Here are reviews received for "Faust: My Soul be Damned for the World, Vol I.
Reviews also include those from academic journals. I believe in sharing the good, the bad and the ugly, so all reviews I find are here!
This is the one place I may make a comments on the reviews received, namely, on those written by the academic professors - it's rather surprising to see some of their reviews when the general readers and other reviewers love the book and the information. Judging from the academics' comments, it looks like they never read the book properly, or, were a bit miffed a non-professor with only a music degree wrote this! I expected professors to be a little more on the 'uptake'! So, it is only fair the reader hears my side of the issue when I think a professor has missed something.
(My comments will be marked out.)
::::::::::::
The
Midwest Book Review has awarded both Volumes 1 and 2 a five star rating.
Michael Dunford:
The Faust myth of a man who makes a pact with the Devil has been an
enduringly popular subject from the days of Christopher Marlowe's play
down to the present time. Now a two-volume study has been created by E.
A. Bucchianeri with "Faust: My Soul Be Damned For The World". Volume
I provides new insights into the life and times of the historical Dr.
Faustus, an occultist and medieval charlatan who is said to have
announced that the Devil was his brother-in-law. Also provided is a
detailed study of the first Faust books and popular Faustian folktales;
original discussions on Christopher Marlowe's drama (including a unique
and controversial analysis of the A and B texts of the play); the Faust
puppet plays; and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing's unfinished Faust drama.
Volume II is composed of an in-depth account of Johann Wolfgang von
Goethe's literary masterpiece "Faust' parts one and two; a detailed
examination of the early sketches of his classic drama, and informed and
informative commentaries on Goethe's hidden symbolism in his texts, his
interests in history and science, the occult, alchemy, Freemasonry, and
his warnings to future generations. A seminal body of meticulous
scholarship, research, and original commentary, "Faust: Volumes 1 &
2" is a critically significant and strongly recommended addition to
personal and academic library Literary Studies reference collections in
general, and Faustian Studies selected reading lists in particular.
Michael Feld - Five Stars
Faust: My Soul Be Damned for the World, Volume I by E.A. Bucchianeri is a painstakingly researched investigation into the life and times of the historical Faust. Bucchianeri gives the modern reader, typically one only familiar with the Goethe’s legendary character, a detailed picture of the education, career and ultimate doom of the actual Faust; Georg Helmstetter.
Faust: My Soul Be Damned for the World, Volume I
is a scholarly work replete with supporting historical documentation,
commentary (especially by Frank Baron) and gives the reader a proper
understanding of the religious and political climate of the mid 15th to
mid 16th centuries of Europe in which the “real” Faust lived. After
setting the historical context of Faust, Bucchianeri traces the
development of the legendary Faust. Relying on such sources as the
“Wolfenbüttel Manuscript” the author recounts how, using knowledge
gained from his pact with Mephistopheles, Faust travels Europe providing
divinations, horoscopes, and other occult services to his patrons. Of
particular note is the recognition Bucchianeri gives the invention of
the printing press and its effect on the rapid spread of Faustian
mythos.
Faust: My Soul Be Damned for the World, Volume I
by E.A. Bucchianeri is not an easy read; the meticulous
historical research requires close attention. The reader will however,
gain a deeper understanding not only of the character of Faust himself,
but also an appreciation of the process whereby historical fact becomes
myth.
:::::::::::::
The Academic Reviews
::::::::::::
"Folklore" (Journal of the Folklore Society UK)
Review By Nicholas Holland, Published April 2012,
E.A. Bucchianeri's book, the first of a
two-volume study, surveys works concerned with the famous magician
Doctor Faustus from the earliest German notices to Christopher Marlowe's
eponymous play. A short final section discusses seventeenth-century
and eighteenth-century works before Goethe.
The first chapter reviews German accounts of Faustus prior to the earliest known version of the German Faust Book, and places a particular emphasis on the search for biographical evidence about the historical Faustus. Bucchianeri surveys the various early accounts, including those of Trithemius, Melanchthon, and Weyer. The majority of the material covered will be familiar from other modern studies, but whereas the studies of Frank Baron, for example, draw out the complexities of the relationship between historical evidence and the subsequent fashioning of the legend, this study tends to place great emphasis on searching for insight into the biography of the historical Faustus; an approach that can be detrimental to the consideration of the sources surveyed in their historical context.
The first chapter reviews German accounts of Faustus prior to the earliest known version of the German Faust Book, and places a particular emphasis on the search for biographical evidence about the historical Faustus. Bucchianeri surveys the various early accounts, including those of Trithemius, Melanchthon, and Weyer. The majority of the material covered will be familiar from other modern studies, but whereas the studies of Frank Baron, for example, draw out the complexities of the relationship between historical evidence and the subsequent fashioning of the legend, this study tends to place great emphasis on searching for insight into the biography of the historical Faustus; an approach that can be detrimental to the consideration of the sources surveyed in their historical context.
