Fimst to Goethe's 'reinere Naturverehrung', and that the fundamental idea of the work is a non-

^ F e r d i n a n d Deycks, Goethe's Faust. Attdeututjgen iiber Sinn und Zusammenhang des ersten und zweiten

Theiks der Tragodit (Koblenz, 1834), pp. viii, 11,26,1Z4.

O. DURRANI

833

Christian one, that is 'Omnia, quae secundum naturam fiunt, habenda sunt in bonis' (Cicero)."^ There can be no doubt that the partisan tone of these 'defensive' commentaries is fully justifiable in view of the hostility that the drama had provoked in certain sections of the public. The prejudices that prevailed even against Part i are nowhere better exemplified than in the numerous attempts that were made to produce the play on the German stage.^ The scripts that have come down to us are distinguished by relentless cuts, bowdlerizations, and gratuitous additions, from which it is obvious that Goethe's frequent allusions to religious topics were a source of embarrassment to would-be producers. Their task was, of course, not made easier by the fact that Goethe never concerned himself to any great degree with the question of arranging a performance of the play and gave remarkably little support to those individuals who ventured to do so themselves. His letter to Zelter of November 1810, in which he mentions the possibility of a performance oi Faust, reveals something of his own misgivings as to the success of such an undertaking.^ When the plan was dropped, and Goethe said no more about the desirability of a public perfonnance of his drama, the opinion became current that it had never been intended for the stage. Nevertheless, the first performance of Goethe's Faust, Part Ifinallytook place in SchloS Monbijou under the auspices of Prince Radziwill in t8ig. On this occasion, the producer got round the problem of how not to offend the sensibilities of the public by the unique device of instructing the actors tofindtheir own substitutes for any passages in their speeches which might give rise to disapprobation, an arrangement which, it must be added, was felt to be unwarranted by most members of the audience. It was not until 1829, first in Braunschweig in January of that year, and later in Dresden, Leipzig, and Weimar, that the play was shown to wider sections of the public, as a tribute to Goethe in honour of his eightieth birthday. The cuts made by Klingemann in Braunschweig were, in comparison with what was to follow, fairly moderate; even so, Gretchen was not allowed to attend confession for fear that this might give offence, and Faust's envy of the crucifix (1. 3334) was suppressed for similar reasons. For the Weimar production, however, Goethe's advice was sought in the matter of how best to deal with such potentially controversial passages as Faust's confession, 'Nenn's Gluck! Herz! Liebe! Gott! . . . ', but his response was frequently unhelpful. When he was asked to find an alternative to the line quoted above, he merely replied, 'Hier weis ich keinen Rath' (Graf, p. 491)- It was inevitable, also, that censorship would sometimes make matters worse, as clearly happened when the quotation from the Song of Solomon (1. 3336 f.) became;

' Duntzer, Gdthe's Faast in seiner Einheit und Gandteil wider seine Gegner dargestellt (Cologne, t836),

pp. 20, 28. ^ The following information on early adaptations oi Faust for the theatre is drawn from three main sources which, for reasons of space, it will not be possible to acknowledge in each instance. These are:
Adolph EnsUn, Die ersten neater-Aaffiihrmgen des Goethe'schen Faust. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichie des deatschen Theaters (Berlin, 1880); Heinrich Brandt, Goethes Faust oaf Jer Kgl. sachsischen Hofbiihne zu Dresden. Ein Beitrag zjir Tkeaterwissensckaft (Berlin, 1921); a n d Carl Niessen, Faust als Sckmutz und Schund. Das Satyrspiel zur TragSdie. Mil einem Epilog aiif bumksdenwkratischer BUhne (Emsdetten, t 9 6 4 ) .

* In this letter the project is described as 'ein seltsames Unternehmen . . . , nehmlich den "Faust" aufzuftihren, wie er ist, insofem es nur einigermassen moglich werden will' {Goethe uber seine Dichtungen, edited by Hans GerhMd Graf, ZweiterTe3,ii: Fai( (Frankfurt, 1904), p. 181).

834

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Fcmst' Gar wohl, mein Freund! Idi hab' Eucb oft beneidet Um das, woran ihr Aug' und Mund geweidet.

