Talk:Goethe's Faust

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Books (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

References in Popular Culture[edit]

We have an article on a major and influential piece of german literature and tacked onto the end is a huge list of video game references and mentions in song lyrics? It seems totalyl inappropriate...if anything, the "references" section should be a list of other works of literature that have drawn from or reinterpreted Faust. Can it simply be removed? I don't edit wiki much so I'm reluctant to delete a whole section like that but: does anyone think it should be there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.135.223 (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Faust - a role model for intelligence-driven mankind[edit]

i agree that faust I and II should be described in one article. from my perspective as a german from leipzig, goethe reflects about his life starting in "sturm und drang" to a more moderate humanism view in faust II. i believe that there are not that many texts in this world talking about all big topics of life... and pointing on the destiny of every individual. - the relationship with god (even so i am atheist) - the relationship with your community, the development of society - the balance of doing good and bad... and the struggle with it - the nature of science and knowledge

i feel that there should be a part which gives people guidelines how to read it and background information about links between goethe and faust. and there could be a abstract about ethical standards communicated through faust.

thanks to everybody. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.138.47.140 (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

This Article Needs to be Juiced Up[edit]

Ok. I've just finished reading the work and attending a couple of lectures. Considering the totality and genius of this work, I think we need a much bigger and better organized article. I can provide some info and stuff from the lectures, but I don't see how this could not be Original Research? :\ Also, any way we can get an Expert Opinion?

Tradegy?[edit]

It's listed as a tradegy in wikipedia, the first part of the play is known as "The First Part of the Tragedy" and sometimes this work has been refered to as "The Divine Tragedy"... am I the only guy who realizes this book has a happy ending? Maybe we should point this out.

I agree completly. Definitely a happy ending. I think Goethe referred to the work as a tragedy, as to why, I'm not sure. :\ -DWRZ 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A tragedy by definition is a work in which a protagonist suffers a major reversal of fortune, and therefore does not have to have a "sad" ending. Gretchen experiences redemption, but the work is still a tragedy. 75.4.22.121 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Clean up[edit]

Anyone volunteering to clean up the main article?

I put a fair amount of work into this article, mostly translating from the German version. Compare the Sept version when the cleanup tag was first applied. I'm no Goethe-scholar, and there's still room for improvement, but I don't think it's far below the norm for WP. However, I'll leave it to someone else to copyedit and decide whether removing the cleanup tag is warranted (I have re-tagged it as "expert needed" instead of under general cleanup, though). -- The Photon 06:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

is clearly a tragical development...not a tragic end! but one thing isn't correct: the 'gretchenfrage' nowadays is less about religion, it is used in modern german as 'the one and only most important question of all questions'. (may have been religion only long ago) 118.173.161.92 (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gretchenfrage has been updated. Paradoctor (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging[edit]

The two articles should be merged at Goethe's Faust. It is artificial to write separate articles about them, and the Part 2 article is little more than a stub. Obviously, once the article evolves, "Part 1" and "Part 2" sub-articles may branch out again, but at present we need an article treating the work as a whole. dab () 13:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No complaints. I suggest first renaming this article to Goethe's Faust, then merging in the Part II article. -- The Photon 02:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I did the merge! I hope you like what I did. Still lotsa work to be done. — goethean 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm busy writing a seminar paper on "Faust" right now, but once that is over and done with, I will devote some time to expanding and structuring this article, I promise! -- CP (I should create an account already...) Midnight, Monday, May 8th, 2006 (UTC)

Image[edit]

The image is signed "Leipzig, 1932". However, the text on the image reads "Goethe-Kriegsausgabe" (Goethe war edition). AFAIK war editions were printed only in the last years and shortly after the end of WW1 (1914-1918) and WW2 (1939-1945). Insel Verlag was established 1901. Anyone knows how to deal with that? 134.83.1.225 17:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, that's a problem. Germany started several wars in 19th century, but it was comparatively peeceful in 1932... I discussed it here http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Faust_I#Foto_des_Buchcovers and perhaps someone there knows an answer. --81.173.237.154 20:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The date of 1932 must be an error. No Krieg – No Kriegsausgabe. The typeface is Fraktur so it couldn't have been printed after 1941 when Martin Bormann outlawed this typeface. Therefore the war was either the 19141918 war or the second war up until Bormann's decree. Most likely it was WWI. So the correct date was probably around the beginning of the war, say 1915, when Germany could afford luxuries like the printing of Goethe's plays.Lestrade 17:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Intro[edit]

