Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von -Faust pt 1- Studierzimmer/ Faust’s Study
I am the spirit that denies forever!
And rightly so! What has arisen from the void
Deserves to be annihilated.
It would be best if nothing ever would arise.
And thus what you call havoc,
deadly sin, or briefly stated: Evil,
that is my proper element.
(1340)
Back in the last scene Faust brings home a very odd poodle (yes, seriously, it is a poodle- Pudelt) and if you have any kind of knowledge about this story you’ll easily guess that the poodle is the devil. But before that happens we have a revealing scene, where Faust is contemplating translating the Bible into German:
It is written: “In the beginning was the Word!”
Even now I balk. Can no one help?
I truly cannot rate the word so high.
I must translate it otherwise.
I believe the Spirit has inspired me
And I must write: “In the beginning there was Mind.”
Think thoroughly on this first line
Hold back your pen from undue haste!
Is it mind that stirs and makes all things?
The text should state: “In the beginning there was Power!”
Yet while I am about to write this down,
Something warns me I will not adhere to this.
The Spirit’s on my side! The answer is at hand:
I write, assured, “In the beginning was the Deed.”
(1230)
Instinctively I annotated this, but it’s so rich that I don’t think I can touch on everything it expresses. Faust is not content with the Word, which he has a low opinion of. This, I guess, would be the most common translation of this verse:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1
Why is he not content with that? I think perhaps Faust is not truly content with anything and to take the standard translation would be settling instead of searching for something better. Perhaps he also hates “the Word’s” immutable and authoritative implications. We already know Faust wants to follow his own path and also that Faust is an alchemist, chiefly concerned with transmutation.
Indecisively, Faust gropes for a new word. Mind- though he places great emphasis on the powers of his own mind, this does not satisfy him. Power, though he yearns for it, does not satisfy him either. Possibly his conscience is telling him he is putting too much of himself into the verse when he chooses those words. He eventually settles for “Deed,” believing the spirits have guided him towards this conclusion. Why deed? It’s so bare and wildly different from “Word.” It’s as if Faust just wants to say “OK, this happened, whatever, next verse.” Yet there is also this strange finality to it.
Of course now the poodle starts acting really strange and Faust realizes there is something odd going on. Spirits gathers in the corridor as the dog starts to change. Faust tries unsuccessfully to protect himself with a spell. Finally Mephistopheles appears. Faust demands to know his name, but Mephistopheles replies:
This seems a trifling question
For one so scornful of the word. (referring to the above),
For one removed from every outward show
Who always reaches for the inmost core.
(1330)
Flattery? Obviously. Faust isn’t impressed:
The essence of the like of you
is usually inherent in the name.
It appears in all-too-great transparency
In names like Lord of Flies, Destroyer, Liar.
All right, who are you then?
(1340)
Faust gathers he can surmise the character of his guest quite easily from his name. But Mephistopheles gives a very ambiguous answer when he says he is “A portion of that power which always works for Evil and effects the Good” (1340). Typically, Christian theodicy focus on the idea that all things work for good, so even if Evil exists, it is negated by the fact that all things are ultimately part of God’s plan OR it is viewed as some sort of purification process. Mephistopheles is far more complex- he is always working for Evil and because of this he transmogrifies the Good. I believe things ultimately turn out in a massive redemption scene in the second book of Faust, but considering the causalities, I wonder if Goethe really believes that “good in the end” is really moral “good.”
Mephistopheles’ intent is clear in the next passage:
I am the spirit that denies forever!
And rightly so! What has arisen from the void
Deserves to be annihilated.
It would be best if nothing ever would arise.
And thus what you call havoc,
deadly sin, or briefly stated: Evil,
that is my proper element.
(1340)
This was familiar to me before I ever read Faust because Freud quotes it in his Civilization and its Discontents in light of the “destructive instinct” saying “In Goethe’s Mephistopheles we have a quite exceptionally convincing identification of evil with the destructive instinct…the devil himself names as his adversary, not what is holy and good, but Nature’s power to create, to multiply life-that is, Eros…” (80). Mephistopheles is at once senseless and purposeful. His hatred for all creation seems so blatantly nihilistic, but his purpose to deny forever is starkly clear, contrasting with his own self proclaiming epithet of “Liar.”
Then Mephistopheles explains why he is “A portion” instead of a whole-
I am a portion of that part which once was everything,
A part of darkness which gave birth to Light,
That haughty Light which now disputes the rank
And ancient sway of Mother Night…
Light beautifies the bodies,
Yet bodies have forever blocked its way-
And so I hope it won’t be long
Before all bodies are annihilated.