These lines of doggerel, which open up a vista of lascivity which is avoided in the originai, demonstrate how far the censor was prepared to go in order to excise all traces of biblical language. The cuts ordered in Dresden, where the production was organized by Ludwig Tieck, were no less severe, especially in regard to religious subjects. There, the censor had to be particularly carefiil, as the Catholic and Protestant Churches alike kept a closer watch on the theatre than elsewhere. In Dresden, no references to the Church and the priesthood were permitted, so that Gretchen's mother had to give the jewels to 'den Armen', thereby depriving Mephistopheles of the point of one of his most characteristic tirades. 'Christ' (1. 737) became 'Er', and the celebrated 'leider auch Theologie' was transformed into 'selbst sogar Theologie'.^ Faust continues, with deplorable disregard for the metrical balance of the original: Zwar bin ich gescheiter als alle die Laffen, Doctoren, Magister und wenn man sonst hat zu schafFen . .. The 'Tropfen Fegefeuer' in 'Auerbachs Keller' was metamorphosed into 'Fiamme irdisch Feuer', Faust's translation of the first verse of St John was omitted altogether, and little remained of his early dialogues with Mephistopheles. Herr Schwerdtlein was even deprived of his grave on hallowed ground; 'An einer wohlgeweihten Statte' became 'An einer angesehnen Statte'. All instances of the words 'heilig', 'Teufel', 'Religion', 'Wunder', 'Kirche', 'Sakramente', 'Beichte', 'Messe', 'Priester' were relentlessly expunged. On the other hand, the consequences were even more drastic in places where censorship was less strictly enforced, as in Leipzig, where Tieck's version was performed on 29 August 1829, without the deletions that had been made by the Dresden censor. Here Mephistopheies was allowed, briefly, to rant against the Church and State, for which he was resoundingly applauded, mainly, it appears, by students. Thereafter, the play had to be withdrawn on the orders of the authorities, not only in Leipzig, but even in Dresden, where the more moderate version had been shown. Similar extremes of disapprobation occurred at Linz in 1836, when Faust had to be 'wegen vieler Anstofiigkeiten kurzerhand verboten', and as late as J846 the Chief of Police in Konigsberg is quoted as saying 'Es ware eigentlich viel besser, wenn Goethe seinen "Faust" nie geschrieben hatte'. If Gk>ethe's compatriots tended, initially, to react unfavourably to his handling of religious issues, the general public in Britain seems to have formed an almost wholly n^ative impression of the use of biblical and religious material in Fausl. This may, in part, be attributable to the very considerable delay in the appearance of a complete translation in this country, and to the fact that the first translators

' In one early performance, given in Austria, this line had to be altered to 'Und leider auch Astrologie'; see Brandt, p. 12, note 27.

O. DURRANI

835

found it necessary to abridge all controversial scenes.^ A conversation that took place between Goethe and Henry Crabbe Robinson, who visited the poet in Atigust 1829, casts further light on the low opinion oi Faust then current in Britain, and especially on the taboo surrounding the portrayal of biblical subjects on the stage:
He [Goethe] was alive to his reputation in England, and apparently mortified at the poor account I gave of Lord Leveson Glower's translation o f Faust', though I did not choose to tell him that his noble translator, as an apology, said he did it as an exercise while learning the language. On my mentioning that Lord Leveson Gower had not ventured to translate the 'Prologue in Heaven' he seemed surprised. 'How so? that is quite unobjectionable. The idea is in Job.' He did not perceive that that was the aggravation, not the excuse . . . (Graf, p. 500) The allegedly blasphemous content of the work is one of the reasons cited by Coleridge as having swayed him against the idea of attempting a translation; he is recorded as having said: I was once pressed many years ago to translate Faust. .. But then I debated with myself whether it became my moral character to render into English and so far, certainly, lend my countenance tolanguage much of which I thought vulgar, licentious and blasphemous.* Suck opiniotis are wholly in keeping with the tone ofthe reviews of Faiisi that were appearing sporadically in the British press at the time. The following extract, fi-om Monthly Review (1810), provides an interesting insight into the prejudices that were rife, even in academic circles: On the whole the absurdities ofthe piece are so numerous, the obscenities are so frequent, the profaneness is so gross, and the beauties are so exclusively adapted to German relish, that we cannot conscientiously recommend its importation and still less the translation of it to our English students of German literature.^ Again and again the reviewers returned to the work's three alleged defects: absurdity, obscenity, and blasphemy. So slowly did news concerning the literature of foreign countries travel in those days, that the author of an article in the Dublin University Magazine, vmting in 1836, was still labouring under the impression that Faust was intended to be damned at the end ofthe play, a speculation which prompted the rebuke: 'and his destruction is, we repeat it, a libel on Divine Providence' (Hauhart, p. 43). Further damage was done to Goethe's reptitation by an English translation of Menzel's Die deutsche Literatur, published in 1840. When the tide of

* The work appeared as Faust: A Dramatic Poem, by Goethe. Translated into English Prose, with Remarks on Former TransUitifms, and Notes, by the Translator of Savign/s 'Oj tbe Vocation of Our Age for Legislation and Jurisprudeacs' [Abraham Hayward] (London, 1833). Earlier translations, for example, one by Lord Gower (1833), had been incomplete to the point of caricature. Gower omits most of the 'Prolog im Hioimel' and 'Walpurgisnacht', and'in place ofthe episode in which Gretchen consults the 'Blumenwort' he WTites 'They make love'. And there are many errors Wagner's 'Und lispeln etiglisch wenn sie li^en' comes out as 'And lisp in English when they lie'; see Hayward, pp. xii and xvi. In another 'translation', dating from i8ai, the dialogue on Faust's religious aililiations is paraphrased as follows: 'Margaret: "It is long since you have been to mass or confession. Do you believe in God?" Faustus replies to this interrogation by one of those mystical definitions of belief in God which characterizes the professors of natural religion.' See William Chatterton Coupland, The Spirit of Goethe's Fausl (London, 1885), p. 353. ' T(d>le-iatk; see Lina Baumann, Die englischen Ubersetzungen mm Goethes Faust (Halle/Saale, 1907) P-7" Volume LXn, 491; see William Frederic Hauhart, The Raxptien of GoeUte's Faust in England in tht First Half 0/the Nineteenth Century (New York, 1909), p. 26.