Reading the first lines you get the impression that it is the first part of Faust which is several hundred pages long. This should be changed because the "original" Faust is relatively short. Obviously the author counted the two parts together. 84.178.125.209 22:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning?[edit]

Please set a spoiler warning!

Merging[edit]

I've added the merge template to this article.

There was a discussion a while back about merging the three articles, but this seems not to have been done.

It seems very unlikely that anyone would search for articles on the individual parts, the current split just causes unnecessary duplication in regard to part One, and the "Part Two" article, as has already been mentioned, is just a stub. The combined article would still not be as long as a number of articles about other major subjects. --rossb 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are seperate books. One was released in 1808 and the other in 1832. Faust Part Two is certainly a significant enough work to warrant an article. I might lean towards the information on the seperate volumes in this article being moved to their respective articles. — goethean 18:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. "Faust I" and "Faust II" are quite different -not surprisingly, given that the author matured by over two decades in between. --OliverH 17:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I have rearranged the article and put some of the "Part 2" material at the separate article. — goethean 22:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry people, but NOBODY who ever dealt with these books seriously would merge them into one WP article; I'll remove that merging template. -- Imladros 02:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

English Translation[edit]

Does anyone know which translation is the best, or at least a superlative one? 69.217.100.46 01:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Test Questions?[edit]

I'm currently a college student that is reading this in our class and our test is coming soon. I'm wondering if I would be allowed to make a section in this article called "Test Questions" so that students such as myself, could come to Wikipedia for help with commonly asked test questions. The main purpose would be to make it easier for students to find information that they may not understand off the bat without the need to scurry the internet for answers only finding one or two answers from a select few web sites

The hopeful end result would be a section that could give all examples that are asked of a test question so the student would only need to pick the few that are needed for the test (reliability is based on the student's own knowledge and he/she would need to determine the legitimacy of the example given). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.44.214.2 (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Title Translation[edit]

I'm not really sure, do the lines below refer to the titles of the English translation of the book, or are they supposed to be translations of the German title? Literally translating the title, one would have to say The Tragedy's First Part...

"It was published in two parts: Faust: der Tragödie erster Teil (translated as: Faust: The Tragedy Part One) and Faust: der Tragödie zweiter Teil (Faust: The Tragedy Part Two). "

XMCHx 23:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Closet drama?[edit]

The text says, that "the play is a closet drama". I doubt this, since the very first chapter of the play includes a "theater director" talking about it to the audience, before it actually starts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.227.39.191 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

He's not talking to the audience, it's a dialogue with an actor and playwright. The play is, nonetheless, a closet drama; he wrote it not intending to stage it. DionysosProteus 22:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
This from Eckermann's Goethes Gespräche mit Eckermann seems to suggest otherwise:
25 January 1827:
"Aber doch ist alles (besonders im Helena-Teil von Faust II) sinnlich und wird, auf dem Theater gedacht, jedem gut in die Augen fallen. Und mehr habe ich nicht gewollt. Wenn es nur so ist, daß die Menge der Zuschauer Freude an der Erscheinung hat;"
Admittedly, many of Goethe's contemporary (and some subsequent) literary critics have called Faust a Lesedrama, but the quote above and the subsequently rich list of performances demand at least some qualification to the categorical statement: "The play is a closet drama". After all, according to the German Wikipedia article, it is the play with the largest audience numbers on German-language stages (440 performances with 150,000 spectators in 2004/05). One example explicitly contradicting the Lesedrama position is Paul Stöcklein, "Wie beginnt und wie endet Goethes Faust?", in Literaturwissenschaftliches Jahrbuch, Neue Folge 3 (1962), p. 30, ISBN 3-428-02349-8.
I think the sentence in the article should be sourced and qualified. Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, another records from Eckermann (from 12 February 1829 and 20 December 1829) suggest that Goethe hoped to see the play on the stage. --Jvs.cz (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Faust wins the bet??[edit]

