Changing European Visions of Disaster and Development. Vanessa PupavacЧитать онлайн книгу.
pity at ‘man’s distress’ (Goethe 1832 Act I ‘Prologue & A Beautiful Landscape’ in Luke 1998: 3). The symbolic break moves us from the small private world to the larger public world. Goethe described Faust Part I as ‘almost entirely subjective’ and Part II as having ‘scarcely anything … subjective’ (Eckermann 1930 [17 February 1831]: 384). The move demands we widen our social perspective and address the responsibilities of our era. Goethe was recorded saying:
All eras in a state of decline and dissolution are subjective; on the other hand, all progressive eras have an objective tendency. Our present time is retrograde, for it is subjective … . Every healthy effort, on the contrary, is directed from the inward to the outward world: as you see in all great eras, which were really in a state of progression and all of an objective nature. (Eckermann 1930 [29 January 1826]: 126)
So how does Faust cheat Old Iniquity and assert a new humanist outlook? Is there anything retrievable in Faust’s crooked course and Europe’s contradictory violent history? What is left of Faust’s vision of collective self-determination?
Goethe’s Faustian powers
Matthew Arnold’s Memorial Verses declared Goethe sought happiness, and happiness in addressing the ‘causes of things’ (Arnold 1908 [1850]: 247). If Goethe’s philosophy was about human happiness, it was found in an active life, not passive ease. Goethe believed ‘the existence of my soul is proved from my idea of activity’ (Eckermann 1930 [4 February 1829]: 287). His reworking of the Faust legend treated much human misery as having knowable causes, which human activity could overcome through the scientific and technological breakthroughs of the Industrial Revolution. Marlowe’s Dr Faustus imagined eradicating plagues and building bridges between continents (Marlowe 2005 [1592/1604] Act I Scene I: 8). Goethe’s Faust wanted to make such imaginings reality. The poem turned from words to deeds and rewrote the scriptural proclamation as: ‘In the beginning was the deed’. Faust’s foregrounding of deeds goes went beyond crude power over others and articulated a new belief in human transforming activity. Faust wanted to act and create something humanly significant. He was not content with ‘huckstering with words’ or sterile thoughts. Faust defied the myriad anxieties which make us shrink from life:
Full soon in deepest hearts care finds a nest,
And builds her bed of pain, in secret still,
There rocks herself, disturbing joy and rest,
And ever takes new shapes to work her will,
With fluttering fears for home or wife or child,
A thought of poison, flood or perils wild;
For man must quail at bridges never crossed,
Lamenting even things he never lost.
(Goethe 1808 ‘Night Faust’s Study’ i in Wayne 1949: 52)
Metaphors of seas and floods assailing humanity run through the poem and its translations and propel assorted human responses. Faust embraced being ‘in flood of life, in action’s storm’, and sharing ‘the shipwreck of mankind’, while ready to battle the seas (Goethe 1808 ‘Faust’s Study’ iii in Wayne 1949: 90). He embodied new human energies seeking to triumph over natural forces declaring, ‘Let him stand fast in this world, and look around / With courage’ (Goethe 1832 Act V Scene 20 ‘Midnight’ in Luke 1998: 219).
Goethe gave moral redemptive significance to Faust’s flood prevention and land reclamation project. This significance was prompted by contemporary North Sea flood disasters. His 1825 essay on weather spoke of the elements ‘to be viewed as colossal opponents with whom we must forever battle; … we can overcome them only through the highest powers of the mind by courage and guile’ (Goethe 1995 [1825]: 147). Salvation through combating natural forces to establish free land for people to live freely and securely links spiritual and material transformation (Goethe 1832 Act V Scene 21 ‘The Great Forecourt of the Palace’ in Luke 1998: 223). Human emancipation required material emancipation from nature. Just as Faust’s reclamation work had to be renewed against destructive natural forces, so our humanity was vitalised in an active creative collective spirit. Mephistopheles sneered that all our creations were corrupt, mortal, and would be destroyed, while watching Faust’s great salvation project being subverted into digging his grave (Goethe 1832 Act V ‘The Great Forecourt of the Palace’ in Luke 1998: 221–3). Against Mephistopheles, the human spirit rose above its destruction and destructiveness, and through forgiveness, it participated in divine creation and renewal.
