This is a modern-English version of The Joyful Wisdom ("La Gaya Scienza"): Complete Works, Volume Ten, originally written by Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.

THE JOYFUL WISDOM
("LA GAYA SCIENZA")
BY
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
TRANSLATED BY
THOMAS COMMON
WITH POETRY RENDERED BY
PAUL V. COHN
AND
MAUDE D. PETRE
I stay to mine own house confined,
Nor graft my wits on alien stock
And mock at every master mind
That never at itself could mock.
I keep to myself at my own place,
Not blending my thoughts with others' ideas
And making fun of every brilliant mind
That could never laugh at itself.

The Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche
The First Complete and Authorised English Translation
Edited by Dr Oscar Levy
Volume Six
T.N. FOULIS
13 & 15 FREDERICK STREET
EDINBURGH: AND LONDON
1910
CONTENTS
EDITORIAL NOTE
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
JEST, RUSE, AND REVENGE: A PRELUDE IN RHYME
BOOK FIRST
BOOK SECOND
BOOK THIRD
BOOK FOURTH: SANCTUS JANUARIUS
BOOK FIFTH: WE FEARLESS ONES
APPENDIX: SONGS OF PRINCE FREE-AS-A-BIRD
CONTENTS
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_6__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_7__
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_8__
EDITORIAL NOTE
"The Joyful Wisdom," written in 1882, just before "Zarathustra," is rightly judged to be one of Nietzsche's best books. Here the essentially grave and masculine face of the poet-philosopher is seen to light up and suddenly break into a delightful smile. The warmth and kindness that beam from his features will astonish those hasty psychologists who have never divined that behind the destroyer is the creator, and behind the blasphemer the lover of life. In the retrospective valuation of his work which appears in "Ecce Homo" the author himself observes with truth that the fourth book, "Sanctus Januarius," deserves especial attention: "The whole book is a gift from the Saint, and the introductory verses express my gratitude for the most wonderful month of January that I have ever spent." Book fifth "We Fearless Ones," the Appendix "Songs of Prince Free-as-a-Bird," and the Preface, were added to the second edition in 1887.
"The Joyful Wisdom," written in 1882, just before "Zarathustra," is rightly considered one of Nietzsche's best books. In this work, the serious and masculine aspect of the poet-philosopher shines brightly as he suddenly breaks into a joyful smile. The warmth and kindness evident in his expression will surprise those quick-to-judge psychologists who fail to see that behind the destroyer lies the creator, and behind the blasphemer is the lover of life. In the retrospective evaluation of his work in "Ecce Homo," the author accurately notes that the fourth book, "Sanctus Januarius," deserves special attention: "The whole book is a gift from the Saint, and the introductory verses express my gratitude for the most wonderful month of January that I have ever spent." The fifth book, "We Fearless Ones," the Appendix "Songs of Prince Free-as-a-Bird," and the Preface were added to the second edition in 1887.
The translation of Nietzsche's poetry has proved[Pg viii] to be a more embarrassing problem than that of his prose. Not only has there been a difficulty in finding adequate translators—a difficulty overcome, it is hoped, by the choice of Miss Petre and Mr Cohn,—but it cannot be denied that even in the original the poems are of unequal merit. By the side of such masterpieces as "To the Mistral" are several verses of comparatively little value. The Editor, however, did not feel justified in making a selection, as it was intended that the edition should be complete. The heading, "Jest, Ruse and Revenge," of the "Prelude in Rhyme" is borrowed from Goethe.
The translation of Nietzsche's poetry has turned out[Pg viii] to be a more challenging issue than that of his prose. Not only has there been a struggle to find suitable translators—a challenge hopefully resolved by selecting Miss Petre and Mr. Cohn—but it’s also true that even in the original, the poems vary greatly in quality. Alongside masterpieces like "To the Mistral," there are several poems of relatively little worth. However, the Editor didn’t feel it was right to make a selection, as the goal was for the edition to be complete. The title, "Jest, Ruse and Revenge," of the "Prelude in Rhyme" is taken from Goethe.
PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.
1.
This appears to be a request to perform a task. Please provide a short piece of text for me to modernize.
Perhaps more than one preface would be necessary for this book; and after all it might still be doubtful whether any one could be brought nearer to the experiences in it by means of prefaces, without having himself experienced something similar. It seems to be written in the language of the thawing-wind: there is wantonness, restlessness, contradiction and April-weather in it; so that one is as constantly reminded of the proximity of winter as of the victory over it: the victory which is coming, which must come, which has perhaps already come.... Gratitude continually flows forth, as if the most unexpected thing had happened, the gratitude of a convalescent—for convalescence was this most unexpected thing. "Joyful Wisdom": that implies the Saturnalia of a spirit which has patiently withstood a long, frightful pressure—patiently, strenuously, impassionately, without submitting, but without hope—and which is now suddenly o'erpowered with hope, the hope of health, the intoxication of convalescence. What wonder that much that is unreasonable and foolish thereby comes to light: much wanton tenderness expended even on problems which[Pg 2] have a prickly hide, and are not therefore fit to be fondled and allured. The whole book is really nothing but a revel after long privation and impotence: the frolicking of returning energy, of newly awakened belief in a to-morrow and after-to-morrow; of sudden sentience and prescience of a future, of near adventures, of seas open once more, and aims once more permitted and believed in. And what was now all behind me! This track of desert, exhaustion, unbelief, and frigidity in the midst of youth, this advent of grey hairs at the wrong time, this tyranny of pain, surpassed, however, by the tyranny of pride which repudiated the consequences of pain—and consequences are comforts,—this radical isolation, as defence against the contempt of mankind become morbidly clairvoyant, this restriction upon principle to all that is bitter, sharp, and painful in knowledge, as prescribed by the disgust which had gradually resulted from imprudent spiritual diet and pampering—it is called Romanticism,—oh, who could realise all those feelings of mine! He, however, who could do so would certainly forgive me everything, and more than a little folly, boisterousness and "Joyful Wisdom"—for example, the handful of songs which are given along with the book on this occasion,—songs in which a poet makes merry over all poets in a way not easily pardoned.—Alas, it is not only on the poets and their fine "lyrical sentiments" that this reconvalescent must vent his malignity: who knows what kind of victim he seeks, what kind of monster of material for parody will allure him ere long?[Pg 3] Incipit tragœdia, it is said at the conclusion of this seriously frivolous book; let people be on their guard! Something or other extraordinarily bad and wicked announces itself: incipit parodia, there is no doubt....
Maybe more than one preface is needed for this book, and it might still be questioned whether anyone could really get closer to the experiences in it through prefaces without having lived through something similar themselves. It feels like it’s written in the voice of a thawing wind: there’s playfulness, restlessness, contradictions, and unpredictable weather; constantly reminding us of winter's closeness and the victory over it: the victory that is coming, that must come, and perhaps has already come.... Gratitude pours out, as though the most unexpected thing has happened, the gratitude of someone recovering—because convalescence was truly this unexpected thing. "Joyful Wisdom" suggests the celebrations of a spirit that has endured a long, dreadful strain—patiently, tirelessly, passionately, without giving in, but also without hope—and which is now suddenly overwhelmed with hope, the hope of health, the intoxication of recovery. It's no surprise that a lot of unreasonable and silly things emerge: much tender affection is even spent on issues that[Pg 2] are rough and unwelcoming, unworthy of affection and coaxing. The whole book is essentially a celebration after a long period of deprivation and weakness: the playful energy returning, a newfound belief in tomorrow and the days after; sudden awareness and anticipation of a future, nearby adventures, once more open seas, and goals once again believed in. And what is now behind me! This path of desolation, exhaustion, disbelief, and coldness amidst youth, this untimely graying of hair, this tyranny of pain, which was exceeded only by the tyranny of pride that rejected the consequences of pain—and comforts are the consequences—this complete isolation, a defense against the scorn of humanity that had become unnaturally perceptive, this limitation imposed by principle to all that is bitter, sharp, and painful in knowledge, dictated by the disgust that slowly arose from an imprudent spiritual diet and indulgence—it’s called Romanticism—oh, who could truly understand all these feelings of mine! Yet, whoever can would surely forgive me everything, including more than a bit of folly, exuberance, and "Joyful Wisdom"—like the collection of songs that accompany this book, songs where a poet revels at the expense of all poets in a way that’s hard to forgive. Alas, it’s not just on poets and their lofty "lyrical sentiments" that this recovering person must unleash their bitterness: who knows what kind of target they’ll seek, what kind of monstrous material for parody will soon attract them? [Pg 3] Incipit tragœdia, it is said at the end of this oddly lighthearted book; let people be wary! Something extraordinarily bad and wicked is making itself known: incipit parodia, that’s for sure....
2.
2.
—But let us leave Herr Nietzsche; what does it matter to people that Herr Nietzsche has got well again?... A psychologist knows few questions so attractive as those concerning the relations of health to philosophy, and in the case when he himself falls sick, he carries with him all his scientific curiosity into his sickness. For, granting that one is a person, one has necessarily also the philosophy of one's personality; there is, however, an important distinction here. With the one it is his defects which philosophise, with the other it is his riches and powers. The former requires his philosophy, whether it be as support, sedative, or medicine, as salvation, elevation, or self-alienation; with the latter it is merely a fine luxury, at best the voluptuousness of a triumphant gratitude, which must inscribe itself ultimately in cosmic capitals on the heaven of ideas. In the other more usual case, however, when states of distress occupy themselves with philosophy (as is the case with all sickly thinkers—and perhaps the sickly thinkers preponderate in the history of philosophy), what will happen to the thought itself which is brought under the pressure of sickness? This is the important question for psychologists: and here experiment is possible. We philosophers do just[Pg 4] like a traveller who resolves to awake at a given hour, and then quietly yields himself to sleep: we surrender ourselves temporarily, body and soul, to the sickness, supposing we become ill—we shut, as it were, our eyes on ourselves. And as the traveller knows that something does not sleep, that something counts the hours and will awake him, we also know that the critical moment will find us awake—that then something will spring forward and surprise the spirit in the very act, I mean in weakness, or reversion, or submission, or obduracy, or obscurity, or whatever the morbid conditions are called, which in times of good health have the pride of the spirit opposed to them (for it is as in the old rhyme: "The spirit proud, peacock and horse are the three proudest things of earthly source"). After such self-questioning and self-testing, one learns to look with a sharper eye at all that has hitherto been philosophised; one divines better than before the arbitrary by-ways, side-streets, resting-places, and sunny places of thought, to which suffering thinkers, precisely as sufferers, are led and misled: one knows now in what direction the sickly body and its requirements unconsciously press, push, and allure the spirit—towards the sun, stillness, gentleness, patience, medicine, refreshment in any sense whatever. Every philosophy which puts peace higher than war, every ethic with a negative grasp of the idea of happiness, every metaphysic and physic that knows a finale, an ultimate condition of any kind whatever, every predominating, æsthetic or religious longing for an aside, a beyond, an outside, an above—all these permit one to ask whether[Pg 5] sickness has not been the motive which inspired the philosopher. The unconscious disguising of physiological requirements under the cloak of the objective, the ideal, the purely spiritual, is carried on to an alarming extent,—and I have often enough asked myself, whether on the whole philosophy hitherto has not generally been merely, an interpretation of the body, and a misunderstanding of the body. Behind the loftiest estimates of value by which the history of thought has hitherto been governed, misunderstandings of the bodily constitution, either of individuals, classes, or entire races are concealed. One may always primarily consider these audacious freaks of metaphysic, and especially its answers to the question of the worth of existence, as symptoms of certain bodily constitutions; and if, on the whole, when scientifically determined, not a particle of significance attaches to such affirmations and denials of the world, they nevertheless furnish the historian and psychologist with hints so much the more valuable (as we have said) as symptoms of the bodily constitution, its good or bad condition, its fullness, powerfulness, and sovereignty in history; or else of its obstructions, exhaustions, and impoverishments, its premonition of the end, its will to the end. I still expect that a philosophical physician, in the exceptional sense of the word—one who applies himself to the problem of the collective health of peoples, periods, races, and mankind generally—will some day have the courage to follow out my suspicion to its ultimate conclusions, and to venture on the judgment that in all philosophising it has not hitherto been a question[Pg 6] of "truth" at all, but of something else,—namely, of health, futurity, growth, power, life....
—But let's leave Nietzsche; what does it matter to people that he's feeling better again?... A psychologist has no shortage of intriguing questions about how health relates to philosophy, and when he falls ill himself, he carries all his scientific curiosity into his sickness. If one is a person, one necessarily has a philosophy of their own identity; however, there's an important distinction here. With one, it’s his flaws that philosophize, while with the other, it’s his strengths and abilities. The former needs his philosophy—whether as support, calming influence, or remedy—for salvation, elevation, or self-alienation; with the latter, it’s just a nice extra, at best a pleasure from a triumphant gratitude that must ultimately be written in large letters in the sky of ideas. In the more common scenario, however, when distress engages with philosophy (which is often the case with sickly thinkers—and perhaps sickly thinkers dominate the history of philosophy), what happens to the thought that’s subjected to the pressure of illness? This is the crucial question for psychologists: and here, experimentation is possible. We philosophers do just[Pg 4] like a traveler who decides to wake up at a certain time, then peacefully gives in to sleep: we temporarily surrender, body and soul, to the illness, assuming we become unwell—we close our eyes to ourselves. And just as the traveler knows that something does not sleep, that something counts the hours and will wake him, we also know that the critical moment will find us alert—that then something will spring forward and surprise the spirit in the very act, I mean in weakness, or regression, or submission, or stubbornness, or confusion, or whatever the unhealthy states are labeled, which during times of good health face the pride of the spirit (for it’s like the old saying: "The proud spirit, peacock and horse are the three proudest things of earthly origin"). After such self-examination and self-testing, one learns to look more critically at everything that has been previously philosophized; one intuitively understands better than before the arbitrary side paths, detours, resting spots, and sunny nooks of thought, to which suffering thinkers, as sufferers, are both led and misled: one now knows in what direction the ailing body and its needs unconsciously urge, push, and attract the spirit—towards the sun, tranquility, gentleness, patience, healing, and any form of refreshment. Every philosophy that values peace over war, every ethics with a negative grasp of happiness, every metaphysics and physics that recognizes a finale, an ultimate condition of any type, every predominant aesthetic or religious longing for an escape, a beyond, an outer realm, an ascent—all these prompt the question whether[Pg 5] sickness has not been the driving force behind the philosopher. The unconscious masking of physical needs under the guise of the objective, the ideal, the purely spiritual, occurs to a concerning degree,—and I’ve often wondered whether, overall, philosophy has merely served as an interpretation of the body and a misunderstanding of the body. Behind the highest value judgments that have shaped the history of thought lie misunderstandings of the physical constitution, either of individuals, groups, or entire races. One can always primarily view these bold metaphysical claims, especially their answers to the question of the worth of existence, as signs of specific bodily constitutions; and if, overall, when scientifically assessed, these affirmations and rejections of the world have no significance, they nevertheless provide the historian and psychologist with even more valuable hints (as we mentioned) as symptoms of the physical constitution, its health or illness, its vitality, power, and dominance in history; or else of its limitations, exhaustion, and impoverishment, its presage of an end, its will to an end. I still hope that a philosophical physician, in a unique sense, one who addresses the collective health of societies, eras, races, and humanity in general—will someday have the courage to pursue my suspicions to their ultimate conclusions and boldly declare that in all philosophizing, it hasn’t been a matter[Pg 6] of “truth” at all, but something else,—namely, health, future, growth, power, life....
3.
3.
It will be surmised that I should not like to take leave ungratefully of that period of severe sickness, the advantage of which is not even yet exhausted in me: for I am sufficiently conscious of what I have in advance of the spiritually robust generally, in my changeful state of health. A philosopher who has made the tour of many states of health, and always makes it anew, has also gone through just as many philosophies: he really cannot do otherwise than transform his condition on every occasion into the most ingenious posture and position,—this art of transfiguration is just philosophy. We philosophers are not at liberty to separate soul and body, as the people separate them; and we are still less at liberty to separate soul and spirit. We are not thinking frogs, we are not objectifying and registering apparatuses with cold entrails,—our thoughts must be continually born to us out of our pain, and we must, motherlike, share with them all that we have in us of blood, heart, ardour, joy, passion, pang, conscience, fate and fatality. Life—that means for us to transform constantly into light and flame all that we are, and also all that we meet with; we cannot possibly do otherwise. And as regards sickness, should we not be almost tempted to ask whether we could in general dispense with it? It is great pain only which is the ultimate emancipator of the spirit; for it is the teacher of the strong[Pg 7] suspicion which makes an X out of every U[1], a true, correct X, i.e., the ante-penultimate letter.... It is great pain only, the long slow pain which takes time, by which we are burned as it were with green wood, that compels us philosophers to descend into our ultimate depths, and divest ourselves of all trust, all good-nature, veiling, gentleness, and averageness, wherein we have perhaps formerly installed our humanity. I doubt whether such pain "improves" us; but I know that it deepens us. Be it that we learn to confront it with our pride, our scorn, our strength of will, doing like the Indian who, however sorely tortured, revenges himself on his tormentor with his bitter tongue; be it that we withdraw from the pain into the oriental nothingness—it is called Nirvana,—into mute, benumbed, deaf self-surrender, self-forgetfulness, and self-effacement: one emerges from such long, dangerous exercises in self-mastery as another being, with several additional notes of interrogation, and above all, with the will to question more than ever, more profoundly, more strictly, more sternly, more wickedly, more quietly than has ever been questioned hitherto. Confidence in life is gone: life itself has become a problem.—Let it not be imagined that one has necessarily become a hypochondriac thereby! Even love of life is still possible—only one loves differently. It is the love of a woman of whom one is doubtful.... The charm, however, of all that is problematic, the delight in the[Pg 8] X, is too great in those more spiritual and more spiritualised men, not to spread itself again and again like a clear glow over all the trouble of the problematic, over all the danger of uncertainty, and even over the jealousy of the lover. We know a new happiness....
It can be concluded that I shouldn't leave behind that time of severe illness without gratitude, as I still haven’t fully exhausted its benefits: I’m well aware of what I possess compared to those who are generally healthy, given my fluctuating health. A philosopher who has experienced many states of health, and continually revisits them, has also engaged with multiple philosophies: he literally cannot help but turn his condition into a new and creative interpretative stance each time — this art of transformation is philosophy. We philosophers cannot separate soul and body like people do; even less can we separate soul and spirit. We are not merely thinking machines, cold and mechanistic; our thoughts must continually emerge from our suffering, and we must, like a mother, share every bit of our blood, heart, passion, joy, pain, conscience, fate, and chance with them. Life, for us, means constantly converting everything we are and encounter into light and fire; there’s simply no other option. And when it comes to illness, shouldn’t we almost question whether it’s something we could do without? It is only great pain that ultimately frees the spirit, as it teaches the powerful suspicion that can turn every U into an accurate, true X, i.e., the ante-penultimate letter…. Only great pain, the long and slow kind that takes its time, literally burns us like green wood, pushing us philosophers to dig into our deepest selves and strip away all trust, kindness, gentleness, and normalcy, which we might have once regarded as our humanity. I’m unsure if such pain "improves" us, but I know it deepens us. Whether we learn to face it with pride, scorn, or willpower, like the Indian who, while tortured, retaliates against his tormentor with sharp words; or whether we retreat from pain into a kind of eastern nothingness—it’s termed Nirvana—into silent, numb self-surrender and self-forgetfulness: we emerge from such long, dangerous practices of self-discipline as a different person, filled with more questions than ever before, and especially with the desire to question deeper, more rigorously, more sternly, more wickedly, and more quietly than we ever have. Faith in life is lost: life itself has turned into a problem.—Let it not be assumed that this inevitably makes one a hypochondriac! Even a love for life remains possible—just in a different way. It resembles the love for a woman about whom one feels uncertainty.... The allure of all that remains unresolved, the pleasure in the [Pg 8] X, is too captivating for those more spiritual and enlightened individuals to not allow it to continually cast a clear glow over all the complexities of the unresolved, all the dangers of the uncertain, and even over the jealousy of the lover. We discover a new happiness....
4.
4.
Finally (that the most essential may not remain unsaid), one comes back out of such abysses, out of such severe sickness, and out of the sickness of strong suspicion—new-born, with the skin cast; more sensitive, more wicked, with a finer taste for joy, with a more delicate tongue for all good things, with a merrier disposition, with a second and more dangerous innocence in joy; more childish at the same time, and a hundred times more refined than ever before. Oh, how repugnant to us now is pleasure, coarse, dull, drab pleasure, as the pleasure-seekers, our "cultured" classes, our rich and ruling classes, usually understand it! How malignantly we now listen to the great holiday-hubbub with which "cultured people" and city-men at present allow themselves to be forced to "spiritual enjoyment" by art, books, and music, with the help of spirituous liquors! How the theatrical cry of passion now pains our ear, how strange to our taste has all the romantic riot and sensuous bustle which the cultured populace love become (together with their aspirations after the exalted, the elevated, and the intricate)! No, if we convalescents need an art at all, it is another art—a mocking, light, volatile, divinely serene,[Pg 9] divinely ingenious art, which blazes up like a clear flame, into a cloudless heaven! Above all, an art for artists, only for artists! We at last know better what is first of all necessary for it—namely, cheerfulness, every kind of cheerfulness, my friends! also as artists:—I should like to prove it. We now know something too well, we men of knowledge: oh, how well we are now learning to forget and not know, as artists! And as to our future, we are not likely to be found again in the tracks of those Egyptian youths who at night make the temples unsafe, embrace statues, and would fain unveil, uncover, and put in clear light, everything which for good reasons is kept concealed[2]. No, we have got disgusted with this bad taste, this will to truth, to "truth at all costs," this youthful madness in the love of truth: we are now too experienced, too serious, too joyful, too singed, too profound for that.... We no longer believe that truth remains truth when the veil is withdrawn from it: we have lived long enough to believe this. At present we regard it as a matter of propriety not to be anxious either to see everything naked, or to be present at everything, or to understand and "know" everything. "Is it true that the good God is everywhere present?" asked a little girl of her mother: "I think that is indecent":—a hint to philosophers! One should have more reverence for the shame-facedness with which nature has concealed herself behind enigmas and motley uncertainties. Perhaps truth is a woman who has reasons for not[Pg 10] showing her reasons? Perhaps her name is Baubo, to speak in Greek?... Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live: for that purpose it is necessary to keep bravely to the surface, the fold and the skin; to worship appearance, to believe in forms, tones, and words, in the whole Olympus of appearance! Those Greeks were superficial—from profundity! And are we not coming back precisely to this point, we dare-devils of the spirit, who have scaled the highest and most dangerous peak of contemporary thought, and have looked around us from it, have looked down from it? Are we not precisely in this respect—Greeks? Worshippers of forms, of tones, and of words? And precisely on that account—artists?
Finally (so that the most important things aren’t left unsaid), we emerge from such depths, from severe illness, and from the sickness of deep suspicion—reborn, with a fresh start; more sensitive, more wicked, with a refined taste for joy, with a more delicate appreciation for all good things, with a happier attitude, and with a second, riskier innocence in joy; more childlike at the same time, yet a hundred times more sophisticated than ever. Oh, how disgusting pleasure now seems to us—crude, dull, drab pleasure, as understood by pleasure-seekers, our so-called "cultured" classes, our wealthy and ruling classes! How maliciously we now listen to the noisy fanfare of "cultured people" and city-dwellers who let themselves be coerced into "spiritual enjoyment" through art, books, and music, aided by alcohol! How the theatrical cries of passion now hurt our ears; how strange to our taste has all the romantic chaos and sensual frenzy that the cultured crowd loves become (along with their aspirations for the elevated, the sophisticated, and the intricate)! No, if we recovering souls need any kind of art, it is another art—a playful, light, fleeting, divinely serene,[Pg 9] divinely clever art, which blazes like a clear flame in a cloudless sky! Above all, an art for artists, only for artists! We finally know what is primarily necessary for it—namely, cheerfulness, every kind of cheerfulness, my friends! Also as artists:—I would like to prove it. We now know something too well, we wise men: oh, how well we are learning to forget and not know, as artists! And as for our future, we are unlikely to follow the paths of those Egyptian youths who, at night, make the temples unsafe, embrace statues, and wish to unveil, uncover, and shine a light on everything that is kept hidden for good reason[2]. No, we have grown disgusted with this poor taste, this relentless quest for truth, this youthful obsession with "truth at all costs": we are now too experienced, too serious, too joyful, too burnt, too profound for that…. We no longer believe that truth remains truth once it is brought into the light: we’ve lived long enough to believe that. Nowadays, we see it as a matter of propriety not to be eager to see everything naked, or to be involved in everything, or to understand and "know" everything. "Is it true that the good God is everywhere?" asked a little girl of her mother: "I think that’s indecent":—a thought for philosophers! One should have more respect for the modesty with which nature has hidden behind enigmas and vibrant uncertainties. Maybe truth is a woman who has reasons for not[Pg 10] revealing her reasons? Maybe her name is Baubo, to speak in Greek?... Oh, those Greeks! They knew how to live: for that, it’s necessary to stay boldly on the surface, the folds and the skin; to honor appearance, to believe in forms, sounds, and words, in the whole Olympus of appearance! Those Greeks were superficial—from depth! And are we not coming back exactly to this point, we brave spirits, who have scaled the highest and most dangerous peak of contemporary thought, and have looked around from it, have looked down from it? Are we not, in this respect—Greeks? Worshippers of forms, of sounds, and of words? And precisely for that reason—artists?
RUTA, near GENOA
RUTA, by GENOA
>Autumn, 1886.
Autumn 1886.
[1] This means literally to put the numeral X instead of the numeral V (formerly U); hence it means to double a number unfairly, to exaggerate, humbug, cheat.—TR.
[1] This literally means to replace the number V (formerly U) with the number X; therefore, it means to unfairly double a number, to exaggerate, deceive, or cheat.—TR.
JEST, RUSE AND REVENGE.
A PRELUDE IN RHYME.
1.
Invitation.
Venture, comrades, I implore you,
On the fare I set before you,
You will like it more to-morrow,
Better still the following day:
If yet more you're then requiring,
Old success I'll find inspiring,
And fresh courage thence will borrow
Novel dainties to display.
2.
My Good Luck.
Weary of Seeking had I grown,
So taught myself the way to Find:
Back by the storm I once was blown,
But follow now, where drives the wind.
3.
Undismayed.
Where you're standing, dig, dig out:
Down below's the Well:
Let them that walk in darkness shout:
[Pg 14]"Down below—there's Hell!"
4.
Dialogue.
A. Was I ill? and is it ended?
Pray, by what physician tended?
I recall no pain endured!
B. Now I know your trouble's ended:
He that can forget, is cured.
5.
To the Virtuous.
Let our virtues be easy and nimble-footed in
motion,
Like unto Homer's verse ought they to come and
to go.
6.
Worldly Wisdom.
Stay not on level plain,
Climb not the mount too high.
But half-way up remain—
The world you'll best descry!
7.
Vademecum—Vadetecum.
Attracted by my style and talk
You'd follow, in my footsteps walk?
Follow yourself unswervingly,
[Pg 15]
So—careful!—shall you follow me.
8.
The Third Sloughing
My skin bursts, breaks for fresh rebirth,
And new desires come thronging:
Much I've devoured, yet for more earth
The serpent in me's longing.
'Twixt stone and grass I crawl once more,
Hungry, by crooked ways,
To eat the food I ate before,
Earth-fare all serpents praise!
9.
My Roses.
My luck's good—I'd make yours fairer,
(Good luck ever needs a sharer),
Will you stop and pluck my roses?
Oft mid rocks and thorns you'll linger,
Hide and stoop, suck bleeding finger—
Will you stop and pluck my roses?
For my good luck's a trifle vicious,
Fond of teasing, tricks malicious—
Will you stop and pluck my roses?
10.
The Scorner.
Many drops I waste and spill,
So my scornful mood you curse:
Who to brim his cup doth fill,
Many drops must waste and spill—
[Pg 16]Yet he thinks the wine no worse.
11.
The Proverb Speaks.
Harsh and gentle, fine and mean,
Quite rare and common, dirty and clean,
The fools' and the sages' go-between:
All this I will be, this have been,
Dove and serpent and swine, I ween!
12.
To a Lover of Light.
That eye and sense be not fordone
E'en in the shade pursue the sun!
13.
For Dancers.
Smoothest ice,
A paradise
To him who is a dancer nice.
14.
The Brave Man.
A feud that knows not flaw nor break,
Rather then patched-up friendship, take.
15.
Rust.
Rust's needed: keenness will not satisfy!
"He is too young!" the rabble loves to cry.
16.
Excelsior.
"How shall I reach the top?" No time
[Pg 17]For thus reflecting! Start to climb!
17.
The Man of Power Speaks.
Ask never! Cease that whining, pray!
Take without asking, take alway!
18.
Narrow Souls.
Narrow souls hate I like the devil,
Souls wherein grows nor good nor evil.
19.
Accidentally a Seducer[1]
He shot an empty word
Into the empty blue;
But on the way it met
A woman whom it slew.
20.
For Consideration.
A twofold pain is easier far to bear
Than one: so now to suffer wilt thou dare?
21.
Against Pride.
Brother, to puff thyself up ne'er be quick:
For burst thou shalt be by a tiny prick!
22.
Man and Woman.
"The woman seize, who to thy heart appeals!"
[Pg 18]Man's motto: woman seizes not, but steals.
23.
Interpretation.
If I explain my wisdom, surely
'Tis but entangled more securely,
I can't expound myself aright:
But he that's boldly up and doing,
His own unaided course pursuing,
Upon my image casts more light!
24.
A Cure for Pessimism.
Those old capricious fancies, friend!
You say your palate naught can please,
I hear you bluster, spit and wheeze,
My love, my patience soon will end!
Pluck up your courage, follow me—
Here's a fat toad! Now then, don't blink,
Swallow it whole, nor pause to think!
From your dyspepsia you'll be free!
25.
A Request.
Many men's minds I know full well,
Yet what mine own is, cannot tell.
I cannot see—my eye's too near—
And falsely to myself appear.
'Twould be to me a benefit
Far from myself if I could sit,
[Pg 19]Less distant than my enemy,
And yet my nearest friend's too nigh—
'Twixt him and me, just in the middle!
What do I ask for? Guess my riddle.
26.
My Cruelty.
I must ascend an hundred stairs,
I must ascend: the herd declares
I'm cruel: "Are we made of stone?"
I must ascend an hundred stairs:
All men the part of stair disown.
27.
The Wanderer.
"No longer path! Abyss and silence chilling!"
Thy fault! To leave the path thou wast too willing!
Now comes the test! Keep cool—eyes bright and clear!
Thou'rt lost for sure, if thou permittest—fear.
28.
Encouragement for Beginners.
See the infant, helpless creeping—
Swine around it grunt swine-talk—
Weeping always, naught but weeping,
Will it ever learn to walk?
Never fear! Just wait, I swear it
Soon to dance will be inclined,
And this babe, when two legs bear it,
[Pg 20]Standing on its head you'll find.
29.
Planet Egoism.
Did I not turn, a rolling cask,
Ever about myself, I ask,
How could I without burning run
Close on the track of the hot sun?
30.
The Neighbour.
Too nigh, my friend my joy doth mar,
I'd have him high above and far,
Or how can he become my star?
31.
The Disguised Saint.
Lest we for thy bliss should slay thee,
In devil's wiles thou dost array thee,
Devil's wit and devil's dress.
But in vain! Thy looks betray thee
And proclaim thy holiness.
32.
The Slave.
A. He stands and listens: whence his pain?
What smote his ears? Some far refrain?
Why is his heart with anguish torn?
B. Like all that fetters once have worn,
[Pg 21]
He always hears the clinking—chain!
33.
The Lone One.
I hate to follow and I hate to lead.
Obedience? no! and ruling? no, indeed!
Wouldst fearful be in others' sight?
Then e'en thyself thou must affright:
The people but the Terror's guidance heed.
I hate to guide myself, I hate the fray.
Like the wild beasts I'll wander far afield.
In Error's pleasing toils I'll roam
Awhile, then lure myself back home,
Back home, and—to my self-seduction yield.
34.
Seneca et hoc Genus omne.
They write and write (quite maddening me)
Their "sapient" twaddle airy,
As if 'twere primum scribere,
Deinde philosophari.
35.
Ice.
Yes! I manufacture ice:
Ice may help you to digest:
If you had much to digest,
How you would enjoy my ice!
36.
Youthful Writings.
My wisdom's A and final O
[Pg 22]Was then the sound that smote mine ear.
Yet now it rings no longer so,
My youth's eternal Ah! and Oh!
Is now the only sound I hear.[2]
37.
Foresight.
In yonder region travelling, take good care!
An hast thou wit, then be thou doubly ware!
They'll smile and lure thee; then thy limbs they'll tear:
Fanatics' country this where wits are rare!
38.
The Pious One Speaks.
God loves us, for he made us, sent us here!—
"Man hath made God!" ye subtle ones reply.
His handiwork he must hold dear,
And what he made shall he deny?
There sounds the devil's halting hoof, I fear.
39.
In Summer.
In sweat of face, so runs the screed,
We e'er must eat our bread,
Yet wise physicians if we heed
"Eat naught in sweat," 'tis said.
The dog-star's blinking: what's his need?
What tells his blazing sign?
In sweat of face (so runs his screed)
[Pg 23]We're meant to drink our wine!
40.
Without Envy.
His look betrays no envy: and ye laud him?
He cares not, asks not if your throng applaud him!
He has the eagle's eye for distance far,
He sees you not, he sees but star on star!
41.
Heraclitism.
Brethren, war's the origin
Of happiness on earth:
Powder-smoke and battle-din
Witness friendship's birth!
Friendship means three things, you know,—
Kinship in luckless plight,
Equality before the foe
Freedom—in death's sight!
42.
Maxim of the Over-refined.
"Rather on your toes stand high
Than crawl upon all fours,
Rather through the keyhole spy
Than through the open doors!"
43.
Exhortation.
Renown you're quite resolved to earn?
My thought about it
Is this: you need not fame, must learn
[Pg 24]To do without it!
44.
Thorough.
I an inquirer? No, that's not my calling
Only I weigh a lot—I'm such a lump!—
And through the waters I keep falling, falling,
Till on the ocean's deepest bed I bump.
45.
The Immortals.
"To-day is meet for me, I come to-day,"
Such is the speech of men foredoomed to stay.
"Thou art too soon," they cry, "thou art too late,"
What care the Immortals what the rabble say?
46.
Verdicts of the Weary.
The weary shun the glaring sun, afraid,
And only care for trees to gain the shade.
47.
Descent.
"He sinks, he falls," your scornful looks portend:
The truth is, to your level he'll descend.
His Too Much Joy is turned to weariness,
His Too Much Light will in your darkness end.
48.
Nature Silenced[3]
Around my neck, on chain of hair,
[Pg 25]The timepiece hangs—a sign of care.
For me the starry course is o'er,
No sun and shadow as before,
No cockcrow summons at the door,
For nature tells the time no more!
Too many clocks her voice have drowned,
And droning law has dulled her sound.
49.
The Sage Speaks.
Strange to the crowd, yet useful to the crowd,
I still pursue my path, now sun, now cloud,
But always pass above the crowd!
50.
He lost his Head....
She now has wit—how did it come her way?
A man through her his reason lost, they say.
His head, though wise ere to this pastime lent,
Straight to the devil—no, to woman went!
51.
A Pious Wish.
"Oh, might all keys be lost! 'Twere better so
And in all keyholes might the pick-lock go!"
Who thus reflects ye may as—picklock know.
52.
Foot Writing.
I write not with the hand alone,
My foot would write, my foot that capers,
Firm, free and bold, it's marching on
[Pg 26]
Now through the fields, now through the papers.
53.
"Human, All-too-Human." ...
Shy, gloomy, when your looks are backward thrust,
Trusting the future where yourself you trust,
Are you an eagle, mid the nobler fowl,
Or are you like Minerva's darling owl?
54.
To my Reader.
Good teeth and a digestion good
I wish you—these you need, be sure!
And, certes, if my book you've stood,
Me with good humour you'll endure.
55.
The Realistic Painter.
"To nature true, complete!" so he begins.
Who complete Nature to his canvas wins?
Her tiniest fragment's endless, no constraint
Can know: he paints just what his fancy pins:
What does his fancy pin? What he can paint!
56.
Poets' Vanity.
Glue, only glue to me dispense,
The wood I'll find myself, don't fear!
To give four senseless verses sense—
[Pg 27]
That's an achievement I revere!
57.
Taste in Choosing.
If to choose my niche precise
Freedom I could win from fate,
I'd be in midst of Paradise—
Or, sooner still—before the gate!
58.
The Crooked Nose.
Wide blow your nostrils, and across
The land your nose holds haughty sway:
So you, unhorned rhinoceros,
Proud mannikin, fall forward aye!
The one trait with the other goes:
A straight pride and a crooked nose.
59.
The Pen is Scratching....
The pen is scratching: hang the pen!
To scratching I'm condemned to sink!
I grasp the inkstand fiercely then
And write in floods of flowing ink.
How broad, how full the stream's career!
What luck my labours doth requite!
'Tis true, the writing's none too clear—
What then? Who reads the stuff I write?
60.
Loftier Spirits.
This man's climbing up—let us praise him—
But that other we love
From aloft doth eternally move,
So above even praise let us raise him,
[Pg 28]He comes from above!
61.
The Sceptic Speaks.
Your life is half-way o'er;
The clock-hand moves; your soul is thrilled with fear,
It roamed to distant shore
And sought and found not, yet you—linger here!
Your life is half-way o'er;
That hour by hour was pain and error sheer:
Why stay? What seek you more?
"That's what I'm seeking—reasons why I'm here!"
62.
Ecce Homo.
Yes, I know where I'm related,
Like the flame, unquenched, unsated,
I consume myself and glow:
All's turned to light I lay my hand on,
All to coal that I abandon,
Yes, I am a flame, I know!
63.
Star Morality[4]
Foredoomed to spaces vast and far,
What matters darkness to the star?
Roll calmly on, let time go by,
Let sorrows pass thee—nations die!