836

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Faust'

public opinion began to turn, as it did in Germany, but later, the process was helped by the same tendency to over-emphasize the ideological import of Goethe's biblical material, and to see him as a thinker whose philosophy, though bearing the imprint of his individuality, could ultimately be reconciled with Christianity. With this aim in mind, one editor of the German text of Faust, published in London in 1853, begins by assuring his readers that 'He [Goethe] was a Christian, in the sense which this word has in Germany, that is to say, he loved God and men'.i The same editor, Falck Lebahn, provides extremely copious notes designed to draw attention to all biblical parallels that he can detect, but many of these are of doubtful authenticity. In the 'Prolog im Himmel' alone, Lebahn finds twentynine allusions to the Bible; and when he comes to discuss the half-line 'Es stinkt!' (1. 3548), he feels obliged to quote several biblical precedents for the use of this word (Genesis 34. 30; 11 Samuel 10. 6; etc.; see Lebahn, pp. 384-98 and 574). In this case, it is likely that his aim was chiefly to lessen the impact that this 'vulgarism' might have on English ears by showing that the word was sanctioned by the Bible, rather than to prove that a borrowing had been made. Such are the devious origins of the study of biblical language in Goethe. Despite its many irrelevances and its undeniable long-windedness, Lebahn's work anticipates the later findings of Hehn, Henkel, and Hohne in its detection of biblical allusions. Faust has continued to receive praise from some and rebuke from othei^ on the grounds of its supposed compatibility or incompatibility with Christian thought up to the present day. It can be noted, though, that between the middle of the nineteenth century and the eve of the Second World War the critics who argued that the drama put across Christian attitudes to religious problems have by far outnumbered those who stressed its anti-Christian features. Hundreds of tracts have been written to prove that thefiguresand ideas alluded to in 'Bergschluchten' make Faust a Christian mystery-play. Typical of many is the view put forward by Julius Barens, who reduces the 'message' ot Faust to simple terms agreeable to all Christians, that is, the forgiveness of sinners and the belief that God is love. Barens also brings in Goethe's own life as substantiating his Christian interpretation of Faust; he points out that Goethe had Christian friends, and a conscience, which is more than can be said of Heine !^ Even religious leaders began to speak out in support of the view that the drama was the product of a fundamentally Christian mentality. Willibald Beyschlag, 'Doktor und Professor der Theologie', concludes
his study GSthes Fattst in seirtem Verhaltnifi zum Christenthum (Berlin, 1877) with the

observation that Gk>ethe was 'ein Prophet wenn auch eben nur ein Prophet des Evangeliums'. The most convincing evidence for Beyschlag is the circumstance that the play portrays the working of divine grace, which destroys the pact at the vital moment and makes Faust's salvation possible (Beyschlag, pp. 37 and 33). At the same time, the number of systematic attempts to evaluate Goethe's borrowings from the Bible from a scholarly rather than a religious point of view began to increase, under the infiuence of the new, positivistic approach to literature. The Estonian literary critic and scientist Viktor Hehn did much to stimulate interest in this aspect of Goethe's works. In 1887, he discussed a selection of some
' Faust: A Tragedy byjohann Wotfgang vm Goethe, edited by Faick Lebahn (London, 1853), p. vii.
' Julius Barens, Der zuieite Theil, und insbesondere die Scklufiscene der Goetheschen FausttragS& (Hannover,

1854). P-7-

O. DURRANI

837

hundred allusions to the Scriptures in an article entitled 'Goethe und die Sprache der Bibel'.^ However, it is all too obvious that he, too, has an ideological axe to grind. In brief, Hehn equates the language of the Lutheran Bible with the idiom of the common people, for whom the Bible was a source of linguistic inspiration at a tim,e when the German nobility turned to foreign literatures and philosophies. So the occurrence of biblical language in Goethe's works becomes a weapon in Hehn's nationalistic defence of the poet's sterling patriotic qualities. The subject of Goethe's use of the Bible was taken up by Gymnasialdirektor a.D. Hermann Henkel, whose little volume Goethe vnd die Bibel appeared at Leipzig in 1890. In the introduction to this study, Henkel expresses the hope that he will be able to continue the line of approach suggested by Hehn, without confining himself, as Hehn had done, to examples from Goethe's earlier periods. The bulk of Henkel's study is made up of quotations; these are presented without comment, and it sometimes seems as if Henkel were impressed more by Goethe's powers of memory than by the intrinsic significance of the quotations which he used ('Fast die Halfte der Anfuhrungen ruhrt aus Briefen, Gesprachen und Tagebuchem her, ein Beweis fiir die Lebhaftigkeit und Prasens der biblischen Erinnerungen' (Henkel, p, 8)), A supplement to this study appeared in 1901.^ Such attempts to do justice to the totality of the poet's borrowings from a wellnigh inexhaustible source were bound to fail, if for no other reason than because of the Herculean dimensions of the enterprise. It is therefore understandable that the ambitious publications of Hehn and Henkel should have been followed by a series of more specifically directed investigations of the type of Otto Pniower's comparative essay, 'Goethes Faust und das Hohe Lied', which appeared in 1892. In this, Pniower embarks on a detailed study of the parallels between one book from the Old Testament and Faust, using Goethe's own translation of the Song of Solomon, which differs in many respects from the renderings provided in the Vulgate and by Luther. Gretchen's exclamation: 'Mich iiberlauft's!' (I. 3187) is recognizable as a biblical borrowing only if it is realized that Goethe had translated 'et venter meus intremuit ad tactum ejus' (Song of Solomon, 5. 4) with the expression 'mich uberliefs'. Pniower is able to demonstrate that Goethe has recreated not just a linguistic formulation but an entire situation that bears the marks of its biblical precedent, and he abo relates lines 3336 f, to Song of Solomon 4. 5, and 4128-31 to 7,8. One of Pniower's major achievements was to relate Gretchen's monologue 'am Spinnrad' to those parts of the Song of Solomon in which the girl describes the beauties of her beloved (4. i; 6. 4-6; 5, ii-i6). He is thus able to dismiss the suggestion that Gretcheu's soliloquy was inspired by Anacreontic or Ossianic verse, and his conclusions concerning the function of the Song of Solomon in Faust have helped to provide a basis for the study of biblical leitmotifs used in the work.' Positivistic enquiry into Goethe's use of biblical quotations in Faust finally culminates in a treatise by Emil Hohne, published in 1905 under the title 'Umfang und Art der Bibelbenutzung in Goethes Faust'.* In this, the biblical references
' Goethe-Jahrbuch, 8 (1887), 187-202, ' Henkd, 'Goethe und die Bibel', in Stadien zar vergkicheiukn Literalmgeschichte, i, edited by Max Koch (Berlin, 1901}, 120-31, ' Goethe..Jahrbueh, 13 (189a), 183, 184f,, i8g, ' Beweis des GlasAens, 8 (1905), 33-46 and 74-93.