(1350)
He has a strange part in creation, for he has a share in the night because he is a fraction of it. Taking this to its conclusion, he resents the way material creation has altered the interaction between light and dark and schemes to destroy it. Yet he has a weakness, as his tactic as Faust puts it is to “nibble away at the smaller things” (1360) and Mephistopheles notes the tenacity of creation. No matter how much he destroys “…there is always fresh new blood in circulation” (1370).
Mephistopheles eventually leaves, even though Faust tries to thwart him, and Faust is placed in a deep sleep. Once he awakes he wonders if his conversation with Mephistopheles ever even happened.
In Dante’s Divine Comedy the devil is depicted chained and frozen, a far cry from the dynamic Mephistopheles in Faust. Mephistopheles is more akin to the devil in folktales I’ve read- wily and deceptive, walking among men, only given away by his hoofed feet. Goethe might be drawing on local Germanic folktales for his Mephistopheles, as did later Germans like Wagner. Whether he did that or not, his depiction of Mephistopheles has colored the devil in literature ever since, such as in George Bernard Shaw’s play Man and Superman, where again the devil is depicted as cunning and sarcastic.
What is interesting the that Mephistopheles' evil is a desire for extreme sterility. He's not Dante's devil in icy chains, he's an active force for destruction.
Mephistopheles is at once sinister and likable. Faust is drawn in by him and it’s easy to see why. One of my other “favorite” (can we really have a favorite devil?) depictions of the devil is in C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra. There the devil is steely eyed, bloody clawed, and inhuman. There is little of that here, until the end when Mephistopheles is stripped down to his bare form of evil only by the deeds he precipitates. Otherwise, he seems so deceptively straightforward and humorous. I think though Lewis’ devil is frightening, but I find Mephistopheles is more real. I don’t think many people wake up and say “I’m going to seek out evil,” instead it seeps into them through seemingly innocuous pathways. They aren’t looking for bare destruction, but somehow they get to it.
That Mephistopheles is full of the most raw and stark hatred for creation, Faust has his own resentments of creation. Both are vain and scornful of higher power. They seem like a good match, but in reality Mephistopheles is like an empty shell. He walks in the guise of someone humans can identify with, so they ignore the utter nihilism he stands for.
And rightly so! What has arisen from the void
Deserves to be annihilated.
It would be best if nothing ever would arise.
And thus what you call havoc,
deadly sin, or briefly stated: Evil,
that is my proper element.
(1340)
Back in the last scene Faust brings home a very odd poodle (yes, seriously, it is a poodle- Pudelt) and if you have any kind of knowledge about this story you’ll easily guess that the poodle is the devil. But before that happens we have a revealing scene, where Faust is contemplating translating the Bible into German:
It is written: “In the beginning was the Word!”
Even now I balk. Can no one help?
I truly cannot rate the word so high.
I must translate it otherwise.
I believe the Spirit has inspired me
And I must write: “In the beginning there was Mind.”
Think thoroughly on this first line
Hold back your pen from undue haste!
Is it mind that stirs and makes all things?
The text should state: “In the beginning there was Power!”
Yet while I am about to write this down,
Something warns me I will not adhere to this.
The Spirit’s on my side! The answer is at hand:
I write, assured, “In the beginning was the Deed.”
(1230)
Instinctively I annotated this, but it’s so rich that I don’t think I can touch on everything it expresses. Faust is not content with the Word, which he has a low opinion of. This, I guess, would be the most common translation of this verse:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:1
Why is he not content with that? I think perhaps Faust is not truly content with anything and to take the standard translation would be settling instead of searching for something better. Perhaps he also hates “the Word’s” immutable and authoritative implications. We already know Faust wants to follow his own path and also that Faust is an alchemist, chiefly concerned with transmutation.
Indecisively, Faust gropes for a new word. Mind- though he places great emphasis on the powers of his own mind, this does not satisfy him. Power, though he yearns for it, does not satisfy him either. Possibly his conscience is telling him he is putting too much of himself into the verse when he chooses those words. He eventually settles for “Deed,” believing the spirits have guided him towards this conclusion. Why deed? It’s so bare and wildly different from “Word.” It’s as if Faust just wants to say “OK, this happened, whatever, next verse.” Yet there is also this strange finality to it.