Compassion would but dim the light
That distant worlds will gladly sight.
To thee one law—be pure and bright!
1.
Invitation.
Come, friends, I urge you,
To enjoy the feast I offer you,
You’ll appreciate it more tomorrow.
Even better the next day:
If you’re still wanting more,
I’ll be inspired by past successes,
And find new courage
To showcase new experiences.
2.
My Good Luck.
I grew tired of searching,
So I taught myself to discover:
I was once blown back by the storm,
But now I go where the wind takes me.
3.
Undismayed.
Where you’re standing, dig it up:
Here's the well:
Let those who walk in darkness shout:
[Pg 14]"Down below—there's hell!"
4.
Dialogue.
A. Was I sick? Is it all over?
What doctor helped me?
I don’t remember feeling any pain!
B. Now I see your troubles have ended:
He who can forget is healed.
5.
To the Virtuous.
Let our virtues be light and agile,
They should flow like the verses of Homer,
coming and going.
6.
Worldly Wisdom.
Don’t stay on the flat ground,
Don't hike the mountain too high.
Stay halfway up—
From there, you'll see the world at its best!
7.
Vademecum—Vadetecum.
Attracted by my style and words,
Would you follow in my footsteps?
Follow yourself unwaveringly,
[Pg 15]
So—be careful!—and you shall follow me.
8.
The Third Sloughing
My skin bursts, breaks for a fresh start,
And new desires flood in:
I’ve consumed a lot, yet yearn for more of the earth,
The serpent inside me is yearning.
Once more I crawl between stone and grass,
Hungry, through winding paths,
To consume what I had before,
All snakes love earthly food!
9.
My Roses.
I’m fortunate—I'd make your luck better,
(Good fortune always wants a partner),
Will you stop and pick my roses?
Often among rocks and thorns you’ll linger,
Ducking down, hurting your bleeding fingers—
Will you stop and pick my roses?
For my good luck is a bit wicked,
Fond of teasing, playing tricks—
Will you stop and pick my roses?
10.
The Scorner.
I waste and spill many drops,
So you curse my scornful mood:
Whoever fills their cup
Must waste and spill quite a few—
[Pg 16]Yet they think the wine is still good.
11.
The Proverb Speaks.
Harsh and gentle, fine and crude,
Quite rare and common, dirty and clean,
The link between fools and wise men:
All this I will be, and have been,
Dove and serpent and swine, I think!
12.
To a Lover of Light.
Let your eyes and senses not be dulled,
Even in the shadows pursue the sun!
13.
For Dancers.
Smoothest ice,
A paradise
For the one who dances gracefully.
14.
The Brave Man.
A feud that knows no flaw or break,
Prefer it to a patched-up friendship.
15.
Rust.
Rust is necessary; sharpness won’t satisfy!
"He’s too young!" the crowd loves to shout.
16.
Excelsior.
"How do I reach the top?" No time
[Pg 17]For thinking! Start your climb!
17.
The Man of Power Speaks.
Never ask! Stop that whining, please!
Take without asking, always take!
18.
Narrow Souls.
I hate narrow-minded souls like the devil,
Souls where neither good nor evil grows.
19.
Accidentally a Seducer[1]
He shot an empty word
Into the deep blue;
But on the way it met
A woman it seduced.
20.
For Consideration.
A double pain is much easier to bear
Than one: so will you now dare to suffer?
21.
Against Pride.
Brother, never be quick to puff yourself up:
For you’ll burst from just a tiny prick!
22.
Man and Woman.
"Seize the woman who appeals to your heart!"
[Pg 18]Man’s motto: a woman doesn’t seize, but steals.
23.
Interpretation.
If I explain my wisdom, surely
It only gets tangled more tightly,
I can’t express myself well.
But he who boldly acts and does,
Following his own path,
Will shed light on my image!
24.
A Cure for Pessimism.
Those old fickle whims, my friend!
You say nothing satisfies your taste,
I hear you complain and struggle to breathe,
My love, my patience will soon run out!
Suck up your courage, follow me—
Here’s a big toad! Now don’t blink,
Swallow it whole, don’t think about it!
You’ll be free from your dyspepsia!
25.
A Request.
I know many minds well,
Yet what my own is, I cannot tell.
I can’t see—my eye’s too close—
And I appear falsely to myself.
It would benefit me greatly
If I could sit far from myself,
[Pg 19]Less distant than my enemy,
And yet my nearest friend's too close—
Between him and me, just in the middle!
What am I asking for? Guess my riddle.
26.
My Cruelty.
I must climb a hundred stairs,
I must ascend: the crowd declares
I’m cruel: "Are we made of stone?"
I must climb those hundred stairs:
All deny they’re part of that flight.
27.
The Wanderer.
"No more path! Abyss and chilling silence!"
Your fault! You were too eager to leave the path!
Now comes the test! Stay calm—eyes bright and clear!
You’ll surely be lost if you allow—fear.
28.
Encouragement for Beginners.
Look at the infant, helplessly crawling—
The pigs surrounding it grunt in their own way—
Always crying, nothing but crying,
Will it ever learn to walk?
Never fear! Just wait, I promise
Soon it will be ready to dance,
And this babe, when two legs support it,
[Pg 20]You’ll see it upside down.
29.
Planet Egoism.
If I didn’t turn, a rolling barrel,
Always revolving around myself, I ask,
How could I run without burning
Close to the trail of the blazing sun?
30.
The Neighbour.
Too close, my friend ruins my joy,
I’d rather have him high above and far,
Or how can he become my star?
31.
The Disguised Saint.
Lest we take joy in your bliss,
In devil’s tricks you dress yourself,
Devil's charm and devil's style.
But in vain! Your looks betray you
And show your holiness.
32.
The Slave.
A. He stands and listens: where’s his pain?
What did he hear? A distant melody?
Why is his heart filled with sorrow?
B. Like all that fetters have worn,
[Pg 21]
He always hears the clinking—chain!
33.
The Lone One.
I hate to follow and I dislike to lead.
Obedience? No! And ruling? Definitely not!
Would you be afraid of what others think of you?
Then even you must scare yourself:
People only heed the Terror’s guidance.
I dislike guiding myself, I hate the conflict.
Like wild beasts I’ll wander far.
In the tempting traps of Error, I will wander.
For a bit, then head back home,
Back home, and yield to my own seduction.
34.
Seneca et hoc Genus omne.
They keep writing (driving me mad)
Their "wise" airy nonsense,
As if it were first to write,
Then to philosophize.
35.
Ice.
Yes! I create ice:
Ice may help you digest:
If you had much to digest,
How you would enjoy my ice!
36.
Youthful Writings.
My wisdom's A to Z
[Pg 22]Was then the sound that struck my ear.
Yet now it doesn’t ring so sweet,
My youth’s endless Ah! and Oh!
Is now the only sound I hear.[2]
37.
Foresight.
In that region, take care as you travel!
If you have wisdom, then be doubly careful!
They’ll smile and entice you; then they’ll tear your limbs:
This is a fanatic’s land where wits are rare!
38.
The Pious One Speaks.
God loves us, because he made us, sent us here!—
"Man made God!" you clever ones reply.
His handiwork he must cherish,
And what he made can he deny?
I fear there sounds the devil’s hesitant hoof.
39.
In Summer.
Through sweat, so runs the script,
We have to eat our bread,
Yet if we heed wise doctors,
"They say not to eat while sweating."
The dog star shines: what does it need?
What does its bright sign say?
Through sweat (so runs its script)
[Pg 23]We're supposed to drink our wine!
40.
Without Envy.
His expression shows no envy: and you praise him?
He neither cares nor asks if your crowd applauds him!
He has the eagle’s eye for far-off sights,
He sees you not; he sees only stars upon stars!
41.
Heraclitism.
Brothers, war is the source
Of happiness on earth:
Powder smoke and sounds of battle
Witness the birth of friendship!
Friendship means three things, you know,—
Bond through tough times,
Equality before the enemy,
Freedom—in the face of death!
42.
Maxim of the Over-refined.
"Better stand tall on your toes
Crawling on all fours,
It’s better to peek through the keyhole
Than to look through open doors!"
43.
Encouragement.
Are you set on gaining fame?
Here’s what I think:
You don’t need fame; learn
[Pg 24]To live without it!
44.
Thorough.
Am I a seeker? No, that’s not my role,
I just weigh a lot—I’m just heavy!
And I keep sinking through the waters,
Until I reach the bottom of the ocean.
45.
The Immortals.
"Today is my day, I’m here today,"
That’s what those destined to linger say.
"You’re too early," they shout, "you’re too late,"
What do the Immortals care about what the crowd thinks?
46.
Judgments of the Weary.
The weary shy away from the blazing sun,
And only look for trees to find shade.
47.
Descent.
"He’s falling, he’s sinking," your scornful eyes predict:
The truth is, he’ll descend to your level.
His Too Much Joy turns into fatigue,
His Too Much Light will end in your darkness.
48.
Nature Silenced[3]
Around my neck, on a hair chain,
[Pg 25]The timepiece hangs—a sign of care.
For me, the starry path is over,
No sunlight and shadows like before,
No morning rooster calling at the door,
For nature no longer keeps time!
Too many clocks have drowned out her voice,
And the constant law has muted her sound.
49.
The Sage Speaks.
Strange to the crowd, yet helpful to them,
I still follow my path, through sun and cloud,
But always above the crowd!
50.
He lost his Head....
She’s gotten smart—how did that happen?
A man lost his sanity because of her, they say.
His wisdom, once wise before this affair,
Went straight to the devil—no, to a woman instead!
51.
A Pious Wish.
"Oh, I wish all keys were lost! That would be better
And let the lockpicker go through all the keyholes!"
Anyone who thinks this might as well—be a lockpick expert.
52.
Foot Writing.
I don’t just write with my hand,
My dancing foot wants to write too,
Strong, free, and bold, it marches on
[Pg 26]
Now through the fields, now across the pages.
53.
"Human, All-too-Human." ...
Shy, gloomy, with your gaze turned back,
Trusting the future where you trust yourself,
Are you an eagle among the better birds,
Or are you like Minerva's favored owl?
54.
To my Reader.
Good teeth and good digestion,
I wish you these—these are definitely essentials!
And surely, if you’ve managed to read my book,
You’ll be able to handle me with good humor.
55.
The Realistic Painter.
"True to nature, complete!" That’s his starting point.
Who can capture the essence of Nature on canvas?
Her smallest pieces are endless; no limits
Can comprehend: he paints just what his imagination captures:
What does his imagination capture? What he can paint!
56.
Poets' Vanity.
Just give me glue,
I’ll find the wood myself, no worries!
To give meaning to four senseless lines—
[Pg 27]
That’s an achievement I admire!
57.
Taste in Choosing.
If I could pick my exact spot
I would escape fate,
I’d be in the heart of Paradise—
Or even better—right at the gate!
58.
The Crooked Nose.
Wide are your nostrils, and across
Your land your nose reigns with pride:
So you, hornless rhinoceros,
Proud little man, you always stumble forward!
One trait goes with the other:
A straight pride and a crooked nose.
59.
The Pen is Scratching....
The pen is scratching: toss it aside!
I’m doomed to scratch!
I grasp the inkstand tightly then
And write in a rush of flowing ink.
How wide, how full the stream flows!
What luck my efforts bring!
It’s true, the writing isn’t too clear—
So what? Who reads what I write?
60.
Loftier Spirits.
This man is climbing up—let’s commend him—
But that other, whom we cherish
Moves eternally from above,
So even beyond praise we should lift him,
[Pg 28]He comes from above!
61.
The Skeptic Speaks.
Your life is halfway over;
The clock hand ticks; your soul is caught in fear,
It wandered to far-off shores
And searched but found nothing, yet you—stay here!
Your life is halfway over;
That hour by hour brought only pain and mistakes:
Why stay? What more do you seek?
"That’s what I’m looking for—reasons why I’m here!"
62.
Ecce Homo.
Yes, I know where I came from,
Like a flame, unquenched, unsatisfied,
I consume myself and shine:
All turns to light when I touch it,
All turns to coal that I leave behind,
Yes, I am a flame, that I know!
63.
Star Morality[4]
Destined for vast and distant spaces,
What does darkness mean to the star?
Roll calmly on, let time flow,
Let sorrows fade—nations perish!
Compassion would only dim the light
That distant worlds will gladly witness.
For you, one rule—be pure and bright!
BOOK FIRST
1.
1.
The Teachers of the Object of Existence.—Whether I look with a good or an evil eye upon men, I find them always at one problem, each and all of them: to do that which conduces to the conservation of the human species. And certainly not out of any sentiment of love for this species, but simply because nothing in them is older, stronger, more inexorable and more unconquerable than that instinct,—because it is precisely the essence of our race and herd. Although we are accustomed readily enough, with our usual short-sightedness, to separate our neighbours precisely into useful and hurtful, into good and evil men, yet when we make a general calculation, and reflect longer on the whole question, we become distrustful of this defining and separating, and finally leave it alone. Even the most hurtful man is still perhaps, in respect to the conservation of the race, the most useful of all; for he conserves in himself, or by his effect on others, impulses without which mankind might long ago have languished or decayed. Hatred, delight in mischief, rapacity and ambition, and whatever else is called evil—belong to the marvellous economy of the conservation of the race; to be sure a costly, lavish,[Pg 32] and on the whole very foolish economy:—which has, however, hitherto preserved our race, as is demonstrated to us. I no longer know, my dear fellow-man and neighbour, if thou canst at all live to the disadvantage of the race, and therefore, "unreasonably" and "badly"; that which could have injured the race has perhaps died out many millenniums ago, and now belongs to the things which are no longer possible even to God. Indulge thy best or thy worst desires, and above all, go to wreck!—in either case thou art still probably the furtherer and benefactor of mankind in some way or other, and in that respect thou mayest have thy panegyrists—and similarly thy mockers! But thou wilt never find him who would be quite qualified to mock at thee, the individual, at thy best, who could bring home to thy conscience its limitless, buzzing and croaking wretchedness so as to be in accord with truth! To laugh at oneself as one would have to laugh in order to laugh out of the veriest truth,—to do this, the best have not hitherto had enough of the sense of truth, and the most endowed have had far too little genius! There is perhaps still a future even for laughter! When the maxim, "The race is all, the individual is nothing,"—has incorporated itself in humanity, and when access stands open to every one at all times to this ultimate emancipation and irresponsibility.—Perhaps then laughter will have united with wisdom, perhaps then there will be only "joyful wisdom." Meanwhile, however, it is quite otherwise, meanwhile the comedy of existence has not yet "become conscious" of itself,[Pg 33] meanwhile it is still the period of tragedy, the period of morals and religions. What does the ever new appearing of founders of morals and religions, of instigators of struggles for moral valuations, of teachers of remorse of conscience and religious war, imply? What do these heroes on this stage imply? For they have hitherto been the heroes of it, and all else, though solely visible for the time being, and too close to one, has served only as preparation for these heroes, whether as machinery and coulisse, or in the rôle of confidants and valets. (The poets, for example, have always been the valets of some morality or other.)—It is obvious of itself that these tragedians also work in the interest of the race, though they may believe that they work in the interest of God, and as emissaries of God. They also further the life of the species, in that they further the belief in life. "It is worthwhile to live"—each of them calls out,—"there is something of importance in this life; life has something behind it and under it; take care!" That impulse, which rules equally in the noblest and the ignoblest, the impulse to the conservation of the species, breaks forth from time to time as reason and passion of spirit; it has then a brilliant train of motives about it, and tries with all its power to make us forget that fundamentally it is just impulse, instinct, folly and baselessness. Life should beloved, for...! Man should benefit himself and his neighbour, for...! And whatever all these shoulds and fors imply, and may imply in future! In order that that which necessarily and always happens of itself and[Pg 34] without design, may henceforth appear to be done by design, and may appeal to men as reason and ultimate command,—for that purpose the ethiculturist comes forward as the teacher of design in existence; for that purpose he devises a second and different existence, and by means of this new mechanism he lifts the old common existence off its old common hinges. No! he does not at all want us to laugh at existence, nor even at ourselves—nor at himself; to him an individual is always an individual, something first and last and immense, to him there are no species, no sums, no noughts. However foolish and fanatical his inventions and valuations may be, however much he may misunderstand the course of nature and deny its conditions—and all systems of ethics hitherto have been foolish and anti-natural to such a degree that mankind would have been ruined by any one of them had it got the upper hand,—at any rate, every time that "the hero" came upon the stage something new was attained: the frightful counterpart of laughter, the profound convulsion of many individuals at the thought, "Yes, it is worth while to live! yes, I am worthy to live!"—life, and thou, and I, and all of us together became for a while interesting to ourselves once more.—It is not to be denied that hitherto laughter and reason and nature have in the long run got the upper hand of all the great teachers of design: in the end the short tragedy always passed over once more into the eternal comedy of existence; and the "waves of innumerable laughters"—to use the expression of Æschylus—must also in the end beat over the[Pg 35] greatest of these tragedies. But with all this corrective laughter, human nature has on the whole been changed by the ever new appearance of those teachers of the design of existence,—human nature has now an additional requirement, the very requirement of the ever new appearance of such teachers and doctrines of "design." Man has gradually become a visionary animal, who has to fulfil one more condition of existence than the other animals: man must from time to time believe that he knows why he exists; his species cannot flourish without periodically confiding in life! Without the belief in reason in life! And always from time to time will the human race decree anew that "there is something which really may not be laughed at." And the most clairvoyant philanthropist will add that "not only laughing and joyful wisdom, but also the tragic with all its sublime irrationality, counts among the means and necessities for the conservation of the race!"—And consequently! Consequently! Consequently! Do you understand me, oh my brothers? Do you understand this new law of ebb and flow? We also shall have our time!
The Teachers of the Object of Existence.—Whether I look at people with a positive or negative perspective, I see them all grappling with one issue: doing what helps preserve the human species. And it’s certainly not out of any love for humanity, but simply because nothing within them is older, stronger, more relentless, and more unbeatable than that instinct—because it is truly the essence of our kind and community. Although we tend to easily separate our neighbors into useful and harmful, good and bad people, when we take a step back and think more deeply about the entire situation, we often become skeptical of these classifications and eventually set them aside. Even the most harmful person might actually be, in terms of preserving the species, the most beneficial of all; for he encourages impulses without which humanity might have long ago withered or faded away. Hatred, a penchant for mischief, greed, ambition, and whatever else is deemed evil—all play a significant role in the preservation of our species; admittedly, it’s an extravagant and, on the whole, rather foolish approach—but it has, nonetheless, kept our species alive, as history shows us. I no longer know, my dear fellow human and neighbor, if you can truly live in a way that harms the species, and therefore, "unreasonably" and "badly"; what could have harmed the species may have vanished many millennia ago and now belongs to things that are no longer even possible for God. Indulge in your best or worst desires, and above all, self-destruct!—in either scenario, you are still likely contributing to the advancement and benefit of humanity in some manner, and in that light, you may have your admirers—and just as many critics! But you will never find someone fully equipped to mock you, the individual, at your best, who could truly reflect your infinite, buzzing, and croaking misery in accordance with reality! To laugh at oneself, as one would have to laugh to laugh in absolute truth,—the best have not yet had sufficient understanding of truth, and the most gifted have lacked the requisite genius! Perhaps there’s still hope for laughter! When the saying, "The species matters most, the individual is nothing,"—has become ingrained within humanity, and when everyone has open access to this ultimate liberation and lack of accountability.—Perhaps then laughter will align with wisdom, and perhaps there will only be "joyful wisdom." For now, however, it is quite different; for now, the comedy of existence hasn’t yet "become aware" of itself,[Pg 33] for now, it is still the era of tragedy, the era of morality and religion. What do the continuous emergence of moral founders and religious leaders, of instigators of conflicts over moral values, of teachers of guilt and religious wars, signify? What do these heroes on this stage represent? For they have been the heroes here, and all else, while currently visible and too close for comfort, has only served to prepare for these heroes, whether as background or as sidekicks. (Poets, for instance, have always been the helpers of some morality or another.)—It is self-evident that these tragic figures also work for the benefit of the species, even if they think they are acting for God’s sake, and as God’s representatives. They promote the continuation of life, by fostering a belief in life. "It's worth living"—each of them proclaims,—"there’s something significant in this life; life has depth and meaning; pay attention!" That driving force, which exists in both the noblest and the basest of us, the drive to preserve the species, occasionally manifests itself as reason and passionate spirit; it comes with a dazzling array of motives and tries with all its might to make us forget that fundamentally it is merely impulse, instinct, folly, and randomness. Life should be loved, because...! Mankind should benefit oneself and others, because...! And whatever all these shoulds and becauses imply, and may imply in the future! For the purpose of making what inevitably and constantly occurs naturally appear to be deliberate, and to present itself to humanity as reason and ultimate mandate,—for that, the ethiculturist steps up as the instructor of design in existence; for that, he creates a different kind of existence, and through this new framework, he repositions the old shared existence off its typical hinges. No! He does not want us to laugh at existence, nor even at ourselves—or him; to him, an individual is always an individual, something unique and immense, to him there are no categories, no sums, no nulls. However nonsensical and fanatical his concepts and valuations may be, however much he misinterprets the course of nature and ignores its realities—and all ethical systems so far have been foolish and contrary to nature to such an extent that humanity would have been destroyed if any of them had gained dominance,—at any rate, each time "the hero" has appeared on stage, something new has been achieved: the terrifying counterpart of laughter, the deep upheaval of many individuals at the thought, "Yes, it’s worth living! Yes, I am worthy of life!"—life, and you, and I, and all of us together were for a moment interesting to ourselves again.—It cannot be denied that, up to this point, laughter, reason, and nature have ultimately triumphed over all the great teachers of design: in the end, the brief tragedy always reverted to the eternal comedy of existence; and the "waves of countless laughter"—to borrow a phrase from Æschylus—must ultimately also sweep over the[Pg 35] greatest of these tragedies. But despite all this corrective laughter, human nature has, on the whole, been altered by the continuous emergence of those educators of the design of existence,—human nature now has an added necessity, the very necessity for the ongoing emergence of such educators and doctrines of "design." Humanity has gradually evolved into a visionary being, needing to meet one more condition of existence than other animals: humanity must periodically believe that it knows why it exists; its species cannot thrive without regularly placing trust in life! Without the belief in reason in life! And time and again, the human race will declare anew that "there is something that truly should not be laughed at." And the most insightful philanthropist will add that "not only laughter and joyful wisdom, but also tragedy with all its profound irrationality, are among the means and necessities for the preservation of the species!"—And so! And so! And so! Do you understand me, oh my brothers? Do you grasp this new law of ebb and flow? We too shall have our moment!
2.
2.
The Intellectual Conscience.—I have always the same experience over again, and always make a new effort against it; for although it is evident to me I do not want to believe it: in the greater number of men the intellectual conscience is lacking; indeed, it would often seem to me that in demanding such a thing, one is as solitary in the largest cities as in the desert. Everyone looks at you with strange[Pg 36] eyes and continues to make use of his scales, calling this good and that bad; and no one blushes for shame when you remark that these weights are not the full amount,—there is also no indignation against you; perhaps they laugh at your doubt. I mean to say that the greater number of people do not find it contemptible to believe this or that, and live according to it, without having been previously aware of the ultimate and surest reasons for and against it, and without even giving themselves any trouble about such reasons afterwards,—the most Sifted men and the noblest women still belong to this "greater number." But what is kind-heartedness, refinement and genius to me, if he who has these virtues harbours indolent sentiments in belief and judgment, if the longing for certainty does not rule in him, as his innermost desire and profoundest need—as that which separates higher from lower men! In certain pious people I have found a hatred of reason, and have been favourably disposed to them for it: their bad intellectual conscience at least still betrayed itself in this manner! But to stand in the midst of this rerum concordia discors and all the marvellous uncertainty and ambiguity of existence, and not to question, not to tremble with desire and delight in questioning, not even to hate the questioner—perhaps even to make merry over him to the extent of weariness—that is what I regard as contemptible, and it is this sentiment which I first of all search for in every one—some folly or other always persuades me anew that every man has this sentiment, as man. This is my special kind of unrighteousness.
The Intellectual Conscience.—I keep having the same experience over and over, and I always make a new effort to overcome it; because even though I clearly don’t want to believe it: most people lack intellectual conscience; in fact, it often feels like asking for it makes you just as alone in the biggest cities as in the desert. Everyone looks at you with confused[Pg 36] eyes and continues to judge things as good and bad; and no one seems to feel embarrassed when you point out that their judgments aren’t complete—the lack of outrage against you is also telling; perhaps they even laugh at your doubts. I mean that most people don't see anything wrong with believing various things and living by them without having considered the strongest reasons for and against those beliefs, and without even bothering to think about those reasons later—many of the most refined men and the most admirable women fall into this “greater number.” But what does it matter to me if someone has kindness, refinement, and genius, if they hold lazy beliefs and judgments, if the desire for certainty doesn’t guide them as their deepest wish and most profound need—what separates higher from lower people! Among certain religious individuals, I’ve found a hostility towards reason, and I actually had a favorable view of them for it: their poor intellectual conscience still revealed itself in this way! But to stand amid this rerum concordia discors along with all the wonderful uncertainty and ambiguity of existence, and not to question, not to feel a deep desire and excitement in questioning, not even to resent the questioner—perhaps even to mock them until one is weary—that’s what I see as contemptible, and it’s this feeling that I first look for in everyone—some form of foolishness always convinces me again that every person has this feeling, as a part of being human. This is my particular brand of injustice.
3.
3.
Noble and Ignoble.—To ignoble natures all noble, magnanimous sentiments appear inexpedient, and on that account first and foremost, as incredible: they blink with their eyes when they hear of such matters, and seem inclined to say," there will, no doubt, be some advantage therefrom, one cannot see through all walls;"—they are jealous of the noble person, as if he sought advantage by back-stair methods. When they are all too plainly convinced of the absence of selfish intentions and emoluments, the noble person is regarded by them as a kind of fool: they despise him in his gladness, and laugh at the lustre of his eye. "How can a person rejoice at being at a disadvantage, how can a person with open eyes want to meet with disadvantage! It must be a disease of the reason with which the noble affection is associated";—so they think, and they look depreciatingly thereon; just as they depreciate the joy which the lunatic derives from his fixed idea. The ignoble nature is distinguished by the fact that it keeps its advantage steadily in view, and that this thought of the end and advantage is even stronger than its strongest impulse: not to be tempted to inexpedient activities by its impulses—that is its wisdom and inspiration. In comparison with the ignoble nature the higher nature is more irrational:—for the noble, magnanimous, and self-sacrificing person succumbs in fact to his impulses, and in his best moments his reason lapses altogether. An animal, which at the risk[Pg 38] of life protects its young, or in the pairing season follows the female where it meets with death, does not think of the risk and the death; its reason pauses likewise, because its delight in its young, or in the female, and the fear of being deprived of this delight, dominate it exclusively; it becomes stupider than at other times, like the noble and magnanimous person. He possesses feelings of pleasure and pain of such intensity that the intellect must either be silent before them, or yield itself to their service: his heart then goes into his head, and one henceforth speaks of "passions." (Here and there to be sure, the antithesis to this, and as it were the "reverse of passion," presents itself; for example in Fontenelle, to whom some one once laid the hand on the heart with the words, "What you have there, my dearest friend, is brain also.") It is the unreason, or perverse reason of passion, which the ignoble man despises in the noble individual, especially when it concentrates upon objects whose value appears to him to be altogether fantastic and arbitrary. He is offended at him who succumbs to the passion of the belly, but he understands the allurement which here plays the tyrant; but he does not understand, for example, how a person out of love of knowledge can stake his health and honour on the game. The taste of the higher nature devotes itself to exceptional matters, to things which usually do not affect people, and seem to have no sweetness; the higher nature has a singular standard of value. Yet it is mostly of the belief that it has not a singular standard of value in its idiosyncrasies[Pg 39] of taste; it rather sets up its values and non-values as the generally valid values and non-values, and thus becomes incomprehensible and impracticable. It is very rarely that a higher nature has so much reason over and above as to understand and deal with everyday men as such; for the most part it believes in its passion as if it were the concealed passion of every one, and precisely in this belief it is full of ardour and eloquence. If then such exceptional men do not perceive themselves as exceptions, how can they ever understand the ignoble natures and estimate average men fairly! Thus it is that they also speak of the folly, inexpediency and fantasy of mankind, full of astonishment at the madness of the world, and that it will not recognise the "one thing needful for it."—This is the eternal unrighteousness of noble natures.
Noble and Ignoble.—For ignoble people, all noble and generous feelings seem impractical, and because of that, they appear unbelievable: they blink in confusion when they hear about such things and seem ready to say, "There must be some benefit in it; you can't see through all walls." They feel jealous of the noble person as if he were trying to gain something through underhanded means. When they are clearly convinced that there are no selfish motives or rewards, they view the noble person as a kind of fool: they look down on him when he’s happy and laugh at the sparkle in his eyes. "How can someone be happy about being at a disadvantage? How can someone with their eyes wide open want to face a disadvantage? It must be a sign of madness connected to that noble affection," they think, looking at it with disdain, just as they belittle the joy a madman finds in his delusions. The ignoble nature is characterized by the constant awareness of its own advantage, and this focus on gain is even stronger than its most powerful impulses: resisting unwise actions driven by these impulses is its wisdom and inspiration. Compared to the ignoble nature, the higher nature is more irrational: for the noble, generous, and selfless person often gives in to their impulses, losing their rationality completely in their best moments. An animal that risks its life to protect its young, or follows a mate to the brink of death during mating season, doesn’t consider the danger and death; its reasoning also halts because its joy in its young or in the mate, and the fear of losing that joy, completely dominate it; it becomes less aware than usual, like the noble and generous person. They feel pleasure and pain so intensely that their intellect can either fall silent in the face of them or submit to their demands: their heart then rules their head, leading to the term "passions." (Occasionally, the opposite to this, or what might be called the "opposite of passion," appears; for instance, in Fontenelle, who once had someone place a hand on his heart and say, "What you have there, my dear friend, is also brain.") It’s the irrationality, or perverse reasoning of passion, that the ignoble person despises in the noble individual, especially when it focuses on pursuits that seem utterly nonsensical and arbitrary to him. He looks down on someone who gives in to the cravings of the flesh, yet he recognizes the appeal of that temptation; however, he can't comprehend how someone could risk their health and reputation for the love of knowledge. The tastes of the higher nature are devoted to exceptional pursuits, to things that usually don’t affect people and don’t seem appealing; the higher nature has a unique standard of value. Yet it often mistakenly believes it doesn’t have a unique set of values in its peculiar tastes; instead, it establishes its values and non-values as universally valid, making it incomprehensible and impractical. It is very rare for someone of a higher nature to have enough understanding to relate to ordinary people; mostly, they believe in their passion as if it were the hidden passion of everyone else, and in this belief, they are full of fervor and eloquence. If such exceptional individuals don’t see themselves as extraordinary, how can they ever grasp the nature of ignoble people and fairly assess average folks? Thus, they speak of the foolishness, impracticality, and fantasies of humanity, astonished at the madness of the world, and why it doesn’t recognize the "one thing it truly needs."—This is the eternal injustice of noble natures.
4.
4.
That which Preserves the Species.—The strongest and most evil spirits have hitherto advanced mankind the most: they always rekindled the sleeping passions—all orderly arranged society lulls the passions to sleep; they always reawakened the sense of comparison, of contradiction, of delight in the new, the adventurous, the untried; they compelled men to set opinion against opinion, ideal plan against ideal plan. By means of arms, by upsetting boundary-stones, by violations of piety most of all: but also by new religions and morals! The same kind of "wickedness" is in every teacher and preacher of the new—which makes a conqueror[Pg 40] infamous, although it expresses itself more refinedly, and does not immediately set the muscles in motion (and just on that account does not make so infamous!) The new, however, is under all circumstances the evil, as that which wants to conquer, which tries to upset the old boundary-stones and the old piety; only the old is the good! The good men of every age are those who go to the roots of the old thoughts and bear fruit with them, the agriculturists of the spirit. But every soil becomes finally exhausted, and the ploughshare of evil must always come once more.—There is at present a fundamentally erroneous theory of morals which is much celebrated, especially in England: according to it the judgments "good" and "evil" are the accumulation of the experiences of that which is "expedient" and "inexpedient"; according to this theory, that which is called good is conservative of the species, what is called evil, however, is detrimental to it. But in reality the evil impulses are just in as high a degree expedient, indispensable, and conservative of the species as the good:—only, their function is different.
What Preserves the Species.—The strongest and most destructive spirits have pushed humanity forward the most: they always reignite the dormant passions—all structured societies lull these passions to sleep; they continually revive our sense of comparison, contradiction, and excitement for the new, the adventurous, and the untested; they force people to pit one opinion against another, one ideal plan against another. Through violence, by changing boundaries, and especially by violating sacred beliefs: but also through new religions and moralities! The same kind of "wickedness" exists in every teacher and preacher of the new—which makes a conqueror[Pg 40] infamous, even though it manifests in a more refined way and doesn't immediately provoke action (and for that reason doesn't make it as infamous!). However, the new is, in every case, the evil, as it seeks to conquer and disrupt the old boundaries and the old values; only the old is the good! The good people of every era are those who dig into the roots of traditional thoughts and cultivate them, the farmers of the spirit. But eventually, every soil becomes depleted, and the plow of evil must come again.—There is currently a fundamentally flawed moral theory that is quite popular, especially in England: according to this view, the labels "good" and "evil" are based on the accumulated experiences of what is "advantageous" and "disadvantageous"; this theory claims that what is deemed good supports the species, while what is labeled evil harms it. But in reality, the evil impulses are just as much advantageous, necessary, and essential for the species as the good:—only their roles are different.
5.
5.
Unconditional Duties.—All men who feel that they need the strongest words and intonations, the most eloquent gestures and attitudes, in order to operate at all—revolutionary politicians, socialists, preachers of repentance with or without Christianity, with all of whom there must be no mere half-success,—all these speak of "duties," and indeed, always of duties, which have the character of being[Pg 41] unconditional—without such they would have no right to their excessive pathos: they know that right well! They grasp, therefore, at philosophies of morality which preach some kind of categorical imperative, or they assimilate a good lump of religion, as, for example, Mazzini did. Because they want to be trusted unconditionally, it is first of all necessary for them to trust themselves unconditionally, on the basis of some ultimate, undebatable command, sublime in itself, as the ministers and instruments of which, they would fain feel and announce themselves. Here we have the most natural, and for the most part, very influential opponents of moral enlightenment and scepticism: but they are rare. On the other hand, there is always a very numerous class of those opponents wherever interest teaches subjection, while repute and honour seem to forbid it. He who feels himself dishonoured at the thought of being the instrument of a prince, or of a party and sect, or even of wealthy power (for example, as the descendant of a proud, ancient family), but wishes just to be this instrument, or must be so before himself and before the public—such a person has need of pathetic principles which can at all times be appealed to:—principles of an unconditional ought, to which a person can subject himself without shame, and can show himself subjected. All more refined servility holds fast to the categorical imperative, and is the mortal enemy of those who want to take away the unconditional character of duty: propriety demands this from them, and not only propriety.
Unconditional Duties.—All people who feel they need the strongest words and tones, the most powerful gestures and stances, just to function at all—revolutionary politicians, socialists, preachers of repentance with or without Christianity, who cannot settle for anything less than total success—these individuals talk about "duties," and they always refer to duties that are[Pg 41] unconditional. Without these duties, they would have no right to their intense emotions: they know this very well! They thus cling to moral philosophies that advocate some sort of categorical imperative or adopt a substantial portion of religion, as Mazzini did, for example. Because they want to be trusted unconditionally, they first need to trust themselves unconditionally, based on some ultimate, unquestionable command, which they wish to see themselves as ministers and instruments of. Here we find some of the most obvious, and often quite influential, opponents of moral enlightenment and skepticism, though they are rare. On the other hand, there is always a large group of those opponents wherever self-interest teaches submission, while reputation and honor seem to discourage it. Those who feel dishonored at the idea of being the instrument of a prince, a party, a sect, or even a wealthy elite (like a descendant of a proud, ancient family), but still want or need to be that instrument before themselves and the public—these individuals require emotional principles to which they can always resort: principles of an unconditional ought, to which they can submit without shame and can demonstrate that submission. All more refined servility clings to the categorical imperative and is a bitter enemy of those who wish to dilute the unconditional nature of duty: propriety demands this from them, and not just propriety.
6.
6.
Loss of Dignity.—Meditation has lost all its dignity of form; the ceremonial and solemn bearing of the meditative person have been made a mockery, and one would no longer endure a wise man of the old style. We think too hastily and on the way and while walking and in the midst of business of all kinds, even when we think on the most serious matters; we require little preparation, even little quiet:—it is as if each of us carried about an unceasingly revolving machine in his head, which still works, even under the most unfavourable circumstances. Formerly it was perceived in a person that on some occasion he wanted to think—it was perhaps the exception!—that he now wanted to become wiser and collected his mind on a thought: he put on a long face for it, as for a prayer, and arrested his step-nay, stood still for hours on the street when the thought "came"—on one or on two legs. It was thus "worthy of the affair"!
Loss of Dignity.—Meditation has completely lost its sense of dignity; the formal and serious demeanor of someone meditating has become a joke, and we can no longer tolerate a wise person from the past. We think too quickly and while moving, even amidst various tasks, even when contemplating serious issues; we need little preparation, hardly any quiet: it’s as if each of us is carrying an endlessly spinning machine in our heads, which keeps running even in the worst conditions. In the past, it was noticeable when someone wanted to think—it was maybe a rare occasion!—when they chose to become wiser and focused their mind on a thought: they would put on a serious expression for it, just like for a prayer, and would stop in their tracks—sometimes for hours—on the street when the thought "hit" them—on one foot or two. It was thus "worthy of the moment"!
7.
7.
