No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Faust and the Clementine Recognitions
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 September 2009
Extract
It is with hesitation that any one at this day adds to the appalling mass of Faust literature, but two facts have led to the present paper: 1. The exhaustive work of Kiesewetter on the historical and traditional Faust, just published, and the equally interesting and exhaustive work of Faligan, published in 1888, practically ignore the most plausible hypothesis of the very origin of this story. 2. There are two or three matters of undoubted pertinency which have not hitherto been brought to bear on the subject. The discussion of these will at least bring together lines which have been followed out too independently, and, with the addition of one or two facts and observations, will furnish a positive historical hypothesis which may hope to prove the solution.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society for Church History 1894
References
page 133 note 1 Carl, Kiesewetter. Faust in der Geschichte und Tradition. Leipzig, 1893. 8vo.Google Scholar
page 133 note 2 Ernest, Faligan. Histoire de la légende de Faust. Paris, 1888Google Scholar. 8vo. Those who are curious to follow up the history of the Faust story will find here an exhaustive bibliographical list—the most comprehensive works being the collection of monographs in Scheible's Kloster, and the works of Ristelhuber, Faligan, and Kiesewetter.
page 134 note 1 For full text of this letter see documents at the end of this paper.
page 134 note 2 For text see documents at end of paper.
page 137 note 1 Essays, Fünfzehn, v. 3.Google Scholar
page 140 note 1 Cf. Harnack, . Gesch. d. altchr. Litteratur, i. (1893), 229–230.Google Scholar
page 140 note 2 X. Februarii M.D. 111 is date of prefatory epistle. The Paradysus Heraclidis, included with the Recognitions is dated xxiii. Februarii of the same year, and the colophon of the Recognitions reads “Ex officinia Bellovisiana. Finis: Impensis Joannis Parvi. … M.D. 111. Idibus lulliis, iullio secundo.”
page 140 note 3 Pp. 235–248, especially p. 240, note.
page 141 note 1 Compare documents at end of paper.
page 142 note 1 This is altogether as pretty a piece of evolution through scribal errors as can well be imagined. The author originally declared that Pyrrha and Erymetheus were parents of Helen and Prometheus. This is gradually transformed until Pyrrha and Prometheus are parents of Helmitheus!
page 142 note 2 It should be noted that most of the facts cited apply equally well to the Homilies or the Epitomes, but, unless some definite link is established, the probability rests with the Recognitions. Whichever form it was, the ultimate source is the same, and is found in the story of Clement, which dates from the second century.