838

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Faust'

are discussed systematically in two stages. Hohne begins by combing Parts i and 1 1 for quotations that are of importance for an understanding of the play, whereafter he provides a list of the less significant allusions and mere echoes of scriptural language, in the order in which these occtor in the Bible. This gives rise to the perhaps misleading impression that some of the quotations are more deserving of critical enqtiiry than others, and the criteria on which Hohne bases his selections are necessarily subjective why should 'Und wirke der Gottheit lebendigeS Kleid' (Psalms 104. i f.) be considered more significant than 'Du hast mir nicht umsonst / Dein Angesicht im Feuer zugewendet' (Exodus 3. 3 f.) ? Along with the majority of the investigators already disctissed, Hohne attempts to give an explanation as to why biblical references should be so prolific in the work under discussion. He admits that it could be maintained 'das Bibelwort ist recht oft in Faust mehr miBbraucht als gebraucht', and does not try to detnonstrate that the quotations form part of a philosophical substratum. They are used casually, 'wortlich und frei, tiefernst und ironisch, zustimmend und ablehnend', and they have a partly ornamental, partly structural function. They serve as 'Bindeglieder' and as 'sinnvoUe Ornatnente' {Hohne, pp. 37, 38, and 92). Thus Hohne treats them as formgiving elements in a literary work that was not constructed according to any one ideology. In defending the often cynical allusions to the Bible spoken by Mephistopheies, Hohne reiterates the old argument that their offensive qualities are mitigated by the fact that they occur in verse.' AU in all, he submits over 200 references to analysis, of which the majority, approximately 136, derive from the New Testament. The relatively high degree of objectivity displayed in the articles and studies by Henkel, Pniower, and Hohne, contrasts with a more partisan approach evinced in religious and clerical circles. Here, as we have seen, there were ardent supporters of Goethe's Fatist who felt that the work could be reconciled with the principles of Christianity; but there were also those who continued to argue that its content was the legacy of a heathen. It is interesting to note that this division of opinion makes itself felt in Jewish as well as in Christian circles. The tracts on the reiigious implications of the drama that were published by Jewish religious leaders towards the end of iast century reflect the uncertainty of their Christian colleagues as to the morality of the work. Oberrabbiner J. Hollander claims, in Der biblische mi der gothe'sche Fatist (Trier, 1881), that the analogy with Job is a superficial one and that Faust does not succeed in solving the problem of human existence (p. 21). One year later, Landrabbiner Julius Landsberger published his comparative study Das Buck Hiob und Goethes Faust (Darmstadt, 1882), in which he points out what he takes to be close parallels between Faust and Job, and argues that Faust was to a large extent modelled on this Old Testament figure, especially as both men owe their salvation to the interaction of divine grace (pp. 30 f.). In the face of so many attacks and counter-attacks. Pastor Albert Kalthoif's enqtiiry Die religiosen Probleme in Goethes Faust (1901) strikes a note of relative impartiality. The author is one ofthe small number of critics who, despite a personal commitment to religion, are nonetheless able to distance themselves fi'om some ofthe extreme judgements of which examples have been provided above. Kalthoff regards iiaiiri essentially as a necessan' and profitable critique of the superficial attitudes to God and religion that had
' Hohne, p. 92; compare Goethe's conversation with Edcennann of 25 February 1824.