Faust doesn't (as stated) win the bet, he simply is saved by god, despite loosing (if one reads the introduction carefully one can find, that god never agrees to the bet... He simply doesn't say very much to his own position). Faust is in fact saying the words 'verweile doch du bist so schön' in the end of Faust II, and thereby loosing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.176.203 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust._Der_Trag%C3%B6die_zweiter_Teil#Grablegung Seine Seele wird, trotz Teufelspakt, von Gottes Engeln – die sein ewig strebendes Bemühen verzeihen lässt- gerettet und in Richtung Himmel geführt. Mephisto trollt sich enttäuscht —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.240.176.220 (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

@Icarus of old: I can agree with that explanation, but I think it leaves a couple of unclear points: - Which bet are we in fact talking about? There are two going on, one between Mephisto and Faust, and one between God and Mephisto (although the second one never is accepted by god). The bet between Mephisto and Faust consists barely of the question, if Mephisto can create a perfect moment for Faust. The second one of the question, if mephisto can get Faust to turn his back on God (in a manner of speaking). In my oppinion, Faust is no part of the second one, and can therby neither loose or win it. He does however loose the first one.

I wont start an editwar over that, so I will not change anything (English isn´t my language, so it might be in the interest of all of us), but I would be glad if you would consider this point, and maybe implement it. greetings Tis---strange

As for the "second bet", it is at least as much as a matter of discussion... When Faust does say his "verweile doch", it seems to be with unseen inverted commas, and preceded by a "I would be entitled to say", and he enjoys the highest moment "in anticipation". This seems to be a situation uncovered by the bet. The result seems to be a middle thing; he dies, but is redeemed. It is true that Mephisto might think his bet won, but that's judged by Someone else. --91.34.228.200 (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

margaret[edit]

I made a super minor edit: someone had spelled margaret as margarete. It was spelled margaret earlier in the article, and it was inconsistent, so i fixed it. Derwos (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

"Eaten with gusto"[edit]

"The Hamburg performance: Directed by Peter Gorski, and eaten with gusto by Gustaf Gründgens ..." Seems to be a (rather comical) translation glitch. I haven't found its origin in the German article however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.62.215 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Good catch! Regrettably, this was no translation error, but rather a case of intentional vandalism. I've reverted it now. — the Sidhekin (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Goethe's Faust instead of Faust (Goethe)[edit]

I'm certainly not proposing a move, but I'm curious as to why this article is titled Goethe's Faust instead of the more usual Faust (Goethe). superlusertc 2008 September 22, 07:37 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, and wondering whether it had been discussed here. (Technically, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) favours disambiguating by genre rather than author, so the article should really be at Faust (play) or Faust (tragedy).) EALacey (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, The Tragical History of Doctor Faustus would also fit both of those criteria, and there are other plays named Faust, so I can certainly see why it might be a better fit. superlusertc 2008 November 07, 06:54 (UTC)

Possible addition to the article[edit]

A helpful editor has removed the following from the Faust article, suggesting that it was not appropriate there, though it might be appropriate here.

Although Coleridge famously insisted during his lifetime that he "had never put pen to paper as a translator of Faust", he was never the most trustworthy source for matters autobiographical. Moreover, the volume's editors, UCLA Professor Emeritus Frederick Burwick and University of Montana Professor James McKusick (both renowned Coleridge scholars), have assembled over 800 verbal echoes between the translation and Coleridge's other poems and dramatic works, uncovered a wealth of circumstantial evidence, and used computer-aided stylometric analysis in order to support their claim that Coleridge was the author.