(My comment here: I tend to place more emphasis on the
biography? Of course, we cannot see how the folklore developed
without arriving at a clear picture of the real historical Faustus, this man of
mystery. To all intents and purposes, I followed Baron's analytical
example in discovering the historical Faustus, and offered additional
findings / observations to the material Baron provided and discussed. The chapter dealing with Faustus'
biography is only one quarter of my Volume I, (125 pages) and roughly
half of this chapter also examines the legend-formation process.
The rest of Volume I (nearly 400 pages), features the Faust
folklore / literature. Holland then declares in so many words
it is 'detrimental' to piece together a biography of Faustus from
the sources that exist and that I did not consider their historical
context. Did Mr. Holland actually read and comprehend my work? Sounds more like he was trying to critique an academic professor, Baron, who also did this! ~ E.A.B.)
(Back to the review) For example, when considering the account of
the famous abbot and philosopher Trithemius that Faustus declared
himself the source of the necromancers, Bucchianeri's bewilderment that
Faustus "would freely choose a profession that would utterly ruin his
reputation" (p. 28) seemingly takes Trithemius's report at face value.
Trithemius's opinions concerning Faustus surely demand more cautious
consideration in the light of his own possible motivations, reputation,
and interests; in particular since so little concerning the historical
Faustus and his magical practices can confidently be corroborated using
other sources. More generally, Bucchianeri's biographical focus in the
early part of the book tends to direct the reader's attention away from
what must be the most significant and astonishing aspect of the
documentary legacy: the impact, durability, and
openness to further interpretation of the legend of Faustus
through the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, first in German
and later in English culture. Whereas the historical Faustus is an
almost invisible footnote in early modern intellectual history, the
legend of Faustus became, in the hands of a number of important writers,
a means of expressing early modern interest concerning both the
potential power and also the potential dangers of magic.
(Me again offering my side of things: I could find no evidence presented to date
to doubt Trithemius' letter
written to a friend and colleague, warning him to be wary of
Faustus.
The letter was reprinted during Faustus' lifetime, it could
not be a
bogus document. Trithemius may have aggrandized Faustus'
claims
concerning his magic skills, but this topic is discussed in
detail. Faustus was known to declare himself a "necromancer"
according to well-documented historical sources, therefore,
according
to the historical evidence, Trithemius was accurate in
describing Faustus. I
have examined the content of Trithemius' letter minutely from
all aspects, similar to Frank Baron. To declare oneself a
'necromancer' was a serious matter in those times, Faustus
could have
been tried and executed. A lot of witch trials went on in Europe, many were executed for witchcraft. Why take such a risk? Hence my so-called 'bewilderment'. Faustus' motives
had to be
questioned, and these questions hypothetically
answered. I find it curious Mr. Holland believes the
biographical material in Volume I detracts from the efforts to
describe the
"impact" and the "openness to further
investigation" of the legend: as I said, three quarters of
Volume
I (about 400 pages) explores the rich Faustian material
inspired by
his legend over the centuries and how it was used to deter
people from
studying magic in addition to admonishing people to live good
Christian
lives. Holland's conclusion that I digressed from explaining
the
"early modern" fascination and fear of black magic is
erroneous.
~ E.A.B.)
(Back to the review). The remainder of the volume is mostly
dedicated to substantial descriptive accounts of the German and English
Faust books, and of Marlowe's
Doctor Fautus. Bucchianeri's major new proposition
concerning the latter is that the B-text shows that "Marlowe had
regained a considerable measure of the defiant 'Machiavellian'
optimism", which was absent from the A-Text (p. 368). Although
precisely what she means by "Machiavellian" (or "liberal Epicurean," a
phrase she applies to Marlowe's Faustus
in the same passage) is unclear, her reading of the play
evidently belongs to the school of interpretations which considers the
overarching admonitory message of the
play as being in some way questioned by the manner of its
presentation. However, her core interest again is in trying to
establish firm connections between biography and text. Her proposal is
that the B-text of the play is a revision of the A-text chiefly
undertaken by Marlowe himself in the light of personal experiences and
historical events that enable it to be dated to 1592. This is an
unusually precise stance concerning the genesis and authorship of this
text, but ultimately fails to persuade. For example, some basic
textual evidence seems to conflict with such a precise and
confident dating. The author argues, in
particular, that the references to the Anti-Pope Bruno in the
B-Text are inspired by news of the arrest of Giordano Bruno in Venice in
1592. However, if a similar method is applied to the reading of two of
the most striking points of
similarity between the fictional Bruno and the historical
Bruno, these events have no direct connection to 1592. The fictional
Bruno undergoes excommunication, a punishment
which the historical Bruno stated to his interrogators in
Venice he knew had been imposed on him in absentia by a hearing convened
by the Dominicans in Naples prior to
this period in England (1583-5). The execution by burning for
heresy, pronounced on the fictional Bruno by Faustus in disguise, was
visited on the historical Bruno as late as 1600, seven years after
Marlowe's death. While
there is a case to be made for the influence of the historical
Bruno's person and thought on Marlowe via the circle of Earl of
Northumberland, there is in fact nothing tangible to link the scene in
Doctor Faustus more strongly to the news of 1592 than
to the news of any other year of a period spanning the whole of
Marlowe's writing career. Furthermore, by attempting to bind the play's
genesis too tightly to
Marlowe's biography, the author underestimates not only the
imaginative capacities of Marlowe himself and of the other writers who
most probably had a hand in the B-Text, but also the uncertainties that
cloud our understanding of Marlowe's
personal beliefs. Such an approach also fails to place
sufficient emphasis on the need to understand the contents of
Doctor Faustus in the context of the early modern performance traditions upon which it draws.
(Here is my side of the matter again: The terms "Machiavellian" and
"Epicurean" may be on the same page, but not in the same
paragraph. From the context of the study, Holland should have
understood the term "machiavellian" to mean Faustus' thirst
for power and his determination to acquire it by whatever means or
cost. The philosophical
term Epicurean was in fact explained in the first chapter, but possibly
Holland forgot: (I quote the explanation as given in the book): "... pleasure is the supreme goal one
should aim for in life, particularly intellectual pleasures above those
of sensual ones. Epicurus taught that one could only acquire true
happiness and serenity by conquering one’s fear of the gods, death, and
the afterlife. He also believed that humans ceased to exist after
death, declaring the soul died with the body."
The term was referred to in this philosophical context throughout the
chapter on Marlowe, and we note Faustus in Marlowe's play begs his
soul to dissolve at death. The context of Epicurean should
have been clear from the beginning.
I am sorry if my argument concerning the dating of
the A and B Texts "failed to persuade" Mr. Holland, but I
notice he discussed only one piece of evidence I presented, and
omitted to mention all other observations pertaining to the 1592 date. If it was a
matter of that one detail, Bruno's arrest, then there would not be
enough evidence, but a good detective should look at all the evidence
presented.
I also notice Mr. Holland points out every historical
detail of the the real Bruno, and how this factual information does
not match the action of Marlowe's play: must everything in the drama
display historical fact? Surely, Marlowe, an artistic playwright, had the creativity to
imagine the scene of Bruno's arrest and make artistic predictions
concerning the possible future outcome of that event, even if such predictions proved
incorrect in the future. In this instance, Holland has failed to
follow his own conclusion and has committed the same supposed 'error' he condemns me for,
that is, by trying to find the historical details that correspond with
Marlowe's biography and that are included in the play ~ let us note that
Holland's states "by attempting to bind the play's genesis too tightly to
Marlowe's biography, the author underestimates not only the imaginative capacities of Marlowe himself
and the other writers who most probably had a hand in the B Text".
In so many words, Holland has proposed that authors, playwrights and artists
are uncreative and unimaginative when they draw upon their
life experiences, (and therefore, contemporary history), for their material.
Interesting observation, Mr. Holland.
He also says by binding the play´s genesis too
closely to Marlowe's biography, I also "underestimated the
uncertainties" that cloud everyone's understanding of Marlowe's
personal beliefs. Not
so. It was due to these uncertainties I conducted a close
reading of
Doctor Faustus with Marlowe's known biography. I simply examined
the claims Marlowe was an "atheist" in that he did not believe
in the established Christian religions, and noted how these
claims may have a basis in fact through a close reading of Doctor Faustus.
I endeavored to shed some light on the glaring accusations levied against
Marlowe, and if possible, display how close the creative soul of the
writer is to his work. ~ E.A.B)
(Back to the review): The stated aim of this study is to provide a
"comprehensive exploration" of Faustus and his legacy. It provides
lengthy descriptive discussion of the contents of the texts surveyed
and, to some extent, it offers a useful single point of reference for
them, although it must also be noted that the author's digressive style
makes it relatively hard to read. As a work of analysis, however, its
most serious failing is that it does not examine more fully and in a
more systematic way the complex forces that worked to shape the legend
of Faustus within a wider cultural context, and instead places its
primary focus on an attempt to find close relationships between
biography and text. As a consequence, it fails to offer readings of the
material under consideration which have the depth of insight or nuance
of the most valuable works already written on the various works it
surveys.
(Here I am again: The aim of this study was to provide "a comprehensive
exploration of Dr. Faustus, the man who sold his soul to the devil, and those who lived to tell his tale" ~ so yes, providing
detailed explanations of the texts and why each author presented the
Faust material as they did was the object of the work. I do not
see how Holland thinks this does not present the "complex
forces" that shaped the legend of Faustus, when everything from
religious intolerance, the Reformation, academic competition, fear of
black magic, the scientific discoveries of the day such as the
Copernican / Galileo controversy, folklore and history, and how they were included
in the Faustian tales, are discussed. Can the "cultural
context" become any wider? If this study lacks "the
depth of insight or nuance of the most valuable works" already
written on the subject of Faust and Faustian literature, I shall
leave it to you, the reader, to discover if this be true or not.
I thank Mr. Holland for his review, albeit it took nearly four years
for it to appear from the time the paperback edition was published and
sent in for review. E.A.B.)
Next review!
::::::::::::::::
Review by Roger Hards.
The publishers describe this two-volume book as "A comprehensive exploration of Dr. Faust, the man who sold his soul to the devil, and of those who lived to tell the tale." Volume 1 introduces the original Faust, and early popular Faust folk tales, followed by a substantial chapter on Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus. Volume 2 is devoted to Goethe’s Faust.
This review is confined to the Marlowe chapter (130 pages) alone.
There is a summary of the generally accepted version of Marlowe’s life— if one allows it to include "Marlowe’s scandalous appreciation of pederasty." The author bases this smear on the hostile and uncorroborated Baines accusation about "tobacco and boies," which the author misquotes, even in his Appendix 7 that purports to give the text of the Baines Note, as "tobacco and boys." He is apparently unaware of any other possible meaning, such as "tobacco and booze" (which makes an association with Raleigh that taints him too with Baines’ accusations).
(My comment: well, I was using a source as transcribed by another academic, and they give the original spelling as 'boies' (which of course can be read as 'boys' and has been read as such, I am not the first), -- that is definitely not a spelling for 'booze', or the variant old English spellings of 'bouze' or 'bouse' -- and, since Marlow is then accused for declaring Christ committed sodomy in the next line after the 'tobacco and boies' line, it is obvious 'boys' is what was meant in the accusation of the Baines note. Some academic just got angry that I presented the same evidence that other academics have showing that Marlowe MAY have been such a character, and that there are 'hints' of it presented in his work that Marlow was fascinated or inspired by perverse topics.)
(Back to the review) There follows a close examination of
Marlowe’s texts (both A and B) in a study, learned, readable,
interesting, and detailed. For example, an analysis and discussion of
Wagner’s early logic-chopping conversation with the two scholars who
wanted to see Faustus, occupies three pages.
It is noted incidentally that what first kindled Faustus’ interest in the occult were the subjects taught at the university.
The play’s lively consideration of the
human soul, sin, damnation, and hell, vicarious punishment, blood
sacrifice, faith, redemption, and heaven, might make a fascinating
portrayal of these concepts to a spectator of the play, or even at a
reading of it; but their extended analysis in the pages of this book,
where they are treated with plodding literalism, takes the reader into a
sad world of sick fantasy.
(Here is my comment: Read that again very carefully ...the academic reviewer, is actually saying topics regarding the human soul, sin, damnation, hell, etc etc, make for a fascinating portrayal in a play like Marlowe's play to a spectator, or fascinating reading if you just read the play, but when I go into a serious analysis of these concepts ...I take you the reader into a world of 'sick fantasy' aka, that religion and the salvation of the soul is just good material for a play or entertainment, but not to be taken as something serious to discuss, or literal, it becomes 'plodding' or is a 'sick fantasy' to this guy. -- Unfortunately, many who teach in the universities these days think like this. E.A. Bucc.)
It is not said what version of the Bible the
many quotations are drawn from. They generally follow the sense of the
Authorised Version, but often not the exact words, as if they were being
quoted from memory.
Generally the author’s English is a little curious, with here and there a strange choice of words, or uncertain syntax, or a lapse into business-speak, or bombast. But it is always readable, and always interesting — a good sourcebook for anyone who wants to know all that can be said about any particular passage in Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus.
(Note: I would not dare presume to
paraphrase the Bible, or to misquote anything or anyone. Obviously the
reviewer ignored my references and bibliography in which it is clear I used the Douay-Rheims Bible. I thought professors read footnote and bibliographies? They sure do when grading essays. I find it funny how he flip flops through this review - he says my study is 'learned', readable, detailed and interesting, but has to critique the writing style, and calls me a' literal plodder' who is taking you the reader into a 'sick fantasy', possible because he doesn't agree with what I have to say basically, but still finds the chapter on Marlow 'always readable and 'always interesting'! That's the point, if the book is always interesting, it's a good book, right? So readers, you be the judge! — E.A. Bucchianeri)
:::::::::::::
:::::::::::::::::::
No comments:
Post a Comment