O. DURRANI

839

prevailed in the past, and for this reason he goes so far as to welcome Goethe's sarcasms against the Church. He also maintains that many of the scenes in which Christian traditions figure are best considered to be frankly satirical. One of the main ideas behind the drama is to depict 'die Geschichte des Zusammenbruches von Himmel und Holle im Glauben des modernen Menschen' hence the reprentation of God as a highly 'naive' figure in the Prologue, Kalthoff therefore concurs with much of Goethe's criticism of religious institutions and beliefe, for instance his rejection of the anthropomorphic conception of the deity, and his jibes at the Trinity, which Kalthoff thinks he is right to denounce as 'Hexeneinmaleins'. This surprisingly progressive clergyman is prepared to go all the way with Goethe in rejecting those aspects of Christianity which he considers unacceptable to modern man. His comments on Gretchen show a quite unusual lack of sympathy towards her religious practices, too; Kalthoff sees her catechizing of Faust and her prayer to the Virgin Jis indications of a naive and over-confident acceptance of the teachings of her priest ('Sie glaubt an Gott, weil sie an ihren Pfarrer, ihre Kirche glaubt'), while Faust's answer to her question about his religion is at least in keeping with the Scriptures ('Denn von ihm und durch ihn und zu ihm sind alle Dinge', Romans 11. 36). In his reply, Faust makes it plain that simple answers to questions about God are impossible: 'er [Faust] giebt ein "nein" und ein "ja" zugleich, und damit hat Faust seine Stellung zum Gottesglauben ausgesprochen, die recht eigentlich das Glaubensbekenntnis des modernen Menschen genannt werden m u C ' So, in the end, Kalthoff distances himself from the two extremes of attitude that religious interpretations had previously put forward, and, ascribing neither ungodly hedonism nor traditional Christianity to its hero, deduces a constructive criticism of religious issues from Faust. After much of the spade-work of unearthing biblical references latent in Faust had been performed by scholars such as Hehn, Henkel, and Hohne, it was left to a second generation of exegetes to apply these discoveries to the text, and to investigate the precise relevance of the quotations in their context. As Otto Pniower had done in the case of the Song of Solomon, critics began to examine one or two specific parallels between Faust and the Bible in detail, either by comparing Faust with figures such as Moses or Job, or by contrasting the general import of the drama with the theme of a book from the Scriptures, for example Job or Ecclesiastes, While Hohne was content to indicate in a few words that there was a correspondence in the manner in which good and evil forces fought for the souls of Faust and Moses (Hohne, pp. 82 f.), Konrad Burdach supplies massive evidence in support of the view that Goethe was well acquainted with the legends about the death of Moses, and draws elaborate parallels between the two figures, showing that in both cases good and evil spirits battle with each other over the men's corpses, that their graves are prepared not by human beings but by spirits, that they end their lives as centenarians, resisting death to the last and are overcome only through the intervention of supernatural agencies, and that they both die within sight of the Utopia for which they have been striving without, however, being able to set foot in it themselves.* Comparisons between Fa^ist and the Book of Job have been
' Kalthoff, Die religidsen Probteme in Goethes Faust. Emste Antworien aufernste Fragm (Berlin, 1901), PP- 45 f., 76, 78, 75, and 79, * Konrad Burdach, 'Faust und Moses', Sitzungsberichte der Kgl. PreufiischenAkademie der Wissenschafttn, Phil.-hist. Klasse (Berlin, 1912), pp. 358-403,627-59, 736-89,

840

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Faust'

favourite topics in literary criticism since the mid-nineteenth century; there have probably been more studies of the correspondences between these two works than of any other biblical 'source' ofFaust.^ In 1906, Robert Petsch published an essay on 'Faust und Hiob' which, for its concision and for the wealth of material it presents, can still be regarded as exemplary.^ Petsch improves on Henkel's enumeration of references to Job in the work, and suggests a reason why CJoethe should have wanted to adapt Job in his Fattst not because he is primarily interested in theodicy, but because Herder had opened his eyes to the poetic potential of the theme of the 'incommensurable' struggle between 'Unten' and 'Oben', man and the higher powers, with reference to the poetic books of the Old Testament.' He argues that Herder and Goethe knew that the Satan in the Book of Job was not a personification of Evil, but rather, as Herder put it, 'nichts als Gerichts-Engel Gottes, ein Bote zur Ausforschung, zur Zuchtigung, zur Strafe';* therefore, it would not be right to equate Mephistopheles with the devil, not even in his capacity as tempter of mankind. Instead, he is best seen as 'der poetische Exponent einer Tenderz seiner [Faust's] Seele'. Petsch concludes his observations with a word of caution to those who may be inclined to search for abstruse parallels, but the history of Faust criticism shows that even the most arcane correspondences have not remained uninvestigated. Cabbalistic symbolism has been discussed by a number of investigators,^ and parallels with the Old Testament Book of Ecclesiastes have been Ibrought to light by Isaac Rosenberg and William Goodrum.' The latter discuss the similarity between Qoheleth's and Faust's inability to attain happiness in a world which they regard as meaningless; it emerges that Faust's mood is in many ways identical to that of the Old Testament sage. Both try to find satisfaction in the acquisition of knowledge, and in pleasure, but neither is content with his experiences. Paradoxically, it is only the story of Faust that continues after death: Ecclesiastes ends on a more sombre note of stoical resignation. The centenary of the poet's death proved to be an important turning-point in attitudes to Goethe. Some of the many publications intended to commemorate this occasion reveal widespread dissatisfaction with the conventional stereotype of the serene, 'Olympian' Goethe. Questions were asked as to the authenticity of this image and its value for the modern reader of Goethe. Jose Ortega y Gasset was one of those who believed that many of the poet's less exemplary qualities had been overlooked by the established schools of literary criticism: Wir sind der Statue Goethes ein wenig iiberdrlissig. Dringen Sie in sein Drama ein unter Verzicht auf die herkommliche und unfruchtbare Schonheit seiner Gestalt. . . Zeigen Sic uns einen Goethe, der schifFbriichig und verloren ist in seiner eigenen Existenz, der keinen Augenblick weiB, was aus ihm werden wird.
' See Faust-Bibliographie, edited by Hans Henning, 5 vols (Berlin, 1966-76}, 11, 2/2, pp. 72-4. ' Chronikdes WienerGoethe-Vereins, 20 (1906), 13-16. * The view that Herder was responsible for a large part of the theolc^cal content of Faust is argued by Giinther Jacoby, Herder als Faust (Leipzig, 1911). * Vom Geist der Ebraischen Poeiie, in Samtliche Werke, edited by Bernhard Suphan, 33 vols (Berlin, i877-i9i3),xi, 313. ' See Franz Carl Endres, Symbolik am Goethes Faust (Zurich, 1932), and Julius Trumpp, Die Hexetikuch des *Faust' im Lichte axiomalr Wissenschaft (dissertation, Munich, 1949), to name but two. ' Isaac Rosenberg, 'Koheleth und Gothes Faust', Jahrbuch fiir jiidische Geschichte und IMeratur, II (1908), 15175; William D. Goodrum, 'Ecclesiastes in Goethe's Faust', The McNeese Review, 14 (1963). 74-fl-