I leave it here in case an editor chooses to include it. superlusertc 2008 November 07, 06:57 (UTC)

Influenced by Job?[edit]

The initial premise of the play seems to be very similar to the book of Job but then the situation is reversed as Faust gives in to the devil. Should this influence be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.158.57.134 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, Goethe even acknowledged this in Eckermann's Conversations [1]. --Jvs.cz (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Basic themes[edit]

these two "basic themes" seem a strange choice to me: there are many other themes (sin, guilt, and forgiveness; the nature of evil; the contrast of the classical and the middle ages; human ambition,...), and I do not think the present choice is very helpful. In its present form, I would rather remove the section. Any thoughts? --Qcomp (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Faust II longer than intended?[edit]

I am surprised about the statement (Goethe) died before he was able to trim it down as he had intended. To my knowledge, Goethe finished Faust II in 1831 and sealed it to be published after his death. I think a citation for the statement would be appropriate, otherwise it should be removed. (E.g., Eckermann and Goethe are quoted in the annotations in Faust: Der Tragödie erster und zweiter Teil. Urfaust (C.H.Beck, 2007) on p. 464 as: Dieses Ziel, wonach er solange gestrebt hatte, endlich erreicht zu haben, machte Goethe überaus glücklich. "Mein ferneres Leben", sagte er, "kann ich nunmehr als ein reines Geschenk ansehen [...]." (roughly: To have finally reached this goal, which he had pursued for such a long time, made Goethe very happy. "My future life", he said, "can I now view as a pure gift.") That does not sound as if he didn't finish it the way he wanted. --Qcomp (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibility of italic title[edit]

Is it possible, somehow, to set the word Faust in the catchword in italics, without also setting Goethe`s like that? --Hans Dunkelberg (talk) 06:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Goethe's FaustFaust (Goethe) – To conform with usual disambiguation naming conventions. I'm not aware of any reason the usual parentheses method should not be used here, unless it is a case of preferring natural-language disambiguation over an artificial disambiguation. The format of the name has been questioned before, but it appears the issue has never been discussed on the talk page. I'm just looking for a clear consensus on which to use. We also have Faust (Spohr)—why not Spohr's Faust? One format or the other should be used consistently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Looking through Google Books results, it seems that "Goethe's Faust" is indeed a quite commonly used form. As this play is among the most significant works in world literature but also has a thoroughly ambiguous name, it is not surprising that a real-world disambiguated name has emerged. Ucucha 01:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. A similar search using "Spohr's Faust" also seems common enough, which makes me wonder again why the two different name formats. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current name is the well established common name. Unsure as to whether Faust (Spohr), which is a relatively little known work, and any similar articles should be renamed to match. Possibly not is my hunch, and in any case decide each on their own merits; This sort of consistency is a factor but not a high priority. Andrewa (talk) 19:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


influence section[edit]

Regarding the article's Influence section, the proposal is to add the following quotation: 'Goethe created a character [ie Faust] who was accepted by his people as their ideal prototype [though] this was by no means [Goethe's] intention. Kaufmann, Walter A., From Shakespeare To Existentialism: An Original Study, Princeton University Press, at p.56'

That proposal can be seen in the article's View History, since Oct 4.

Probably Kaufmann was referring to an emphasis on ambition and industriousness, over concern for others.

Here are the pros and cons regarding the proposal to include the Kaufmann quotation:


pro items:

- encyclopedic-ness: The essence of Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic, comprehensive. The very essence of Wikipedia is to summarize secondary texts such as the above Kaufmann commentary on Goethe's Faust. Currently the Influence section completely omits whether the influenced people and influenced literature viewed Goethe's Faust as an antihero, or as an 'ideal prototype' (as stated by Kaufmann), or as something else.