Something for the Laborious.—He who at present wants to make moral questions a subject of study has an immense field of labour before him. All kinds of passions must be thought about singly, and followed singly throughout periods, peoples, great and insignificant individuals; all their rationality, all their valuations and elucidations of things, ought to come to light! Hitherto all that has given colour to existence has lacked a history: where would one find a history of love, of avance,[Pg 43] of envy, of conscience, of piety, of cruelty? Even a comparative history of law, as also of punishment, has hitherto been completely lacking. Have the different divisions of the day, the consequences of a regular appointment of the times for labour, feast, and repose, ever been made the object of investigation? Do we know the moral effects of the alimentary substances? Is there a philosophy of nutrition? (The ever-recurring outcry for and against vegetarianism proves that as yet there is no such philosophy!) Have the experiences with regard to communal living, for example, in monasteries, been collected? Has the dialectic of marriage and friendship been set forth? The customs of the learned, of trades-people, of artists, and of mechanics—have they already found their thinkers? There is so much to think of thereon! All that up till now has been considered as the "conditions of existence," of human beings, and all reason, passion and superstition in this consideration—have they been investigated to the end? The observation alone of the different degrees of development which the human impulses have attained, and could yet attain, according to the different moral climates, would furnish too much work for the most laborious; whole generations, and regular co-operating generations of the learned, would be needed in order to exhaust the points of view and the material here furnished. The same is true of the determining of the reasons for the differences of the moral climates ("on what account does this sun of a fundamental moral judgment and standard of highest value shine here—and[Pg 44] that sun there?"). And there is again a new labour which points out the erroneousness of all these reasons, and determines the entire essence of the moral judgments hitherto made. Supposing all these labours to be accomplished, the most critical of all questions would then come into the foreground: whether science is in a position to furnish goals for human action, after it has proved that it can take them away and annihilate them—and then would be the time for a process of experimenting, in which every kind of heroism could satisfy itself, an experimenting for centuries, which would put into the shade all the great labours and sacrifices of previous history. Science has not hitherto built its Cyclopic structures; for that also the time will come.
Something for the Laborious.—Anyone wanting to study moral questions today has a massive amount of work ahead of them. Every passion needs to be examined individually and traced through different eras, cultures, and both prominent and minor figures; we need to uncover all their reasoning, values, and explanations. Up until now, everything that has given life its color has lacked a history: where can we find a history of love, ambition,[Pg 43] envy, conscience, piety, or cruelty? Even a comparative history of law and punishment has been completely absent. Have the different segments of the day or the impact of a regulated schedule of work, leisure, and celebration ever been studied? Do we understand the moral implications of what we eat? Is there any philosophy regarding nutrition? (The ongoing debates for and against vegetarianism show that such a philosophy doesn't exist yet!) Have we gathered experiences from communal living, like in monasteries? Has the complexities of marriage and friendship been articulated? Have the behaviors of scholars, tradespeople, artists, and laborers been analyzed by thinkers yet? There's so much to reflect on! Everything that has been seen as the "conditions of existence" for human beings, along with reason, passion, and superstition tied to this view—has it been fully explored? Just observing the varying degrees of development that human impulses have reached, and could still reach, given the different moral climates, would provide ample work for the most diligent; entire generations and coordinated teams of scholars would be required to thoroughly investigate these perspectives and materials. The same applies to understanding the reasons behind the differences in moral climates ("why does this fundamental moral judgment and standard of highest value shine here—and[Pg 44] that sun shine there?"). Additionally, there's new work to address the fallacies of all these reasons and clarify the true nature of the moral judgments made so far. Assuming all this work is done, the most critical question would arise: can science provide goals for human action, after demonstrating that it can also remove and destroy them—and then we would enter a phase of experimentation, one where every form of heroism could prove itself, an experiment spanning centuries that would overshadow all the significant efforts and sacrifices of history. Science has yet to create its monumental achievements; that time will come too.
8.
8.
Unconscious Virtues.—All qualities in a man of which he is conscious—and especially when he presumes that they are visible and evident to his environment also—are subject to quite other laws of development than those qualities which are unknown to him, or imperfectly known, which by their subtlety can also conceal themselves from the subtlest observer, and hide as it were behind nothing—as in the case of the delicate sculptures on the scales of reptiles (it would be an error to suppose them an adornment or a defence—for one sees them only with the microscope; consequently, with an eye artificially strengthened to an extent of vision which similar animals, to which they might perhaps have meant adornment or defence,[Pg 45] do not possess!). Our visible moral qualities, and especially our moral qualities believed to be visible, follow their own course,—and our invisible qualities of similar name, which in relation to others neither serve for adornment nor defence, also follow their own course: quite a different course probably, and with lines and refinements, and sculptures, which might perhaps give pleasure to a God with a divine microscope. We have, for example, our diligence, our ambition, our acuteness: all the world knows about them,—and besides, we have probably once more our diligence, our ambition, our acuteness; but for these—our reptile scales—the microscope has not yet been invented!—And here the adherents of instinctive morality will say, "Bravo! He at least regards unconscious virtues as possible—that suffices us!"—Oh, ye unexacting creatures!
Unconscious Virtues.—All the qualities a person is aware of—and especially those he thinks are obvious to others—are shaped by different rules of development than those traits that he is unaware of or only partially aware of, which, due to their subtlety, can hide from even the most observant eye. These traits can conceal themselves as if there’s nothing to see, like the fine details on the scales of reptiles (it's a mistake to think of these as simply decorations or defenses—one can only see them under a microscope, thus requiring an enhanced vision that these animals, which might have needed embellishments or protection, [Pg 45] don’t actually possess!). Our visible moral qualities, especially the ones thought to be visible, have their own trajectory—and our invisible qualities of a similar nature, which serve neither as adornments nor defenses in relation to others, also have their own trajectory: a very different path, likely filled with intricacies and details that might even please a God looking through a divine microscope. For instance, we have our diligence, ambition, and sharpness: everyone knows about these—but we probably also have our diligence, our ambition, our sharpness; yet for these—our reptile scales—the microscope hasn’t been invented yet!—And here the supporters of instinctive morality will say, "Bravo! At least he acknowledges unconscious virtues as real—that’s enough for us!"—Oh, you easygoing beings!
9.
9.
Our Eruptions.—Numberless things which humanity acquired in its earlier stages, but so weakly and embryonically that it could not be noticed that they were acquired, are thrust suddenly into light long afterwards, perhaps after the lapse of centuries: they have in the interval become strong and mature. In some ages this or that talent, this or that virtue seems to be entirely lacking, as it—is in some men; but let us wait only for the grandchildren and grandchildren's children, if we have time to wait,—they bring the interior of their grandfathers into the sun, that interior of which the grandfathers themselves were unconscious. The son, indeed, is often the betrayer of his father;[Pg 46] the latter understands himself better since he has got his son. We have all hidden gardens and plantations in us; and by another simile, we are all growing volcanoes, which will have their hours of eruption:—how near or how distant this is, nobody of course knows, not even the good God.
Our Eruptions.—Countless things that humanity developed in its early stages, but so weakly and rudimentarily that it went unnoticed, suddenly come to light long after, perhaps even centuries later: during that time, they have grown strong and fully formed. In some eras, certain talents and virtues seem completely absent, as they do in some individuals; but if we just wait for the grandchildren and great-grandchildren—if we have time to wait—they reveal the inner lives of their grandfathers, an inner world the grandfathers themselves were unaware of. The son often ends up exposing his father; the father gains a better understanding of himself because of his son. We all have hidden gardens and places within us; in another sense, we are all dormant volcanoes, which will eventually erupt: how soon or how far off that will be, no one knows, not even God.
10.
10.
A Species of Atavism.—I like best to think of the rare men of an age as suddenly emerging after-shoots of past cultures, and of their persistent strength: like the atavism of a people and its civilisation —there is thus still something in them to think of! They now seem strange, rare, and extraordinary: and he who feels these forces in himself has to foster them in face of a different, opposing world; he has to defend them, honour them, and rear them to maturity: and he either becomes a great man thereby, or a deranged and eccentric person, if he does not altogether break down betimes. Formerly these rare qualities were usual, and were consequently regarded as common: they did not distinguish people. Perhaps they were demanded and presupposed; it was impossible to become great with them, for indeed there was also no danger of becoming insane and solitary with them.—It is principally in the old-established families and castes of a people that such after-effects of old impulses present themselves, while there is no probability of such atavism where races, habits, and valuations change too rapidly. For the tempo of the evolutional forces in peoples implies just as much as in music; for our case an andante of[Pg 47] evolution is absolutely necessary, as the tempo of a passionate and slow spirit:—and the spirit of conserving families is certainly of that sort.
A Species of Atavism.—I prefer to think of the rare individuals of an age as sudden offshoots of past cultures, representing their enduring strength: like the atavism of a people and its civilization—there's still something in them to think of! They seem strange, rare, and extraordinary now: and those who feel these forces within themselves must nurture them in a different, opposing world; they must defend, honor, and raise them to maturity: and they either become great individuals because of it, or they become deranged and eccentric if they don’t completely break down in time. In the past, these rare qualities were common and were thus seen as ordinary: they didn’t set people apart. Maybe they were expected and assumed; it was impossible to achieve greatness with them because there was also no risk of becoming insane and isolated with them. —Such after-effects of old impulses mostly show up in the old-established families and castes of a people, and atavism is unlikely where races, habits, and values change too quickly. The tempo of the evolutionary forces in peoples matters just as much as in music; in our case, an andante of evolution is absolutely necessary, as is the tempo of a passionate and slow spirit:—and the spirit of conserving families certainly fits that description.
11.
11.
Consciousness.—Consciousness is the last and latest development of the organic, and consequently also the most unfinished and least powerful of these developments. Innumerable mistakes originate out of consciousness, which, "in spite of fate," as Homer says, cause an animal or a man to break down earlier than might be necessary. If the conserving bond of the instincts were not very much more powerful, it would not generally serve as a regulator: by perverse judging and dreaming with open eyes, by superficiality and credulity, in short, just by consciousness, mankind would necessarily have broken down: or rather, without the former there would long ago have been nothing more of the latter! Before a function is fully formed and matured, it is a danger to the organism: all the better if it be then thoroughly tyrannised over! Consciousness is thus thoroughly tyrannised over—and not least by the pride in it! It is thought that here is the quintessence of man; that which is enduring, eternal, ultimate, and most original in him! Consciousness is regarded as a fixed, given magnitude! Its growth and intermittences are denied! It is accepted as the "unity of the organism"!—This ludicrous overvaluation and misconception of consciousness has as its result the great utility that a too rapid maturing of it has thereby been hindered. Because men believed that[Pg 48] they already possessed consciousness, they gave themselves very little trouble to acquire it—and even now it is not otherwise! It is still an entirely new problem just dawning on the human eye, and hardly yet plainly recognisable: to embody knowledge in ourselves and make it instinctive,—a problem which is only seen by those who have grasped the fact that hitherto our errors alone have been embodied in us, and that all our consciousness is relative to errors!
Consciousness.—Consciousness is the latest and least developed aspect of organic life, making it the most unfinished and weakest of all developments. Countless mistakes arise from consciousness, which, "despite fate," as Homer puts it, can cause both animals and humans to fail earlier than necessary. If the instinctual connections weren't significantly stronger, they wouldn't typically serve as a regulator: through misguided judgments, daydreaming, superficiality, and gullibility—essentially through consciousness—humanity would have likely collapsed; in fact, without those instincts, there would have been nothing left of us long ago! Before a function is fully developed and matured, it poses a risk to the organism: the better it is controlled! Consciousness is thus heavily controlled—and not least by pride in it! It's thought to be the essence of humanity; that which is enduring, eternal, ultimate, and most original in us! Consciousness is viewed as a fixed constant! Its growth and fluctuations are denied! It's accepted as the "unity of the organism!"—This ridiculous overvaluation and misunderstanding of consciousness has resulted in a significant advantage: it has prevented its premature maturation. Because people believed that[Pg 48] they already had consciousness, they put in minimal effort to truly acquire it—and even now, it’s no different! It remains a completely new problem just starting to emerge for humanity, and it's hardly clearly identifiable: to embody knowledge within ourselves and make it instinctive—a challenge only acknowledged by those who realize that until now, our errors have been what we’ve actually embodied, and that all our consciousness is relative to those errors!
12.
12.
The Goal of Science.—What? The ultimate goal of science is to create the most pleasure possible to man, and the least possible pain? But what if pleasure and pain should be so closely connected that he who wants the greatest possible amount of the one must also have the greatest possible amount of the other,—that he who wants to experience the "heavenly high jubilation,"[1] must also be ready to be "sorrowful unto death"?[2] And it is so, perhaps! The Stoics at least believed it was so, and they were consistent when they wished to have the least possible pleasure, in order to have the least possible pain from life. (When one uses the expression: "The virtuous man is the happiest," it is as much the sign-board of the school for the masses, as a casuistic subtlety for the subtle.) At present also ye have still the choice: either the least possible pain, in short painlessness—and after all,[Pg 49] socialists and politicians of all parties could not honourably promise more to their people,—or the greatest possible amount of pain, as the price of the growth of a fullness of refined delights and enjoyments rarely tasted hitherto! If ye decide for the former, if ye therefore want to depress and minimise man's capacity for pain, well, ye must also depress and minimise his capacity for enjoyment. In fact, one can further the one as well as the other goal by science! Perhaps science is as yet best known by its capacity for depriving man of enjoyment, and making him colder, more statuesque, and more Stoical. But it might also turn out to be the great pain-bringer!—And then, perhaps, its counteracting force would be discovered simultaneously, its immense capacity for making new sidereal worlds of enjoyment beam forth!
The Goal of Science.—What? Is the ultimate goal of science to create as much pleasure as possible for humanity and minimize pain? But what if pleasure and pain are so closely linked that wanting the most of one means you also must accept the most of the other—that someone who wants to feel "heavenly high jubilation" must also be ready to feel "sorrowful unto death"?[2] Perhaps it is true! The Stoics certainly believed it, and they were consistent in their pursuit of the least possible pleasure to experience the least possible pain in life. (When people say, "The virtuous man is the happiest," it's both a guiding principle for the masses and a delicate philosophical nuance.) Today, you still have a choice: either the least possible pain, meaning painlessness—and after all, socialists and politicians from all sides can’t honestly promise more to their people—or the greatest possible amount of pain, as the price for a wealth of refined delights and experiences not often tasted before! If you choose the first option and want to decrease and minimize humanity's capacity for pain, you must also reduce and limit their capacity for enjoyment. In fact, both goals can be advanced through science! Perhaps science is currently best known for its ability to rob people of joy, making them colder, more statue-like, and more Stoical. But it might also reveal itself to be the great pain-bringer!—And then, maybe its counteracting power would be found at the same time, harnessing its immense ability to create new realms of enjoyment!
13.
13.
The Theory of the Sense of Power.—We exercise our power over others by doing them good or by doing them ill—that is all we care for! Doing ill to those on whom we have to make our power felt; for pain is a far more sensitive means for that purpose than pleasure:—pain always asks concerning the cause, while pleasure is inclined to keep within itself and not look backward. Doing good and being kind to those who are in any way already dependent on us (that is, who are accustomed to think of us as their raison d'être); we want to increase their power, because we thus increase our own; or we want to show[Pg 50] them the advantage there is in being in our power,—they thus become more contented with their position, and more hostile to the enemies of our power and readier to contend with to If we make sacrifices in doing good or in doing ill, it does not alter the ultimate value of our actions; even if we stake our life in the cause, as martyrs for the sake of our church, it is a sacrifice to our longing for power, or for the purpose of conserving our sense of power. He who under these circumstances feels that he "is in possession of truth" how many possessions does he not let go, in order to preserve this feeling! What does he not throw overboard, in order to keep himself "up,"—that is to say, above the others who lack the truth. Certainly the condition we are in when we do ill is seldom so pleasant, so purely pleasant as that in which we practise kindness,—it is an indication that we still lack power, or it betrays ill-humour at this defect in us; it brings with it new dangers and uncertainties as to the power we already possess, and clouds our horizon by the prospect of revenge, scorn, punishment and failure. Perhaps only tee most susceptible to the sense of power and eager for it, will prefer to impress the seal of power on the resisting individual.—those to whom the sight of the already subjugated person as the object of benevolence is a burden and a tedium. It is a question how a person is accustomed to season his life; it is a matter of taste whether a person would rather have the slow or the sudden to safe or the dangerous and daring increase of power,—he seeks this or that seasoning always[Pg 51] according to his temperament. An easy booty is something contemptible to proud natures; they have an agreeable sensation only at the sight of men of unbroken spirit who could be enemies to them, and similarly, also, at the sight of all not easily accessible possession; they are often hard toward the sufferer, for he is not worthy of their effort or their pride,—but they show themselves so much the more courteous towards their equals, with whom strife and struggle would in any case be full of honour, if at any time an occasion for it should present itself. It is under the agreeable feelings of this perspective that the members of the knightly caste have habituated themselves to exquisite courtesy toward one another.—Pity is the most pleasant feeling in those who have not much pride, and have no prospect of great conquests: the easy booty—and that is what every sufferer is—is for them an enchanting thing. Pity is said to be the virtue of the gay lady.
The Theory of the Sense of Power.—We exert our influence over others by either helping them or harming them—that's all we really care about! Harming those from whom we want to assert our power feels more effective than helping them: pain always seeks to understand its cause, while pleasure tends to focus inward and not look back. Helping and being kind to those who already depend on us (that is, those who think of us as their reason for being); we want to boost their power because it enhances our own; or we want to show[Pg 50] them the benefits of being under our influence—they become more satisfied with their circumstances, and more opposed to those who challenge our power, making them more willing to fight back. Even if we make sacrifices in helping or harming, it doesn’t change the ultimate value of our actions; even if we risk our lives in the name of a cause, like martyrs for our beliefs, it's still a sacrifice for our desire for power or to maintain our sense of power. Those who feel they "possess the truth" under these circumstances let go of so many things to preserve that feeling! What do they not abandon to keep themselves "above" others who lack the truth? The state we’re in when we harm others is rarely as enjoyable, as purely pleasant, as when we show kindness—it indicates we still lack power or reveals our frustration with that lack; it brings about new dangers and uncertainties regarding the power we already have and clouds our view with the threat of revenge, contempt, punishment, and failure. Perhaps only those most sensitive to the sense of power and eager for it would prefer to assert their power over a resistant individual—those who find the sight of the already submissive person as an object of kindness a burden or a bore. It depends on how a person chooses to spice up their life; it’s a matter of preference whether someone prefers a slow or sudden, safe or risky, and daring increase in power—they seek this or that flavor according to their temperament. An easy target is something unworthy to proud individuals; they only feel good when facing unbroken spirits who could challenge them and also when encountering possessions that aren’t easily obtainable; they can often be harsh towards the sufferer because he doesn't merit their effort or pride—but they tend to be much more courteous towards their peers, with whom conflict and struggle would be honorable if any opportunity arises. It is in the favorable light of this perspective that members of the noble class have trained themselves to be exceptionally courteous to one another. Pity is the most pleasant feeling for those who are not very proud and have no expectation of significant victories: the easy target—and every sufferer fits this description—becomes something enchanting for them. Pity is said to be the virtue of the charming lady.
14.
14.
What is called Love.—The lust of property, and love: what different associations each of these ideas evoke!—and yet it might be the same impulse twice named: on the one occasion disparaged from the standpoint of those already possessing (in whom the impulse has attained something of repose,—who are now apprehensive for the safety of their "possession"); on the other occasion viewed from the standpoint of the unsatisfied and thirsty, and therefore glorified as "good." Our[Pg 52] love of our neighbour,—is it not a striving after new property? And similarly our love of knowledge, of truth; and in general all the striving after novelties? We gradually become satiated with the old and securely possessed, and again stretch out our hands; even the finest landscape in which we live for three months is no longer certain of our love, and any kind of more distant coast excites our covetousness: the possession for the most part becomes smaller through possessing. Our pleasure in ourselves seeks to maintain itself by always transforming something new into ourselves,—that is just possessing. To become satiated with a possession, that is to become satiated with ourselves. (One can also suffer from excess,—even the desire to cast away, to share out, may assume the honourable name of "love.") When we see any one suffering, we willingly utilise the opportunity then afforded to take possession of him; the beneficent and sympathetic man, for example, does this; he also calls the desire for new possession awakened in him, by the name of "love," and has enjoyment in it, as in a new acquisition suggesting itself to him. The love of the sexes, however, betrays itself most plainly as the striving after possession: the lover wants the unconditioned, sole possession of the person longed for by him; he wants just as absolute power over her soul as over her body; he wants to be loved solely, and to dwell and rule in the other soul as what is highest and most to be desired. When one considers that this means precisely to exclude all the world from a precious possession, a happiness, and an enjoyment; when one considers[Pg 53] that the lover has in view the impoverishment and privation of all other rivals, and would like to become the dragon of his golden hoard, as the most inconsiderate and selfish of all "conquerors" and exploiters; when one considers finally that to the lover himself, the whole world besides appears indifferent, colourless, and worthless, and that he is ready to make every sacrifice, disturb every arrangement, and put every other interest behind his own,—one is verily surprised that this ferocious lust of property and injustice of sexual love should have been glorified and deified to such an extent at all times; yea, that out of this love the conception of love as the antithesis of egoism should have been derived, when it is perhaps precisely the most unqualified expression of egoism. Here, evidently, the non-possessors and desirers have determined the usage of language,—there were, of course, always too many of them. Those who have been favoured with much possession and satiety, have, to be sure, dropped a word now and then about the "raging demon," as, for instance, the most lovable and most beloved of all the Athenians—Sophocles; but Eros always laughed at such revilers,—they were always his greatest favourites.—There is, of course, here and there on this terrestrial sphere a kind of sequel to love, in which that covetous longing of two persons for one another has yielded to a new desire and covetousness, to a common, higher thirst for a superior ideal standing above them: but who knows this love? Who has experienced it? Its right name is friendship.
What is called Love.—The desire for possession and love: how differently each of these ideas makes us feel! Yet they might actually stem from the same drive, perceived in two ways: first, despised by those who already have (who view the drive as having found some comfort and are now anxious about losing their "possession"); and second, seen by the unsatisfied and yearning, and thus celebrated as "good." Our[Pg 52] love for our neighbors—couldn’t it be a pursuit of new property? The same goes for our love of knowledge and truth; really, all our quest for new experiences? We gradually grow tired of what we have and seek out more; even the most beautiful view we’ve enjoyed for three months doesn’t hold our affection anymore, while any faraway destination makes us yearn: possession often feels diminished by having. Our pleasure in ourselves needs to be renewed by constantly transforming something new into ourselves,—that’s the nature of possession. To feel tired of something we own is to feel tired of ourselves. (Too much can be a burden—sometimes the wish to give away or share can take on the noble label of "love.") When we witness someone in pain, we often take the chance to possess them; the kind and compassionate person, for instance, does this too; they also refer to the desire for new possession stirred in them as "love," and find joy in it, much like a new acquisition that appeals to them. The love between partners, however, most clearly reveals itself as the quest for possession: the lover wants complete, unrestricted possession of the person they desire; they want as much power over their partner's soul as over their body; they want to be loved exclusively and to reign in the other person’s heart as the most cherished and sought-after entity. When you realize this effectively means to exclude everyone else from a treasured possession, a happiness, and an enjoyment; when you understand[Pg 53] that the lover aims to impoverish and deprive all others, wanting to be like the dragon guarding a golden treasure, the most thoughtless and self-centered of all "conquerors" and exploiters; when you finally see that to the lover, everything else seems trivial, dull, and worthless, and that they’re willing to sacrifice everything, disrupt any arrangement, and prioritize their own desires above all—it's truly shocking that this intense desire for possession and the unfairness of romantic love has been celebrated and revered throughout history; indeed, it's astonishing that from this love, the idea of love being the opposite of selfishness has emerged, when it might actually represent the purest form of self-interest. Here, it’s clear that the non-owners and seekers have shaped the way we use language—there have always been way too many of them. Those who have enjoyed plenty and satisfaction have occasionally mentioned the "raging demon," like the most beloved of all Athenians—Sophocles; but Eros always chuckled at such critiques—they were always his greatest fans. There is, of course, a rare kind of love on this planet, where the intense longing of two individuals for one another transforms into a new desire and craving, a shared, higher aspiration for a greater ideal that stands above them: but who truly knows this love? Who has lived it? Its true name is friendship.
15.
15.
Out of the Distance.—This mountain makes the whole district which it dominates charming in every way, and full of significance. After we have said this to ourselves for the hundredth time, we are so irrationally and so gratefully disposed towards it, as the giver of this charm, that we fancy it must itself be the most charming thing in the district—and so we climb it, and are undeceived. All of a sudden, both it and the landscape around us and under us, are as it were disenchanted; we had forgotten that many a greatness, like many a goodness, wants only to be seen at a certain distance, and entirely from below, not from above,—it is thus only that it operates. Perhaps you know men in your neighbourhood who can only look at themselves from a certain distance to find themselves at all endurable, or attractive and enlivening; they are to be dissuaded from self-knowledge.
Out of the Distance.—This mountain makes the whole area it overlooks beautiful in every way and full of meaning. After telling ourselves this for the hundredth time, we feel so irrationally and gratefully inclined towards it, as the source of this beauty, that we start to believe it must be the most charming thing in the area—and so we decide to climb it, only to be disappointed. Suddenly, both the mountain and the landscape around and below us seem disenchanted; we had forgotten that many great things, like many good things, only appear impressive when viewed from a certain distance and entirely from below, not from above—this is the only way it operates. Perhaps you know people in your neighborhood who can only see themselves as tolerable or appealing when viewed from a certain distance; they should be discouraged from self-awareness.
16.
16.
Across the Plank.—One must be able to dissimulate in intercourse with persons who are ashamed of their feelings; they take a sudden aversion to anyone who surprises them in a state of tenderness, or of enthusiastic and high-running feeling, as if he had seen their secrets. If one wants to be kind to them in such moments one should make them laugh, or say some kind of cold, playful wickedness:—their feeling thereby congeals, and they are again self-possessed. But I give the moral before the story.—We were once[Pg 55] on a time so near one another in the course of our lives, that nothing more seemed to hinder our friendship and fraternity, and there was merely a small plank between us. While you were just about to step on it, I asked you: "Do you want to come across the plank to me?" But then you did not want to come any longer; and when I again entreated, you were silent. Since then mountains and torrents, and whatever separates and alienates, have interposed between us, and even if we wanted to come to one another, we could no longer do so! When, however, you now remember that small plank, you have no longer words,—but merely sobs and amazement.
Across the Plank.—One has to be able to hide their true feelings when interacting with people who are embarrassed about their emotions; they suddenly become averse to anyone who catches them in a moment of tenderness or intense emotion, as if that person had discovered their secrets. If you want to be kind to them in those moments, you should make them laugh or say something lightly teasing and playful: their feelings get frozen in that moment, and they regain their composure. But I'm sharing the lesson before the story.—There was a time[Pg 55] when we were so close in our lives that nothing seemed to stand in the way of our friendship and brotherhood, with just a small plank between us. As you were about to step onto it, I asked you, "Do you want to come across the plank to me?" But then you hesitated and didn't want to come anymore; when I asked again, you fell silent. Since then, mountains and rivers, and everything that separates us, have come between us, and even if we wanted to reach out to each other now, we couldn't! Yet, when you think of that small plank now, you find you have no words—only sobs and disbelief.
17.
17.
Motivation of Poverty.—We cannot, to be sure, by any artifice make a rich and richly-flowing virtue out of a poor one, but we can gracefully enough reinterpret its poverty into necessity, so that its aspect no longer gives pain to us, and we cease making reproachful faces at fate on account of it. It is thus that the wise gardener does who puts the tiny streamlet of his garden into the arms of a fountain-nymph, and thus motivates the poverty:—and who would not like him need the nymphs!
Motivation of Poverty.—We can’t, of course, turn a poor virtue into a rich and abundant one with any tricks, but we can skillfully reinterpret its lack as necessity, so that it no longer causes us discomfort, and we stop blaming fate for it. This is how a wise gardener acts when he guides the small stream in his garden into the embrace of a fountain-nymph, thus transforming the notion of poverty:—and who wouldn’t, like him, desire the nymphs!
18.
18.
Ancient Pride.—The ancient savour of nobility is lacking in us, because the ancient slave is lacking in our sentiment. A Greek of noble descent found such immense intermediate stages, and such a distance betwixt his elevation and that ultimate[Pg 56] baseness, that he could hardly even see the slave plainly: even Plato no longer saw him entirely. It is otherwise with us, accustomed as we are to the doctrine of the equality of men, although not to the equality itself. A being who has not the free disposal of himself and has not got leisure,—that is not regarded by us as anything contemptible; there is perhaps too much of this kind of slavishness in each of us, in accordance with the conditions of our social order and activity, which are fundamentally different from those of the ancients.—The Greek philosopher went through life with the secret feeling that there were many more slaves than people supposed—that is to say, that every one was a slave who was not a philosopher. His pride was puffed up when he considered that even the mightiest of the earth were thus to be looked upon as slaves. This pride is also unfamiliar to us, and impossible; the word "slave" has not its full force for us even in simile.
Ancient Pride.—We lack the ancient sense of nobility because we don't feel the presence of the ancient slave. A Greek of noble blood recognized the vast differences between his status and that of the lowest class, to the point where he could hardly even see the slave clearly: even Plato could no longer fully acknowledge him. It's different for us, as we're used to the idea of human equality, even if we don't actually experience it. A person who doesn't have control over their own life or isn’t free to take their time isn't seen by us as contemptible; perhaps there's too much of this kind of submissiveness in each of us, shaped by the realities of our social structure and actions, which are fundamentally different from those of the ancients. The Greek philosopher lived with the underlying belief that there were far more slaves than people realized—that everyone who wasn't a philosopher was a slave in some sense. His pride swelled when he thought that even the most powerful on earth could be viewed as slaves. This kind of pride doesn't resonate with us and feels impossible; the word "slave" doesn't carry its full weight for us, even metaphorically.
19.
19.
Evil.—Test the life of the best and most productive men and nations, and ask yourselves whether a tree which is to grow proudly heavenward can dispense with bad weather and tempests: whether disfavour and opposition from without, whether every kind of hatred, jealousy, stubbornness, distrust, severity, greed, and violence do not belong to the favouring circumstances without which a great growth even in virtue is hardly possible? The poison by which the weaker nature[Pg 57] is destroyed is strengthening to the strong individual—and he does not call it poison.
Evil.—Examine the lives of the best and most productive people and nations, and ask yourselves if a tree that is meant to grow tall toward the sky can do so without facing bad weather and storms: whether disfavor and opposition from outside, along with all kinds of hatred, jealousy, stubbornness, distrust, harshness, greed, and violence, are not part of the supportive circumstances without which achieving significant growth, even in virtue, is nearly impossible? The poison that destroys a weaker nature[Pg 57] actually strengthens a strong individual—and they don’t call it poison.
20.
20.
Dignity of Folly.—Several millenniums further on in the path of the last century!—and in everything that man does the highest prudence will be exhibited: but just thereby prudence will have lost all its dignity. It will then, sure enough, be necessary to be prudent, but it will also be so usual and common, that a more fastidious taste will feel this necessity as vulgarity. And just as a tyranny of truth and science would be in a position to raise the value of falsehood, a tyranny of prudence could force into prominence a new species of nobleness. To be noble—that might then mean, perhaps, to be capable of follies.
Dignity of Folly.—Several millennia further along the timeline of the last century!—and in everything humans do, the highest level of caution will be displayed: but because of that, caution will have lost all its significance. It will definitely be necessary to be cautious, but it will also become so ordinary and common that a more refined taste will see this necessity as vulgarity. Just as a dominance of truth and science could elevate the value of falsehood, a dominance of caution could highlight a new form of nobility. To be noble—perhaps then it might mean being capable of making mistakes.
21.
21.
To the Teachers of Unselfishness.—The virtues of a man are called good, not in respect to the results they have for himself, but in respect to the results which we expect therefrom for ourselves and for society:—we have all along had very little unselfishness, very little "non-egoism" in our praise of the virtues! For otherwise it could not but have been seen that the virtues (such as diligence, obedience, chastity, piety, justice) are mostly injurious to their possessors, as impulses which rule in them too vehemently and ardently, and do not want to be kept in co-ordination with the other impulses by the reason. If you have a virtue, an actual, perfect virtue (and not merely a kind of[Pg 58] impulse towards virtue!)—you are its victim! But your neighbour praises your virtue precisely on that account! One praises the diligent man though he injures his sight, or the originality and freshness of his spirit, by his diligence; the youth is honoured and regretted who has "worn himself out by work," because one passes the judgment that "for society as a whole the loss of the best individual is only a small sacrifice! A pity that this sacrifice should be necessary! A much greater pity it is true, if the individual should think differently and regard his preservation and development as more important than his work in the service of society!" And so one regrets this youth, not on his own account, but because a devoted instrument, regardless of self—a so-called "good man," has been lost to society by his death. Perhaps one further considers the question, whether it would not have been more advantageous for the interests of society if he had laboured with less disregard of himself, and had preserved himself longer-indeed one readily admits an advantage therefrom but one esteems the other advantage, namely, that a sacrifice has been made, and that the disposition of the sacrificial animal has once more been obviously endorsed—as higher and more enduring. It is accordingly, on the one part, the instrumental character in the virtues which is praised when the virtues are praised, and on the other part the blind, ruling impulse in every virtue which refuse to let itself be kept within bounds by the general advantage to the individual; in short, what is praised is the unreason in the virtues, in[Pg 59] consequence of which the individual allows himself to be transformed into a function of the whole. The praise of the virtues is the praise of something which is privately injurious to the individual; it is praise of impulses which deprive man of his noblest self-love, and the power to take the best care of himself. To be sure, for the teaching and embodying of virtuous habits a series of effects of virtue are displayed, which make it appear that virtue and private advantage are closely related,—and there is in fact such a relationship! Blindly furious diligence, for example, the typical virtue of an instrument, is represented as the way to riches and honour, and as the most beneficial antidote to tedium and passion: but people are silent concerning its danger, its greatest dangerousness. Education proceeds in this manner throughout: it endeavours, by a series of enticements and advantages, to determine the individual to a certain mode of thinking and acting, which, when it has become habit, impulse and passion, rules in him and over him, in opposition to his ultimate advantage, but "for the general good." How often do I see that blindly furious diligence does indeed create riches and honours, but at the same time deprives the organs of the refinement by virtue of which alone an enjoyment of riches and honours is possible; so that really the main expedient for combating tedium and passion, simultaneously blunts the senses and makes the spirit refractory towards new stimuli! (The busiest of all ages—our age—does not know how to make anything out of its great diligence and wealth, except always[Pg 60] more and more wealth, and more and more diligence; there is even more genius needed for laying out wealth than for acquiring it!—Well, we shall have our "grandchildren"!) If the education succeeds, every virtue of the individual is a public utility, and a private disadvantage in respect to the highest private end,—probably some psycho-æsthetic stunting, or even premature dissolution. One should consider successively from the same standpoint the virtues of obedience, chastity, piety, and justice. The praise of the unselfish, self-sacrificing, virtuous person—he, consequently, who does not expend his whole energy and reason for his own conservation, development, elevation, furtherance and augmentation of power, but lives as regards himself unassumingly and thoughtlessly, perhaps even indifferently or ironically—this praise has in any case not originated out of the spirit of unselfishness! The "neighbour" praises unselfishness because he profits by it! If the neighbour were "unselfishly" disposed himself, he would reject that destruction of power, that injury for his advantage, he would thwart such inclinations in their origin, and above all he would manifest his unselfishness just by not giving it a good name! The fundamental contradiction in that morality which at present stands in high honour is here indicated: the motives to such a morality are in antithesis to its principle! That with which this morality wishes to prove itself, refutes it out of its criterion of what is moral! The maxim, "Thou shalt renounce thyself and offer thyself as a sacrifice," in order not to be inconsistent with its[Pg 61] own morality, could only be decreed by a being who himself renounced his own advantage thereby, and who perhaps in the required self-sacrifice of individuals brought about his own dissolution. As soon; however, as the neighbour (or society) recommended altruism on account of its utility, the precisely antithetical proposition, "Thou shalt seek thy advantage even at the expense of everybody else," was brought into use: accordingly, "thou shalt," and "thou shalt not," are preached in one breath!
