Geld und Magie: Eine ökonomische Deutung von Goethes Faust (review)

The first thing that must be said about this book is that, despite the claim that it is a “vollständig überarbeitete Ausgabe,” this is simply not the case. Although the subtitle may have changed (originally “Deutung und Kritik der modernen Wirtschaft anhand von Goethes Faust”), the story it tells twenty years later remains in effect the same. I shall return to the significance of this for those of us interested in Goethe Age economics, but first I will address Binswanger’s argument, the additions made to the second edition, and the value of this type of economic commentary on Goethe and Faust.

One need not read far to determine that Binswanger places a great deal of emphasis on alchemy in his interpretation of Faust. Goethe, we learn in the first paragraph, “erklärt die Wirtschaft als einen alchemistischen Prozess” (13). Binswanger proceeds to argue that the alchemical attempt to create gold was transformed into the economically successful creation of value as exemplified in the creation of paper money. With respect to economic theory of the Goethezeit, he maintains that Goethe’s economic insight extended beyond the classical labor theory of value proposed by Adam Smith and forecast the potential of the modern economy to create value ex nihilo. For Binswanger, the creation of surplus value is equivalent to magic (24). Rather than exploring further the question of value in Faust and/or economic value theories of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Binswanger returns to his alchemical analysis, one apparently influenced by the work of the psychoanalyst Carl G. Jung, who described Faust as “ein alchemistisches Drama von Anfang bis Ende” (17, note on page 129). According to Binswanger’s reading, the alchemical process in Faust proceeds in three stages. The first is the creation of paper money, followed by the acquisition of property, and finally the formation of real capital. “Das alchemistische Werk,” he concludes, “gipfelt schließlich in dem von Faust geleiteten großen Unternehmen der Kolonisierung. . . . Das von Faust geplante Unternehmen ist das größte aller alche-mistischen Werke” (43). In the second part of the book, Binswanger elaborates on Faust’s colonial endeavors and presents Philemon and Baucis as impediments to progress, who must be removed at the behest of Faust, “der moderne Mensch” and the personification of “Geldkapital” (126, 128–29). Many a reader, I expect, would balk at this description of Faust and the interpretation of the events that unfold in Part 2. In the end, Binswanger’s argument fails to convince, largely because he sees alchemy in everything. Mephistopheles, Wagner, and Faust are all described as alchemists. An even great problem with this text is that it defies scholarly convention. Line numbers are not given for Faust quotes, and there are a number of missing citations from Goethe, Schiller, Baudelaire, and others. This was also the case in the first edition. As mentioned above, additions to this edition are not substantial. Although a comparison of the table of contents for both volumes reveals one new section titled “Die Zwei Wetten im Faust-Drama,” it is an expansion of previous material. On the topic of the two wagers, Binswanger writes: “Die Tatsache seines Scheiterns, die Tatsache, dass Faust die Wette in dem Irrtum verliert, die Verewigung des Diesseits erreicht zu haben, ist die Voraussetzung dafür, dass der Herr die Wette mit Mephisto gewinnt” (82). In the second part of the book, Binswanger focuses on attempts to overcome time via Wissenschaft, Kunst, and Wirtschaft. As with the first part, he raises relevant questions, however, his alchemical approach and frequent failure to contextualize and comment on quotes makes one suspicious of the text’s value as scholarship.

In her 1996 review of the English translation of Geld und Magie for Goethe Yearbook vol. 8, Jane Brown wrote: “Binswanger may have something to say about the modern economy, though the quality of his thinking about Goethe makes me skeptical. It is a poor commentary on the state of our discipline that...