- clarity: Without the added quotation, the section's lead sentence is very ambiguous. It only states that 'Goethe's Faust has inspired a great deal of' reaction and completely omits the nature of that reaction.


con items:

- I haven't seen any.


ambiguous item:

- There was an ostensible Wikipedian (see the article's View History) who felt so strongly that he summarily deleted the work i had done adding the Kaufmann quotation to the article; the person did not ask a question or propose a discussion, he just deleted. But i don't currently include his deletion and his summary explanation as a Con because i can't make any decent sense of his words, ie he:

-- claimed that the Kaufmann quotation 'says very little', but in truth the quotation obviously says a lot. If what it says is troubling to a Wikipedian, then the proper thing to do is to add some opposing quotation, or explanatory quotation, not to propose deleting the Kaufmann quotation, and certainly not to summarily delete someone's work.

-- clamed that the section's 'lead sentence ... makes the point', but in truth the lead sentence ('Goethe's Faust has inspired a great deal of literature') completely omits (as mentioned further above) stating whether the Goethe literature viewed Faust as an antihero, or as a hero, or as something else. Maybe the ostensible Wikipedian was accidentally thinking of some other 'point'.

-- called the world-recognized scholar Kaufmann 'obtuse' and/or called me obtuse for having tried to add Kaufmann's words to the article.

-- thus has not done a good job of adhering to Wikipedia's civility principles, e.g. Civility.

-- thus has not done a good job of adhering to general civility principles.

-- tends to de-motivate others from working to improve Wikipedia (because of the civility problems and the summary deleting of work).


net result:

Currently the net result seems to be a strong net Pro. Other pros and cons are welcome. If there continue to be no objections, then after a further reasonable delay i will again work to add the Kaufmann quotation to the Influence section. Bo99 (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had linked to the quotation's author, Walter Kaufmann. Still, I agree with the editor who removed your addition, User:Icarus of old, that the quote says very little; that you have to invent some interpretation of that quote ("ambition and industriousness over concern for others") confirms its vacuousness. In fact, I would go further: it is unfounded speculation. Faust as the German people's ideal prototype? Which aspect of him? His pact with Mephisto? His striving for the likeness of God (eritis sicut Deus)? His yearning for truth, beauty, goodness? His duplicity towards the 14-year old Gretchen and the murder of her brother? His views on pantheism? While I agree that Wikipedia simply reports texts like Kaufmann's, I also think there is a limit set by common sense how far that can go. By the same token, I think that the Schopenhauer quote in the article says nothing about Faust and only supports Schopenhauer's own world view; it, too, should be removed. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
True, the quote appears from nowhere, is unfounded speculation, and does, in fact, say very little. Calling something obtuse isn't the same, at all, as being uncivil or showing bad faith. Please use your Wikipedia terms correctly, Bo99. The section is about popular/cultural influence in a general way; relating Kaufman's idea of hero/anithero is a matter of presentism and should not be included. See other pages' "Influences" sections for guidance in this matter.Icarus of old (talk) 14:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I stand by every word i wrote above. The Kaufmann quotation is a broadly published reliable source. It is the essence of Wikipedia to present such information, to be encyclopedic. If you have the hubris to call the world-renowned reliable-source 'unfounded speculation', then you need to find a competing reliable source and post that too, rather than censoring the quotation as you are doing, and stating untruthfully that it says little, when it clearly says a lot (Goethe's Faust's influence: 'ideal prototype'). Adding the Kaufmann quotation, and thus encouraging further additions, is how the article would improve step-by-step from its current poor state (C Class). Your position is essentially that one must not make the article slightly better, unless one simultaneously makes it enormously better, which is highly unlikely to happen. You are impeding Wikipedia and violating its policies. Bo99 (talk) 15:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Again: what exactly is Kaufmann trying to say? As it is and on its own, the phrase "Goethe created a character [ie Faust] who was accepted by his people as their ideal prototype ..." is just empty waffle. Who are "his people"? What's an "ideal prototype"? Whatever it is, how does it apply to a people? Isn't it just an attempt to couch the the cliché of "Volkscharakter" (see Volkstum) into pseudo-psychological language? Your own comment when you inserted this quote into the article ("That's a dramatic statement. Did Germans in the early 1800s 'accept ... as their ideal prototype' selling one's soul, and doing evil, for one's ambition? It would be very good for some other reader to clarify.") raises exactly these questions, and they are being clarified right here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no clarification being done here of the meaning and validity of the assertion by the world-renowned reliable source. This is merely a Talk page, which few readers look at, and which no one will look at after it is archived, which will occur in a while. We don't have any reader here who, like the quoted reliable source, is a world-renowned expert on German philosophy, literature, poetry, language, and translation, was raised in Germany initially, who has an encyclopedic acquaintance with those texts, and whose assertion was vetted by a world-renowned publishing company and its editors. If the reliable source's quotation were to be added to the article, and thus improve the article somewhat, then the encyclopedic text-acquaintance of all worldwide-web users, in all walks of life, quite possibly including experts, would have a decent chance to do the further improvement that you seek but that you are censoring. Bo99 (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
PS: Do readers object to adding the quotation by the world-renowned, peer-reviewed reliable source such that the quotation is presented and specially tagged something like the following?:
"Goethe created a character [ie Faust] who was accepted by his people as their ideal prototype ... ."[meaning: emphasizing industriousness more than love?, like the Prussian Virtues? Clarify with other sources.]
Bo99 (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
If this waffle is to be added to the article again, it has at least to be introduced along the lines of "Walter Kaufmann asserts that Goethe created …". BTW, those "Prussian virtues" not only have lost most of their currency, but they are used, with some justification, to explain the collective role of the German people in allowing the flourishing of fascism in Germany. Linking Goethe and Faustian with "Prussian virtues" is preposterous. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
follow-up: The above bolded quotation is in the article. --Bo99 (talk) 19:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goethe's Faust. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Faust is an Aristocrat, not scholar[edit]