To the Teachers of Unselfishness.—A person's virtues are called good not because of how they benefit him, but because of the benefits we expect for ourselves and society:—we have historically had very little unselfishness, very little "non-egoism" in our praise for virtues! Otherwise, it would have been clear that the virtues (like diligence, obedience, chastity, piety, justice) are mostly harmful to those who possess them, as impulses that control them too strongly and zealously, refusing to be balanced by reason. If you possess a virtue, an actual, perfect virtue (not just a [Pg 58] tendency toward virtue!)—you are its victim! But your neighbor praises your virtue precisely for that reason! People admire the diligent person even though he harms his eyesight or dulls the originality and freshness of his spirit through his hard work; the young man who has "worn himself out by working" is honored and pitied because it is assumed that "the loss of the best individual is a small sacrifice for society as a whole! It's unfortunate that this sacrifice is necessary! It’s even more unfortunate, of course, if the individual thinks differently and considers his preservation and growth to be more important than his work for society!" Thus, we lament this young man, not for his sake, but because a devoted instrument, a so-called "good person," has been lost to society through his death. Perhaps there’s also a consideration of whether it would have been better for society’s interests if he hadn't neglected himself and had preserved himself longer—indeed, one might readily acknowledge the advantage in that, but people value the other advantage, namely, that a sacrifice has been made, and that the nature of the sacrificial animal has once again been clearly reaffirmed—as superior and more lasting. So, on one hand, it’s the instrumental character of virtues that is praised when the virtues are admired, and on the other, the blind, dominating impulse in every virtue that refuses to be kept in check by the general good for the individual; in short, what is praised is the irrationality in virtues, resulting in the individual allowing himself to be transformed into a function of the whole. The praise of virtues is the praise of something that is privately damaging to the individual; it’s praise for impulses that strip a person of his noblest self-regard and the ability to take the best care of himself. Certainly, for the instruction and embodiment of virtuous habits, a series of effects of virtue are shown, making it seem that virtue and personal benefit are closely connected—and indeed such a connection exists! Blindly relentless diligence, for instance, the typical virtue of an instrument, is portrayed as the path to wealth and honor, and as the most effective remedy for boredom and passion: yet people remain silent about its dangers, its greatest dangers. Education proceeds in this manner: it tries, through a series of temptations and benefits, to steer the individual towards a certain way of thinking and acting, which, once it has become a habit, impulse, and passion, dominates him, against his ultimate advantage, but "for the common good." How often do I observe that this mindless relentless diligence indeed creates wealth and honors, but simultaneously dulls the very faculties necessary to enjoy that wealth and honor; thus, the supposed main remedy for boredom and passion simultaneously blunts the senses and makes the spirit resistant to new stimuli! (The most industrious of all ages—our age—doesn't know how to make anything from its great diligence and wealth except for more and more wealth and more and more diligence; it takes even more genius to manage wealth than to acquire it!—Well, we shall have our "grandchildren"!) If the education is successful, each individual’s virtue becomes a public asset and a private detriment concerning the highest personal goal—likely some psychological or aesthetic stagnation, or even premature decline. One should consider the virtues of obedience, chastity, piety, and justice from the same perspective. The praise of the selfless, self-sacrificing, virtuous individual—he, consequently, who does not invest his whole energy and reason for his own conservation, development, enhancement, progress, and increase of power, but lives somewhat modestly and thoughtlessly, perhaps even indifferently or ironically—this praise definitely hasn't arisen from a spirit of selflessness! The "neighbor" praises unselfishness because he benefits from it! If the neighbor were himself "unselfishly" inclined, he would reject that destruction of power, that harm for his benefit, he would counter such impulses at their source, and above all, he would demonstrate his unselfishness precisely by not giving it a positive label! The underlying contradiction in the morality that's currently held in high esteem is apparent: the motives behind such morality contradict its principle! What this morality attempts to validate refutes itself by its own criteria of what is moral! The maxim, "You must renounce yourself and offer yourself as a sacrifice," in order not to contradict its[Pg 61] own morality, could only be mandated by a being who himself renounced his own benefit through it, and who perhaps, through the necessary self-sacrifice of individuals, brought about his own destruction. However, as soon as the neighbor (or society) endorses altruism for its usefulness, the diametrically opposite proposition, "You must seek your advantage even at the expense of everyone else," is enacted: thus, "you shall," and "you shall not," are preached in one breath!
22.
22.
L'Ordre du jour pour le Roi.—The day commences: let us begin to arrange for this day the business and fêtes of our most gracious lord, who at present is still pleased to repose. His Majesty has bad weather to-day: we shall be careful not to call it bad; we shall not speak of the weather,—but we shall go through to-day's business somewhat more ceremoniously and make the fêtes somewhat more festive than would otherwise be necessary. His Majesty may perhaps even be sick: we shall give the last good news of the evening at breakfast, the arrival of M. Montaigne, who knows how to joke so pleasantly about his sickness,—he suffers from stone. We shall receive several persons (persons!—what would that old inflated frog, who will be among them, say, if he heard this word! "I am no person," he would say, "but always the thing itself")—and the reception will last longer than is pleasant to anybody; a sufficient reason for telling about the poet who wrote over his door, "He who[Pg 62] enters here will do me an honour; he who does not—a favour."—That is, forsooth, saying a discourteous thing in a courteous manner! And perhaps this poet is quite justified on his part in being discourteous; they say that his rhymes are better than the rhymester. Well, let him still make many of them, and withdraw himself as much as possible from the world: and that is doubtless the significance of his well-bred rudeness! A prince, on the other hand, is always of more value than his "verse," even when—but what are we about? We gossip,' and the whole court believes that we have already been at work and racked our brains: there is no light to be seen earlier than that which burns in our window.—Hark! Was that not the bell? The devil! The day and the dance commence, and we do not know our rounds! We must then improvise,—all the world improvises its day. To-day, let us for once do like all the world!—And therewith vanished my wonderful morning dream, probably owing to the violent strokes of the tower-clock, which just then announced the fifth hour with all the importance which is peculiar to it. It seems to me that on this occasion the God of dreams wanted to make merry over my habits,—it is my habit to commence the day by arranging it properly, to make it endurable for myself and it is possible that I may often have done this too formally, and too much like a prince.
The Agenda for the King. The day begins: let’s start planning the events and celebrations for our most gracious lord, who still seems to be enjoying his rest. His Majesty is facing bad weather today: we should be careful not to call it bad; we won't mention the weather—but we will approach today’s business with a bit more formality and make the celebrations a bit more festive than necessary. His Majesty might even be unwell: we will share the latest good news at breakfast, the arrival of Mr. Montaigne, who knows how to joke so charmingly about his illness—he’s suffering from stones. We will receive several guests (guests!—what would that pompous old frog, who is among them, say if he heard that word? "I am no guest," he would say, "but the thing itself")—and the reception will last longer than anyone would like; a good reason to mention the poet who wrote above his door, "He who[Pg 62] enters here will honor me; he who does not—will do me a favor."—Indeed, that’s a rude thing said in a polite way! And perhaps this poet has a right to be rude; they say his rhymes are better than the poet himself. Well, let him keep making them and withdraw from the world as much as he can: and that surely explains his refined rudeness! A prince, on the other hand, is always worth more than his "poetry," even when—but what are we doing? We’re just chatting, and the whole court thinks we’ve already been busy and thinking hard: there’s no light to be seen earlier than the one shining in our window.—Listen! Was that the bell? Oh no! The day and the dance are starting, and we don’t know our steps! We must improvise—all the world is improvising its day. Today, let’s for once do what everyone else does!—And with that, my wonderful morning dream faded away, probably because of the loud chimes of the tower clock, which just announced the fifth hour with all its usual importance. It seems that on this occasion, the God of dreams wanted to poke fun at my habits—it’s my habit to start the day by organizing it properly, to make it bearable for myself, and it’s possible that I’ve often done this too formally, and too like a prince.
23.
23.
The Characteristics of Corruption.—Let us observe the following characteristics in that condition of[Pg 63] society from time to time necessary, which is designated by the word "corruption." Immediately upon the appearance of corruption anywhere, a motley superstition gets the upper hand, and the hitherto universal belief of a people becomes colourless and impotent in comparison with it; for superstition is free-thinking of the second rank,—he who gives himself over to it selects certain forms and formulæ which appeal, to him, and permits himself a right of choice. The superstitious man is always much more of a "person," in comparison with the religious man, and a superstitious society will be one in which there are many individuals, and a delight in individuality. Seen from this standpoint superstition always appears as a progress in comparison with belief, and as a sign that the intellect becomes more independent and claims to have its rights. Those who reverence the old religion and the religious disposition then complain of corruption,—they have hitherto also determined the usage of language, and have given a bad repute to superstition, even among the freest spirits. Let us learn that it is a symptom of enlightenment.—Secondly, a society in which corruption takes a hold is blamed for effeminacy: for the appreciation of war, and the delight in war, perceptibly diminish in such a society, and the conveniences of life are now just as eagerly sought after as were military and gymnastic honours formerly. But one is accustomed to overlook the fact that the old national energy and national passion, which acquired a magnificent splendour in war and in the tourney, has now transferred itself into innumerable private[Pg 64] passions, and has merely become less visible; indeed in periods of "corruption" the quantity and quality of the expended energy of a people is probably greater than ever, and the individual spends it lavishly, to such an extent as could not be done formerly—he was not then rich enough to do so! And thus it is precisely in times of "effeminacy" that tragedy runs at large in and out of doors, it is then that ardent love and ardent hatred are born, and the flame of knowledge flashes heavenward in full blaze.—Thirdly, as if in amends for the reproach of superstition and effeminacy, it is customary to say of such periods of corruption that they are milder, and that cruelty has then greatly diminished in comparison with the older, more credulous, and stronger period. But to this praise I am just as little able to assent as to that reproach: I only grant so much—namely, that cruelty now becomes more refined, and its older forms are henceforth counter to the taste; but the wounding and torturing by word and look reaches its highest development in times of corruption,—it is now only that wickedness is created, and the delight in wickedness. The men of the period of corruption are witty and calumnious; they know that there are yet other ways of murdering than by the dagger and the ambush—they know also that all that is well said is believed in.—Fourthly, it is when "morals decay" that those beings whom one calls tyrants first make their appearance; they are the forerunners of the individual, and as it were early matured firstlings. Yet a little while, and this fruit of fruits hangs ripe and yellow on the tree of[Pg 65] a people,—and only for the sake of such fruit did this tree exist! When the decay has reached its worst, and likewise the conflict of all sorts of tyrants, there always arises the Cæsar, the final tyrant, who puts an end to the exhausted struggle for sovereignty, by making the exhaustedness work for him. In his time the individual is usually most mature, and consequently the "culture" is highest and most fruitful, but not on his account nor through him: although the men of highest culture love to flatter their Cæsar by pretending that they are his creation. The truth, however, is that they need quietness externally, because they have disquietude and labour internally. In these times bribery and treason are at their height: for the love of the ego, then first discovered, is much more powerful than the love of the old, used-up, hackneyed "father-land"; and the need to be secure in one way or other against the frightful fluctuations of fortune, opens even the nobler hands, as soon as a richer and more powerful person shows himself ready to put gold into them. There is then so little certainty with regard to the future; people live only for the day: a psychical condition which enables every deceiver to play an easy game,—people of course only let themselves be misled and bribed "for the present," and reserve for themselves futurity and virtue. The individuals, as is well known, the men who only live for themselves, provide for the moment more than do their opposites, the gregarious men, because they consider themselves just as incalculable as the future; and similarly they attach themselves willingly—to despots, because they believe[Pg 66] themselves capable of activities and expedients, which can neither reckon on being understood by the multitude, nor on finding favour with them—but the tyrant or the Cæsar understands the rights of the individual even in his excesses, and has an interest in speaking on behalf of a bolder private morality, and even in giving his hand to it For he thinks of himself, and wishes people to think of him what Napoleon once uttered in his classical style—"I have the right to answer by an eternal 'thus I am' to everything about which complaint is brought against me. I am apart from all the world, I accept conditions from nobody. I wish people also to submit to my fancies, and to take it quite as a simple matter, if I should indulge in this or that diversion." Thus spoke Napoleon once to his wife, when she had reasons for calling in question the fidelity of her husband. The times of corruption are the seasons when the apples fall from the tree: I mean the individuals, the seed-bearers of the future, the pioneers of spiritual colonisation, and of a new construction of national and social unions. Corruption is only an abusive term for the harvest time of a people.
The Characteristics of Corruption.—Let’s examine the traits of that state of[Pg 63] society, often referred to as "corruption." When corruption surfaces anywhere, a chaotic superstition takes over, and the previously widespread beliefs of a people fade and lose their power; superstition is a form of second-tier free-thinking—those who succumb to it pick and choose forms and frameworks that appeal to them, exercising their right to choose. The superstitious person often feels more like an individual compared to the religious person, and a superstitious society is one rich in individuality and personal expression. From this perspective, superstition seems like a progress compared to traditional belief, indicating that intellect is becoming more independent and asserting its rights. Those who honor the old religion and its traditions may criticize corruption—they have traditionally shaped language and have given a bad name to superstition, even among the freest spirits. We should understand that this is a sign of enlightenment.—Secondly, a society that succumbs to corruption is often criticized for effeminacy: the appreciation for war and the thrill of battle noticeably decline, while the comforts of life become as eagerly pursued as military and athletic honors once were. However, we often overlook that the old national vigor and passion, which previously shone brightly in war and tournaments, has now transformed into countless personal[Pg 64] passions, becoming less visible; indeed, in times of "corruption," the energy expended by a people is likely greater than ever, and individuals spend it more freely than before—they simply didn’t have the means to do so back then! Thus, it’s during times of "effeminacy" that tragedy flourishes both in public and private life, where intense love and hatred arise, and the flame of knowledge shines brightly.—Thirdly, to counter the criticisms of superstition and effeminacy, it’s often said that these periods of corruption are gentler, with a notable reduction in cruelty compared to the older, more credulous, and stronger era. Yet I cannot agree with this praise any more than I can with the reproach: I only acknowledge that cruelty becomes more refined, and its older forms are no longer in vogue; however, the infliction of harm through words and looks reaches its peak during times of corruption—it is then that wickedness emerges, along with a pleasure in wickedness. The people of the corrupt era are clever and malicious; they understand that there are many ways to kill beyond the dagger and ambush—they also recognize that everything well said is readily accepted as truth.—Fourthly, it is during times when "morals decay" that the figures we call tyrants start to appear; they are the precursors of the individual, and in a sense, the early fruits of this decay. Before long, this extraordinary fruit hangs ripe and yellow on the tree of[Pg 65] a people—and this tree exists solely for the sake of such fruit! When decay has reached its peak, along with conflicts among various tyrants, the Cæsar always emerges, the final tyrant, who ends the exhausted struggle for power by exploiting the very exhaustion. During his time, the individual is usually at their most developed, and thus the "culture" is the highest and most fruitful, but not because of him or through him: although the most cultured individuals love to flatter their Cæsar by claiming they are his creation. The truth is they require external tranquility since they experience internal unrest and labor. In these times, bribery and treachery are at their peak: the love of the ego, first recognized, is much more potent than the worn-out affection for the "fatherland"; the need for security amid the terrifying ups and downs of fate opens even noble hands as soon as a richer and more powerful person appears willing to offer gold. There is then so little certainty about the future; people live only for the moment: a psychological state that allows every deceiver to play an easy game—people, of course, only allow themselves to be misled and bribed "for now," reserving their thoughts of the future and virtue. It is well-known that individuals, those who live solely for themselves, prepare for the moment more than their opposite, the social men, because they view themselves as unpredictable as the future; similarly, they readily align themselves with despots, believing[Pg 66] themselves capable of actions and strategies that neither seek understanding from the masses nor rely on their approval—but the tyrant or Cæsar understands the rights of the individual even in their excesses and has a vested interest in advocating for a bolder personal morality, even supporting it. For he thinks of himself and wants people to regard him as Napoleon once famously stated—"I have the right to respond with an eternal 'thus I am' to every complaint made against me. I stand apart from everyone else; I accept terms from no one. I want people to submit to my whims and find it perfectly normal if I indulge in this or that pastime." Thus Napoleon once spoke to his wife when she raised concerns about his fidelity. The times of corruption are the seasons when the apples fall from the tree: I mean the individuals, the seed-bearers of the future, the pioneers of spiritual colonization, and of a new formation of national and social unions. Corruption is merely a derogatory term for the harvest time of a people.
24.
24.
Different Dissatisfactions.—The feeble and as it were feminine dissatisfied people, have ingenuity for beautifying and deepening life; the strong dissatisfied people—the masculine persons among them to continue the metaphor—have ingenuity for improving and safeguarding life. The former[Pg 67] show their weakness and feminine character by willingly letting themselves be temporarily deceived, and perhaps even by putting up with a little ecstasy and enthusiasm on a time, but on the whole they are never to be satisfied, and suffer from the incurability of their dissatisfaction; moreover they are the patrons of all those who manage to concoct opiate and narcotic comforts, and on that account are averse to those who value the physician higher than the priest,—they thereby encourage the continuance of actual distress! If there had not been a surplus of dissatisfied persons of this kind in Europe since the time of the Middle Ages, the remarkable capacity of Europeans for constant transformation would perhaps not have originated at all; for the claims of the strong dissatisfied persons are too gross, and really too modest to resist being finally quieted down. China is an instance of a country in which dissatisfaction on a grand scale and the capacity for transformation have died out for many centuries; and the Socialists and state-idolaters of Europe could easily bring things to Chinese conditions and to a Chinese "happiness," with their measures for the amelioration and security of life, provided that they could first of all root out the sicklier, tenderer, more feminine dissatisfaction and Romanticism which are still very abundant among us. Europe is an invalid who owes her best thanks to her incurability and the eternal transformations of her sufferings; these constant new situations, these equally constant new dangers, pains, and make-shifts, have at last generated an intellectual sensitiveness which is[Pg 68] almost equal to genius, and is in any case the mother of all genius.
Different Dissatisfactions.— Weak and, in a sense, more sensitive people find ways to enhance and enrich life; the strong dissatisfied individuals—the more assertive ones, to continue the metaphor—focus on improving and protecting life. The former[Pg 67] reveal their vulnerabilities and sensitivity by allowing themselves to be temporarily misled and sometimes even indulging in fleeting joy and excitement, but overall, they can never be fully satisfied and suffer from a chronic dissatisfaction; they also support those who create narcotic and soothing comforts, which makes them resistant to valuing the healer more than the comforter—they thereby promote the continuation of real distress! If there hadn’t been a surplus of people with this sort of dissatisfaction in Europe since the Middle Ages, the remarkable ability of Europeans to constantly transform might never have emerged; because the demands of the strong dissatisfied individuals are too blatant and, ironically, too humble to resist being finally pacified. China serves as a case study of a nation where widespread dissatisfaction and the capacity for transformation have been absent for many centuries; and the Socialists and state-worshippers in Europe could easily create conditions similar to China and a Chinese form of "happiness" through their proposals for improving and securing life, as long as they can first eliminate the more fragile, sensitive, and romantic forms of dissatisfaction that still thrive among us. Europe is like a sick person who owes her greatest strengths to her enduring afflictions and the continuous transformations of her struggles; these ongoing new situations, along with constant new dangers, pains, and adaptations, have ultimately produced an intellectual sensitivity that is[Pg 68] almost on par with genius and is, in any case, the source of all genius.
25.
25.
Not Pre-ordained to Knowledge.—There is a pur-blind humility not at all rare, and when a person is afflicted with it, he is once for all disqualified for being a disciple of knowledge. It is this in fact: the moment a man of this kind perceives anything striking, he turns as it were on his heel and says to himself: "You have deceived yourself! Where have your wits been! This cannot be the truth!"—and then, instead of looking at it and listening to it with more attention, he runs out of the way of the striking object as if intimidated, and seeks to get it out of his head as quickly as possible. For his fundamental rule runs thus: "I want to see nothing that contradicts the usual opinion concerning things! Am I created for the purpose of discovering new truths? There are already too many of the old ones."
Not Pre-ordained to Knowledge.—There’s a kind of blind humility that’s not at all uncommon, and when someone has it, they become completely unfit to be a learner of knowledge. It goes like this: the moment a person like this sees something remarkable, they turn on their heel and think to themselves, “You’ve fooled yourself! Where have you been? This can't be the truth!”—and instead of examining it more closely and listening carefully, they shy away from the striking object as if scared, trying to forget it as quickly as possible. Their main principle is: “I don’t want to see anything that goes against the usual opinions about things! Was I made to discover new truths? There are already too many old ones.”
26.
26.
What is Living?—Living—that is to continually eliminate from ourselves what is about to die; Living—that is to be cruel and inexorable towards all that becomes weak and old in ourselves and not only in ourselves. Living—that means, there fore to be without piety toward the dying, the wrenched and the old? To be continually a murderer?—And yet old Moses said: "Thou shalt not kill!"
What is Living?—Living means constantly shedding anything within us that is on the verge of dying; Living means being harsh and relentless toward everything that becomes weak and old within us and not just within us. Living, then, implies being without mercy toward the dying, the broken, and the old? To be a constant executioner?—And yet old Moses said: "You shall not kill!"
27.
27.
The Self-Renouncer.—What does the self-renouncer do? He strives after a higher world, he wants to fly longer and further and higher than all men of affirmation—he throws away many things that would impede his flight, and several things among them that are not valueless, that are not unpleasant to him: he sacrifices them to his desire for elevation. Now this sacrificing, this casting away, is the very thing which becomes visible in him: on that account one calls him a self-renouncer, and as such he stands before us, enveloped in his cowl, and as the soul of a hair-shirt. With this effect, however, which he makes upon us he is well content: he wants to keep concealed from us his desire, his pride, his intention of flying above us.—Yes! He is wiser than we thought, and so courteous towards us—this affirmer! For that is what he is, like us, even in his self-renunciation.
The Self-Renouncer.—What does the self-renouncer do? He aims for a higher existence, wanting to soar longer, further, and higher than anyone who embraces life—he lets go of many things that would hold him back, including several that aren't worthless and that he doesn't find unpleasant: he sacrifices them for his desire to rise. This act of sacrifice, this letting go, is what becomes apparent in him: for this reason, we call him a self-renouncer, and he presents himself to us, wrapped in his cloak, like someone wearing a hair-shirt. With this impression he makes on us, he is satisfied: he wants to keep hidden from us his desire, his pride, his intention of flying above us.—Yes! He is smarter than we realized, and so considerate toward us—this affirmer! Because that’s what he is, just like us, even in his self-renunciation.
28.
28.
Injuring with ones best Qualities.—Out strong points sometimes drive us so far forward that we cannot any longer endure our weaknesses, and we perish by them: we also perhaps see this result beforehand, but nevertheless do not want it to be otherwise. We then become hard towards that which would fain be spared in us, and our pitilessness is also our greatness. Such an experience, which must in the end cost us our Hie, is a symbol[Pg 70] of the collective effect of great men upon others and upon their epoch:—it is just with their best abilities, with that which only they can do, that they destroy much that is weak, uncertain, evolving, and willing, and are thereby injurious. Indeed, the case may happen in which, taken on the whole, they only do injury, because their best is accepted and drunk up as it were solely by those who lose their understanding and their egoism by it, as by too strong a beverage; they become so intoxicated that they go breaking their limbs on all the wrong roads where their drunkenness drives them.
Injuring with one's Best Qualities.—Our strengths can sometimes push us forward so much that we can no longer tolerate our weaknesses, and we end up being harmed by them: we might even see this coming, but we still don’t want things to be any different. We then become harsh toward parts of ourselves that would like to be saved, and our lack of compassion is also part of our greatness. This kind of experience, which ultimately costs us our lives, symbolizes[Pg 70] the collective impact that great individuals have on others and on their time: it’s precisely through their best skills, through what only they can do, that they end up destroying much that is weak, uncertain, developing, and willing, causing harm in the process. Indeed, it can happen that, overall, they only do harm because their best qualities are embraced and consumed, as it were, only by those who lose their understanding and their sense of self because of it, like being overwhelmed by too strong a drink; they become so intoxicated that they start breaking their limbs on all the wrong paths driven by their drunkenness.
29.
29.
Adventitious Liars.—When people began to combat the unity of Aristotle in France, and consequently also to defend it, there was once more to be seen that which has been seen so often, but seen so unwillingly:—people imposed false reasons on themselves on account of which those laws ought to exist, merely for the sake of not acknowledging to themselves that they had accustomed themselves to the authority of those laws, and did not want any longer to have things otherwise. And people do so in every prevailing morality and religion, and have always done so: the reasons and intentions behind the habit, are only added surreptitiously when people begin to combat the habit, and ask for reasons and intentions. It is here that the great dishonesty of the conservatives of all times hides:—they are adventitious liars.
Adventitious Liars.—When people started to challenge the unity of Aristotle in France, and consequently to defend it, once again we witnessed something all too familiar, yet often reluctantly acknowledged:—people created false justifications for why those laws should exist, simply to avoid admitting to themselves that they had gotten used to the authority of those laws and no longer wanted things to change. This happens with every dominant morality and religion, and it always has: the reasons and intentions behind the habit are only introduced covertly when people begin to question the habit and demand justifications. This is where the significant dishonesty of conservatives throughout history lies:—they are adventitious liars.
30.
30.
The Comedy of Celebrated Men.—Celebrated men who need their fame, as, for instance, all politicians, no longer select their associates and friends without fore-thought: from the one they want a portion of the splendour and reflection of his virtues; from the other they want the fear-inspiring power of certain dubious qualities in him, of which everybody is aware; from another they steal his reputation for idleness and basking in the sun, because it is advantageous for their own ends to be regarded temporarily as heedless and lazy:—it conceals the fact that they lie in ambush; they now use the visionaries, now the experts, now the brooders, now the pedants in their neighbourhood, as their actual selves for the time; but very soon they do not need them any longer! And thus while their environment and outside die off continually, everything seems to crowd into this environment, and wants to become a "character" of it; they are like great cities in this respect. Their repute is continually in process of mutation, like their character, for their changing methods require this change, and they show and exhibit sometimes this and sometimes that actual or fictitious quality on the stage; their friends and associates, as we have said, belong to these stage properties. On the other hand, that which they aim at must remain so much the more steadfast, and burnished and resplendent in the distance,—and this also sometimes needs its comedy and its stage-play.
The Comedy of Celebrated Men.—Famous people who need their fame, like politicians, no longer choose their friends and associates without careful thought. From one, they seek some of the glory and admiration that come with their virtues; from another, they want the intimidating power of certain questionable traits that everyone knows about; from yet another, they borrow the reputation for laziness and sunbathing since it benefits their own goals to be seen as carefree and idle—it hides the fact that they are waiting in the shadows. They use dreamers, specialists, deep thinkers, and academics in their circle as their true selves for the moment; but soon, they no longer need them! And so, while their surroundings and those around them continually fade away, everything seems to rush into this space, wanting to become a "character" within it; they are like large cities in this way. Their reputation is always changing, just like their character, because their shifting tactics demand this change, and they sometimes show and exhibit this or that real or imagined quality on the stage; their friends and associates, as we have said, are part of these props. On the other hand, what they strive for must remain all the more consistent, polished, and brilliant in the distance—and this too sometimes requires its comedy and theatricality.
31.
31.
Commerce and Nobility.—Buying and selling is now regarded as something ordinary, like the art of reading and writing; everyone is now trained to it even when he is not a tradesman exercising himself daily in the art; precisely as formerly in the period of uncivilised humanity, everyone was a hunter and exercised himself day by day in the art of hunting. Hunting was then something common: but just as this finally became a privilege of the powerful and noble, and thereby lost the character of the commonplace and the ordinary—by ceasing to be necessary and by becoming an affair of fancy and luxury,—so it might become the same some day with buying and selling. Conditions of society are imaginable in which there will be no selling and buying, and in which the necessity for this art will become quite lost; perhaps it may then happen that individuals who are less subjected to the law of the prevailing condition of things will indulge in buying and selling as a luxury of sentiment. It is then only that commerce would acquire nobility, and the noble would then perhaps occupy themselves just as readily with commerce as they have done hitherto with war and politics: while on the other hand the valuation of politics might then have entirely altered. Already even politics ceases to be the business of a gentleman; and it is possible that one day it may be found to be so vulgar as to be brought, like all party literature and daily literature, under the rubric: "Prostitution of the intellect."
Commerce and Nobility.—Buying and selling is now seen as something normal, like reading and writing; everyone is trained in it, even if they’re not a trader practicing it daily, just as everyone in the past was a hunter and practiced hunting every day. Hunting was once commonplace: but just like it eventually became a privilege of the powerful and noble, losing its ordinary character by becoming unnecessary and a matter of luxury and leisure, buying and selling could also become the same one day. It’s possible to imagine societal conditions where there’s no buying and selling, and the need for this skill disappears; maybe at that point, those who aren't bound by the current state of affairs will engage in buying and selling as a luxury of sentiment. Only then would commerce achieve a sense of nobility, and nobles might engage in commerce just as they have in war and politics; meanwhile, the value of politics could change entirely. Already, politics is becoming less the domain of gentlemen, and it’s possible that one day it may be seen as so trivial that it’s categorized, like all party and daily literature, under "Prostitution of the intellect."
32.
32.
Undesirable Disciples.—What shall I do with these two youths! called out a philosopher dejectedly, who "corrupted" youths, as Socrates had once corrupted them,—they are unwelcome disciples to me. One of them cannot say "Nay," and the other says "Half and half" to everything. Provided they grasped my doctrine, the former would suffer too much, for my mode of thinking requires a martial soul, willingness to cause pain, delight in denying, and a hard skin,—he would succumb by open wounds and internal injuries. And the other will choose the mediocre in everything he represents, and thus make a mediocrity of the whole,—I should like my enemy to have such a disciple.
Undesirable Disciples.—What am I going to do with these two young men! a philosopher lamented, who "corrupted" youths like Socrates once did,—they're not the kind of students I want. One of them can't say "No," and the other has a "Maybe" response for everything. If they understood my beliefs, the first would suffer too much because my way of thinking needs a warrior's spirit, a willingness to cause pain, a love for denial, and tough skin—he would fall apart from both external wounds and internal damage. The other will always pick the average in whatever he represents, and in doing so, he'll make everything mediocre—I would prefer my enemy to have a disciple like that.
33.
33.
Outside the Lecture-room.—"In order to prove that man after all belongs to the good-natured animals, I would remind you how credulous he has been for so long a time. It is now only, quite late, and after an immense self-conquest, that he has become a distrustful animal,—yes! man is now more wicked than ever."—I do not understand this; why should man now be more distrustful and more wicked?—"Because now he has science,—because he needs to have it!"—
Outside the Lecture-room.—"To show that humans are actually one of the more good-natured animals, I want to remind you just how gullible they've been for such a long time. It's only recently, after a tremendous amount of self-control, that they've turned into a distrustful species—yes! humans are more wicked than ever."—I don't get this; why are humans now more distrustful and more wicked?—"Because now they have science—because they need it!"—
34.
34.
Historia abscondita.—Every great man has a power which operates backward; all history is[Pg 74] again placed on the scales on his account, and a thousand secrets of the past crawl out of their lurking-places—into his sunlight. There is absolutely no knowing what history may be some day. The past is still perhaps undiscovered in its essence! There is yet so much reinterpreting ability needed!
Hidden history.—Every great person has a influence that reaches back in time; all history is[Pg 74] weighed again because of them, and a thousand secrets from the past emerge from hiding—into their light. It's impossible to tell what history could become in the future. The essence of the past may still be undiscovered! There is still so much reinterpretation that needs to be done!
35.
35.
Heresy and Witchcraft.—To think otherwise than is customary—that is by no means so much the activity of a better intellect, as the activity of strong, wicked inclinations,—severing, isolating, refractory, mischief-loving, malicious inclinations. Heresy is the counterpart of witchcraft, and is certainly just as little a merely harmless affair, or a thing worthy of honour in itself. Heretics and sorcerers are two kinds of bad men; they have it in common that they also feel themselves wicked; their unconquerable delight is to attack and injure whatever rules,—whether it be men or opinions. The Reformation, a kind of duplication of the spirit of the Middle Ages at a time when it had no longer a good conscience, produced both of these kinds of people in the greatest profusion.
Heresy and Witchcraft.—To think differently from what's usual—it's not really a sign of a superior intellect, but rather a sign of strong, wicked impulses—separating, isolating, rebellious, mischief-loving, malicious urges. Heresy is the counterpart of witchcraft, and it's certainly not just a harmless matter or something to be honored in itself. Heretics and sorcerers are two types of bad people; they share the awareness that they are wicked; their uncontainable pleasure comes from attacking and harming whatever has power—whether it's people or beliefs. The Reformation, a sort of repetition of the spirit of the Middle Ages at a time when it had lost its good conscience, produced both of these types of people in abundance.
36.
36.
Last Words.-It will be recollected that the Emperor Augustus, that terrible man, who had himself as much in his own power and could be silent as well as any wise Socrates, became indiscreet about himself in his last words; for[Pg 75] the first time he let his mask fall, when he gave to understand that he had carried a mask and played a comedy,—he had played the father of his country and wisdom on the throne well, even to the point of illusion! Plaudite amid, comœdia finita est!—The thought of the dying Nero: qualis artifex pereo! was also the thought of the dying Augustus: histrionic conceit! histrionic loquacity! And the very counterpart to the dying Socrates!—But Tiberius died silently, that most tortured of all self-torturers,—he was genuine and not a stage-player! What may have passed through his head in the end! Perhaps this: "Life—that is a long death. I am a fool, who shortened the lives of so many! Was I created for the purpose of being a benefactor? I should have given them eternal life: and then I could have seen them dying eternally. I had such good eyes for that: qualis spectator pereo!" When he seemed once more to regain his powers after a long death-struggle, it was considered advisable to smother him with pillows,—he died a double death.
Last Words. - It's worth remembering that Emperor Augustus, that formidable man who had complete control over himself and could be as silent as any wise Socrates, became a bit indiscreet in his final words; for[Pg 75] for the first time he let his facade slip, revealing that he had been wearing a mask and playing a role — he had convincingly acted the part of the father of his country and wisdom on the throne, even to the point of creating an illusion! Plaudite amice, comœdia finita est!— The thoughts of the dying Nero: qualis artifex pereo! were also the thoughts of the dying Augustus: theatrical arrogance! theatrical chatter! And he was the very opposite of the dying Socrates! — But Tiberius died in silence, that most tortured of self-tormentors — he was genuine and not a performer! What may have gone through his mind in the end! Perhaps this: "Life — that's just a long death. I am a fool who cut short so many lives! Was I meant to be a benefactor? I should have granted them eternal life, and then I could have witnessed their dying forever. I had such good eyes for that: qualis spectator pereo!" When he seemed to regain his strength after a long struggle with death, it was deemed best to smother him with pillows — he died a double death.
37.
37.
Owing to three Errors.—Science has been furthered during recent centuries, partly because it was hoped that God's goodness and wisdom would be best understood therewith and thereby—the principal motive in the soul of great Englishmen (like Newton); partly because the absolute utility of knowledge was believed in, and especially the most intimate connection of morality, knowledge, and happiness—the principal motive in the soul of great[Pg 76] Frenchmen (like Voltaire); and partly because it was thought that in science there was something unselfish, harmless, self-sufficing, lovable, and truly innocent to be had, in which the evil human impulses did not at all participate—the principal motive in the soul of Spinoza, who felt himself divine, as a knowing being:—it is consequently owing to three errors that science has been furthered.
Due to three mistakes.—Science has advanced in recent centuries, partly because it was hoped that God's goodness and wisdom would be better understood through it—this was the main driving force for great English thinkers (like Newton); partly because people believed in the inherent value of knowledge, especially the close link between morality, knowledge, and happiness—the main motivation for great[Pg 76] French thinkers (like Voltaire); and partly because science was seen as something selfless, harmless, self-sufficient, lovable, and truly innocent, free from negative human impulses—the main motivation for Spinoza, who saw himself as divine through knowledge:—thus, it is due to three mistakes that science has progressed.
38.
38.
Explosive People.—When one considers how ready are the forces of young men for discharge, one does not wonder at seeing them decide so uncritically and with so little selection for this or that cause: that which attracts them is the sight of eagerness for a cause, as it were the sight of the burning match—not the cause itself. The more ingenious seducers on that account operate by holding out the prospect of an explosion to such persons, and do not urge their cause by means of reasons; these powder-barrels are not won over by means of reasons!
Explosive People.—When you think about how eager young men are to take action, it's no surprise that they choose to support one cause or another so impulsively and without much thought: what draws them in is the enthusiasm they see for a cause, like the spark of a match—not the cause itself. Because of this, the more cunning influencers appeal to them by promising an exciting outcome rather than presenting logical arguments; these individuals aren’t swayed by reasons!
39.
39.
Altered Taste.—The alteration of the general taste is more important than the alteration of opinions; opinions, with all their proving, refuting, and intellectual masquerade, are merely symptoms of altered taste, and are certainly not what they are still so often claimed to be, the causes of the altered taste. How does the general taste alter? By the fact of individuals, the powerful[Pg 77] and influential persons, expressing and tyrannically enforcing without any feeling of shame, their hoc est ridiculum, hoc est absurdum; the decisions, therefore, of their taste and their disrelish:—they thereby lay a constraint upon many people, out of which there gradually grows a habituation for still more, and finally a necessity for all. The fact, however, that these individuals feel and "taste" differently, has usually its origin in a peculiarity of their mode of life, nourishment, or digestion, perhaps in a surplus or deficiency of the inorganic salts in their blood and brain, in short in their physis; they have, however, the courage to avow their physical constitution, and to lend an ear even to the most delicate tones of its requirements: their æsthetic and moral judgments are those "most delicate tones" of their physis.
Altered Taste.—The shift in general taste is more significant than changes in opinions; opinions, with all their arguments, counterarguments, and intellectual facades, are simply signs of altered taste and are definitely not the causes of that change, despite what is often claimed. How does general taste change? It happens when powerful[Pg 77] and influential individuals express and impose their preferences without any shame, declaring what is ridiculous and what is absurd; thus, their tastes and dislikes exert pressure on many people, leading to a gradual habituation for more, and eventually a necessity for all. However, the fact that these individuals feel and "taste" things differently usually stems from specific aspects of their lifestyle, diet, or digestion, possibly linked to an excess or lack of inorganic salts in their blood and brain, in short, in their physis; they have the bravery to acknowledge their physical makeup and to notice even the most subtle nuances of its needs: their aesthetic and moral judgments are those "most delicate tones" of their physis.
40.
40.
The Lack of a noble Presence.—Soldiers and their leaders have always a much higher mode of comportment toward one another than workmen and their employers. At present at least, all militarily established civilisation still stands high above all so-called industrial civilisation; the latter, in its present form, is in general the meanest mode of existence that has ever been. It is simply the law of necessity that operates here: people want to live, and have to sell themselves; but they despise him who exploits their necessity and purchases the workman. It is curious that the subjection to powerful, fear-inspiring, and even dreadful individuals, to tyrants and leaders of[Pg 78] armies, is not at all felt so painfully as the subjection to such undistinguished and uninteresting persons as the captains of industry; in the employer the workman usually sees merely a crafty, blood-sucking dog of a man, speculating on every necessity, whose name, form, character, and reputation are altogether indifferent to him. It is probable that the manufacturers and great magnates of commerce have hitherto lacked too much all those forms and attributes of a superior race, which alone make persons interesting; if they had had the nobility of the nobly-born in their looks and bearing, there would perhaps have been no socialism in the masses of the people. For these are really ready for slavery of every kind, provided that the superior class above them constantly shows itself legitimately superior, and born to command—by its noble presence! The commonest man feels that nobility is not to be improvised, and that it is his part to honour it as the fruit of protracted race-culture,—but the absence of superior presence, and the notorious vulgarity of manufacturers with red, fat hands, brings up the thought to him that it is only chance and fortune that has here elevated the one above the other; well then—so he reasons with himself—let us in our turn tempt chance and fortune! Let us in our turn throw the dice!—and socialism commences.