Of course now the poodle starts acting really strange and Faust realizes there is something odd going on. Spirits gathers in the corridor as the dog starts to change. Faust tries unsuccessfully to protect himself with a spell. Finally Mephistopheles appears. Faust demands to know his name, but Mephistopheles replies:
This seems a trifling question
For one so scornful of the word. (referring to the above),
For one removed from every outward show
Who always reaches for the inmost core.
(1330)
Flattery? Obviously. Faust isn’t impressed:
The essence of the like of you
is usually inherent in the name.
It appears in all-too-great transparency
In names like Lord of Flies, Destroyer, Liar.
All right, who are you then?
(1340)
Faust gathers he can surmise the character of his guest quite easily from his name. But Mephistopheles gives a very ambiguous answer when he says he is “A portion of that power which always works for Evil and effects the Good” (1340). Typically, Christian theodicy focus on the idea that all things work for good, so even if Evil exists, it is negated by the fact that all things are ultimately part of God’s plan OR it is viewed as some sort of purification process. Mephistopheles is far more complex- he is always working for Evil and because of this he transmogrifies the Good. I believe things ultimately turn out in a massive redemption scene in the second book of Faust, but considering the causalities, I wonder if Goethe really believes that “good in the end” is really moral “good.”
Mephistopheles’ intent is clear in the next passage:
I am the spirit that denies forever!
And rightly so! What has arisen from the void
Deserves to be annihilated.
It would be best if nothing ever would arise.
And thus what you call havoc,
deadly sin, or briefly stated: Evil,
that is my proper element.
(1340)
This was familiar to me before I ever read Faust because Freud quotes it in his Civilization and its Discontents in light of the “destructive instinct” saying “In Goethe’s Mephistopheles we have a quite exceptionally convincing identification of evil with the destructive instinct…the devil himself names as his adversary, not what is holy and good, but Nature’s power to create, to multiply life-that is, Eros…” (80). Mephistopheles is at once senseless and purposeful. His hatred for all creation seems so blatantly nihilistic, but his purpose to deny forever is starkly clear, contrasting with his own self proclaiming epithet of “Liar.”
Then Mephistopheles explains why he is “A portion” instead of a whole-
I am a portion of that part which once was everything,
A part of darkness which gave birth to Light,
That haughty Light which now disputes the rank
And ancient sway of Mother Night…
Light beautifies the bodies,
Yet bodies have forever blocked its way-
And so I hope it won’t be long
Before all bodies are annihilated.
(1350)
He has a strange part in creation, for he has a share in the night because he is a fraction of it. Taking this to its conclusion, he resents the way material creation has altered the interaction between light and dark and schemes to destroy it. Yet he has a weakness, as his tactic as Faust puts it is to “nibble away at the smaller things” (1360) and Mephistopheles notes the tenacity of creation. No matter how much he destroys “…there is always fresh new blood in circulation” (1370).
Mephistopheles eventually leaves, even though Faust tries to thwart him, and Faust is placed in a deep sleep. Once he awakes he wonders if his conversation with Mephistopheles ever even happened.
In Dante’s Divine Comedy the devil is depicted chained and frozen, a far cry from the dynamic Mephistopheles in Faust. Mephistopheles is more akin to the devil in folktales I’ve read- wily and deceptive, walking among men, only given away by his hoofed feet. Goethe might be drawing on local Germanic folktales for his Mephistopheles, as did later Germans like Wagner. Whether he did that or not, his depiction of Mephistopheles has colored the devil in literature ever since, such as in George Bernard Shaw’s play Man and Superman, where again the devil is depicted as cunning and sarcastic.
What is interesting the that Mephistopheles' evil is a desire for extreme sterility. He's not Dante's devil in icy chains, he's an active force for destruction.
Mephistopheles is at once sinister and likable. Faust is drawn in by him and it’s easy to see why. One of my other “favorite” (can we really have a favorite devil?) depictions of the devil is in C.S. Lewis’ Perelandra. There the devil is steely eyed, bloody clawed, and inhuman. There is little of that here, until the end when Mephistopheles is stripped down to his bare form of evil only by the deeds he precipitates. Otherwise, he seems so deceptively straightforward and humorous. I think though Lewis’ devil is frightening, but I find Mephistopheles is more real. I don’t think many people wake up and say “I’m going to seek out evil,” instead it seeps into them through seemingly innocuous pathways. They aren’t looking for bare destruction, but somehow they get to it.
That Mephistopheles is full of the most raw and stark hatred for creation, Faust has his own resentments of creation. Both are vain and scornful of higher power. They seem like a good match, but in reality Mephistopheles is like an empty shell. He walks in the guise of someone humans can identify with, so they ignore the utter nihilism he stands for.