"Habe nun ach, Philos Jur Med Theol durchaus studiert mit heißem Bemühn."

"Habe nun, ach! Philosophie, Juristerei und Medizin, Und leider auch Theologie Durchaus studiert, mit heißem Bemühn"

The term 'studiert' in this instance means 'studied', not 'scholar'. Although you can infer scholar, you can infer aristocrat just as easily, if not more so.

Ironically, the arts he studied were Philosophy, Jurisprudence, Medicine and Theology; a typical aristocrat in the flesh.

Aristocracy is the main thematic element of this text, and it isn't even mentioned once!

Misinformation. The page requires a complete revision to accurately represent the essence of the text. 70.49.91.31 (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Can you add any reputable sources to your assertions? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
(watching, and edit conflict:) What source do you have for aristocrat, which to my knowledge would be said better "from a noble family", or what do you mean?
The "Dr." (similar to Ph.D.) means that he not only studied but was promoted at least in one discipline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
What reputable source do you have for 'scholar'? The article cites none, hence the poor grading.
I don't study interpretations of texts (since they're mostly misguided opinions in my experience). I interpret them, having developed the intelligence to do so on my own; basic reading comprehension skills, really.
I suppose it's something you might call a Free Will; which is simply the inverse of a Captive, Servant, Serf or Slave Will - or Borrowed Will, if you will - like the Will of God, or some other individual for example...
A scholar he might have been, in the past tense, but he gave up scholarly pursuits. Essentially, it's about the pursuits and excesses of the upper class, and how they believe themselves to be 'the best', exploit others to their own ends, are obsessed with beauty and strength, and then consider themselves not to 'blame', without a 'care', and ignorant of 'poverty/need' (as the spirits are metaphorical).
Noble is a misnomer, since it implies blood lines, while Aristocrat does not. Anyways, Wiki is so Western-centric/biased, especially when it comes to any mention of the problem/question of the Aristocracy. It literally crossed the boundaries of propaganda, or is simply misguided beyond comprehension. This is one of the most misleading interpretations I've ever read.
"Even hell has declined" - Mephistopheles as Phorkyas, father of the Phorcides or Graeae. 76.69.76.140 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
A final word of caution from Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan (book)) - "By this it appears how necessary it is for any man that aspires to true Knowledge, to examine the Definitions of former Authors; and either to correct them, where they are negligently set down; or to make them himselfe. For the errours of Definitions multiply themselves, according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see, but cannot avoyd, without reckoning anew from the beginning; in which lyes the foundation of their errours. From whence it happens, that they which trust books, do as they that cast up many little summs into a greater, without considering whether those little summes were rightly cast up or not; and at last finding the errour visible, and not mistrusting their first grounds, know not which way to cleere themselves; but spend time in fluttering over their bookes; as birds that entring by the chimney, and finding themselves inclosed in a chamber, flutter at the false light of a glasse window, for want of wit to consider which way they came in... [snip] And in wrong, or no Definitions, lyes the first abuse; from which proceed all false and senseless tenets; which make those men that take their instruction from the authority of books, and not from their own meditation, to be as much below the condition of ignorant men, as men endued with true Science are above it... [snip] or else he will find himselfe entangled in words, as a bird in lime-twiggs; the more he struggles, the more belimed..." 