The Lack of a Noble Presence.—Soldiers and their leaders have always had a much higher standard of behavior toward each other than workers and their employers. At least for now, all militarily established civilization still stands above what we call industrial civilization; the latter, in its current state, is generally the lowest form of existence that has ever existed. It's simply the law of necessity at play here: people want to live and have to sell their labor; but they look down on those who exploit their need and purchase the worker. It's interesting to note that the subjugation to powerful, fear-inducing, and even terrifying individuals, to tyrants and leaders of [Pg 78] armies, isn't felt as painfully as the subjugation to such unremarkable and dull people as industry captains; in the employer, the worker usually sees just a cunning, greedy person, capitalizing on every necessity, whose name, appearance, character, and reputation mean nothing to him. It's likely that manufacturers and large business magnates have so far lacked all the qualities and traits of a superior race, which are what make people interesting; if they had displayed the nobility of those who are born into privilege in their looks and demeanor, there might not have been socialism among the masses. Because these people are actually ready for slavery of any kind, as long as the superior class above them continually shows itself to be legitimately superior, and born to lead—through its noble presence! The average person senses that nobility cannot be fabricated, and that it's his duty to honor it as the result of long-standing hereditary culture—yet the lack of a superior presence, along with the obvious vulgarity of industry leaders with their red, chubby hands, leads him to think that it’s merely chance and fortune that have elevated one above the other; so he reasons with himself—let us tempt chance and fortune! Let us roll the dice!—and socialism begins.
41.
41.
Against Remorse.—The thinker sees in his own actions attempts and questionings to obtain information about something or other; success[Pg 79] and failure are answers to him first and foremost. To vex himself, however, because something does not succeed, or to feel remorse at all—he leaves that to those who act because they are commanded to do so, and expect to get a beating when their gracious master is not satisfied with the result.
Against Remorse.—The thinker views his actions as experiments and inquiries aimed at learning something. For him, success[Pg 79] and failure are primarily just answers. He doesn't let himself be troubled by failures or feel remorse—he leaves that to those who act out of obligation and fear punishment when their demanding master isn’t pleased with the outcome.
42.
42.
Work and Ennui—In respect to seeking work for the sake of the pay, almost all men are alike at present in civilised countries; to all of them work is a means, and not itself the end; on which account they are not very select in the choice of the work, provided it yields an abundant profit. But still there are rarer men who would rather perish than work without delight in their labour: the fastidious people, difficult to satisfy, whose object is not served by an abundant profit, unless the work itself be the reward of all rewards. Artists and contemplative men of all kinds belong to this rare species of human beings; and also the idlers who spend their life in hunting and travelling, or in love-affairs and adventures. They all seek toil and trouble in so far as these are associated with pleasure, and they want the severest and hardest labour, if it be necessary. In other respects, however, they have a resolute indolence, even should impoverishment, dishonour, and danger to health and life be associated therewith. They are not so much afraid of ennui as of labour without pleasure; indeed they require much ennui, if their work is to succeed with them. For the thinker and for all inventive spirits ennui is the unpleasant "calm"[Pg 80] of the soul which precedes the happy voyage and the dancing breezes; he must endure it, he must await the effect it has on him:—it is precisely this which lesser natures cannot at all experience! It is common to scare away ennui in every way, just as it is common to labour without pleasure. It perhaps distinguishes the Asiatics above the Europeans, that they are capable of a longer and profounder repose; even their narcotics operate slowly and require patience, in contrast to the obnoxious suddenness of the European poison, alcohol.
Work and Ennui—When it comes to seeking work for the money, almost all men in civilized countries today are the same; for them, work is simply a means to an end, not the end itself. Because of this, they aren’t very picky about what kind of work they do, as long as it pays well. However, there are rare individuals who would rather die than work without enjoyment in their labor: the discerning ones, hard to please, who aren't satisfied just by a big paycheck unless the work itself feels like the ultimate reward. Artists and contemplative types belong to this rare group, as do those who spend their lives exploring, traveling, or engaging in love affairs and adventures. They seek effort and struggle only when those are tied to pleasure, and they are willing to do the toughest and most demanding work if necessary. Nevertheless, they also maintain a determined laziness, even if it means facing poverty, dishonor, and threats to their health and life. They fear boredom less than they fear working without joy; in fact, they need quite a bit of boredom if they are to find satisfaction in their work. For thinkers and all creative minds, boredom is the uncomfortable "calm"[Pg 80] of the soul before embarking on a joyful journey with fresh ideas. They must endure it and await its effects on them:—this is exactly what lesser beings struggle to experience! It’s common to distract oneself from boredom, just as it’s common to work without joy. One might say that Asians, in contrast to Europeans, are capable of a deeper and longer-lasting rest; their narcotics act slowly and require patience, unlike the harsh immediacy of the European poison, alcohol.
43.
43.
What the Laws Betray.—One makes a great mistake when one studies the penal laws of a people, as if they were an expression of its character; the laws do not betray what a people is, but what appears to them foreign, strange, monstrous, and outlandish. The laws concern themselves with the exceptions to the morality of custom; and the severest punishments fall on acts which conform to the customs of the neighbouring peoples. Thus among the Wahabites, there are only two mortal sins: having another God than the Wahabite God, and—smoking (it is designated by them as "the disgraceful kind of drinking"). "And how is it with regard to murder and adultery?"-asked the Englishman with astonishment on learning these things. "Well, God is gracious and pitiful!" answered the old chief.—Thus among the ancient Romans there was the idea that a woman could only sin mortally in two ways: by adultery on the one hand, and—by wine-drinking on the other. Old Cato pretended[Pg 81] that kissing among relatives had only been made a custom in order to keep women in control on this point; a kiss meant: did her breath smell of wine? Wives had actually been punished by death who were surprised taking wine: and certainly not merely because women under the influence of wine sometimes unlearn altogether the art of saying No; the Romans were afraid above all things of the orgiastic and Dionysian spirit with which the women of Southern Europe at that time (when wine was still new in Europe) were sometimes visited, as by a monstrous foreignness which subverted the basis of Roman sentiments; it seemed to them treason against Rome, as the embodiment of foreignness.
What the Laws Betray.—It's a huge mistake to study a society's penal laws as if they reflect its true character; the laws reveal not who the people really are, but what they consider foreign, strange, monstrous, and unnatural. The laws focus on the exceptions to the morality of their customs, and the harshest punishments target actions that align with the customs of neighboring cultures. For example, among the Wahabites, there are only two unforgivable sins: worshiping any god besides the Wahabite God and—smoking (which they refer to as "the disgraceful kind of drinking"). "What about murder and adultery?" an astonished Englishman asked upon hearing this. "Well, God is gracious and merciful!" the old chief replied. Similarly, in ancient Rome, it was believed that a woman could only commit a mortal sin in two ways: through adultery or by drinking wine. Old Cato claimed[Pg 81] that kissing among relatives was established merely to keep women in check regarding this issue; a kiss was meant to determine: did her breath smell like wine? Wives caught drinking wine were actually punished with death, and it wasn’t merely because women under the influence of wine often lost the ability to say No. The Romans feared, above all, the orgiastic and Dionysian spirit that sometimes took hold of women from Southern Europe at that time (when wine was still new in Europe), which they saw as a monstrous foreign influence that undermined the foundation of Roman values; it felt to them like treason against Rome, as a symbol of that foreignness.
44.
44.
The Believed Motive.—However important it may be to know the motives according to which mankind has really acted hitherto, perhaps the belief in this or that motive, and therefore that which mankind has assumed and imagined to be the actual mainspring of its activity hitherto, is something still more essential for the thinker to know. For the internal happiness and misery of men have always come to them through their belief in this or that motive,—not however, through that which was actually the motive! All about the latter has an interest of secondary rank.
The Believed Motive.—While it's important to understand the true motives behind human actions up to now, it's possibly even more crucial for thinkers to grasp the belief in these motives and what people have assumed and imagined to be the real driving force behind their behavior. The internal happiness and suffering of individuals have always stemmed from their belief in one motive or another,—not from the actual motive! The actual motive is of secondary importance.
45.
45.
Epicurus.—Yes, I am proud of perceiving the character of Epicurus differently from anyone else[Pg 82] perhaps, and of enjoying the happiness of the afternoon of antiquity in all that I hear and read of him:—I see his eye gazing out on a broad whitish sea, over the shore-rocks on which the sunshine rests, while great and small creatures play in its light, secure and calm like this light and that eye itself. Such happiness could only have been devised by a chronic sufferer, the happiness of an eye before which the sea of existence has become calm, and which can no longer tire of gazing at the surface and at the variegated, tender, tremulous skin of this sea. Never previously was there such a moderation of voluptuousness.
Epicurus.—Yes, I take pride in seeing Epicurus's character in a way that’s different from anyone else[Pg 82], and I appreciate the joy of experiencing the serenity of ancient times in everything I hear and read about him:—I imagine his gaze fixed on a wide, light-colored sea, over the rocky shore bathed in sunlight, while creatures great and small play in that light, feeling secure and at peace, just like that light and his gaze itself. Such happiness could only come from someone who has suffered greatly, the happiness of an eye that sees the chaos of existence finally tranquil, no longer weary from observing the surface and the colorful, delicate, quivering skin of the sea. Never before has there been such a balance of pleasure.
46.
46.
Our Astonishment—There is a profound and fundamental satisfaction in the fact that science ascertains things that hold their ground, and again furnish the basis for new researches:—it could certainly be otherwise. Indeed, we are so much convinced of all the uncertainty and caprice of our judgments, and of the everlasting change of all human laws and conceptions, that we are really astonished how persistently the results of science hold their ground! In earlier times people knew nothing of this changeability of all human things; the custom of morality maintained the belief that the whole inner life of man was bound to iron necessity by eternal fetters:—perhaps people then felt a similar voluptuousness of astonishment when they listened to tales and fairy stories. The wonderful did so much good to those men, who might well get tired sometimes of the regular and[Pg 83] the eternal. To leave the ground for once! To soar! To stray! To be mad!—that belonged to the paradise and the revelry of earlier times; while our felicity is like that of the shipwrecked man who has gone ashore, and places himself with both feet on the old, firm ground—in astonishment that it does not rock.
Our Astonishment—There is a deep satisfaction in knowing that science establishes things that stand firm, and serves as a foundation for new research:—it could easily be different. In fact, we are so aware of the uncertainty and unpredictability of our judgments, as well as the constant changes in all human laws and beliefs, that we are genuinely amazed how consistently scientific results hold up! In the past, people were unaware of this variability in all human matters; the norms of morality led them to believe that the entire inner life of humanity was bound by unchanging rules:—perhaps they experienced a similar thrill of astonishment when they heard stories and fairy tales. The fantastic brought joy to those who might have occasionally grown weary of the mundane and[Pg 83] the eternal. To escape the ground for once! To rise! To wander! To be wild!—this was part of the paradise and celebration of earlier times; while our happiness resembles that of a shipwreck survivor who has reached land and stands firmly on solid ground—in disbelief that it doesn’t sway.
47.
47.
The Suppression of the Passions.—When one continually prohibits the expression of the passions as something to be left to the "vulgar," to coarser, bourgeois, and peasant natures—that is, when one does not want to suppress the passions themselves, but only their language and demeanour, one nevertheless realises therewith just what one does not want: the suppression of the passions themselves, or at least their weakening and alteration,—as the court of Louis XIV. (to cite the most instructive instance), and all that was dependent on it, experienced. The generation that followed, trained in suppressing their expression, no longer possessed the passions themselves, but had a pleasant, superficial, playful disposition in their place,—a generation which was so permeated with the incapacity to be ill-mannered, that even an injury was not taken and retaliated, except with courteous words. Perhaps our own time furnishes the most remarkable counterpart to this period: I see everywhere (in life, in the theatre, and not least in all that is written) satisfaction at all the coarser outbursts and gestures of passion; a certain convention of passionateness is now desired,—[Pg 84]only not the passion itself! Nevertheless it will thereby be at last reached, and our posterity will have a genuine savagery, and not merely a formal savagery and unmannerliness.
The Suppression of the Passions.—When someone constantly stops the expression of feelings, claiming it’s something for the "common folk," or for cruder, middle-class, and rural people—that is, when one only wants to control how these feelings are expressed, not the feelings themselves, they end up realizing exactly what they don’t want: the suppression of the feelings themselves, or at least their weakening and change. This was experienced by the court of Louis XIV (as the most instructive example) and everything that was connected to it. The generation that followed, trained to suppress their expressions, lost the feelings themselves and replaced them with a pleasant, superficial, playful attitude—a generation so steeped in politeness that even when wronged, they responded only with courteous words. Perhaps our own time serves as the most notable counterpart to that period: I see everywhere (in daily life, on stage, and especially in writing) a satisfaction with all the coarser bursts and gestures of emotion; there’s now a certain expectation of passionate displays—[Pg 84] just not the passion itself! Yet that will ultimately be achieved, and our future generations will experience a genuine savagery, and not just a superficial savagery or lack of manners.
48.
48.
Knowledge of Distress.—Perhaps there is nothing by which men and periods are so much separated from one another, as by the different degrees of knowledge of distress which they possess; distress of the soul as well as of the body. With respect to the latter, owing to lack of sufficient self-experience, we men of the present day (in spite of our deficiencies and infirmities), are perhaps all of us blunderers and visionaries in comparison with the men of the age of fear—the longest of all ages,—when the individual had to protect himself against violence, and for that purpose had to be a man of violence himself. At that time a man went through a long schooling of corporeal tortures and privations, and found even in a certain kind of cruelty toward himself, in a voluntary use of pain, a necessary means for his preservation; at that time a person trained his environment to the endurance of pain; at that time a person willingly inflicted pain, and saw the most frightful things of this kind happen to others without having any other feeling than for his own security. As regards the distress of the soul however, I now look at every man with respect to whether he knows it by experience or by description; whether he still regards it as necessary to simulate this knowledge, perhaps as an indication[Pg 85] of more refined culture; or whether, at the bottom of his heart, he does not at all believe in great sorrows of soul, and at the naming of them calls to mind a similar experience as at the naming of great corporeal sufferings, such as tooth-aches, and stomach-aches. It is thus, however, that it seems to be with most people at present. Owing to the universal inexperience of both kinds of pain, and the comparative rarity of the spectacle of a sufferer, an important consequence results: people now hate pain far more than earlier man did, and calumniate it worse than ever; indeed people nowadays can hardly endure the thought of pain, and make out of it an affair of conscience and a reproach to collective existence. The appearance of pessimistic philosophies is not at all the sign of great and dreadful miseries; for these interrogative marks regarding the worth of life appear in periods when the refinement and alleviation of existence already deem the unavoidable gnat-stings of the soul and body as altogether too bloody and wicked; and in the poverty of actual experiences of pain, would now like to make painful general ideas appear as suffering of the worst kind.—There might indeed be a remedy for pessimistic philosophies and the excessive sensibility which seems to me the real "distress of the present":—but perhaps this remedy already sounds too cruel, and would itself be reckoned among the symptoms owing to which people at present conclude that "existence is something evil." Well! the remedy for "the distress" is distress.
Knowledge of Distress.—Maybe nothing separates people and eras as much as their different levels of understanding of distress, both emotional and physical. Regarding physical distress, we modern people (despite our flaws and weaknesses) might be a bit clueless and idealistic compared to those from the age of fear—the longest of all ages—when individuals had to fend for themselves against violence and had to be violent themselves for protection. Back then, a person endured extensive physical pain and deprivation and sometimes even embraced self-inflicted cruelty and pain as a necessary way to survive; they trained themselves and their environment to handle suffering; they willingly caused pain and witnessed horrific acts happen to others without feeling anything but a concern for their own safety. When it comes to emotional distress, I now assess individuals based on whether they’ve experienced it firsthand or only learned about it secondhand; whether they still think it's necessary to pretend to understand it, perhaps as a sign of a more cultured refinement; or whether, deep down, they don’t really believe in true emotional pain and think of it in the same way as physical suffering, like toothaches or stomachaches. This seems to be the case for most people today. Due to a general lack of experience with both kinds of pain and the rarity of seeing someone suffer, there is a significant outcome: people today despise pain much more than people did in the past and criticize it more harshly than ever; in fact, people nowadays can barely stand the thought of pain, turning it into a matter of conscience and criticizing collective existence for it. The rise of pessimistic philosophies isn’t necessarily a sign of great and terrible suffering; these questions about the value of life arise in times when the improvement and easing of life make the unavoidable pinpricks of the soul and body seem excessively brutal and immoral; and, in the absence of real experiences with pain, they now try to portray painful general ideas as the worst kind of suffering. There could indeed be a remedy for pessimistic philosophies and the excessive sensitivity that I see as the real "distress of the present":—but perhaps this remedy sounds too harsh and would itself be considered among the reasons people now conclude that "existence is something evil." Well! The remedy for "the distress" is distress.
49.
49.
Magnanimity and allied Qualities.—Those paradoxical phenomena, such as the sudden coldness in the demeanour of good-natured men, the humour of the melancholy, and above all magnanimity, as a sudden renunciation of revenge or of the gratification of envy—appear in men in whom there is a powerful inner impulsiveness, in men of sudden satiety and sudden disgust. Their satisfactions are so rapid and violent that satiety, aversion and flight into the antithetical taste, immediately follow upon them: in this contrast the convulsion of feeling liberates itself, in one person by sudden coldness, in another by laughter, and in a third by tear and self-sacrifice. The magnanimous person appears to me—at least that kind of magnanimous person who has always made most impression—as a man with the strongest thirst for vengeance, to whom a gratification presents itself close at hand, and who already drinks it off in imagination so copiously, thoroughly, and to the last drop, that an excessive, rapid disgust follows this rapid licentiousness;—he now elevates himself "above himself," as one says, and forgives his enemy, yea, blesses and honours him. With this violence done to himself, however, with this mockery of his impulse to revenge, even still so powerful he merely yields to the new impulse, the disgust which has become powerful, and does this just as impatiently and licentiously, as a short time previously he forestalled, and as it were exhausted, the joy of revenge with his fantasy. In magnanimity[Pg 87] there is the same amount of egoism as in revenge, but a different quality of egoism.
Magnanimity and related Qualities.—These contradictory behaviors, like the sudden coolness in the demeanor of kind-hearted people, the humor found in sadness, and especially magnanimity, which is a sudden letting go of revenge or envy, show up in people with strong inner impulses; those who experience quick satisfaction and then quick disgust. Their pleasures come so fast and intensely that they are quickly followed by feeling full, aversion, and a shift to opposing desires. In this contrast, the turbulence of emotion expresses itself differently: in one person through sudden coldness, in another through laughter, and in another through tears and selflessness. The magnanimous person strikes me—as certainly the most impactful kind of magnanimous person—as someone with an intense desire for revenge, who finds that gratification suddenly available and already imagines indulging in it so thoroughly, savoring every part, that a swift, overwhelming disgust follows this intense indulgence; then he rises "above himself," as the saying goes, and forgives his enemy, even blessing and honoring him. With this self-inflicted violence, this mockery of his urge for revenge—still very strong—he simply bends to the new powerful urge, the disgust, and does so as impatiently and recklessly as he had previously anticipated and exhausted the pleasure of revenge in his imagination. In magnanimity[Pg 87] there is just as much selfishness as in revenge, but a different kind of selfishness.
50.
50.
The Argument of Isolation.—The reproach of conscience, even in the most conscientious, is weak against the feeling: "This and that are contrary to the good morals of your society." A cold glance or a wry mouth on the part of those among whom and for whom one has been educated, is still feared even by the strongest. What is really feared there? Isolation! as the argument which demolishes even the best arguments for a person or cause!—It is thus that the gregarious instinct speaks in us.
The Argument of Isolation.—The guilt of conscience, even in the most principled individuals, is weak against the feeling: "This and that go against the good morals of your society." A cold stare or a twisted expression from those among whom and for whom one was raised is still feared even by the strongest. What is really feared there? Isolation! It is the argument that breaks down even the best arguments for a person or cause!—This is how our social instinct speaks within us.
51.
51.
Sense for Truth.—Commend me to all scepticism where I am permitted to answer: "Let us put it to the test!" But I don't wish to hear anything more of things and questions which do not admit of being tested. That is the limit of my "sense for truth": for bravery has there lost its right.
Sense for Truth.— I appreciate all skepticism when I can respond with, "Let’s test it out!" But I don’t want to hear anything more about things and questions that can’t be tested. That’s where my "sense for truth" ends: because bravery has lost its place there.
52.
52.
What others Know of us.—That which we know of ourselves and have in our memory is not so decisive for the happiness of our life as is generally believed. One day it flashes upon our mind what others know of us (or think they know)—and then we acknowledge that it is the more powerful. We get on with our bad conscience more easily than with our bad reputation.
What others Know of us.—What we know about ourselves and what we remember doesn't play as big a role in our happiness as most people think. One day, it suddenly hits us what others know about us (or think they know)—and we realize that this is way more impactful. We can handle our guilt more easily than we can deal with our bad reputation.
53.
53.
Where Goodness Begins.—Where bad eyesight can no longer see the evil impulse as such, on account of its refinement,—there man sets up the kingdom of goodness; and the feeling of having now gone over into the kingdom of goodness brings all those impulses (such as the feelings of security, of comfortableness, of benevolence) into simultaneous activity, which were threatened and confined by the evil impulses. Consequently, the duller the eye so much the further does goodness extend! Hence the eternal cheerfulness of the populace and of children! Hence the gloominess and grief (allied to the bad conscience) of great thinkers.
Where Goodness Begins.—Where poor eyesight can no longer recognize the evil impulse as such, due to its subtlety—this is where people establish the kingdom of goodness. The feeling of having transitioned into this kingdom activates all those impulses (like feelings of security, comfort, and kindness) that were previously threatened and suppressed by the evil impulses. Therefore, the duller the perception, the further goodness spreads! This explains the constant cheerfulness of common people and children! It also explains the sadness and sorrow (connected to a bad conscience) of deep thinkers.
54.
54.
The Consciousness of Appearance.—How wonderfully and novelly, and at the same time how awfully and ironically, do I feel myself situated with respect to collective existence, with my knowledge! I have discovered for myself that the old humanity and animality, yea, the collective primeval age, and the past of all sentient being, continues to meditate, love, hate, and reason in me,—I have suddenly awoke in the midst of this dream, but merely to the consciousness that I just dream, and that I must dream on in order not to perish; just as the sleep-walker must dream on in order not to tumble down. What is it that is now "appearance" to me! Verily, not the antithesis of any kind of essence,—what knowledge can I assert of any kind of essence whatsoever, except merely the[Pg 89] predicates of its appearance! Verily not a dead mask which one could put upon an unknown X, and which to be sure one could also remove! Appearance is for me the operating and living thing itself; which goes so far in its self-mockery as to make me feel that here there is appearance, and Will o' the Wisp, and spirit-dance, and nothing more,—that among all these dreamers, I also, the "thinker," dance my dance, that the thinker is a means of prolonging further the terrestrial dance, and in so far is one of the masters of ceremony of existence, and that the sublime consistency and connectedness of all branches of knowledge is perhaps, and will perhaps, be the best means for maintaining the universality of the dreaming, the complete, mutual understandability of all those dreamers, and thereby the duration of the dream.
The Consciousness of Appearance.—How wonderfully and uniquely, yet at the same time how terrifyingly and ironically, do I find myself in relation to collective existence, with my awareness! I have realized that the ancient humanity and animal instincts, yes, the collective primordial age, and the history of all sentient beings, continues to think, love, hate, and reason through me—I have suddenly awakened in the middle of this dream, but only to the awareness that I am merely dreaming, and that I must keep dreaming in order to survive; just like a sleepwalker needs to keep dreaming to avoid falling. What is it that is now "appearance" to me? Truly, it is not the opposite of any kind of essence—what knowledge can I claim about any essence whatsoever, except merely the[Pg 89] qualities of its appearance! Certainly not a lifeless mask that could be placed on some unknown X, which could also be removed! Appearance is to me the active and living thing itself; it goes so far in its self-mockery as to make me aware that here there is appearance, and Will o' the Wisp, and spirit-dance, and nothing more—that among all these dreamers, I too, the "thinker," join the dance, that the thinker is a way of extending the earthly dance, and in that respect, is one of the masters of ceremony of existence, and that the sublime consistency and interconnectedness of all branches of knowledge is perhaps, and will perhaps, be the best strategy for maintaining the universality of dreaming, the complete, mutual understanding of all those dreamers, and thus the duration of the dream.
55.
55.
The Ultimate Nobility of Character.—What then makes a person "noble"? Certainly not that he makes sacrifices; even the frantic libertine makes sacrifices. Certainly not that he generally follows his passions; there are contemptible passions. Certainly not that he does something for others, and without selfishness; perhaps the effect of selfishness is precisely at its greatest in the noblest persons.—But that the passion which seizes the noble man is a peculiarity, without his knowing that it is so: the use of a rare and singular measuring-rod, almost a frenzy: the feeling of heat in things which feel cold to all other[Pg 90] persons: a divining of values for which scales have not yet been invented: a sacrificing on altars which are consecrated to an unknown God: a bravery without the desire for honour: a self-sufficiency which has superabundance, and imparts to men and things. Hitherto, therefore, it has been the rare in man, and the unconsciousness of this rareness, that has made men noble. Here, however, let us consider that everything ordinary, immediate, and indispensable, in short, what has been most preservative of the species, and generally the rule in mankind hitherto, has been judged unreasonable and calumniated in its entirety by this standard, in favour of the exceptions. To become the advocate of the rule—that may perhaps be: the ultimate form and refinement in which nobility of character will reveal itself on earth.
The Ultimate Nobility of Character.—So what makes a person "noble"? It's definitely not about making sacrifices; even a reckless libertine makes sacrifices. It's not just about following passions either, since some passions are pretty despicable. And it’s not solely about doing things for others selflessly; it might be that the impact of selfishness is actually strongest in the most noble individuals. Rather, the passion that drives a noble person is unique, often without their awareness: it’s like using a one-of-a-kind measuring stick, almost like a frenzy; it’s a sense of warmth in things that feel cold to others: an ability to perceive values that have no scale yet: a dedication to causes that are consecrated to an unknown God: a courage that seeks no glory: a self-reliance that’s overflowing and enriches people and things. Historically, then, it has been this rarity in humans, along with their unawareness of this rarity, that has defined nobility. However, let's consider that everything ordinary, immediate, and essential—basically what has helped humanity survive and what has been the general norm among people—has often been deemed unreasonable and criticized entirely by this standard, all in favor of the exceptions. To advocate for the norm—that could very well be the ultimate expression and refinement of how nobility of character will show itself on earth.
56.
56.
The Desire for Suffering.—When I think of the desire to do something, how it continually tickles and stimulates millions of young Europeans, who cannot endure themselves and all their ennui,—I conceive that there must be a desire in them to suffer something, in order to derive from their suffering a worthy motive for acting, for doing something. Distress is necessary! Hence the cry of the politicians, hence the many false trumped-up, exaggerated "states of distress" of all possible kinds, and the blind readiness to believe in them. This young world desires that there should arrive or appear from the outside—not happiness—but misfortune; and their imagination is already[Pg 91] busy beforehand to form a monster out of it, so that they may afterwards be able to fight with a monster. If these distress-seekers felt the power to benefit themselves, to do something for themselves from internal sources, they would also understand how to create a distress of their own, specially their own, from internal sources. Their inventions might then be more refined, and their gratifications might sound like good music: while at present they fill the world with their cries of distress, and consequently too often with the feeling of distress in the first place! They do not know what to make of themselves—and so they paint the misfortune of others on the wall; they always need others! And always again other others!—Pardon me, my friends, I have ventured to paint my happiness on the wall.
The Desire for Suffering.—When I think about the urge to do something, how it constantly excites and provokes millions of young Europeans who can’t stand themselves and all their boredom, I realize there must be a desire within them to suffer something. They want to take their suffering and turn it into a meaningful reason to act, to do something. Distress is crucial! Hence the outcry from politicians, hence the many fake, exaggerated “states of distress” of all kinds, and the blind willingness to believe in them. This young generation wants misfortune to come or appear from the outside—not happiness; they’re already[Pg 91] using their imagination to create a monster out of it, so they can later fight that monster. If these seekers of distress felt they had the power to help themselves, to do something for themselves from within, they would also know how to create their own particular distress from internal sources. Their inventions could then be more sophisticated, and their pleasures could sound like beautiful music; instead, they fill the world with their cries of distress and, too often, the feeling of distress in the first place! They don’t know what to do with themselves—so they paint the misfortunes of others on the wall; they always need others! And always need different others!—Forgive me, friends, I have taken the liberty to paint my happiness on the wall.
BOOK SECOND
57.
57.
To the Realists.—Ye sober beings, who feel yourselves armed against passion and fantasy, and would gladly make a pride and an ornament out of your emptiness, ye call yourselves realists, and give to understand that the world is actually constituted as it appears to you; before you alone reality stands unveiled, and ye yourselves would perhaps be the best part of it,—oh, ye dear images of Sais! But are not ye also in your unveiled condition still extremely passionate and dusky beings compared with the fish, and still all too like an enamoured artist?[1]—and what is "reality" to an enamoured artist! Ye still carry about with you the valuations of things which had their origin in the passions and infatuations of earlier centuries! There is still a secret and ineffaceable drunkenness embodied in your sobriety! Your love of "reality," for example—oh, that is an old, primitive "love"! In every feeling, in every sense-impression, there is a portion of this old love: and similarly also some kind of fantasy, prejudice, irrationality, ignorance, fear, and whatever else has become mingled and woven into it. There is that mountain! There is that cloud! What[Pg 96] is "real" in them? Remove the phantasm and the whole human element therefrom, ye sober ones! Yes, if ye could do that! If ye could forget your origin, your past, your preparatory schooling,—your whole history as man and beast! There is no "reality" for us—nor for you either, ye sober ones,—we are far from being so alien to one another as ye suppose; and perhaps our good-will to get beyond drunkenness is just as respectable as your belief that ye are altogether incapable of drunkenness.
To the Realists.—You serious folks, who think you're strong against passion and imagination, and would like to take pride in your emptiness, you call yourselves realists and imply that the world is truly set up the way you see it; to you alone, reality stands bare, and maybe you’re the best part of it—oh, you precious images of Sais! But aren't you, even in your bare state, still incredibly passionate and shadowy compared to the fish, and still way too similar to a lovesick artist?[1]—and what does "reality" mean to a lovesick artist! You still carry around the judgments of things that originated from the passions and obsessions of earlier times! There’s still a secret, indelible intoxication hidden within your sobriety! Your love of "reality," for instance—oh, that’s an ancient, primitive "love"! In every feeling, in every sensory experience, there's a part of this old love: and likewise some kind of fantasy, bias, irrationality, ignorance, fear, and whatever else has blended into it. There’s that mountain! There’s that cloud! What[Pg 96] is "real" about them? Strip away the illusion and the whole human element from them, you serious ones! Yes, if you could do that! If you could forget your beginnings, your history, your background—your entire story as human and animal! There’s no "reality" for us—nor for you either, you serious ones—we're not as distant from each other as you think; and maybe our willingness to break free from intoxication is just as admirable as your belief that you are completely incapable of it.
58.
58.
Only as Creators!—It has caused me the greatest trouble, and for ever causes me the greatest trouble, to perceive that unspeakably more depends upon what things are called, than on what they are. The reputation, the name and appearance, the importance, the usual measure and weight of things—each being in origin most frequently an error and arbitrariness thrown over the things like a garment, and quite alien to their essence and even to their exterior—have gradually, by the belief therein and its continuous growth from generation to generation, grown as it were on-and-into things and become their very body; the appearance at the very beginning becomes almost always the essence in the end, and operates as the essence! What a fool he would be who would think it enough to refer here to this origin and this nebulous veil of illusion, in order to annihilate that which virtually passes for the world—namely, so-called "reality"! It is only as[Pg 97] creators that we can annihilate!—But let us not forget this: it suffices to create new names and valuations and probabilities, in order in the long run to create new "things."
Only as Creators!—It has caused me immense trouble, and continues to do so, to realize that so much more depends on what things are called than on what they actually are. The reputation, the name and appearance, the importance, the usual measure and weight of things—each of these is often an error and randomness placed over them like a garment, completely separate from their essence and even from their surface—have slowly, through belief and its continuous growth from generation to generation, become integrated into things and turned into their very substance; the appearance that seems to be there at the start almost always ends up becoming the essence, and functions as the essence! What a fool one would be to think it’s enough to point out this origin and this hazy veil of illusion to destroy what essentially passes as the world—namely, the so-called "reality"! It is only as[Pg 97] creators that we can truly destroy!—But let’s not forget this: it’s enough to create new names and values and possibilities in order to eventually create new "things."
59.
59.
We Artists!—When we love a woman we have readily a hatred against nature, on recollecting all the disagreeable natural functions to which every woman is subject; we prefer not to think of them at all, but if once our soul touches on these things it twitches impatiently, and glances, as we have said, contemptuously at nature:—we are hurt; nature seems to encroach upon our possessions, and with the profanest hands. We then shut our ears against all physiology, and we decree in secret that "we will hear nothing of the fact that man is something else than soul and form!" "The man under the skin" is an abomination and monstrosity, a blasphemy of God and of love to all lovers.—Well, just as the lover still feels with respect to nature and natural functions, so did every worshipper of God and his "holy omnipotence" feel formerly: in all that was said of nature by astronomers, geologists, physiologists, and physicians, he saw an encroachment on his most precious possession, and consequently an attack,—and moreover also an impertinence of the assailant! The "law of nature" sounded to him as blasphemy against God; in truth he would too willingly have seen the whole of mechanics traced back to moral acts of volition and arbitrariness[Pg 98]:—but because nobody could render him this service, he concealed nature and mechanism from himself as best he could, and lived in a dream. Oh, those men of former times understood how to dream, and did not need first to go to sleep!—and we men of the present day also still understand it too well, with all our good-will for wakefulness and daylight! It suffices to love, to hate, to desire, and in general to feel immediately the spirit and the power of the dream come over us, and we ascend, with open eyes and indifferent to all danger, the most dangerous paths, to the roofs and towers of fantasy, and without any giddiness, as persons born for climbing—we the night-walkers by day! We artists! We concealers of naturalness! We moon-struck and God-struck ones! We death-silent, untiring wanderers on heights which we do not see as heights, but as our plains, as our places of safety!
We Artists!—When we love a woman, we often feel a resentment toward nature, recalling all the unpleasant natural processes every woman goes through; we'd rather not think about them at all. However, once our minds touch on these subjects, we get restless and look, as we've mentioned, at nature with contempt:—we feel hurt; nature seems like it's intruding on our territory, and in the crudest way possible. We then block out all biology, secretly deciding that "we won’t accept that man is anything other than soul and form!" "The man beneath the skin" is a horror and a monstrosity, a sacrilege against God and love for all lovers. Just as the lover feels about nature and natural processes, so did every worshipper of God and his "holy omnipotence" in the past: in everything astronomers, geologists, physiologists, and doctors said about nature, he perceived an invasion of his most cherished possession, and, therefore, an attack—and furthermore, an insult from the attacker! The "law of nature" sounded to him like blasphemy against God; indeed, he would have preferred to see all mechanics traced back to moral actions and free will[Pg 98]:—but since nobody could provide him that explanation, he hid nature and mechanics from himself as best he could and lived in a dream. Oh, those people from earlier times knew how to dream, and didn’t even need to sleep first!—and we people today still know how to do it, despite all our attempts to stay awake and in the light! It’s enough to love, to hate, to want, and generally to feel instantly the spirit and energy of the dream wash over us, and we ascend, with our eyes wide open and oblivious to all danger, the most treacherous paths, to the rooftops and towers of imagination, and without any dizziness, as those destined for climbing—we the night-walkers in daylight! We artists! We concealers of reality! We moon-struck and God-struck souls! We silent, tireless travelers on heights we don’t see as heights, but as our flatlands, as our safe havens!
60.
60.
Women and their Effect in the Distance.—Have I still ears? Am I only ear, and nothing else besides? Here I stand in the midst of the surging of the breakers, whose white flames fork up to my feet;—from all sides there is howling, threatening, crying, and screaming at me, while in the lowest depths the old earth-shaker sings his aria hollow like a roaring bull; he beats such an earth-shaker's measure thereto, that even the hearts of these weathered rock-monsters tremble at the sound. Then, suddenly, as if born out of nothingness,[Pg 99] there appears before the portal of this hellish labyrinth, only a few fathoms distant,—a great sailing-ship gliding silently along like a ghost. Oh, this ghostly beauty! With what enchantment it seizes me! What? Has all the repose and silence in the world embarked here? Does my happiness itself sit in this quiet place, my happier ego, my second immortalised self? Still not dead, but also no longer living? As a ghost-like, calm, gazing, gliding, sweeping, neutral being? Similar to the ship, which, with its white sails, like an immense butterfly, passes over the dark sea! Yes! Passing over existence! That is it! That would be it!—It seems that the noise here has made me a visionary? All great noise causes one to place happiness in the calm and the distance. When a man is in the midst of his hubbub, in the midst of the breakers of his plots and plans, he there sees perhaps calm, enchanting beings glide past him, for whose happiness and retirement he longs—they are women. He almost thinks that there with the women dwells his better self; that in these calm places even the loudest breakers become still as death, and life itself a dream of life. But still! but still! my noble enthusiast, there is also in the most beautiful sailing-ship so much noise and bustling, and alas, so much petty, pitiable bustling! The enchantment and the most powerful effect of women is, to use the language of philosophers, an effect at a distance, an actio in distans; there belongs thereto, however, primarily and above all,—distance![Pg 100]
Women and their Effect in the Distance.—Do I still have ears? Am I just ears, and nothing more? Here I stand in the midst of the crashing waves, their white foam reaching up to my feet; from every direction, there’s howling, threats, cries, and screams directed at me, while deep below, the old earth-shaker sings a hollow aria like a roaring bull; he keeps a rhythm so powerful that even these weathered rock giants tremble at the sound. Then, suddenly, as if appearing out of nowhere,[Pg 99] a large sailing ship materializes before the entrance of this hellish maze, just a few fathoms away,—gliding silently like a ghost. Oh, this ghostly beauty! How it captivates me! What? Has all the peace and quiet in the world come aboard here? Is my own happiness sitting in this tranquil spot, my happier self, my second, immortal self? Not dead, yet no longer alive? As a ghostly, calm, watching, gliding, sweeping, neutral being? Similar to the ship, which, with its white sails, like a huge butterfly, floats over the dark sea! Yes! Passing over existence! That’s it! That’s what it is!—It seems that the noise around me has turned me into a dreamer? All great noise leads one to find happiness in calm and distance. When a man is in the midst of his chaos, among the breakers of his schemes and plans, he might catch a glimpse of calm, enchanting beings gliding past him, for whose happiness and solitude he yearns—they are women. He almost imagines that with those women dwells his better self; that in these quiet places even the loudest waves become peaceful, and life itself becomes a dream of life. But still! But still! my noble dreamer, even the most beautiful sailing ship has its share of noise and bustle, and alas, so much trivial, pitiable fuss! The enchantment and the strongest effect of women is, to quote philosophers, an effect at a distance, an actio in distans; and inherent to that is, above all—distance![Pg 100]
6l.
6l.
In Honour of Friendship.—That the sentiment of friendship was regarded by antiquity as the highest sentiment, higher even than the most vaunted pride of the self-sufficient and wise, yea, as it were its sole and still holier brotherhood, is very well expressed by the story of the Macedonian king who made the present of a talent to a cynical Athenian philosopher from whom he received it back again. "What?" said the king, "has he then no friend?" He therewith meant to say, "I honour this pride of the wise and independent man, but I should have honoured his humanity still higher, if the friend in him had gained the victory over his pride. The philosopher has lowered himself in my estimation, for he showed that he did not know one of the two highest sentiments—and in fact the higher of them!"
In Honor of Friendship.—Ancient times viewed friendship as the greatest sentiment, even greater than the celebrated pride of the self-reliant and wise. This is well illustrated by the story of the Macedonian king who gifted a talent to a cynical Athenian philosopher, only to receive it back. "What?" asked the king, "does he have no friend?" He meant to convey, "I respect this pride of the wise and independent man, but I would respect his humanity even more if the friendship in him had triumphed over his pride. The philosopher has diminished in my eyes, for he revealed that he did not recognize one of the two highest sentiments—and indeed the higher of the two!"
62.
62.
Love.—Love pardons even the passion of the beloved.
Love.—Love forgives even the feelings of the one we adore.
63.
63.
Woman in Music—How does it happen that warm and rainy winds bring the musical mood and the inventive delight in melody with them? Are they not the same winds that fill the churches and give women amorous thoughts?
Woman in Music—How does it happen that warm and rainy winds bring the musical vibe and the creative joy of melody with them? Aren't they the same winds that fill the churches and inspire women with romantic thoughts?
64.
64.
Sceptics.—I fear that women who have grown old are more sceptical in the secret recesses of their[Pg 101] hearts than any of the men; they believe in the superficiality of existence as in its essence, and all virtue and profundity is to them only the disguising of this "truth," the very desirable disguising of a pudendum,—an affair, therefore, of decency and modesty, and nothing more!
Skeptics.—I worry that older women are more skeptical in the hidden corners of their[Pg 101] hearts than men. They see the superficial nature of life just as clearly as its essence, and all virtue and depth seem to them just a cover for this "truth"—a cover for something embarrassing, making it ultimately just a matter of decency and modesty, nothing more!
65.
65.
Devotedness.—There are noble women with a certain poverty of spirit, who, in order to express their profoundest devotedness, have no other alternative but to offer their virtue and modesty: it is the highest thing they have. And this present is often accepted without putting the recipient under such deep obligation as the giver supposed,—a very melancholy story!
Devotion.—There are noble women with a certain lack of spirit, who, in order to show their deepest devotion, have no other option but to offer their virtue and modesty: it is the best they have. And this gift is often received without putting the recipient under as great an obligation as the giver thought,—a very sad tale!
66.
66.
The Strength of the Weak.—Women are all skilful in exaggerating their weaknesses, indeed they are inventive in weaknesses, so as to seem quite fragile ornaments to which even a grain of dust does harm; their existence is meant to bring home to man's mind his coarseness, and to appeal to his conscience. They thus defend themselves against the strong and all "rights of might."
The Strength of the Weak.—Women are all skilled at exaggerating their weaknesses; in fact, they're quite creative in coming up with weaknesses to appear delicate, like fragile decorations that can be harmed by even a speck of dust. Their presence is meant to remind men of their roughness and to appeal to their conscience. In this way, they protect themselves against the strong and all forms of "might makes right."
67.
67.
Self-dissembling.—She loves him now and has since been looking forth with as quiet confidence as a cow; but alas! It was precisely his delight that she seemed so fitful and absolutely incomprehensible! He had rather too much steady weather[Pg 102] in himself already! Would she not do well to feign her old character? to feign indifference? Does not—love itself advise her to do so? Vivat comœdia!
Self-dissembling.—She loves him now and has been looking forward with a calm confidence like a cow; but sadly! It was exactly his pleasure that she seemed so unpredictable and completely confusing! He already had too much steady temperament[Pg 102] within him! Shouldn’t she pretend to be her old self? pretend to be indifferent? Doesn’t—love itself suggest that she should do so? Long live comedy!
68.
68.
Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man, and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."—"You are too tender-hearted towards women," said one of the bystanders, "you do not know them!" The wise man answered: "Man's attribute is will, woman's attribute is willingness—such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!"—"What about salve! What about gentleness!" called out another person in the crowd, "we must educate women better!"—"We must educate men better," said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him.—The youth, however, did not follow him.
Will and Willingness.—Someone brought a young man to a wise man and said, "Look, this is someone who's being led astray by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It's men," he replied, "who lead women astray; and everything that women lack should be corrected and improved in men—because men create the ideal of women for themselves, and women shape themselves according to that ideal."—"You're too soft on women," a bystander said, "you don't really know them!" The wise man responded: "A man's trait is will, while a woman's trait is willingness—this is how it is between the sexes, truly! A hard truth for women! All humans are innocent in their existence, but women are even more innocent; who could have enough compassion and kindness for them!"—"What about compassion! What about kindness!" shouted another person in the crowd, "We need to educate women better!"—"We need to educate men better," said the wise man, gesturing for the young man to follow him.—However, the young man did not follow him.
69.
69.
Capacity for Revenge—That a person cannot and consequently will not defend himself, does not yet cast disgrace upon him in our eyes; but[Pg 103] we despise the person who has neither the ability nor the good-will for revenge—whether it be a man or a woman. Would a woman be able to captivate us (or, as people say, to "fetter" us) whom we did not credit with knowing how to employ the dagger (any kind of dagger) skilfully against us under certain circumstances? Or against herself; which in a certain case might be the severest revenge (the Chinese revenge).
Capacity for Revenge—Just because someone can’t or won’t defend themselves doesn’t automatically make us look down on them; however, we do look down on someone who lacks both the ability and the desire for revenge—whether they’re male or female. Would a woman truly be able to attract us (or, as people say, to "trap" us) if we didn’t believe she could skillfully use a dagger (any kind of dagger) against us under certain circumstances? Or even against herself, which in some cases could be the harshest form of revenge (the Chinese revenge).
70.
70.
The Mistresses of the Masters—A powerful contralto voice, as we occasionally hear it in the theatre, raises suddenly for us the curtain on possibilities in which we usually do not believe; all at once we are convinced that somewhere in the world there may be women with high, heroic, royal souls, capable and prepared for magnificent remonstrances, resolutions, and self-sacrifices, capable and prepared for domination over men, because in them the best in man, superior to sex, has become a corporeal ideal. To be sure, it is not the intention of the theatre that such voices should give such a conception of women; they are usually intended to represent the ideal male lover, for example, a Romeo; but, to judge by my experience, the theatre regularly miscalculates here, and the musician also, who expects such effects from such a voice. People do not believe in these lovers; these voices still contain a tinge of the motherly and housewifely character, and most of all when love is in their tone.
The Mistresses of the Masters—A powerful contralto voice, like the ones we sometimes hear in theater, suddenly opens up possibilities we usually don’t believe in; we are instantly convinced that there may be women in the world with noble, heroic, royal souls, ready and able for great protests, strong decisions, and self-sacrifice, capable of dominating men, because within them resides the best of humanity, transcending gender, turned into a physical ideal. Of course, the theater doesn’t aim for such voices to create this view of women; they are typically meant to portray the ideal male lover, like Romeo, for instance. But, from my experience, the theater often gets this wrong, and so does the musician who anticipates such effects from that kind of voice. People don’t believe in these lovers; those voices still carry a hint of maternal and domestic qualities, especially when love is in their tone.
71.
71.
On Female Chastity.—There is something quite astonishing and extraordinary in the education of women of the higher class; indeed, there is perhaps nothing more paradoxical. All the world is agreed to educate them with as much ignorance as possible in eroticis, and to inspire their soul with a profound shame of such things, and the extremest impatience and horror at the suggestion of them. It is really here only that all the "honour" of woman is at stake; what would one not forgive them in other respects! But here they are intended to remain ignorant to the very backbone:—they are intended to have neither eyes, ears, words, nor thoughts for this, their "wickedness"; indeed knowledge here is already evil. And then! To be hurled as with an awful thunderbolt into reality and knowledge with marriage—and indeed by him whom they most love and esteem: to have to encounter love and shame in contradiction, yea, to have to feel rapture, abandonment, duty, sympathy, and fright at the unexpected proximity of God and animal, and whatever else besides! all at once!—There, in fact, a psychic entanglement has been effected which is quite unequalled! Even the sympathetic curiosity of the wisest discerner of men does not suffice to divine how this or that woman gets along with the solution of this enigma and the enigma of this solution; what dreadful, far-reaching suspicions must awaken thereby in the poor unhinged soul; and forsooth, how the ultimate philosophy and scepticism of the woman casts anchor at this[Pg 105] point!—Afterwards the same profound silence as before and often even a silence to herself, a shutting of her eyes to herself.—Young wives on that account make great efforts to appear superficial and thoughtless the most ingenious of them simulate a kind of impudence.—Wives easily feel their husbands as a question-mark to their honour, and their children as an apology or atonement,—they require children, and wish for them in quite another spirit than a husband wishes for them.—In short, one cannot be gentle enough towards women!
On Female Chastity.—There’s something really surprising and unusual about the education of upper-class women; in fact, there may be nothing more contradictory. Everyone agrees to educate them while keeping them as ignorant as possible in eroticis, filling their minds with deep shame about these topics, and instilling extreme impatience and horror at even the mention of them. This is genuinely where all of a woman’s "honor" is at stake; what wouldn’t people forgive them for in other areas! But here, they are expected to remain completely uninformed: they shouldn't have any awareness, thoughts, or words related to this "wickedness"; indeed, knowledge in this area is already seen as a sin. And then! Suddenly, they are struck like a terrifying thunderbolt with reality and knowledge through marriage—and with the very person they love and respect the most: they must face love and shame in conflict, feeling joy, abandonment, responsibility, compassion, and fear at the unexpected closeness of the divine and the animal, and everything else, all at once!—There, in fact, a psychological knot has been created that is truly unparalleled! Even the keenest observer of human nature can't quite grasp how each woman navigates the solution to this enigma and the enigma of this solution; what terrible, far-reaching suspicions must arise within the poor, troubled soul; and, indeed, how the woman’s ultimate philosophy and skepticism gravitate toward this[Pg 105] point!—Afterwards, the same deep silence returns as before, and often even a silence toward herself, an avoidance of self-reflection.—Young wives, therefore, try hard to seem superficial and thoughtless; the most clever among them even pretend to exhibit a kind of boldness.—Wives often feel their husbands as a question mark regarding their honor, and their children as a means of apology or compensation—they desire children and wish for them with a very different mindset than that with which a husband wishes for them.—In short, one cannot be gentle enough toward women!
72.
72.
Mothers.—Animals think differently from men with respect to females; with them the female is regarded as the productive being. There is no paternal love among them, but there is such a thing as love of the children of a beloved, and habituation to them. In the young, the females find gratification for their lust of dominion; the young are a property, an occupation, something quite comprehensible to them, with which they can chatter: all this conjointly is maternal love,—it is to be compared to the love of the artist for his work. Pregnancy has made the females gentler, more expectant, more timid, more submissively inclined; and similarly intellectual pregnancy engenders the character of the contemplative, who are allied to women in character:—they are the masculine mothers.—Among animals the masculine sex is regarded as the beautiful sex.
Mothers.—Animals think differently from humans when it comes to females; for them, the female is seen as the one that produces. There’s no paternal love in their world, but there is a form of love for the offspring of a beloved, along with a sense of attachment to them. In the young, females find satisfaction for their desire for control; the young are like property, an engagement, something they can easily relate to, with which they can interact: all of this combined is maternal love—it can be compared to the love an artist has for their work. Pregnancy makes female animals gentler, more hopeful, more timid, and more inclined to submit; in a similar way, intellectual engagement creates a contemplative nature that is akin to feminine traits: they are the masculine mothers. In the animal kingdom, the male sex is considered the more attractive sex.
73.
73.
Saintly Cruelty.—A man holding a newly born child in his hands came to a saint. "What should I do with this child," he asked, "it is wretched, deformed, and has not even enough of life to die" "Kill it," cried the saint with a dreadful voice, "kill it, and then hold it in thy arms for three days and three nights to brand it on thy memory:—thus wilt thou never again beget a child when it is not the time for thee to beget."—When the man had heard this he went away disappointed; and many found fault with the saint because he had advised cruelty; for he had advised to kill the child. "But is it not more cruel to let it live?" asked the saint.
Saintly Cruelty.—A man holding a newborn baby in his arms came to a saint. "What should I do with this baby?" he asked. "It’s miserable, deformed, and doesn’t even have enough life to die." "Kill it," the saint exclaimed in a terrible voice, "kill it, and then hold it in your arms for three days and three nights to engrave it in your memory:—this way, you will never again conceive a child when it’s not the right time for you to do so." When the man heard this, he left feeling disappointed; many criticized the saint for advising such cruelty, since he suggested killing the child. "But isn't it more cruel to let it live?" the saint asked.
74.
74.
The Unsuccessful—Those poor women always fail of success who become agitated and uncertain, and talk too much in presence of him whom they love; for men are most successfully seduced by a certain subtle and phlegmatic tenderness.
The Unsuccessful—Those poor women always fail to succeed when they become flustered and unsure, and talk too much in front of the man they love; because men are best seduced by a certain calm and gentle tenderness.
75.
75.
The Third Sex.—"A small man is a paradox, but still a man,—but a small woman seems to me to be of another sex in comparison with well-grown ones"—said an old dancing-master. A small woman is never beautiful—said old Aristotle.
The Third Sex.—"A short man is a contradiction, but he’s still a man—however, a short woman seems to belong to a different sex compared to taller ones," said an old dance instructor. A short woman is never beautiful—said old Aristotle.
76.
76.
The greatest Danger.—Had there not at all times been a larger number of men who regarded the[Pg 107] cultivation of their mind—their "rationality"—as their pride, their obligation, their virtue, and were injured or shamed by all play of fancy and extravagance of thinking—as lovers of "sound common sense":—mankind would long ago have perished! Incipient insanity has hovered, and hovers continually over mankind as its greatest danger: it is precisely the breaking out of inclination in feeling, seeing, and hearing; the enjoyment of the unruliness of the mind; the delight in human unreason. It is not truth and certainty that is the antithesis of the world of the insane, but the universality and all-obligatoriness of a belief, in short, non-voluntariness in forming opinions. And the greatest labour of human beings hitherto has been to agree with one another regarding a number of things, and to impose upon themselves a law of agreement—indifferent whether these things are true or false. This is the discipline of the mind which has preserved mankind;—but the counter-impulses are still so powerful that one can really speak of the future of mankind with little confidence. The ideas of things still continually shift and move, and will perhaps alter more than ever in the future; it is continually the most select spirits themselves who strive against universal obligatoriness—the investigators of truth above all! The accepted belief, as the belief of all the world, continually engenders a disgust and a new longing in the more ingenious minds; and already the slow tempo which it demands for all intellectual processes (the imitation of the tortoise, which is here recognised as the rule)[Pg 108] makes the artists and poets runaways:—it is in these impatient spirits that a downright delight in delirium breaks out, because delirium has such a joyful tempo! Virtuous intellects, therefore, are needed—ah! I want to use the least ambiguous word,—virtuous stupidity is needed, imperturbable conductors of the slow spirits are needed, in order that the faithful of the great collective belief may remain with one another and dance their dance further: it is a necessity of the first importance that here enjoins and demands. We others are the exceptions and the danger,—we eternally need protection—Well, there can actually be something said in favour of the exceptions provided that they never want to become the rule.
The greatest Danger.—If there hadn't always been a larger group of people who valued the[Pg 107] cultivation of their minds—their "rationality"—as their pride, obligation, and virtue, and who felt harmed or embarrassed by fanciful thinking and excess—those who cherish "sound common sense"—humanity would have perished long ago! The threat of insanity has always loomed over humanity as its greatest danger: it's the emergence of desires in feeling, seeing, and hearing; the enjoyment of mental chaos; the pleasure in human irrationality. Truth and certainty aren't the opposites of the world of the insane; rather, it's the universality and absolute necessity of belief, essentially a lack of choice in forming opinions. The biggest effort of humans so far has been to agree on various matters and to impose upon themselves a law of agreement—regardless of whether these matters are true or false. This mental discipline has saved humanity; however, the opposing forces are still so strong that one can hardly speak of the future of humanity with confidence. The concepts of things continuously shift and change, and they may change even more in the future; it's often the most exceptional minds themselves who resist universal obligation—especially the seekers of truth! The dominant belief, as the belief of everyone, consistently stirs up annoyance and a new desire in more inventive minds; and the slow tempo that it demands for all intellectual activities (the imitation of the tortoise, which is acknowledged as the standard)[Pg 108] makes artists and poets feel like runaways: it's in these restless spirits that a true delight in delirium emerges, because delirium has such an exhilarating tempo! Therefore, virtuous intellects are needed—ah! I want to use the least ambiguous word—virtuous stupidity is required, steady guides for the slow spirits are needed, so that the followers of the great collective belief can stick together and keep dancing their dance: this is of utmost importance, a necessity that demands attention. We others are the exceptions and the danger,—we eternally need protection—Well, there can actually be something said in favor of the exceptions as long as they never want to become the rule.
77.
77.
The Animal with good Conscience.—It is not unknown to me that there is vulgarity in everything that pleases Southern Europe—whether it be Italian opera (for example, Rossini's and Bellini's), or the Spanish adventure-romance (most readily accessible to us in the French garb of Gil Blas)—but it does not offend me, any more than the vulgarity which one encounters in a walk through Pompeii, or even in the reading of every ancient book: what is the reason of this? Is it because shame is lacking here, and because the vulgar always comes forward just as sure and certain of itself as anything noble, lovely, and passionate in the same kind of music or romance? "The animal has its rights like man, so let it run about freely; and you, my dear fellow-man,[Pg 109] are still this animal, in spite of all!"—that seems to me the moral of the case, and the peculiarity of southern humanity. Bad taste has its rights like good taste, and even a prerogative over the latter when it is the great requisite, the sure satisfaction, and as it were a universal language, an immediately intelligible mask and attitude; the excellent, select taste on the other hand has always something of a seeking, tentative character, not fully certain that it understands,—it is never, and has never been popular! The masque is and remains popular! So let all this masquerade run along in the melodies and cadences, in the leaps and merriment of the rhythm of these operas! Quite the ancient life! What does one understand of it, if one does not understand the delight in the masque, the good conscience of all masquerade! Here is the bath and the refreshment of the ancient spirit:—and perhaps this bath was still more necessary for the rare and sublime natures of the ancient world than for the vulgar.—On the other hand, a vulgar turn in northern works, for example in German music, offends me unutterably. There is shame in it, the artist has lowered himself in his own sight, and could not even avoid blushing: we are ashamed with him, and are so hurt because we surmise that he believed he had to lower himself on our account.
The Animal with Good Conscience.—I'm aware that there's a certain crudeness in everything that appeals to Southern Europe—whether it's Italian opera (like Rossini's and Bellini's) or the Spanish adventure-romance (most readily encountered in the French version of Gil Blas)—but it doesn't bother me, just like the crudeness you find while walking through Pompeii or even in reading ancient texts: what's behind this? Is it because there's a lack of shame here, and the crude explicitly comes forward with just as much confidence as anything noble, beautiful, and passionate in that same type of music or storytelling? "The animal has its rights just like man, so let it roam freely; and you, my dear fellow human,[Pg 109] are still this animal, despite everything!"—that seems to me the moral of the situation and the uniqueness of southern humanity. Bad taste has its rights just like good taste, and even holds an advantage over the latter when it’s the necessary element, the undeniable satisfaction, and serves as a universal language, an immediately recognizable mask and demeanor; excellent, refined taste, on the other hand, often has a searching, tentative quality, never completely sure that it gets it—it's never popular and never has been! The masque is and always will be popular! So let this masquerade continue in the melodies and rhythms, in the leaps and joy of these operas! Just like ancient life! What can you truly grasp about it if you don't appreciate the joy in the masquerade, the good conscience of all masquerading? This is the cleansing and revitalization of the ancient spirit:—and perhaps this renewal was even more essential for the rare and elevated natures of the ancient world than for the common folk.—On the other hand, a crass element in northern works, like in German music, deeply offends me. There’s shame in it; the artist has diminished himself in his own eyes and couldn't even help but feel embarrassed: we feel ashamed with him and are hurt because we suspect he thought he had to stoop to our level.
78.
78.
What we should be Grateful for.—It is only the artists, and especially the theatrical artists, who have furnished men with eyes and ears to hear and[Pg 110] see with some pleasure what everyone is in himself, what he experiences and aims at: it is only they who have taught us how to estimate the hero that is concealed in each of these common-place men, and the art of looking at ourselves from a distance as heroes, and as it were simplified and transfigured—the art of "putting ourselves on the stage" before ourselves. It is thus only that we get beyond some of the paltry details in ourselves! Without that art we should be nothing but foreground, and would live absolutely under the spell of the perspective which makes the closest and the commonest seem immensely large and like reality in itself.—Perhaps there is merit of a similar kind in the religion which commanded us to look at the sinfulness of every individual man with a magnifying-glass, and made a great, immortal criminal of the sinner; in that it put eternal perspectives around man, it taught him to see himself from a distance, and as something past, something entire.
What We Should Be Grateful For.—It is only the artists, especially the theatrical artists, who have given us the ability to hear and[Pg 110] see, with some enjoyment, what each person truly is, what they experience and strive for: it is only they who have shown us how to recognize the hero hidden in each of these ordinary people, and how to view ourselves from afar as heroes, simplified and transformed—the ability to "put ourselves on stage" before ourselves. This is the only way we can rise above the trivial details of our lives! Without that ability, we would be nothing but surface, living completely under the influence of the perspective that makes the closest and most ordinary seem overwhelmingly large and like reality itself.—Perhaps there is a similar value in the religion that urged us to examine everyone's sins with a magnifying glass, turning the sinner into a significant, immortal figure; it provided eternal perspectives surrounding man, teaching him to see himself from a distance, as something in the past, as a whole.
79.
79.
The Charm of Imperfection.—I see here a poet, who, like so many men, exercises a higher charm by his imperfections than by all that is rounded off and takes perfect shape under his hands,—indeed, he derives his advantage and reputation far more from his actual limitations than from his abundant powers. His work never expresses altogether what he would really like to express, what he would like to have seen: he appears to have had the foretaste of a vision and never the vision[Pg 111] itself:—but an extraordinary longing for this vision has remained in his soul; and from this he derives his equally extraordinary eloquence of longing and craving. With this he raises those who listen to him above his work and above all "works," and gives them wings to rise higher than hearers have ever risen before, thus making them poets and seers themselves; they then show an admiration for the originator of their happiness, as if he had led them immediately to the vision of his holiest and ultimate verities, as if he had reached his goal, and had actually seen and communicated his vision. It is to the advantage of his reputation that he has not really arrived at his goal.
The Charm of Imperfection.—I see a poet here who, like so many others, possesses a greater allure through his imperfections than through anything that is polished and perfectly shaped by his hands. In fact, he gains his advantage and reputation much more from his actual limitations than from his abundant talents. His work never fully conveys what he truly wishes to express, what he wants to have seen: it seems he has only caught a glimpse of a vision and never the vision[Pg 111] itself. Yet, a remarkable yearning for this vision remains in his soul, and from this, he draws his equally remarkable eloquence of longing and desire. With this, he elevates those who listen to him beyond his work and all "works," giving them wings to soar higher than any listeners have ever soared before, thus turning them into poets and seers themselves. They then express admiration for the source of their joy, as if he had directly led them to the vision of his deepest and ultimate truths, as if he had reached his destination and had actually seen and shared his vision. His reputation benefits from the fact that he hasn’t truly reached his destination.
80.
80.
Art and Nature.—The Greeks (or at least the Athenians) liked to hear good talking: indeed they had an eager inclination for it, which distinguished them more than anything else from non-Greeks. And so they required good talking even from passion on the stage, and submitted to the unnaturalness of dramatic verse with delight:—in nature, forsooth, passion is so sparing of words! so dumb and confused! Or if it finds words, so embarrassed and irrational and a shame to itself! We have now, all of us, thanks to the Greeks, accustomed ourselves to this unnaturalness on the stage, as we endure that other unnaturalness, the singing passion, and willingly endure it, thanks to the Italians.—It has become a necessity to us, which we cannot satisfy out of the resources of actuality, to hear men talk well and in full detail in the most[Pg 112] trying situations: it enraptures us at present when the tragic hero still finds words, reasons, eloquent gestures, and on the whole a bright spirituality, where life approaches the abysses, and where the actual man mostly loses his head, and certainly his fine language. This kind of deviation from nature is perhaps the most agreeable repast for man's pride: he loves art generally on account of it, as the expression of high, heroic unnaturalness and convention. One rightly objects to the dramatic poet when he does not transform everything into reason and speech, but always retains a remnant of silence:—just as one is dissatisfied with an operatic musician who cannot find a melody for the highest emotion, but only an emotional, "natural" stammering and crying. Here nature has to be contradicted! Here the common charm of illusion has to give place to a higher charm! The Greeks go far, far in this direction—frightfully far! As they constructed the stage as narrow as possible and dispensed with all the effect of deep backgrounds, as they made pantomime and easy motion impossible to the actor, and transformed him into a solemn, stiff, masked bogey, so they have also deprived passion itself of its deep background, and have dictated to it a law of fine talk; indeed, they have really done everything to counteract the elementary effect of representations that inspire pity and terror: they did not want pity and terror,—with due deference, with the highest deference to Aristotle! but he certainly did not hit the nail, to say nothing of the head of the nail, when he spoke about the[Pg 113] final aim of Greek tragedy! Let us but look at the Grecian tragic poets with respect to what most excited their diligence, their inventiveness, and their emulation,—certainly it was not the intention of subjugating the spectators by emotion! The Athenian went to the theatre to hear fine talking! And fine talking was arrived at by Sophocles!—pardon me this heresy!—It is very different with serious opera: all its masters make it their business to prevent their personages being understood. "An occasional word picked up may come to the assistance of the inattentive listener; but on the whole the situation must be self-explanatory,—the talking is of no account!"—so they all think, and so they have all made fun of the words. Perhaps they have only lacked courage to express fully their extreme contempt for words: a little additional insolence in Rossini, and he would have allowed la-la-la-la to be sung throughout—and it might have been the rational course! The personages of the opera are not meant to be believed "in their words," but in their tones! That is the difference, that is the fine unnaturalness on account of which people go to the opera! Even the recitativo secco is not really intended to be heard as words and text: this kind of half-music is meant rather in the first place to give the musical ear a little repose (the repose from melody, as from the sublimest, and on that account the most straining enjoyment of this art),—but very soon something different results, namely, an increasing impatience, an increasing resistance, a new longing for entire music, for melody.—How is it with the art of[Pg 114] Richard Wagner as seen from this standpoint? Is it perhaps the same? Perhaps otherwise? It would often seem to me as if one needed to have learned by heart both the words and the music of his creations before the performances; for without that—so it seemed to me—me may hear neither the words, nor even the music.
Art and Nature.—The Greeks (or at least the Athenians) loved to hear good conversations: in fact, they had a strong appetite for it, which set them apart from non-Greeks. They expected well-spoken dialogue even from passion on stage and happily accepted the artificiality of dramatic verse, since in real life, passion is often so short on words! It’s so mute and confused! Or if it does find words, they’re often awkward and irrational, and a source of shame! Thanks to the Greeks, we’ve all gotten used to this kind of artificiality in theater, just as we tolerate that other kind of artificiality, the singing passion, and we accept it willingly, thanks to the Italians. It’s become a necessity for us to hear men speak eloquently and in detail even in the most[Pg 112] challenging situations: it thrills us today when the tragic hero still finds the words, reasons, and eloquent gestures, embodying a vibrant spirit, especially when life edges toward despair, and where a real person would likely lose their composure and certainly their eloquence. This kind of deviation from nature might be the most enjoyable feast for human pride: people generally love art for this reason—as an expression of elevated, heroic artificiality and convention. It's only natural to fault a playwright who doesn’t transform everything into clear reason and speech, but instead leaves some fragments of silence:—just as we feel dissatisfied with an opera composer who can’t find a melody for the deepest emotion, but resorts instead to emotional, "natural" stammering and weeping. Here, nature must be contradicted! The common allure of illusion must yield to a higher allure! The Greeks really pushed this far—terribly far! They designed the stage to be as narrow as possible and stripped away the impact of deep backdrops, making it impossible for the actor to use pantomime or fluid movement, transforming them instead into a solemn, stiff, masked figure. They also stripped passion of its depth and imposed a law of articulate speech upon it; indeed, they did everything possible to counter the basic emotional impact of performances that evoke pity and fear: they didn’t want pity and fear,—with all due respect to Aristotle! but he certainly didn’t hit the mark, not to mention the nail's head, when he discussed the[Pg 113] ultimate goal of Greek tragedy! Just look at the Greek tragic poets in terms of what most motivated their creativity, imagination, and competition—certainly it wasn’t the aim of overwhelming the audience with emotion! The Athenian went to the theater to hear elegant dialogue! And elegant dialogue was delivered by Sophocles!—forgive my heresy!—It’s a different story with serious opera: all its masters work to keep their characters incomprehensible. "An occasional word caught may help the inattentive listener; but overall, the situation must be self-explanatory—the talking doesn’t matter!"—that’s the consensus, and they have all poked fun at the words. Perhaps they’ve just lacked the courage to fully express their utter disdain for words: a bit more audacity from Rossini, and he could have had la-la-la-la sung throughout—and that might have been the logical choice! The characters in opera are not meant to be believed "in their words," but rather in their melodies! That’s the distinction, that’s the fine unnaturalness that draws people to the opera! Even the recitativo secco isn’t really intended to be perceived as words: this kind of half-music does serve primarily to give the musical ear a bit of rest (a break from melody, which is the most profound, and therefore the most intense pleasure this art can offer)—but then something different occurs, namely, an increasing impatience, growing resistance, a new longing for full music, for melody.—How does the art of[Pg 114] Richard Wagner fit into this perspective? Is it perhaps the same? Or is it different? It often seems to me as if one needed to memorize both the words and the music of his works before attending performances; for without that—so it appeared to me—one cannot hear either the words or even the music.
81.
81.
Grecian Taste—"What is beautiful in it?"—asked a certain geometrician, after a performance of the Iphigenia—"there is nothing proved in it!" Could the Greeks have been so far from this taste? In Sophocles at least "everything is proved."
Grecian Taste—"What's beautiful about it?"—asked a certain mathematician after watching the Iphigenia—"there's nothing proven in it!" Could the Greeks really have been so disconnected from this idea of beauty? In Sophocles, at least, "everything is proven."
82.
82.
Esprit Un-Grecian.—The Greeks were exceedingly logical and plain in all their thinking; they did not get tired of it, at least during their long flourishing period, as is so often the case with the French; who too willingly made a little excursion into the opposite, and in fact endure the spirit of logic only when it betrays its sociable courtesy, its sociable self-renunciation, by a multitude of such little excursions into its opposite. Logic appears to them as necessary as bread and water, but also like these as a kind of prison-fare, as soon as it is to be taken pure and by itself. In good society one must never want to be in the right absolutely and solely, as all pure logic requires; hence the little dose of irrationality in all French esprit.—The social sense of the Greeks was far less developed than that of the French in the[Pg 115] present and the past; hence, so little esprit in their cleverest men, hence, so little wit, even in their wags, hence—alas! But people will not readily believe these tenets of mine, and how much of the kind I have still on my soul!—Est res magna tacere—says Martial, like all garrulous people.
Esprit Un-Grecian.—The Greeks were incredibly logical and straightforward in their thinking; they didn’t tire of it, at least during their long period of prosperity, unlike the French, who often strayed from this path. They tend to embrace a bit of the opposite, accepting logic only when it allows for a bit of sociable courtesy or selflessness, leading to many small detours into the irrational. To them, logic feels as necessary as bread and water, yet like these essentials, it can seem like being served mundane prison food when taken in its pure form. In polite society, one should never insist on being right in an absolute sense, as pure logic demands; thus, there's a bit of irrationality in all French esprit.—The Greeks had a less developed social awareness compared to the French in the[Pg 115] present and the past; this explains the lack of esprit among their smartest individuals, the scarcity of wit even among their jesters, and for that, alas! But people are often reluctant to accept these views of mine, and I carry many such beliefs in my soul!—Est res magna tacere—says Martial, like all chatty people.
83.
83.
Translations.—One can estimate the amount of the historical sense which an age possesses by the way in which it makes translations and seeks to embody in itself past periods and literatures. The French of Corneille, and even the French of the Revolution, appropriated Roman antiquity in a manner for which we would no longer have the courage—owing to our superior historical sense. And Roman antiquity itself: how violently, and at the same time how naïvely, did it lay its hand on everything excellent and elevated belonging to the older Grecian antiquity! How they translated these writings into the Roman present! How they wiped away intentionally and unconcernedly the wing-dust of the butterfly moment! It is thus that Horace now and then translated Alcæus or Archilochus, it is thus that Propertius translated Callimachus and Philetas (poets of equal rank with Theocritus, if we be allowed to judge): of what consequence was it to them that the actual creator experienced this and that, and had inscribed the indication thereof in his poem!—as poets they were averse to the antiquarian, inquisitive spirit which precedes the historical sense; as poets they did not respect those essentially[Pg 116] personal traits and names, nor anything peculiar to city, coast, or century, such as its costume and mask, but at once put the present and the Roman in its place. They seem to us to ask: "Should we not make the old new for ourselves, and adjust ourselves to it? Should we not be allowed to inspire this dead body with our soul? for it is dead indeed: how loathsome is everything dead!"—They did not know the pleasure of the historical sense; the past and the alien was painful to them, and as Romans it was an incitement to a Roman conquest. In fact, they conquered when they translated,—not only in that they omitted the historical: they added also allusions to the present; above all, they struck out the name of the poet and put their own in its place—not with the feeling of theft, but with the very best conscience of the Imperium Romanum.
Translations.—You can gauge the historical awareness of an age by how it approaches translations and tries to integrate past eras and literatures into its own. The French of Corneille, and even the French during the Revolution, took inspiration from Roman antiquity in a way that we wouldn’t dare today—thanks to our greater historical awareness. And Roman antiquity itself: how aggressively, yet also how innocently, it borrowed everything great and noble from earlier Greek antiquity! They transformed these writings into the Roman context! They deliberately and carelessly brushed aside the fleeting nature of the moment! This is how Horace sometimes reinterpreted Alcæus or Archilochus, and how Propertius reinterpreted Callimachus and Philetas (poets on par with Theocritus, if we are allowed to say so): what did it matter to them that the original creator felt this or that, and recorded those experiences in their poetry!—as poets, they rejected the antiquarian curiosity that precedes genuine historical awareness; they didn’t honor those distinctly[Pg 116] personal traits and names, or anything unique to a specific city, coast, or century, like its dress and identity, but instead immediately placed the present and the Roman in priority. They seem to ask: "Shouldn’t we reinvent the old for ourselves, and mold ourselves to it? Shouldn’t we be allowed to breathe life into this lifeless body? Because it is indeed dead: how revolting is everything lifeless!"—They didn’t experience the joy of historical awareness; the past and the foreign were burdensome to them, and as Romans, it spurred them to conquer. In fact, they achieved victory in their translations—not only by overlooking the historical context, but also by adding references to their present; most importantly, they replaced the original poet’s name with their own—not with a sense of theft, but with the utmost pride of the Imperium Romanum.
84.
84.