O. DURRANI

841

So he recommends the study of some of Goethe's hitherto unexplored charactertraits, such as 'seine dauernde Verstimmung, seine Geheimradichkeit, seine IsoHertheit, der Zug von Bitterkeit'.i Just as Ortega y Gasset argues that tbe older Goethe had betrayed his vocation as a poet by settling in Weimar, Konrad Burdach maintains that Faust is less true to his ideals in Part 1 1 than he had been in the first part of the drama. After showing that Faust's religious experiences were lacking in continuity in Part i, he considers the reasons behind his salvation. He cannot accept that Faust was intended to be taken as a model: 'Nicht ein Paradigma woUte Goethe in ihm schaffen, wohl aber eine Wamung und einen Trost' and 'In dem SchluB des zweiten Teils . . . scheitert Faust : sein Lebensweg ist der Vemichtung geweiht.' Having thus condemned Faust, it is no easy task for Burdach to explain why the poet nevertheless engineers his salvation with the help of familiar Christian symbolism. He decides that the reasons for this are largely to do with Goethe's early interest in Pietism, Gatholicism, and in the Old Testament, and sees the final scene as an attempt to evoke the 'Urreligion' of mankind.^ The years leading up to and following the Second World War saw a considerable increase in tbe number of published interpretations that stressed the pessimistic aspects of Goethe's drama. Wilhelm Bohm's Faust der Nichtfaustische (1933) and his later Goethes Faust in neuer Deutimg (1949) mark an attempt to examine the central character's more negative features, and the consequence of this approach is that the play is seen as a satirical debunking of the concept of the tjbermensch. Similarly, if from a more committed theological angle, Reinbold Schneider maintained that there was a possibility that a great misunderstanding had occurred in literary criticism as to the true import of Faust, whose hero was no more than a 'genialer Frevler'. After emphasizing the many occasions on which Faust refuses to acknowledge the transcendental realm as envisaged by Christianity, Schneider tries to account for his salvation, and has to conclude tbat only the intercession of the Virgin Mary could have produced this otherwise inexplicable development: Weder vom Sittlichen noch vom Theologischen her kann die Losung hinreichend begrundet werden; als Prophetie wird sie vielleicht verstandlich . . . Der Frevel am Miitterlichen, dieser eigentlich faustische Frevel, kann nur von der Mutter verziehen werden.' Negative, too, are the assessments of Faust's character arrived at by Johannes Pinsk,* Ernst Jockers,^ and Werner Milch,* to name a few of the post-war critics who were inclined to see Faust as arrogantly overreaching himself. Pinsk reads Christian symbolism into most parts of the drama (the 'Mothers', for example, represent creation before the Fall of Man), and believes that Faust's death occurs primarily as a punishment for the murder of Philemon and Baucis. Gretchen ensures that Faust is ultimately saved; she remains part of the Church in spite of her sins, and Pinsk commends Gkiethe for portraying 'christliche Wirklichkeit' even though this does not play an important part in tbe poet's personal beliefs.
' Josi Ortega y Gasset (translated by Helene Weyl), 'Um einen Goethe von innen bittend. Brief an einen Deutschen', Neue Rundschau, 43 (1932), 559, 566. First published as 'Pidiendo un Goethe desde dentro. Gartaaunalemin', itaisiaifeoeaitoite, 36 (1932), 1-41. ' Konrad Burdach, Dcts religiose Problem in Goethes Faust, Euphorim, 33 (1932), 26, 36,44-6. ' Reinhold %ch.nadei, FaastsRettung (Baden-Baden, 1946), p. 38. ' KrisisdesFauslischen. Utditerarische Betrachtungen zu Goethes'Famt' (Berlin, 1948), and'Die christliche Wirklichkeit in Goethes Faust', TTieolegie undGlaube, 39 (1949), 337-50. ' 'FaustunddieNatur',/'MLj4,57(1947},436-71 and707-34. ' 'Wandlungen der Faustdeutung', Zeitschriftfiir deutsche Phihlogie, 71 (1951), 23-38.