76.69.76.140 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Why do you waste time write a wall of text instead of answering the simple question if you have an independent reliable source. For Wikipedia, that something is true is not enough. Aristocrat seems to differ from how you understand the term, perhaps ask there? What you mean seems also have to relate more to the person Faust than to Goethe's drama which is loosely based on the person. Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Aristocracy (class) - I believe that was the link you were looking for. The one you linked is a perfect example of the misleading nonsense found on Wikipedia. You consider Philosophy a 'waste of time', do you? That essentially disqualifies your position in this matter, as you are not even qualified. As for your assertion that a citation/source is needed, please clarify what the source of the original 'scholar' reference is, because it seems to be absent from the article. Your position here is also untenable. 76.69.76.140 (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
In fact, the citation from the page on Faust is to Encyclopedia Britannica, which calls him a "magician and charlatan" in the first sentence, and a "scholar" only in the 4th major paragraph. Note also that a magician is a type of charlatan, hence it's somewhat redundant, ie: Plato's 'wizard'/God analogy. 76.69.76.140 (talk) 12:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
In the Polish version of the tale, Pan Twardowski, he is in fact a noble/aristocrat (Szlachta), which is used interchangeably in Polish. This is probably the closest contemporary interpretation. Curiously enough, this is probably the best article on Aristocracy, lmao... 76.69.76.140 (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I mean, that entire nonsense about Faust's 'striving', hence his salvation? What a load of horse manure. The angels are just symbolic of the church, and it's a metaphor for how God and the church by extension, sometimes reward evil deeds. Such a misrepresentation of all of the facts. This is rubbish. I think this is called 'comedy' or satire, but I'm no 'professional'... or professional idiot; since degrees are worth nothing without the ability to properly interpret what it is you're reading. Egill Skallagrímsson - "Runes one should not engrave/inscribe, who knows not how to read them." 76.69.76.140 (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
One need look no further than the tale of Theophilus, as cited on the Faust page. Faust never repents, hence it's a form of satire which ridicules the modern practice of penance: All an aristocrat need do to absolve his sins apparently is pray to the virgin Mary? That's ludicrous by any interpretation, as it rightfully should be; being a comedy... That'll be 10 Hail Maries and 1 Our Father, thanks for your patronage, remember to pay your Indulgence on the way out? Hmph. 76.69.76.140 (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Reading the final verses in heaven again, it's only Gretchen that is 'saved' in the end, while Faust is just forgotten and does not repent, although is 'beckoned' on by Gretchen. Some cliche narrative like 'Jesus/Love saves'. However, that's just on the surface. Underneath, there's plenty of political and religious sub-text, ie: Mephistopheles - "These dandies come, the hypocrites: / They’ve snatched a heap of souls away, / Use our own weapons too to do it: / They’re Devils in disguise, I’d say. / To lose this one is everlasting shame: / On to the grave, and renew your claim!" 76.69.76.140 (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
And this, probably the second-best line: "Reporting it to me the word they gave, Was not quite gravel, it was more like – grave." - Mephistopheles. So t'was more like Faust's hallucination (or delusions of grandeur, if you will) rather than some grand construction project, as I see reflected in the 'official narratives' quoted here and elsewhere. 184.146.146.205 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)