The Origin of Poetry.—The lovers of the fantastic in man, who at the same time represent the doctrine of instinctive morality, draw this conclusion: "Granted that utility has been honoured at all times as the highest divinity, where then in all the world has poetry come from?—this rhythmising of speech which thwarts rather than furthers plainness of communication, and which, nevertheless, has sprung up everywhere on the earth, and still springs up, as a mockery of all useful purpose! The wildly beautiful irrationality of poetry refutes you, ye utilitarians! The wish to get rid of utility in some way—that is precisely what has elevated[Pg 117] man, that is what has inspired him to morality and art!" Well, I must here speak for once to please the utilitarians,—they are so seldom in the right that it is pitiful! In the old times which called poetry into being, people had still utility in view with respect to it, and a very important utility—at the time when rhythm was introduced into speech, that force which arranges all the particles of the sentence anew, commands the choosing of the words, recolours the thought, and makes it more obscure, more foreign, and more distant: to be sure a superstitious utility! It was intended that a human entreaty should be more profoundly impressed upon the Gods by virtue of rhythm, after it had been observed that men could remember a verse better than an unmetrical speech. It was likewise thought that people could make themselves audible at greater distances by the rhythmical beat; the rhythmical prayer seemed to come nearer to the ear of the Gods. Above all, however, people wanted to have the advantage of the elementary conquest which man experiences in himself when he hears music: rhythm is a constraint; it produces an unconquerable desire to yield, to join in; not only the step of the foot, but also the soul itself follows the measure,—probably the soul of the Gods also, as people thought! They attempted, therefore, to constrain the Gods by rhythm, and to exercise a power over them; they threw poetry around the Gods like a magic noose. There was a still more wonderful idea, and it has perhaps operated most powerfully of all in the originating of poetry. Among the[Pg 118] Pythagoreans it made its appearance as a philosophical doctrine and as an artifice of teaching: but long before there were philosophers music was acknowledged to possess the power of unburdening the emotions, of purifying the soul, of soothing the ferocia animi—and this was owing to the rhythmical element in music. When the proper tension and harmony of the soul were lost a person had to dance to the measure of the singer,—that was the recipe of this medical art. By means of it Terpander quieted a tumult, Empedocles calmed a maniac, Damon purged a love-sick youth; by means of it even the maddened, revengeful Gods were treated for the purpose of a cure. This was effected by driving the frenzy and wantonness of their emotions to the highest pitch, by making the furious mad, and the revengeful intoxicated with vengeance all the orgiastic cults seek to discharge the ferocia of a deity all at once, and thus make an orgy, so that the deity may feel freer and quieter afterwards, and leave man in peace. Melos, according to its root, signifies a soothing agency, not because the song is gentle itself, but because its after-effect is gentle.—And not only in the religious song, but also in the secular song of the most ancient times, the prerequisite is that the rhythm should exercise a magical influence; for example, in drawing water, or in rowing: the song is for the enchanting of the spirits supposed to be active thereby; it makes them obliging, involuntary and the instruments of man. And as often as a person acts he has occasion to sing, every action is dependent on the assistance of spirits:[Pg 119] magic song and incantation appear to be the original form of poetry. When verse also came to be used in oracles—the Greeks said that the hexameter was invented at Delphi,—the rhythm was here also intended to exercise a compulsory influence. To make a prophecy—that means originally (according to what seems to me the probable derivation of the Greek word) to determine something; people thought they could determine the future by winning Apollo over to their side: he who, according to the most ancient idea, is far more than a foreseeing deity. According as the formula is pronounced with literal and rhythmical correctness, it determines the future: the formula, however, is the invention of Apollo, who as the God of rhythm, can also determine the goddesses of fate—Looked at and investigated as a whole, was there ever anything more serviceable to the ancient superstitious species of human being than rhythm? People could do everything with it: they could make labour go on magically; they could compel a God to appear, to be near at hand, and listen to them; they could arrange the future for themselves according to their will; they could unburden their own souls of any kind of excess (of anxiety, of mania, of sympathy, of revenge), and not only their own souls, but the souls of the most evil spirits,—without verse a person was nothing, by means of verse a person became almost a God. Such a fundamental feeling no longer allows itself to be fully eradicated,—and even now, after millenniums of long labour in combating such superstition, the very wisest of us occasionally becomes the[Pg 120] fool of rhythm, be it only that one perceives a thought to be truer when it has a metrical form and approaches with a divine hopping. Is it not a very funny thing that the most serious philosophers, however anxious they are in other respects for strict certainty, still appeal to poetical sayings in order to give their thoughts force and credibility? and yet it is more dangerous to a truth when the poet assents to it than when he contradicts it! For, as Homer says, "Minstrels speak much falsehood!"—
The Origin of Poetry.— Those who embrace the fantastic in humanity also represent the idea of instinctive morality and conclude: "Sure, utility has always been seen as the top priority, but where has poetry come from in the world?—this rhythmic form of speech that complicates rather than simplifies communication, yet still emerges everywhere on Earth, and continues to do so, mocking all practical purposes! The wildly beautiful absurdity of poetry refutes you, utilitarians! The desire to escape utility in some way—that's what has elevated[Pg 117] humanity, that’s what has inspired us toward morality and art!" Now, I must speak just once to please the utilitarians—they are so rarely right that it’s tragic! In the earlier times that gave rise to poetry, people did consider utility very important—when rhythm was introduced into speech, that force which reorganizes all parts of a sentence, chooses the words, reshapes thoughts, and makes them more obscure, foreign, and distant: indeed a superstitious utility! It was believed that a human plea would impress the Gods more deeply through rhythm, as it was noticed that people could remember verses better than non-metrical speech. It was also thought that people could be heard from greater distances through rhythmic cadence; rhythmic prayer seemed to reach the Gods' ears more clearly. More than anything, people sought the advantage of the primal conquest experienced within themselves when hearing music: rhythm is a constraint; it creates an irresistible urge to give in, to join in; not only does the foot follow the beat, but the soul does too—maybe even the souls of the Gods, as people believed! Therefore, they tried to constrain the Gods with rhythm and assert control over them; they wrapped poetry around the Gods like a magical snare. There was an even more astonishing idea, one that might have had the most significant impact on the emergence of poetry. Among the[Pg 118] Pythagoreans, it appeared as both a philosophical doctrine and a teaching device: but long before philosophers, music was recognized for its ability to unburden emotions, purify the soul, and soothe the ferocia animi—thanks to the rhythmic element in music. When the natural tension and harmony of the soul were lost, a person had to dance to the singer’s rhythm—that was the remedy of this art. Through it, Terpander calmed a riot, Empedocles soothed a madman, and Damon cured a love-sick youth; even the furious, vengeful Gods were treated for healing. This was done by amplifying the frenzy and wildness of their emotions to the utmost, making the enraged furious and the vengeful intoxicated with revenge—all the ecstatic rituals aimed to purge a deity’s ferocia at once, resulting in an orgy, allowing the deity to feel freer and calmer afterward, leaving humans in peace. Melos, by its root, signifies a calming influence, not because the song itself is gentle, but because its aftermath is soothing.—And not just in religious song, but also in the ancient secular songs, the prerequisite is that rhythm should have a magical impact; for example, when drawing water or rowing: the song enchants the spirits believed to be engaged, making them accommodating, involuntary, and at the service of humans. As often as someone acts, there's a need to sing; every action relies on the help of spirits:[Pg 119] magical songs and incantations seem to represent the original form of poetry. When verse also began to be used in oracles—the Greeks claimed that the hexameter was invented at Delphi—the rhythm was also meant to hold a compulsory influence. To make a prophecy—that originally meant (according to what seems to be the likely derivation of the Greek word) to define something; people believed they could shape the future by winning Apollo over to their side: he who, according to ancient belief, is much more than a merely foresight deity. The formula's pronunciation with both literal and rhythmic precision determines the future: this formula, however, is an invention of Apollo, who as the God of rhythm, can also influence the fates of the goddesses—Looking at and examining it as a whole, was there ever anything more useful to the ancient superstitious types of humanity than rhythm? People could accomplish everything with it: they could magically make labor progress; they could summon a God to appear, to be present, and pay attention; they could shape their futures according to their desires; they could expel any excess from their souls (of stress, mania, sympathy, or revenge), and not just their own souls, but even the souls of the most malevolent spirits—without verse, a person was nothing; through verse, a person could nearly become a God. Such a fundamental feeling can’t be entirely erased—and even now, after thousands of years of trying to combat such superstition, even the wisest among us occasionally becomes the[Pg 120] fool of rhythm, if only because one perceives a thought to be truer when it has a metrical form and dances with a divine rhythm. Isn't it quite amusing that the most serious philosophers, despite their usual emphasis on strict certainty, still turn to poetic sayings to give their thoughts weight and credibility? Yet it's more dangerous to a truth when the poet agrees with it than when he disagrees! For, as Homer says, "Minstrels speak much falsehood!"—
85.
85.
The Good and the Beautiful.—Artists, glorify continually—they do nothing else,—and indeed they glorify all those conditions and things that have a reputation, so that man may feel himself good or great, or intoxicated, or merry, or pleased and wise by it. Those select things and conditions whose value for human happiness is regarded as secure and determined, are the objects of artists: they are ever lying in wait to discover such things, to transfer them into the domain of art. I mean to say that they are not themselves the valuers of happiness and of the happy ones, but they always press close to these valuers with the greatest curiosity and longing, in order immediately to use their valuations advantageously. As besides their impatience, they have also the big lungs of heralds and the feet of runners, they are generally always among the first to glorify the new excellency, and often seem to be the first who have called it good and valued it as good. This,[Pg 121] however, as we have said, is an error; they are only faster and louder than the actual valuers:—And who then are these?—They are the rich and the leisurely.
The Good and the Beautiful.—Artists are always in the business of glorifying—they do nothing else—and they celebrate all those things and conditions that have a good reputation, so that people can feel good, great, intoxicated, cheerful, or wise because of them. Those select things and conditions that are seen as secure and guaranteed for human happiness are what artists focus on: they are always on the lookout to discover such things and bring them into the world of art. What I mean is, they don’t determine what happiness is or who is happy, but they constantly hover around those who do, with intense curiosity and desire, in order to use their perspectives to their advantage. With their impatience, they also have the loud voices of announcers and the speed of runners, so they are usually among the first to praise the new excellence, and they often seem to be the ones who have recognized it as good first. This,[Pg 121] as we've mentioned, is a mistake; they are just faster and louder than the actual judges of value:—So who are these judges?—They are the wealthy and the idle.
86.
86.
The Theatre.—This day has given me once more strong and elevated sentiments, and if I could have music and art in the evening, I know well what music and art I should not like to have; namely, none of that which would fain intoxicate its hearers and excite them to a crisis of strong and high feeling,—those men with commonplace souls, who in the evening are not like victors on triumphal cars, but like tired mules to whom life has rather too often applied the whip. What would those men at all know of "higher moods," unless there were expedients for causing ecstasy and idealistic strokes of the whip!—and thus they have their inspirers as they have their wines. But what is their drink and their drunkenness to me! Does the inspired one need wine? He rather looks with a kind of disgust at the agency and the agent which are here intended to produce an effect without sufficient reason,—an imitation of the high tide of the soul! What? One gives the mole wings and proud fancies—before going to sleep, before he creeps into his hole? One sends him into the theatre and puts great magnifying-glasses to his blind and tired eyes? Men, whose life is not "action" but business, sit in front of the stage and look at strange beings to whom life is more than business? "This is proper," you say, "this[Pg 122] is entertaining, this is what culture wants!"—Well then! culture is too often lacking in me, for this sight is too often disgusting to me. He who has enough of tragedy and comedy in himself surely prefers to remain away from the theatre; or as an exception, the whole procedure—theatre and public and poet included—becomes for him a truly tragic and comic play, so that the performed piece counts for little in comparison. He who is something like Faust and Manfred, what does it matter to him about the Fausts and Manfreds of the theatre!—while it certainly gives him something to think about that such figures are brought into the theatre at all. The strongest thoughts and passions before those who are not capable of thought and passion—but of intoxication only! And those as a means to this end! And theatre and music the hashish-smoking and betel-chewing of Europeans! Oh, who will narrate to us the whole history of narcotics!—It is almost the history of "culture," the so-called higher culture!
The Theatre.—This day has once again filled me with strong and uplifting feelings, and if I could have music and art in the evening, I know exactly what I would not want; that is, none of the stuff that would try to intoxicate its listeners and stir them into a frenzy of intense emotions—those people with average souls, who in the evening are not like champions in victory parades, but more like exhausted mules often beaten down by life. What would those people know about "higher moods," unless there were tricks to create ecstasy and unrealistic bursts of passion?—and so they have their inspirers just like they have their drinks. But what is their drink and their drunkenness to me! Does the inspired one need wine? He instead looks at the means and the individuals intended to create an effect without proper cause—with disdain, an imitation of true emotional highs! What? One gives the mole wings and grand ambitions—before it goes to sleep, before it crawls back into its hole? One takes it to the theatre and places huge magnifying glasses in front of its blind and weary eyes? People whose lives aren’t about "action" but just business sit in front of the stage, gazing at strange beings for whom life is more than just a paycheck? "This is fitting," you say, "this[Pg 122] is entertaining, this is what culture desires!"—Well then! Culture is often missing in me because this scene is often repulsive to me. Anyone who has enough tragedy and comedy within themselves surely prefers to stay away from the theatre, or as a rare exception, the entire affair—the theatre, the audience, and the poet—turns for them into a genuinely tragic and comic performance, making the actual piece seem insignificant. For someone like Faust or Manfred, what do the Fausts and Manfreds of the theatre matter to him?—though it does give him something to ponder that such characters even make it to the stage. The most powerful ideas and emotions presented to those who are not capable of thought and passion—but only of intoxication! And those as a means to this end! And theatre and music are the hashish and betel of Europe! Oh, who will tell us the full history of narcotics!—It is almost the history of "culture," the so-called higher culture!
87.
87.
The Conceit of Artists.I think artists often do not know what they can do best, because they are too conceited, and have set their minds on something loftier than those little plants appear to be, which can grow up to perfection on their soil, fresh, rare, and beautiful. The final value of their own garden and vineyard is superciliously underestimated by them, and their love and their insight are not of the same quality. Here is a musician, who, more than any one else, has the genius for[Pg 123] discovering the tones peculiar to suffering, oppressed, tortured souls, and who can endow even dumb animals with speech. No one equals him in the colours of the late autumn, in the indescribably touching happiness of a last, a final, and all too short enjoyment; he knows a chord for those secret and weird midnights of the soul when cause and effect seem out of joint, and when every instant something may originate "out of nothing." He draws his resources best of all out of the lower depths of human happiness, and so to speak, out of its drained goblet, where the bitterest and most nauseous drops have ultimately, for good or for ill, commingled with the sweetest. He knows the weary shuffling along of the soul which can no longer leap or fly, yea, not even walk; he has the shy glance of concealed pain, of understanding without comfort, of leave-taking without avowal; yea, as the Orpheus of all secret misery, he is greater than anyone; and in fact much has been added to art by him which was hitherto inexpressible and not even thought worthy of art, and which was only to be scared away, by words, and not grasped many small and quite microscopic features of the soul: yes, he is the master of miniature. But he does not wish to be so! His character is more in love with large walls and daring frescoes! He fails to see that his spirit has a different taste and inclination, and prefers to sit quietly in the corners of ruined houses:—concealed in this way, concealed even from himself, he there paints his proper masterpieces, all of which are very short, often only one bar in length,—there only does he become quite[Pg 124] good, great, and perfect, perhaps there only.—But he does not know it! He is too conceited to know it.
The Conceit of Artists. I think artists often don't realize what they're truly capable of because they are too full of themselves and aim for something higher than what their small creations can achieve, which can thrive perfectly in their own environment, unique, rare, and beautiful. They underestimate the true value of their own work, and their passion and insight aren't on the same level. Here’s a musician who, more than anyone else, has the gift for[Pg 123] capturing the sounds of suffering, tortured souls, and can even give voice to mute animals. No one matches him in the colors of late autumn or in the indescribable, bittersweet joy of a final, fleeting moment; he knows a chord for those mysterious, dark nights when cause and effect feel misaligned, and where something can emerge "out of nothing" at any moment. He draws his inspiration from the deepest levels of human happiness, mixing the bitter and nauseating drops with the sweetest from an empty cup. He understands the weary shuffle of a soul that can no longer leap or fly, or even walk; he captures the fleeting glance of hidden pain, of understanding without solace, of farewells that go unspoken; truly, as the Orpheus of all hidden misery, he surpasses everyone; indeed, much has been added to art through him that was once unexpressable and deemed unworthy of art, and which could only be chased away with words, not understood in their minute and microscopic details of the soul: yes, he is the master of the miniature. But he doesn't want to be that! His character longs for grand walls and bold frescoes! He fails to see that his spirit has different tastes and inclinations, preferring to sit quietly in the corners of crumbling houses:—in this way, hidden even from himself, he creates his true masterpieces, all of which are very short, often only a single bar long,—only there does he achieve genuine[Pg 124] greatness, perhaps it’s the only place he does.—But he doesn’t know it! He is too conceited to realize it.
88.
88.
Earnestness for the Truth.—Earnest for the truth! What different things men understand by these words! Just the same opinions, and modes of demonstration and testing which a thinker regards as a frivolity in himself, to which he has succumbed with shame at one time or other,—just the same opinions may give to an artist, who comes in contact with them and accepts them temporarily, the consciousness that the profoundest earnestness for the truth has now taken hold of him, and that it is worthy of admiration that, although an artist, he at the same time exhibits the most ardent desire for the antithesis of the apparent. It is thus possible that a person may, just by his pathos of earnestness, betray how superficially and sparingly his intellect has hitherto operated in the domain of knowledge.—And is not everything that we consider important our betrayer? It shows where our motives lie, and where our motives are altogether lacking.
Earnestness for the Truth.—Earnest for the truth! People interpret these words so differently! The same opinions and ways of demonstrating and testing that a thinker sees as trivial and feels shame about at some point may give an artist, who engages with them and embraces them temporarily, the feeling that he now has a deep earnestness for the truth. It can seem admirable that, even as an artist, he shows a strong desire for what contrasts with the obvious. This means that someone might, through their passionate earnestness, reveal how superficially and minimally their intellect has operated in the realm of knowledge.—Isn’t everything we find important a betrayer of sorts? It reveals our true motives, and it also shows where our motives are completely absent.
89.
89.
Now and Formerly.—Of what consequence is all our art in artistic products, if that higher art, the art of the festival, be lost by us? Formerly all artistic products were exhibited on the great festive-path of humanity, as tokens of remembrance, and monuments of high and happy moments. One now seeks to allure the exhausted and sickly[Pg 125] from the great suffering-path of humanity for a wanton moment by means of works of art; one furnishes them with a little ecstasy and insanity.
Now and Formerly.—What does all our creativity in artistic work matter if we lose that greater art, the art of celebration? In the past, all artistic creations were displayed along humanity's grand festive path as reminders and monuments of joyful and significant times. Now, we try to distract the weary and unwell[Pg 125] from the heavy burden of life for a fleeting moment using works of art; we provide them with a little excitement and madness.
90.
90.
Lights and Shades.—Books and writings are different with different thinkers. One writer has collected together in his book all the rays of light which he could quickly plunder and carry home from an illuminating experience; while another gives only the shadows, and the grey and black replicas of that which on the previous day had towered up in his soul.
Lights and Shades.—Books and writings vary among different thinkers. One author has gathered all the bright ideas he could quickly capture and bring back from an enlightening experience, while another shares only the shadows, along with the gray and black reflections of what had once stood tall in his mind the day before.
91.
91.
Precaution.—Alfieri, as is well known, told a great many falsehoods when he narrated the history of his life to his astonished contemporaries. He told falsehoods owing to the despotism toward himself which he exhibited, for example, in the way in which he created his own language, and tyrannised himself into a poet:—he finally found a rigid form of sublimity into which he forced his life and his memory; he must have suffered much in the process.—I would also give no credit to a history of Plato's life written by himself, as little as to Rousseau's, or to the Vita nuova of Dante.
Precaution.—Alfieri, as is well known, told a lot of lies when he shared the story of his life with his amazed peers. He fabricated these lies due to the oppressive control he had over himself, like when he developed his own language and pushed himself to become a poet:—he ultimately found a strict form of greatness into which he forced his life and his memories; he must have gone through a lot of pain in the process.—I wouldn't trust a biography of Plato written by himself any more than I would Rousseau's or Dante's Vita nuova.
92.
92.
Prose and Poetry.—Let it be observed that the great masters of prose have almost always been poets as well, whether openly, or only in secret and[Pg 126] for the "closet"; and in truth one only writes good prose in view of poetry! For prose is an uninterrupted, polite warfare with poetry; all its charm consists in the fact that poetry is constantly avoided and contradicted; every abstraction wants to have a gibe at poetry, and wishes to be uttered with a mocking voice; all dryness and coolness is meant to bring the amiable goddess into an amiable despair; there are often approximations and reconciliations for the moment, and then a sudden recoil and a burst of laughter; the curtain is often drawn up and dazzling light let in just while the goddess is enjoying her twilights and dull colours; the word is often taken out of her mouth and chanted to a melody while she holds her fine hands before her delicate little ears:—and so there are a thousand enjoyments of the warfare, the defeats included, of which the unpoetic, the so-called prose—men know nothing at all:—they consequently write and speak only bad prose! Warfare is the father of all good things, it is also the father of good prose!—There have been four very singular and truly poetical men in this century who have arrived at mastership in prose, for which otherwise this century is not suited, owing to lack of poetry, as we have indicated. Not to take Goethe into account, for he is reasonably claimed by the century that produced him, I look only on Giacomo Leopardi, Prosper Mérimée, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walter Savage Landor the author of Imaginary Conversations, as worthy to be called masters of prose.
Prose and Poetry.—It's worth noting that the great masters of prose have almost always been poets as well, whether openly or secretly in the "closet"; and in truth, one only writes good prose with poetry in mind! Prose is an ongoing, polite struggle with poetry; its charm lies in the fact that poetry is constantly dodged and challenged. Every abstract idea wants to poke fun at poetry and be expressed in a mocking tone; all that is dry and cool aims to bring the charming goddess into a delightful despair. There are often moments of closeness and reconciliation, only to experience a sudden withdrawal and a burst of laughter. The curtain is frequently lifted, letting in bright light just when the goddess is enjoying her twilight and dull colors; the word is often snatched from her lips and sung to a melody while she covers her delicate ears with her lovely hands:—and so there are countless delights in this struggle, including the defeats, which those who are unpoetic, the so-called prose—men know nothing about:—they consequently write and speak only bad prose! Struggle is the father of all good things, and it is also the father of good prose!—There have been four very unique and truly poetic individuals in this century who have achieved mastery in prose, which this century is otherwise not prepared for, due to a lack of poetry, as we have noted. Not considering Goethe, as he is rightfully claimed by the century that produced him, I see only Giacomo Leopardi, Prosper Mérimée, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and Walter Savage Landor, the author of Imaginary Conversations, as deserving to be called masters of prose.
93.
93.
But why, then, do you Write?—A: I do not belong to those who think with the wet pen in hand; and still less to those who yield themselves entirely to their passions before the open ink-bottle, sitting on their chair and staring at the paper. I am always vexed and abashed by writing; writing is a necessity for me,—even to speak of it in a simile is disagreeable. B: But why, then, do you write? A: Well, my dear Sir, to tell you in confidence, I have hitherto found no other means of getting rid of my thoughts. B: And why do you wish to get rid of them? A: Why I wish? Do I really wish! I must—B: Enough! Enough!
But why, then, do you write?—A: I don’t belong to those who think with a wet pen in hand; even less to those who completely give in to their emotions while sitting in front of an open ink bottle, staring at the paper. Writing always frustrates and embarrasses me; it’s something I need to do—even talking about it in a comparison feels uncomfortable. B: But why, then, do you write? A: Well, my dear Sir, to tell you honestly, I haven’t found any other way to get rid of my thoughts. B: And why do you want to get rid of them? A: Do I really want to? I have to—B: That’s enough!
94.
94.
Growth after Death.—Those few daring words about moral matters which Fontenelle threw into his immortal Dialogues of the Dead, were regarded by his age as paradoxes and amusements of a not unscrupulous wit; even the highest judges of taste and intellect saw nothing more in them,—indeed, Fontenelle himself perhaps saw nothing more. Then something incredible takes place: these thoughts become truths! Science proves them! The game becomes serious! And we read those dialogues with a feeling different from that with which Voltaire and Helvetius read them, and we involuntarily raise their originator into another and much higher class of intellects than they did.—Rightly?' Wrongly?
Growth after Death.—The few bold statements about moral issues that Fontenelle included in his timeless Dialogues of the Dead were seen in his time as paradoxes and playful jests by a clever mind; even the most discerning critics found little more in them—indeed, Fontenelle himself might have seen nothing more. Then something unbelievable happens: these ideas turn into truths! Science validates them! The game gets serious! And we read those dialogues with a different perspective than Voltaire and Helvetius did, and we instinctively elevate their creator to a much higher level of intellect than they did.—Rightly? Wrongly?
95.
95.
Chamfort.—That such a judge of men and of the multitude as Chamfort should side with the multitude, instead of standing apart in philosophical resignation and defence—I am at a loss to explain this, except as follows:—There was an instinct in him stronger than his wisdom, and it had never been gratified: the hatred against all noblesse of blood; perhaps his mother's old and only too explicable hatred, which was consecrated in him by love of her,—an instinct of revenge from his boyhood, which waited for the hour to avenge his mother. But then the course of his life, his genius, and alas! most of all, perhaps, the paternal blood in his veins, had seduced him to rank and consider himself equal to the noblesse—for many, many years! In the end, however, he could not endure the sight of himself, the "old man" under the old régime, any longer; he got into a violent, penitential passion, and in this state he put on the raiment of the populace as his special kind of hair-shirt! His bad conscience was the neglect of revenge.—If Chamfort had then been a little more of the philosopher, the Revolution would not have had its tragic wit and its sharpest sting; it would have been regarded as a much more stupid affair, and would have had no such seductive influence on men's minds. But Chamfort's hatred and revenge educated an entire generation; and the most illustrious men passed through his school. Let us but consider that Mirabeau looked up to Chamfort as to his higher and older self,[Pg 129] from whom he expected (and endured) impulses, warnings, and condemnations,—Mirabeau, who as a man belongs to an entirely different order of greatness, as the very foremost among the statesman-geniuses of yesterday and to-day.—Strange, that in spite of such a friend and advocate—we possess Mirabeau's letters to Chamfort—this wittiest of all moralists has remained unfamiliar to the French, quite the same as Stendhal, who has perhaps had the most penetrating eyes and ears of any. Frenchman of this century. Is it because the latter had really too much of the German and the Englishman in his nature for the Parisians to endure him?—while Chamfort, a man with ample knowledge of the profundities and secret motives of the soul, gloomy, suffering, ardent—a thinker who found laughter necessary as the remedy of life, and who almost gave himself up as lost every day that he had not laughed,—seems much more like an Italian, and related by blood to Dante and Leopardi, than like a Frenchman. One knows Chamfort's last words: "Ah! mon ami," he said to Sieyès, "je m'en vais enfin de ce monde, où il faut que le cœur se brise ou se bronze—." These were certainly not the words of a dying Frenchman.
Chamfort.—It's surprising that someone as insightful about people and crowds as Chamfort would align himself with the masses instead of standing apart in philosophical detachment—I can only interpret this as follows:—There was a drive within him that was stronger than his intellect, and it had never been satisfied: a hatred for all noblesse of birth; perhaps it stemmed from his mother’s old and easily understandable resentment, which was ingrained in him through her love—a desire for revenge from his childhood that waited for the moment to repay his mother. Yet, the trajectory of his life, his talent, and, unfortunately, mostly the noble blood flowing through his veins, led him to aspire to rank and view himself as equal to the noblesse—for many, many years! In the end, however, he could no longer stand the sight of himself, the "old man" under the old régime, and he fell into an intense, remorseful rage, in which he donned the garment of the common people as his version of a hair-shirt! His guilty conscience was tied to the neglect of revenge.—If Chamfort had been a bit more of a philosopher, the Revolution wouldn't have had its tragic humor and sharpest sting; it would have been seen as a much duller affair and would not have had such a captivating influence on people's minds. But Chamfort's hatred and desire for revenge shaped an entire generation; and the most prominent figures passed through his influence. Just consider that Mirabeau looked up to Chamfort as his superior, older self,[Pg 129] expecting (and accepting) impulses, warnings, and judgments from him—Mirabeau, who belongs to a completely different level of greatness, as the leading statesman-genius of both yesterday and today.—It's strange that despite such a friend and supporter—we have Mirabeau's letters to Chamfort—this sharpest moralist remains largely unknown to the French, much like Stendhal, who possibly had the keenest insight of any Frenchman of this century. Is it because the latter had too much of the German and English spirit in him for Parisians to accept?—while Chamfort, a man with deep understanding of the complexities and hidden motives of the soul, dark, suffering, passionate—a thinker who considered laughter essential as a remedy for life, and who nearly felt lost every day he didn’t laugh—seems much more Italian, connected by blood to Dante and Leopardi, than like a Frenchman. Everyone knows Chamfort's last words: "Ah! mon ami," he said to Sieyès, "je m'en vais enfin de ce monde, où il faut que le cœur se brise ou se bronze—." These were definitely not the words of a dying Frenchman.
96.
96.
Two Orators.—Of these two orators the one arrives at a full understanding of his case only when he yields himself to emotion; it is only this that pumps sufficient blood and heat into his brain to compel his high intellectuality to reveal itself[Pg 130] The other attempts, indeed, now and then to do the same: to state his case sonorously, vehemently, and spiritedly with the aid of emotion,—but usually with bad success. He then very soon speaks obscurely and confusedly; he exaggerates, makes omissions, and excites suspicion of the justice of his case: indeed, he himself feels this suspicion, and the sudden changes into the coldest and most repulsive tones (which raise a doubt in the hearer as to his passionateness being genuine) are thereby explicable. With him emotion always drowns the spirit; perhaps because it is stronger than in the former. But he is at the height of his power when he resists the impetuous storm of his feeling, and as it were scorns it; it is then only that his spirit emerges fully from its concealment, a spirit logical, mocking and playful, but nevertheless awe-inspiring.
Two Orators.—Of these two speakers, the first truly understands his argument only when he allows himself to feel emotions; it’s only this that brings enough energy and passion to his mind to showcase his remarkable intellect[Pg 130]. The second one also occasionally tries to do the same: he aims to present his case loudly, passionately, and energetically using emotion—but he usually has poor results. He quickly starts speaking unclearly and chaotically; he exaggerates, omits key points, and raises doubts about the fairness of his argument: indeed, he senses this doubt himself, and his abrupt shifts into cold and off-putting tones (which make the audience question whether his emotions are real) are understandable. For him, emotion often overshadows his intellect; perhaps because it’s more intense than in the first speaker. However, he is at his best when he resists the overwhelming tide of his feelings and almost scoffs at them; it’s only then that his true spirit comes to light—a spirit that is logical, witty, and playful, yet still commanding respect.
97.
97.
The Loquacity of Authors.—There is a loquacity of anger—frequent in Luther, also in Schopenhauer. A loquacity which comes from too great a store of conceptual formulæ, as in Kant. A loquacity which comes from delight in ever new modifications of the same idea: one finds it in Montaigne. A loquacity of malicious natures: whoever reads writings of our period will recollect two authors in this connection. A loquacity which comes from delight in fine words and forms of speech: by no means rare in Goethe's prose. A loquacity which comes from pure satisfaction in noise and confusion of feelings: for example in Carlyle.
The Talkativeness of Authors.—There’s a talkativeness driven by anger—common in Luther, also in Schopenhauer. A talkativeness that comes from having too many ideas to express, like Kant. A talkativeness that arises from enjoying fresh twists on the same idea: you'll see this in Montaigne. A talkativeness found in spiteful personalities: anyone reading the works from our time will remember two authors in this context. A talkativeness that stems from joy in beautiful words and expressions: not at all rare in Goethe's prose. A talkativeness that comes from sheer enjoyment of chaos and mixed emotions: for example, in Carlyle.
98.
98.
In Honour of Shakespeare.—The best thing I could say in honour of Shakespeare, the man, is that he believed in Brutus, and cast not a shadow of suspicion on the kind of virtue which Brutus represents! It is to him that Shakespeare consecrated his best tragedy—it is at present still called by a wrong name,—to him, and to the most terrible essence of lofty morality. Independence of soul!—that is the question at issue! No sacrifice can be too great there: one must be able to sacrifice to it even one's dearest friend, although he be the grandest of men, the ornament of the world, the genius without peer,—if one really loves freedom as the freedom of great souls, and if this freedom be threatened by him:—it is thus that Shakespeare must have felt! The elevation in which he places Cæsar is the most exquisite honour he could confer upon Brutus; it is thus only that he lifts into vastness the inner problem of his hero, and similarly the strength of soul which could cut this knot!—And was it actually political freedom that impelled the poet to sympathy with Brutus,—and made him the accomplice of Brutus? Or was political freedom merely a symbol for something inexpressible? Do we perhaps stand before some sombre event or adventure of the poet's own soul, which has remained unknown, and of which he only cared to speak symbolically? What is all Hamlet-melancholy in comparison with the melancholy of Brutus!—and perhaps Shakespeare also knew this, as he knew the other, by experience! Perhaps he also had[Pg 132] his dark hour and his bad angel, just as Brutus had them!—But whatever similarities and secret relationships of that kind there may have been, Shakespeare cast himself on the ground and felt unworthy and alien in presence of the aspect and virtue of Brutus:—he has inscribed the testimony thereof in the tragedy itself. He has twice brought in a poet in it, and twice heaped upon him such an impatient and extreme contempt, that it sounds like a cry,—like the cry of self-contempt. Brutus, even Brutus loses patience when the poet appears, self-important, pathetic and obtrusive, as poets usually are,—persons who seem to abound in the possibilities of greatness, even moral greatness, and nevertheless rarely attain even to ordinary uprightness in the philosophy of practice and of life "He may know the times, but I know his temper,—away with the jigging fool!"—shouts Brutus. We may translate this back into the soul of the poet that composed it.
In Honor of Shakespeare.—The best thing I can say in honor of Shakespeare, the man, is that he believed in Brutus and never questioned the kind of virtue that Brutus embodies! It’s to him that Shakespeare dedicated his greatest tragedy—it’s still referred to by the wrong name today—to him, and to the profound essence of high morality. Independence of spirit!—that’s what this is all about! No sacrifice is too great for it: one must even be ready to sacrifice one’s closest friend, no matter how great he is, the pride of the world, the unmatched genius,—if one truly loves freedom as it relates to great souls, and if this freedom is threatened by him:—this is how Shakespeare must have felt! The respect he gives to Cæsar is the highest honor he could bestow upon Brutus; it’s how he expands the inner conflict of his hero, and similarly the strength of character needed to untie this knot!—Was it really political freedom that drove the poet to empathize with Brutus and made him an ally of Brutus? Or was political freedom just a symbol for something beyond words? Are we perhaps witnessing some dark event or personal struggle of the poet’s own soul that remains hidden, and of which he chose only to speak symbolically? What is all the melancholy of Hamlet compared to the sorrow of Brutus!—and perhaps Shakespeare knew this, as he knew the other, through personal experience! Maybe he too had[Pg 132] his dark moments and his bad angel, just as Brutus did!—But regardless of any similarities or hidden connections, Shakespeare humbled himself and felt unworthy and alien in the presence of Brutus's character and virtue:—he has left a mark of this in the tragedy itself. He included a poet twice in the play, and both times he showed such impatient and extreme contempt that it feels like a cry,—like a shout of self-loathing. Brutus, even Brutus, loses his patience when the poet arrives, self-important, dramatic, and intrusive, as poets often are,—people who seem to have immense potential for greatness, even moral greatness, yet rarely achieve even basic integrity in the practicality and philosophy of life. "He may know the times, but I know his temperament,—get rid of the foolish jester!"—shouts Brutus. We can interpret this back into the soul of the poet who wrote it.
99.
99.
The Followers of Schopenhauer.—What one sees at the contact of civilized peoples with barbarians,—namely, that the lower civilization regularly accepts in the first place the vices, weaknesses and excesses of the higher; then, from that point onward, feels the influence of a charm; and finally, by means of the appropriated vices and weaknesses also allows something of the valuable influence of the higher culture to leaven it:-one can also see this close at hand and without journeys to barbarian peoples, to be sure, somewhat refined and[Pg 133] spiritualised, and not so readily palpable. What are the German followers of Schopenhauer still accustomed to receive first of all from their master?—those who, when placed beside his superior culture, must deem themselves sufficiently barbarous to be first of all barbarously fascinated and seduced by him. Is it his hard matter-of-fact sense, his inclination to clearness and rationality, which often makes him appear so English, and so unlike Germans? Or the strength of his intellectual conscience, which endured a life-long contradiction of "being" and "willing," and compelled him to contradict himself constantly even in his writings on almost every point? Or his purity in matters relating to the Church and the Christian God?—for here he was pure as no German philosopher had been hitherto, so that he lived and died "as a Voltairian." Or his immortal doctrines of the intellectuality of intuition, the apriority of the law of causality, the instrumental nature of the intellect, and the non-freedom of the will? No, nothing of this enchants, nor is felt as enchanting; but Schopenhauer's mystical embarrassments and shufflings in those passages where the matter-of-fact thinker allowed himself to be seduced and corrupted by the vain impulse to be the unraveller of the world's riddle: his undemonstrable doctrine of one will ("all causes are merely occasional causes of the phenomenon of the will at such a time and at such a place," "the will to live, whole and undivided, is present in every being, even in the smallest, as perfectly as in the sum of all that was, is, and will be"); his denial of the[Pg 134] individual ("all lions are really only one lion," "plurality of individuals is an appearance," as also development is only an appearance: he calls the opinion of Lamarck "an ingenious, absurd error"); his fantasy about genius ("in æsthetic contemplation the individual is no longer an individual, but a pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge," "the subject, in that it entirely merges in the contemplated object, has become this object itself"); his nonsense about sympathy, and about the outburst of the principium individuationis thus rendered possible, as the source of all morality; including also such assertions as, "dying is really the design of existence," "the possibility should not be absolutely denied that a magical effect could proceed from a person already dead":—these, and similar extravagances and vices of the philosopher, are always first accepted and made articles of faith; for vices and extravagances are always easiest to imitate, and do not require a long preliminary practice. But let us speak of the most celebrated of the living Schopenhauerians, Richard Wagner.—It has happened to him as it has already happened to many an artist: he made a mistake in the interpretation of the characters he created, and misunderstood the unexpressed philosophy of the art peculiarly his own. Richard Wagner allowed himself to be misled by Hegel's influence till the middle of his life; and he did the same again when later on he read Schopenhauer's doctrine between the lines of his characters, and began to express himself with such terms as[Pg 135] "will," "genius," and "sympathy." Nevertheless it will remain true that nothing is more counter to Schopenhauer's spirit than the essentially Wagnerian element in Wagner's heroes: I mean the innocence of the supremest selfishness, the belief in strong passion as the good in itself, in a word, the Siegfried trait in the countenances of his heroes. "All that still smacks more of Spinoza than of me,"—Schopenhauer would probably have said. Whatever good reasons, therefore, Wagner might have had to be on the outlook for other philosophers than Schopenhauer, the enchantment to which he succumbed in respect to this thinker, not only made him blind towards all other philosophers, but even towards science itself; his entire art is more and more inclined to become the counterpart and complement of the Schopenhauerian philosophy, and it always renounces more emphatically the higher ambition to become the counterpart and complement of human knowledge and science. And not only is he allured thereto by the whole mystic pomp of this philosophy (which would also have allured a Cagliostro), the peculiar airs and emotions of the philosopher have all along been seducing him as well! For example, Wagner's indignation about the corruption of the German language is Schopenhauerian; and if one should commend his imitation in this respect, it is nevertheless not to be denied that Wagner's style itself suffers in no small degree from all the tumours and turgidities, the sight of which made Schopenhauer so furious; and that, in respect to the German-writing Wagnerians, Wagneromania[Pg 136] is beginning to be as dangerous as only some kinds of Hegelomania have been. From Schopenhauer comes Wagner's hatred of the Jews, to whom he cannot do justice even in their greatest exploit: are not the Jews the inventors of Christianity! The attempt of Wagner to construe Christianity as a seed blown away from Buddhism, and his endeavour to initiate a Buddhistic era in Europe, under a temporary approximation to Catholic-Christian formulas and sentiments, are both Schopenhauerian. Wagner's preaching in favour of pity in dealing with animals is Schopenhauerian; Schopenhauer's predecessor here, as is well known, was Voltaire, who already perhaps, like his successors, knew how to disguise his hatred of certain men and things as pity towards animals. At least Wagner's hatred of science, which manifests itself in his preaching, has certainly not been inspired by the spirit of charitableness and kindness—nor by the spirit at all, as is sufficiently obvious.—Finally, it is of little importance what the philosophy of an artist is, provided it is only a supplementary philosophy, and does not do any injury to his art itself. We cannot be sufficiently on our guard against taking a dislike to an artist on account of an occasional, perhaps very unfortunate and presumptuous masquerade; let us not forget that the dear artists are all of them something of actors—and must be so; it would be difficult for them to hold out in the long run without stage-playing. Let us be loyal to Wagner in that which is true and original in him,—and especially in this point, that we, his disciples, remain loyal[Pg 137] to ourselves in that which is true and original in us. Let us allow him his intellectual humours and spasms, let us in fairness rather consider what strange nutriments and necessaries an art like his is entitled to, in order to be able to live and grow! It is of no account that he is often wrong as a thinker; justice and patience are not his affair. It is sufficient that his life is right in his own eyes, and maintains its right,—the life which calls to each of us: "Be a man, and do not follow me—but thyself! thyself!" Our life, also ought to maintain its right in our own eyes! We also are to grow and blossom out of ourselves, free and fearless, in innocent selfishness! And so, on the contemplation of such a man, these thoughts still ring in my ears to-day, as formerly: "That passion is better than stoicism or hypocrisy; that straight-forwardness, even in evil, is better than losing oneself in trying to observe traditional morality; that the free man is just as able to be good as evil, but that the unemancipated man is a disgrace to nature, and has no share in heavenly or earthly bliss; finally, that all who wish to be free must become so through themselves, and that freedom falls to nobody's lot as a gift from Heaven." (Richard Wagner in Bayreuth, Vol. I. of this Translation, pp. 199-200).