842

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Faust'

Jockers and Milch regard Faust as a tragic figure who does evil deeds in the erroneous belief that he has the utilimited freedom of his creator. These are sotne examples of the 'defeatist' readings oiFaust which reflect attitudes that were current among certain intellectuals at the time of the Second World War, and of which Barker Fairley says that they were 'forced on Gennatis by their own unhappiness'.' Many of these studies were in fact not so much first-hand readings of Faust as reactions to the eulogies of Faustian striving that had been apjjearing in the wake of Oswald Spengier's characterization of 'der faustische Mensch',* such as Fritz Strich's 'Der deutsche Mensch: er sei mit einem Worte hier der faustische Mensch genannt',* or Richard GrCstzmacher's Goethes Faust. Ein deutscher Mythos (1936) the title speaks for itself. For Fairley, the Germans needed to be helped to a sounder view of their own poem, and his Goethe's Faust. Six Essays is intended as a contribution to this task. He no longer sees the religious question as the main issue of the work; Goethe's modelling of the 'Prolog im Himmel' on the Book of Job may be 'the boldest of his levies on the past' {Fairiey, p. 102), but the Bible is only one of the many foreign sources of which the poet made use. From this point onwards, the role of Anglo-American criticism liecomes increasingly important, so that by the mid-1960s it begins to look as if foreign scholars were tnore interested in Goethe than Germans were.* After publishing several articles on various aspects of Faust, Stuart Atkins produced his 'literary analysis' of the complete work in 1958. His studies show him to be greatly interested in the significance of the religious elements in Faust but his interpretation is character-oriented, and he consequently evaluates the religious material chiefly with tbe objective of deducing supplementary information about the play's characters from it. His book is a vigorous plea for regarding Faust as a unity, tbe unifying factor being the character of Faust, whose presence is to be felt even in those scenes in which he does not appear, which Atkins treats as dreams and experiences undergone in a trance-like state.^ When assessing Faust's statements on religion, Atkins endeavours to decide whether Faust is being serious or frivolous, and in doing so he is not always consistent. Too often, when Goethe has left Fatist's motivation uncertain and ambiguous, Atkins believes he knows exactly how Faust feels, and supplies amplifying descriptions which are at best idiosyncratic and at worst wilfully misleading. Essentially, Atkins sees Faust as a creature offleshand blood rather than as a constructed literary figure; in his words, Faust is 'above all . . . a man so likable (sic) that sympathetic self-identification with him in moments of passionate triumph or of bitter despair is always possible' (Atkins, p. 26). He therefore tends to err on the side of being over-specific in attributing certain feelings and attitudes to Faust. In his view, Fatist's reference to 'the church's venerable night' (1. 927) is spoken 'disparagingly', and the whole tenor of this speech is 'facile', 'somewhat sentimental', 'alm.ost glibly anthropocentric'
* Goethe's Faust. Six Essays (Oxford, 1953), p . v. ' Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang ties Abeiidlandes. Urmisse einer Morpkologie der Wettgeschichte, 2 vots

(Munich, 19223), 11,627. * Fritz Strich, Dichtungund Zivilisation (Munich, 1928), p. 80. * See, for example, Walter Muschg, 'Gcrmanistik? In memoriam Eliza M. Butler', Euphorim. 59 (1965), 18: 'Kxitische Biicher iiber Goethe werden seit langem nur von Auslandem odcr amgewanderten Deutschen geschricben.' ' Stuart Atkins, Gortfe'jFaitrt. A IMeraty Amdysis (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1958), pp. 157-230.