Goethe’s progressive humanist ideals supported material improvement and technological advancements, limiting human suffering. In Part I, poverty tempted Gretchen into sin and caused her downfall: ‘The lure of gold … alas for all us poor’ (Goethe 1808 ‘Evening’ in Wayne 1949: 128). In Part II, readers’ sympathies are expanded to depict the plight of enslaved peoples. His mythical Emmets and the Dactyls cry:
Who will save us?
We make the iron,
They chain us, enslave us.
But now’s not the occasion
To tear ourselves free,
So: bend and obey.
(Goethe 1832 Act II ‘On the Upper Peneus’ in Constantine 2009: 104)
The poem satirised the corrupt decadent Holy Roman Empire and the courts of Goethe’s day. Demonic arts temporarily rescued the Emperor but destroyed imperial claims to holiness (Constantine 2009: xci). As Goethe outlined:
In the emperor … I have endeavoured to represent a prince who has all the necessary qualities for losing his land, and at last succeeds in so doing. He does not concern himself about the welfare of his kingdom and his subjects; he only thinks of himself and how he can amuse himself with something new. The land is without law and justice; the judge is on the side of the criminals; atrocious crimes are committed with impunity. The army is without pay, without discipline, and roams about plundering to help itself as it can. The state treasury is empty, and without hope of replenishment. In the emperor’s own household, there is scarcity in both kitchen and cellar. (Eckermann 1930 [1 October 1827]: 230)
Into this corrupt state, Mephistopheles entered to counsel and fool the emperor. Previously Mephistopheles had joined drinkers mockingly toasting the Holy Roman Empire, only to trick them with fake alcohol (Goethe, Faust I, 1808, ‘Auerbach Cellar’ in Wayne 1949: 100–110). Their plebeian license was cramped and fickle. Mephistopheles’ alcoholic democracy and paper empire were both illusory and belonged to the trickery of the magicians. Faust pushed for authentic freedom and self-realisation beyond a false demonic vision of liberty. Short-lived happiness was found in ancient Arcadian liberty, with Helen of Troy as his companion temporarily fusing together individuals from across the continent: ‘You, the northern youthful flower, / You, the bright eastern energy’ (Goethe 1832 Act III ‘The Inner Courtyard’ in Constantine 2009: 165). This Arcadian interlude—‘branch of a limb of Europe’s mountain tree’—was precarious and sandwiched between bloody conflicts (Goethe 1832 Act III ‘The Inner Courtyard’ in Constantine 2009: 167).
The first part, Lukacs analysed, addressed the decline of the feudal world, and the second, the rise of the modern world (Lukacs 1968 [1947]: 182). Goethe directly witnessed European war in the 1790s and later Napoleonic occupation of German cities. Mephistopheles contemptuously dismissed human struggles for freedom as violent cycles of revenge between ‘Two lots of lackeys’ (Goethe 1832 Act II ‘In a Laboratory’ in Constantine 2009: 81). The poem mourns: ‘Youth torn off like blossom, fast’ by entering ‘into violent quarrel/With Law and Morality’ (Goethe 1832 Act III ‘The Inner Court’ in Constantine 2009: 182). Helen and Faust’s child Euphorion was like Icarus, soaring too high. Euphorion represents the tragic romantic Byronic hero killed in the Greek Struggle for Independence: ‘One who made a large and brave / Beauty of black days and bright’ (Goethe 1832 Act III ‘The Inner Courtyard’ in Constantine 2009: 181). Goethe admired Byron as poetic genius and ranked him with the historical giants of the day Napoleon or Frederick the Great (Eckermann 1930 [24 February 1825]: