ABSTRACT
The documentary evidence which is generally advanced for the existence of a historical Faust is of varying value. The mixture of legendary matter with material that is really authentic is inevitable and increases as we get into the second half of the sixteenth century. Nor is it always easy to sift out the one from the other. Such evidence as we get from Tritheim, Conrad Mutianus Rufus, the account book of the Bishop of Bamberg, Kilian Leib, the Nuremberg and Ingolstadt records, Luther’s Tischreden, and Philip von Hutten is first hand and genuinely historical, though Tritheim brings in some material that is probably hearsay. The evidence from the matriculation records of the University of Heidelberg is certainly historical but the question remains whether the “Johannes Faust ex Simern” is Faust the magician. In other cases the evidence is partly hearsay, but it is well to remember that the authors were frequently scholarly men and should be given credit for using due caution in what they wrote. To this group belong the Waldeck Chrornicle, Joachim Camerarius, Begardi, Gast, Gesner, the Zimmerische Chronik, Wier, Lercheimer, and Philipp Camerarius. The evidence of Manlius would seem to belong somewhere between the two groups in view of the fact that he claims to be quoting Melanchthon who speaks, in part at least, from first hand knowledge. The Erfurt stories as told by Hogel seem at first sight to be distinctly legendary. This impression is strengthened by the fact that we find the same stories in the so-called Erfurt chapters in the enlarged Spies Faust Book. And yet there is reason to believe that Hogel uses as his direct source an older Erfurt chronicle whose author knew at first hand the events he is recounting. The historical value of Hogel cannot, therefore, be ignored. 2 What is offered in the Explicationes of Melanchthon, and by Lavater is decidedly hearsay.