O. DURRANI

843

(Atkins, p. 34). It is also an open question whether Faust's religious principles can be defined as accurately as Atkins attempts to in his deliberations on the opening verses of 'Studierzimmer I'.' But in the factual information that he provides about the wording of the text Atkins is most helpful to the reader. He spots a large number of biblical quotations and associations, and supplies useful information about their context, as in his observations on Mephistopheles's misquotation of Genesis in line 2048, Goethe's distortion of the Requiem Mass in 'Dom', and the function of Frau Baubo in the writings of the early Church Fathers (Atkins, pp. 53 and 90 f.). More recently, Eudo C. Mason has disagreed with the proposition that Faust was a 'likable' character and maintained that what Goethe termed the 'incommensurable' aspect of this work precludes a simple evaluation of Faust's character as either praiseworthy or ignoble: The paradoxical view is here proposed that Faust is in equal measure a glorification and a denunciation of the superman, that his self-centredness and ruthlessness are in equal measure justified and condemned, that Faust is saved both because of what he is and in spite of what he is.' The amoralism of Faust and the Christianity of Gretchen are in conflict with one another, each being defeated and triumphing by turn, and in the end being united in the Eternal Feminine. According to Mason, Goethe found the Christian religion 'undesirable, intolerable, and indeed impossible' from a personal point of view, but also regarded it as 'the right and indispensable religion for the ordinary man and for woman at all levels, especially the highest level' (Mason, p. 241). He can therefore credit the work with no more than a very loose unity, and does not see Faust's salvation as a structural element. The unity oi Faust, which has been under discussion since the time of Duntzer's commentary of 1836, is tbe subject of Paul Requadt's penetrating analysis, Goethes 'Faust r. Leitmotivik und Architektur, published in Munich in 1972, and to this date the last in a long line of interpretations of the play. Though indebted to tbe research of tbe previous English-speaking scholars, Requadt's work is distinguished from Mason's by its vigorous defence of the structural unity of the play, and from Atkins's by its more detached treatment of Faust's character: for Requadt, Faust is a much more elusivefigurethan for most other critics. The structure of the work is reflected in the recurring symbols, and it is to these that Requadt devotes most of his attention. Requadt's greatest interest lies in the symbols of expansion and contraction; several of these symbols are of biblical origin, for example the motif of the wide and the strait gate (Matthew 7. 13 f.), and the polarity of the word and the spirit (11 Corinthians 3. 6). It is therefore not surprising that Requadt's study should provide one of the most thorough discussions of the biblical references in Faust ever to have been published. Requadt never attributes Goethe's biblical pbraseology to anything other than the poetic intentions of the author, so tbat the Lord of the Prologue and Christ crucified (11. 1300-9) are not religious figures so much as symbols of totality which contrzist with Mephistopheles, who bears the connotations of the particular and incomplete (Requadt, pp. 48, 59, 117, and 121-3). This
' Atkins, pp. 38-41. Atkins sees them as heralding a 'religious awakening' in which Faust is 'very close to Jesus', though 'Faust's religious experience is formulated in such general terms that he remains a representative of good men everywhere'. ^ Eudo C. Mason, Goethe's Faust. Its Genesis and Purport (Berkeley, 1967), p. 244.

844

Biblical Borrowings in Goethe's 'Faust'

creates the impression that Goethe was less interested in the religious significance of his symbols than in their function as poetic chiffres. Motifs such as 'Quelle' and 'Pforte' serve to illustrate Faust's longing for expansion and his transitions from 'Enge' to 'Ausbreitung', while losing most of the meaning which they had in the Scriptures. Gretchen's prayer in 'Zwinger' interests Requadt more on account of its 'architectural' ramifications in 'Kerker' and 'Bergschluchten' than for what it reveals about her psychological condition {Requadt, p. 344). Similarly, Requadt treats the Song of Solomon as a recurring motif in the 'Gretchen Tragedy' without askii^ why Goethe used this and no other motif. Requadt's discoveries will, it is hoped, help to create a greater sensitivity towards the prolific biblical allusions in Faust. His disciissions show that they are of cardinal importance for several reasons: they prove that the work has a tightly knit structure of recurring biblical symbols, and this in turn places the drama within the context of modern literature, where, as Requadt hints with reference to Musil, Joyce, and T. S. Eliot, the technique of quotation has had an important role to play. When he examines the process of Faust's salvation, which he regards as a heightening of motifs already employed in 'Nachf and 'Kerker', Requadt provides an interpretation of the conclusion of the drama which proceeds from within, instead of imputing to the salvationary machinery the role of an intrusive device, as so many others have done (Requadt, pp. 385-8). The multiplicity of responses that Goethe's linguistic and thematic borrowings from religious sources have occasioned in the field of modem literary studies bears ample witness to the important role which these elements play in Faust. They are more than a superficial form of ornamentation or a structure-giving device; nor are they simply an aid to characterization or a means enabling Goethe to profess his faith or disbelief. The comments which they have provoked however contradictory they may at first appear point to the need for a synthesizing reappraisal, in which due attention is paid to the multiple functions of many of Goethe's allusions to religious subjects.^ The fate which Goethe's biblical quotations met with at the hands of the nineteenth-century censors demonstrates that there was a wellestablished convention at that time which forbade allusions to the sacrosanct in profane contexts: Goethe must have known of this and contravened it intentionally. The negative reactions to this aspect of Faust, as recorded above, show that Gk>ethe was prepared to risk his reputation for the sake of the religious elements in his work, which confirms their prominent position in the author's conception of Faust. But it is equally clear that they allow themselves to be interpreted from several angles, and inevitably, each generation wiU need to examine them afresh and will be certain to arrive at new conclusions regarding their import. There could be no fitter motto with which to terminate this survey than the words spoken by Dr Stockmann in
Ibsen's An Enemy of the People: The life of a normally constituted truth is generally, say, about seventeen or eighteen years, at most twenty; rarely longer.'
, x^ UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM O. DURRANI

' The author has attempted this task in a dissertation entitled Faast and the Bible, A Study of Goethe which the present article has arisen. ' Ibsen, translated and edited by James Walter McFarlane, 7 vols (London, 1960-72), vi, g7.
Use of Scriptural Allusion and Christian Retigimis Motifs in Faust, Farts I and II (Oxford, 1975), out of