The Followers of Schopenhauer.—When civilized societies encounter tribal cultures, it's often the case that the less advanced societies first adopt the flaws, weaknesses, and excesses of the more advanced ones. From there, they feel a certain allure, and ultimately, through these borrowed flaws and weaknesses, they incorporate some of the valuable aspects of the higher culture. One can observe a similar dynamic without having to travel to distant primitive cultures; it manifests, although in a more refined and less obvious form. What do German followers of Schopenhauer primarily take from their master? They, when compared to his superior culture, must feel somewhat primitive, initially being drawn in and seduced by him. Is it his pragmatic sense, his preference for clarity and rationality, which often makes him seem more English and less German? Or is it the strength of his intellectual integrity, which dealt with the lifelong contradiction between "being" and "willing" and forced him to contradict himself in nearly every aspect of his writing? Or perhaps his purity regarding the Church and the Christian God? In this regard, he was purer than any German philosopher before him, living and dying "as a Voltairian." Or are it his timeless ideas about the intellect’s role in intuition, the inherent nature of causality, the functional role of intellect, and the lack of freedom in the will? No, none of this captivates or is felt as captivating; rather, it’s Schopenhauer's mystical confusions and contradictions in those moments where the pragmatic thinker allowed himself to be beguiled by the futile desire to decode the riddle of existence: his unfounded concept of one will ("all causes are merely occasional triggers for the phenomenon of the will at specific times and places," "the will to live, whole and undivided, exists in every being, even the smallest, as completely as in the entirety of all that was, is, and will be"); his denial of the individual ("all lions are really just one lion," "the plurality of individuals is an illusion," as is development, which he says is merely an illusion: he calls Lamarck's theory "an ingenious, absurd error"); his fanciful idea about genius ("in aesthetic contemplation, the individual ceases to be an individual, becoming a pure, will-less, painless, timeless subject of knowledge," "the subject, by completely merging with the object of contemplation, has become that object itself"); his nonsensical thoughts about sympathy and how the outburst of the principium individuationis makes all morality possible; including statements like, "dying is truly the purpose of existence," "one cannot entirely rule out the possibility that a magical effect could come from a person who has already died":—these and similar extravagances and flaws of the philosopher are often the first to be accepted and held as beliefs; for flaws and eccentricities are always easier to mimic and do not require much initial practice. Let's talk about the most famous of the current Schopenhauerians, Richard Wagner. What's happened to him is similar to what has happened to many artists: he misinterpreted the characters he created and misunderstood the unspoken philosophy intrinsic to his unique art. Richard Wagner was misled by Hegel’s influence until the middle of his life, and he fell into the same trap when later he read Schopenhauer's philosophy into the dialogue of his characters and began using terms like [Pg 135] "will," "genius," and "sympathy." However, it’s true that nothing is more opposed to Schopenhauer's spirit than the essentially Wagnerian traits in his heroes: namely, the innocence of ultimate selfishness, the belief that intense passion is inherently good, in short, the Siegfried-like quality in the expressions of his characters. "All that still resembles Spinoza more than me," Schopenhauer would likely have remarked. Regardless of what justifications Wagner might have had for seeking out philosophers beyond Schopenhauer, the fascination he fell into regarding this thinker blinded him not only to other philosophers but even to science itself; his entire body of work gradually seems to become a response and complement to Schopenhauer's philosophy, increasingly abandoning the higher ambition to align with human knowledge and science. Moreover, he is attracted to the mystical allure of this philosophy (which would also catch the attention of someone like Cagliostro), and the unique character and emotions of the philosopher have continually tempted him! For instance, Wagner's anger about the degradation of the German language is Schopenhauerian; and while one might praise his imitation in this regard, it's undeniable that Wagner's own style suffers from the very afflictions and complexities that outraged Schopenhauer; and concerning the German-writing Wagnerians, Wagneromania [Pg 136] is starting to become as hazardous as certain forms of Hegelomania have been. From Schopenhauer comes Wagner’s animosity toward Jews, regarding whom he cannot give credit, even in their most significant accomplishments: after all, aren't Jews the founders of Christianity? Wagner's attempt to interpret Christianity as a seed that drifted away from Buddhism, along with his desire to initiate a Buddhist era in Europe, while temporarily aligning with Catholic-Christian beliefs and feelings, are both Schopenhauerian. Wagner’s advocacy for compassion towards animals is also Schopenhauerian; it is well-known that Voltaire was Schopenhauer's predecessor in this regard, perhaps knowing how to mask his animosity towards certain people and ideas as compassion for animals. At the very least, Wagner's disdain for science, which is evident in his sermons, is certainly not motivated by the spirit of charity and kindness—nor by any kind of spirit whatsoever, as is quite clear. Ultimately, it matters little what an artist's philosophy is, as long as it merely supplements his art and doesn't harm it. We must remain vigilant against developing a dislike for an artist due to a sporadic, perhaps unfortunate and arrogant display; let's not forget that artists are somewhat akin to actors—and they must be; it would be challenging for them to endure in the long run without some performance. We should be loyal to Wagner for what is true and original in him,—especially in the respect that we, his followers, remain true [Pg 137] to what is true and original within ourselves. Let’s allow him his intellectual quirks and fits, and consider what peculiar nourishment and necessities an art like his deserves to be able to live and prosper! It doesn't matter that he is often incorrect as a thinker; fairness and patience aren't his concern. It suffices that he feels his life is right and holds its place,—the life that calls to each of us: "Be a person, and don't follow me—follow yourself! yourself!" Our lives should also maintain their right in our own eyes! We too must grow and blossom out of ourselves, freely and boldly, in innocent selfishness! And so, while reflecting on such a man, these thoughts still resonate in my mind today, just as they did before: "That passion is preferable to stoicism or hypocrisy; that honesty, even in wrongdoing, is better than losing oneself in trying to adhere to conventional morality; that the free person is equally capable of good and evil, but the unfree person is a disgrace to nature and has no share in heavenly or earthly joy; finally, that all who wish to be free must achieve their freedom through themselves, and that freedom is not a gift from Heaven." (Richard Wagner in Bayreuth, Vol. I. of this Translation, pp. 199-200).
100.
100.
Learning to do Homage.—One must learn the art of homage, as well as the art of contempt. Whoever goes in new paths and has led many persons therein, discovers with astonishment how[Pg 138] awkward and incompetent all of them are in the expression of their gratitude, and indeed how rarely gratitude is able even to express itself. It is always as if something comes into people's throats when their gratitude wants to speak so that it only hems and haws, and becomes silent again. The way in which a thinker succeeds in tracing the effect of his thoughts, and their transforming and convulsing power, is almost a comedy: it sometimes seems as if those who have been operated upon felt profoundly injured thereby, and could only assert their independence, which they suspect to be threatened, by all kinds of improprieties. It needs whole generations in order merely to devise a courteous convention of gratefulness; it is only very late that the period arrives when something of spirit and genius enters into gratitude Then there is usually some one who is the great receiver of thanks, not only for the good he himself has done, but mostly for that which has been gradually accumulated by his predecessors, as a treasure of what is highest and best.
Learning to do Homage.—One has to master the art of tribute, as well as the art of disdain. Anyone who ventures into new paths and has guided many along them is amazed at how[Pg 138] awkward and inept they all are at expressing their gratitude, and how seldom gratitude can even make itself known. It's as though something gets caught in people's throats when they try to express their thankfulness, so they end up just mumbling and falling silent again. The way a thinker manages to trace the impact of their ideas, along with their transformative and unsettling effects, is almost comedic: it sometimes seems that those who have been influenced feel deeply wronged and can only assert their independence, which they fear is in danger, through various forms of misbehavior. It takes entire generations just to create a polite convention for expressing gratitude; only much later does a sense of spirit and creativity begin to permeate gratitude. Then, there is often one person who becomes the primary recipient of thanks, not only for the good they have personally done but mostly for the wealth of achievements accumulated by their predecessors, representing the very best and highest.
101.
101.
Voltaire—Wherever there has been a court, it has furnished the standard of good-speaking and with this also the standard of style for writers The court language, however, is the language of the courtier who has no profession, and who even in conversations on scientific subjects avoids all convenient, technical expressions, because they smack of the profession; on that account the technical expression, and everything that betrays the specialist,[Pg 139] is a blemish of style in countries which have a court culture. At present, when all courts have become caricatures of past and present times, one is astonished to find even Voltaire unspeakably reserved and scrupulous on this point (for example, in his judgments concerning such stylists as Fontenelle and Montesquieu),—we are now, all of us, emancipated from court taste, while Voltaire was its perfecter!
Voltaire—Wherever there has been a court, it has set the standard for good speaking and, with that, the standard of style for writers. The court language, however, is the language of the courtier who has no profession, and who even in discussions about scientific topics avoids any technical terms because they are associated with a profession; for that reason, technical language and anything that reveals the specialist,[Pg 139] is seen as a blemish of style in countries that have a court culture. Nowadays, when all courts have become parodies of past and present times, it's surprising to find even Voltaire incredibly reserved and meticulous about this (for instance, in his opinions about stylists like Fontenelle and Montesquieu)—we are all now free from the tastes of the court, while Voltaire was its perfecter!
102.
102.
A Word for Philologists.—It is thought that there are books so valuable and royal that whole generations of scholars are well employed when through their efforts these books are kept genuine and intelligible,—to confirm this belief again and again is the purpose of philology. It presupposes that the rare men are not lacking (though they may not be visible), who actually know how to use such valuable books:—those men perhaps who write such books themselves, or could write them. I mean to say that philology presupposes a noble belief,—that for the benefit of some few who are always "to come," and are not there, a very great amount of painful, and even dirty labour has to be done beforehand: it is all labour in usum Delphinorum.
A Word for Philologists.—It is believed that there are books so valuable and prestigious that entire generations of scholars dedicate their efforts to keeping these books authentic and understandable. The aim of philology is to reaffirm this belief time and again. It assumes that there are rare individuals, even if they are not visible, who truly know how to utilize such precious books—those individuals might be the ones who write those books themselves or could easily write them. In essence, philology is based on a noble belief—that for the benefit of the few who are always "to come" but are not present, a significant amount of difficult and sometimes unpleasant work must be done in advance: it is all work in usum Delphinorum.
103.
103.
German Music.—German music, more than any other, has now become European music; because the changes which Europe experienced through the Revolution have therein alone found expression: it is only German music that knows how to[Pg 140] express the agitation of popular masses, the tremendous artificial uproar, which does not even need to be very noisy,—while Italian opera, for example, knows only the choruses of domestics or soldiers, but not "the people." There is the additional fact that in all German music a profound bourgeois jealousy of the noblesse can be traced, especially a jealousy of esprit and élégance, as the expressions of a courtly, chivalrous, ancient, and self-confident society. It is not music like that of Goethe's musician at the gate, which was pleasing also "in the hall," and to the king as well; it is not here said: "The knights looked on with martial air; with bashful eyes the ladies." Even the Graces are not allowed in German music without a touch of remorse; it is only with Pleasantness, the country sister of the Graces that the German begins to feel morally at ease—and from this point up to his enthusiastic, learned, and often gruff "sublimity" (the Beethoven-like sublimity), he feels more and more so. If we want to imagine the man of this music,—well, let us just imagine Beethoven as he appeared beside Goethe, say, at their meeting at Teplitz: as semi-barbarism beside culture, as the masses beside the nobility, as the good-natured man beside the good and more than "good" man, as the visionary beside the artist, as the man needing comfort beside the comforted, as the man given to exaggeration and distrust beside the man of reason, as the crank and self-tormenter, as the foolishly enraptured, blessedly unfortunate, sincerely immoderate man! as the pretentious and awkward man,—and altogether[Pg 141] as the "untamed man": it was thus that Goethe conceived and characterised him, Goethe, the exceptional German, for whom a music of equal rank has not yet been found!—Finally, let us consider whether the present continually extending contempt of melody and the stunting of the sense for melody among Germans should not be understood as a democratic impropriety and an after-effect of the Revolution? For melody has such an obvious delight in conformity to law, and such an aversion to everything evolving, unformed and arbitrary, that it sounds like a note out of the ancient European regime, and as a seduction and guidance back to it.
German Music.—German music has now become the music of Europe more than any other, as it uniquely expresses the changes Europe underwent during the Revolution. It's only German music that captures the unrest of the masses and the immense artificial uproar, which doesn’t even have to be particularly loud. In contrast, Italian opera only reflects the chorus of domestic workers or soldiers, not "the people." Additionally, there's a deep-rooted sense of bourgeois envy of the noblesse in all German music, especially a jealousy of their esprit and élégance, which represent a courtly, chivalrous, ancestral, and self-assured society. This isn't music like that of Goethe's musician at the gate, which was appreciated "in the hall" and by the king as well; it does not include phrases like: "The knights looked on with a martial air; the ladies gazed bashfully." Even the Graces aren't allowed in German music without a hint of guilt; it’s only with Pleasantness, the rural sister of the Graces, that Germans begin to feel morally at peace—and as they travel from this point to their enthusiastic, scholarly, and often gruff "sublimity" (the Beethoven-like sublimity), this feeling deepens. If we want to picture the person who embodies this music, let’s envision Beethoven alongside Goethe, for instance, during their meeting in Teplitz: as semi-barbarism next to cultured refinement, as the masses next to the nobility, as the kind-hearted person beside the good and even more than "good" person, as the dreamer beside the artist, as the comfort-seeker beside the comforted, as the exaggerator and skeptic beside the rational person, as the eccentric and self-tormented, as the foolishly enchanted, blissfully unfortunate, and genuinely immoderate individual! as the pretentious and awkward person,—in every way [Pg 141] as the "untamed man": this is how Goethe envisioned and characterized him, Goethe, the exceptional German, for whom an equal musical counterpart has yet to be found!—Finally, let’s consider whether the current, ever-expanding disdain for melody and the diminishing sense of melody among Germans should be viewed as a democratic offense and a residual effect of the Revolution. Melody has such a clear enjoyment of adherence to structure, and such a dislike for everything chaotic, unformed, and arbitrary, that it resembles a remnant of the ancient European regime and acts as a temptation and guide back to it.
104.
104.
The Tone of the German Language.—We know whence the German originated which for several centuries has been the universal literary language of Germany. The Germans, with their reverence for everything that came from the court, intentionally took the chancery style as their pattern in all that they had to write, especially in their letters, records, wills, &c. To write in the chancery style, that was to write in court and government style,—that was regarded as something select, compared with the language of the city in which a person lived. People gradually drew this inference, and spoke also as they wrote,—they thus became still more select in the forms of their words, in the choice of their terms and modes of expression, and finally also in their tones: they affected a court tone when they spoke, and the affectation at last became[Pg 142] natural. Perhaps nothing quite similar has ever happened elsewhere:—the predominance of the literary style over the talk, and the formality and affectation of an entire people becoming the basis of a common and no longer dialectical language. I believe that the sound of the German language in the Middle Ages, and especially after the Middle Ages, was extremely rustic and vulgar; it has ennobled itself somewhat during the last centuries, principally because it was found necessary to imitate so many French, Italian, and Spanish sounds, and particularly on the part of the German (and Austrian) nobility, who could not at all content themselves with their mother-tongue. But notwithstanding this practice, German must have sounded intolerably vulgar to Montaigne, and even to Racine: even at present, in the mouths of travellers among the Italian populace, it still sounds very coarse, sylvan, and hoarse, as if it had originated in smoky rooms and outlandish districts.—Now I notice that at present a similar striving after selectness of tone is spreading among the former admirers of the chancery style, and that the Germans are beginning to accommodate themselves to a peculiar "witchery of sound," which might in the long run become an actual danger to the German language,—for one may seek in vain for more execrable sounds in Europe. Something mocking, cold, indifferent and careless in the voice: that is what at present sounds "noble" to the Germans—and I hear the approval of this nobleness in the voices of young officials, teachers, women, and trades-people; indeed, even[Pg 143] the little girls already imitate this German of the officers. For the officer, and in fact the Prussian officer is the inventor of these tones: this same officer, who as soldier and professional man possesses that admirable tact for modesty which the Germans as a whole might well imitate (German professors and musicians included!). But as soon as he speaks and moves he is the most inmodest and inelegant figure in old Europe—no doubt unconsciously to himself! And unconsciously also to the good Germans, who gaze at him as the man of the foremost and most select society, and willingly let him "give them his tone." And indeed he gives it to them!—in the first place it is the sergeant-majors and non-commissioned officers that imitate his tone and coarsen it. One should note the roars of command, with which the German cities are absolutely surrounded at present, when there is drilling at all the gates: what presumption, furious imperiousness, and mocking coldness speaks in this uproar! Could the Germans actually be a musical people?—It is certain that the Germans martialise themselves at present in the tone of their language: it is probable that, being exercised to speak martially, they will finally write martially also. For habituation to definite tones extends deeply into the character:—people soon have the words and modes of expression, and finally also the thoughts which just suit these tones! Perhaps they already write in the officers' style; perhaps I only read too little of what is at present written in Germany to know this. But one thing I know all the surer: the German public decorations[Pg 144] which also reach places abroad, are not inspired by German music, but just by that new tone of tasteless arrogance. Almost in every speech of the foremost German statesman, and even when he makes himself heard through his imperial mouth-piece, there is an accent which the ear of a foreigner repudiates with aversion: but the Germans endure it,—they endure themselves.
The Tone of the German Language.—We know where the German language originated that has been the main literary language of Germany for several centuries. The Germans, valuing everything that came from the court, deliberately adopted the official writing style as their model for everything they had to write, especially in their letters, records, wills, and so on. To write in the official style meant to write in court and government language, which was seen as elite compared to the everyday language spoken in a person's city. Over time, people began to mimic this, speaking as they wrote—they became even more refined in their word choices, expressions, and ultimately in their tones: they adopted a courtly tone in speech, and this affectation gradually became[Pg 142] natural. Perhaps nothing quite like this has ever occurred elsewhere: the dominance of literary style over everyday conversation, and an entire people's formality and pretentiousness becoming the foundation of a common language that is no longer dialectal. I believe that during the Middle Ages, and especially afterward, the German language sounded extremely rough and unrefined; it has refined itself somewhat over the last few centuries, mainly because it became necessary to imitate many French, Italian, and Spanish sounds, especially among the German (and Austrian) nobility, who could never be satisfied with their native tongue. But despite this practice, German must have sounded unbearably crude to Montaigne and even to Racine: even today, from the mouths of travelers among the Italian populace, it still sounds very rough, rustic, and gruff, as if it originated in smoky rooms and outlandish places.—Now I notice that currently a similar pursuit of refined tone is emerging among former admirers of the official style, and that Germans are beginning to adapt to a peculiar "witchery of sound," which might ultimately pose a real threat to the German language,—for one might look in vain for more unpleasant sounds in Europe. There is something mocking, cold, indifferent, and careless in the voice: that is what presently sounds "noble" to Germans—and I hear this approval of nobility in the voices of young officials, teachers, women, and tradespeople; indeed, even[Pg 143] little girls are already mimicking this officer-like German. For it is the officer, particularly the Prussian officer, who has created these tones: this same officer, who as a soldier and professional shows that admirable modesty which the Germans as a whole should well emulate (German professors and musicians included!). But as soon as he speaks and moves, he becomes the most immodest and awkward figure in old Europe—no doubt unconsciously! And the good Germans, who look at him as a member of the finest and most elite society, willingly let him "give them his tone." And indeed he gives it to them!—first, it's the sergeant-majors and non-commissioned officers who imitate his tone and make it coarser. One should take note of the shouts of command that echo around German cities today when there is drilling at all the gates: what arrogance, furious imperiousness, and mocking coldness come through in this noise! Could Germans actually be a musical people?—It is certain that Germans are currently militarizing the tone of their language: it is probable that, trained to speak in a martial way, they will eventually write in a martial style as well. For regular exposure to specific tones seeps deeply into character:—people soon adopt the words and expressions that fit these tones, and ultimately the thoughts that align with them! Perhaps they are already writing in the officers' style; maybe I just don’t read enough of what's currently being published in Germany to know this. But one thing I know with certainty: the German public displays[Pg 144] that also reach places abroad are not inspired by German music, but rather by that new tone of tasteless arrogance. Almost every speech by leading German statesmen, and even when he's heard through his imperial spokesperson, carries an accent that a foreign ear rejects with distaste: but the Germans tolerate it—they endure themselves.
105.
105.
The Germans as Artists.—When once a German actually experiences passion (and not only, as is usual, the mere inclination to it), he then behaves just as he must do in passion, and does not think further of his behaviour. The truth is, however, that he then behaves very awkwardly and uglily, and as if destitute of rhythm and melody; so that onlookers are pained or moved thereby, but nothing more—unless he elevate himself to the sublimity and enrapturedness of which certain passions are capable. Then even the German becomes beautiful. The consciousness of the height at which beauty begins to shed its charm even over Germans, forces German artists to the height and the super-height, and to the extravagances of passion: they have an actual, profound longing, therefore, to get beyond, or at least to look beyond the ugliness and awkwardness—into a better, easier, more southern, more sunny world. And thus their convulsions are often merely indications that they would like to dance: these poor bears in whom hidden nymphs and satyrs, and sometimes still higher divinities, carry on their game!
The Germans as Artists.—When a German really feels passion (and not just, as is usually the case, a mere inclination towards it), he behaves exactly as you would expect in a passionate state and doesn't think about how he acts. The reality, though, is that he often acts quite awkwardly and unattractively, as if lacking rhythm and melody; this might cause onlookers to feel pained or moved, but that's about it—unless he can rise to the level of the sublime and the ecstatic that certain passions can reach. Then even Germans can become beautiful. The awareness of the height at which beauty starts to cast its charm over Germans drives German artists to aspire to greatness and even beyond, embracing the extremes of passion: they truly long to escape, or at least look beyond the ugliness and awkwardness—into a better, easier, sunnier world. Thus, their struggles are often just signs that they want to dance: these poor bears where hidden nymphs and satyrs, and sometimes even greater divinities, play their games!
106.
106.
Music as Advocate.—"I have a longing for a master of the musical art," said an innovator to his disciple, "that he may learn from me my ideas and speak them more widely in his language: I shall thus be better able to reach men's ears and hearts. For by means of tones one can seduce men to every error and every truth: who could refute a tone?"—"You would, therefore, like to be regarded as irrefutable?" said his disciple. The innovator answered: "I should like the germ to become a tree. In order that a doctrine may become a tree, it must be believed in for a considerable period; in order that it may be believed in it must be regarded as irrefutable. Storms and doubts and worms and wickedness are necessary to the tree, that it may manifest its species and the strength of its germ; let it perish if it is not strong enough! But a germ is always merely annihilated,—not refuted!"—When he had said this, his disciple called out impetuously: "But I believe in your cause, and regard it as so strong that I will say everything against it, everything that I still have in my heart."—The innovator laughed to himself and threatened the disciple with his finger. "This kind of discipleship," said he then, "is the best, but it is dangerous, and not every kind of doctrine can stand it."
Music as Advocate.—"I long for a master of music," said an innovator to his disciple, "so he can learn my ideas and share them more widely in his own words: this way, I can reach more people’s ears and hearts. Through melodies, one can lure people into every mistake and every truth: who could disprove a melody?"—"So you want to be seen as indisputable?" asked his disciple. The innovator replied: "I want the seed to grow into a tree. For a belief to grow into a tree, it needs to be held onto for a long time; in order to be believed, it must be seen as indisputable. Storms, doubts, pests, and malice are necessary for the tree to show its type and the strength of its seed; let it die if it’s not strong enough! But a seed is always just destroyed—not disproven!"—After he said this, his disciple impulsively exclaimed: "But I believe in your cause, and I see it as so strong that I’ll say everything against it, everything that I still feel!"—The innovator chuckled to himself and wagged his finger at the disciple. "This kind of discipleship," he then said, "is the best, but it’s risky, and not every doctrine can withstand it."
107.
107.
Our Ultimate Gratitude to Art.—If we had not approved of the Arts and invented this sort of cult[Pg 146] of the untrue, the insight into the general untruth and falsity of things now given us by science—an insight into delusion and error as conditions of intelligent and sentient existence—would be quite unendurable. Honesty would have disgust and suicide in its train. Now, however, our honesty has a counterpoise which helps us to escape such consequences;—namely, Art, as the good-will to illusion. We do not always restrain our eyes from rounding off and perfecting in imagination: and then it is no longer the eternal imperfection that we carry over the river of Becoming—for we think we carry a goddess, and are proud and artless in rendering this service. As an æsthetic phenomenon existence is still endurable to us; and by Art, eye and hand and above all the good conscience are given to us, to be able to make such a phenomenon out of ourselves. We must rest from ourselves occasionally by contemplating and looking down upon ourselves, and by laughing or weeping over ourselves from an artistic remoteness: we must discover the hero, and likewise the fool, that is hidden in our passion for knowledge; we must now and then be joyful in our folly, that we may continue to be joyful in our wisdom! And just because we are heavy and serious men in our ultimate depth, and are rather weights than men, there is nothing that does us so much good as the fool's cap and bells: we need them in presence of ourselves—we need all arrogant, soaring, dancing, mocking, childish and blessed Art, in order not to lose the free dominion over things which our ideal demands of us. It would be backsliding for us,[Pg 147] with our susceptible integrity, to lapse entirely into morality, and actually become virtuous monsters and scarecrows, on account of the over-strict requirements which we here lay down for ourselves. We ought also to be able to stand above morality, and not only stand with the painful stiffness of one who every moment fears to slip and fall, but we should also be able to soar and play above it! How could we dispense with Art for that purpose, how could we dispense with the fool?—And as long as you are still ashamed of yourselves in any way, you still do not belong to us!
Our Ultimate Gratitude to Art.—If we hadn't embraced the arts and created this kind of cult[Pg 146] around the false, the understanding we now have about the overall deceit and falsity of things through science—an understanding of delusion and error as part of intelligent and conscious existence—would be completely unbearable. Honesty would lead to disgust and despair. However, now our honesty has a balance that helps us avoid such consequences; namely, Art, as the good-will towards illusion. We don’t always hold back our imaginations from rounding out and perfecting things: and then it’s no longer just the eternal imperfection we carry across the river of Becoming—for we believe we carry a goddess, and we are proud and unpretentious in providing this service. As an aesthetic experience, existence is still endurable for us; and through Art, our eyes and hands, and above all our clear conscience, are provided for us, so we can create such an experience out of ourselves. We must take breaks from ourselves by observing and reflecting on ourselves, and by laughing or crying over ourselves from an artistic distance: we must recognize the hero, as well as the fool, that lies hidden within our passion for knowledge; we must occasionally take joy in our foolishness, so we can continue to find joy in our wisdom! And just because we are heavy and serious people at our core, and tend to be more burdens than human, nothing benefits us more than the fool's cap and bells: we need them to face ourselves—we need all the arrogant, soaring, dancing, mocking, childish, and joyful Art, so we don’t lose the free control over things that our ideals demand of us. It would be backsliding for us,[Pg 147] with our sensitive integrity, to completely fall into morality, and actually become virtuous monsters and scarecrows, due to the overly strict standards we impose on ourselves. We should also be able to rise above morality, not just stand with the painful stiffness of one who is constantly afraid of slipping and falling, but we should also be able to elevate and play beyond it! How could we manage that without Art, without the fool?—And as long as you still feel ashamed of yourselves in any way, you still don’t belong to us!
BOOK THIRD
108.
108.
New Struggles.—After Buddha was dead people showed his shadow for centuries afterwards in a cave,—an immense frightful shadow. God is dead:—but as the human race is constituted, there will perhaps be caves for millenniums yet, in which people will show his shadow.—And we—we have still to overcome his shadow!
New Struggles.—After Buddha died, people displayed his shadow in a cave for centuries—an enormous, terrifying shadow. God is dead:—but given how humanity is, there may still be caves for thousands of years where people will showcase his shadow.—And we—we still have to conquer his shadow!
109.
109.
Let us be on our Guard.—Let us be on our guard against thinking that the world is a living being. Where could it extend itself? What could it nourish itself with? How could it grow and increase? We know tolerably well what the organic is; and we are to reinterpret the emphatically derivative, tardy, rare and accidental, which we only perceive on the crust of the earth, into the essential, universal and eternal, as those do who call the universe an organism? That disgusts me. Let us now be on our guard against believing that the universe is a machine; it is assuredly not constructed with a view to one end; we invest it with far too high an honour with the word "machine." Let us be on our guard against supposing that anything so methodical as the cyclic motions of our neighbouring stars obtains generally and throughout the universe; indeed a glance at the[Pg 152] Milky Way induces doubt as to whether there are not many cruder and more contradictory motions there, and even stars with continuous, rectilinearly gravitating orbits, and the like. The astral arrangement in which we live is an exception; this arrangement, and the relatively long durability which is determined by it, has again made possible the exception of exceptions, the formation of organic life. The general character of the world, on the other hand, is to all eternity chaos; not by the absence of necessity, but in the sense of the absence of order, structure, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever else our æsthetic humanities are called. Judged by our reason, the unlucky casts are far oftenest the rule, the exceptions are not the secret purpose; and the whole musical box repeats eternally its air, which can never be called a melody,—and finally the very expression, "unlucky cast" is already an anthropomorphising which involves blame. But how could we presume to blame or praise the universe! Let us be on our guard against ascribing to it heartlessness and unreason, or their opposites; it is neither perfect, nor beautiful, nor noble; nor does it seek to be anything of the kind, it does not at all attempt to imitate man! It is altogether unaffected by our æsthetic and moral judgments! Neither has it any self-preservative instinct, nor instinct at all; it also knows no law. Let us be on our guard against saying that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, no one who transgresses. When you know that there is no design, you know[Pg 153] also that there is no chance: for it is only where there is a world of design that the word "chance" has a meaning. Let us be on our guard against saying that death is contrary to life. The living being is only a species of dead being, and a very rare species.—Let us be on our guard against thinking that the world eternally creates the new. There are no eternally enduring substances; matter is just another such error as the God of the Eleatics. But when shall we be at an end with our foresight and precaution! When will all these shadows of God cease to obscure us? When shall we have nature entirely undeified! When shall we be permitted to naturalise ourselves by means of the pure, newly discovered, newly redeemed nature?
Let’s be cautious.—Let’s be cautious about thinking that the world is a living thing. Where could it expand? What could it feed on? How could it grow and evolve? We have a pretty good idea of what living things are; yet, some people insist on redefining the clearly derivative, slow, rare, and accidental things we see on the earth’s surface as the essential, universal, and eternal, as if they are viewing the universe as an organism? That’s off-putting. Let’s also be cautious about believing that the universe is a machine; it definitely isn't built for one purpose; we give it way too much credit by calling it a "machine." Let’s be cautious about thinking that anything as orderly as the cyclical motions of our neighboring stars applies universally; in fact, a look at the [Pg 152] Milky Way raises questions about whether there are many more chaotic and contradictory movements, even stars with stable, straight-line orbits, and so on. The arrangement of stars we live in is an exception; this arrangement, along with its relatively long-lasting nature, has allowed for the rarest exception of all—the emergence of organic life. In contrast, the overarching nature of the world is, for all time, chaos; not due to a lack of necessity, but because it lacks order, structure, form, beauty, wisdom, and whatever else we relate to our human aesthetics. Judged by our reasoning, the unfortunate outcomes are far more common than the rare instances, and the whole music box plays its tune endlessly, which can never truly be called a melody—and ultimately, the phrase "unfortunate outcome" is an anthropomorphism that implies blame. But how could we dare to blame or praise the universe? Let’s be cautious about attributing heartlessness and irrationality to it, or their opposites; it is neither perfect, nor beautiful, nor noble; nor does it strive to be any of those things; it doesn’t even attempt to imitate humanity! It is completely unaffected by our aesthetic and moral evaluations! It has no instinct for self-preservation, nor does it have instincts at all; it knows no law. Let’s be cautious about claiming that there are laws in nature. There are only necessities: there is no one who commands, no one who obeys, no one who breaks the rules. Once you realize there is no design, you also understand that there is no chance: because the word "chance" only makes sense in a world of design. Let’s be cautious about saying that death is opposed to life. A living being is just a type of dead being, and a very rare type at that.—Let’s be cautious about thinking that the world continuously creates new things. There are no eternal substances; matter is just another misunderstanding like the God of the Eleatics. But when will we stop being so cautious and foreseeing! When will all these shadows of God stop clouding our view? When will we be able to see nature completely unaffiliated with the divine? When will we be allowed to naturalize ourselves through pure, newly discovered, and redeemed nature?
110.
110.
Origin of Knowledge.—Throughout immense stretches of time the intellect produced nothing but errors; some of them proved to be useful and preservative of the species: he who fell in with them, or inherited them, waged the battle for himself and his offspring with better success. Those erroneous articles of faith which were successively transmitted by inheritance, and have finally become almost the property and stock of the human species, are, for example, the following:—that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it appears, that our will is free, that what is good for me is also good absolutely. It was only very late that the deniers and[Pg 154] doubters of such propositions came forward,—it was only very late that truth made its appearance as the most impotent form of knowledge. It seemed as if it were impossible to get along with truth, our organism was adapted for the very opposite; all its higher functions, the perceptions of the senses, and in general every kind of sensation, co-operated with those primevally embodied, fundamental errors. Moreover, those propositions became the very standards of knowledge according to which the "true" and the "false" were determined—throughout the whole domain of pure logic. The strength of conceptions does not, therefore, depend on their degree of truth, but on their antiquity, their embodiment, their character as conditions of life. Where life and knowledge seemed to conflict, there has never been serious contention; denial and doubt have there been regarded as madness. The exceptional thinkers like the Eleatics, who, in spite of this, advanced and maintained the antitheses of the natural errors, believed that it was possible also to live these counterparts: it was they who devised the sage as the man of immutability, impersonality and universality of intuition, as one and all at the same time, with a special faculty for that reverse kind of knowledge; they were of the belief that their knowledge was at the same time the principle of life. To be able to affirm all this, however, they had to deceive themselves concerning their own condition: they had to attribute to themselves impersonality and unchanging permanence, they had to mistake the nature of the philosophic individual, deny the force[Pg 155] of the impulses in cognition, and conceive of reason generally as an entirely free and self-originating activity; they kept their eyes shut to the fact that they also had reached their doctrines in contradiction to valid methods, or through their longing for repose or for exclusive possession or for domination. The subtler development of sincerity and of scepticism finally made these men impossible; their life also, and their judgments, turned out to be dependent on the primeval impulses and fundamental errors of all sentient being.—The subtler sincerity and scepticism arose wherever two antithetical maxims appeared to be applicable to life, because both of them were compatible with the fundamental errors; where, therefore, there could be contention concerning a higher or lower degree of utility for life; and likewise where new maxims proved to be, not necessarily useful, but at least not injurious, as expressions of an intellectual impulse to play a game that was like all games innocent and happy. The human brain was gradually filled with such judgments and convictions; and in this tangled skein there arose ferment, strife and lust for power. Not only utility and delight, but every kind of impulse took part in the struggle for "truths": the intellectual struggle became a business, an attraction, a calling, a duty, an honour—: cognizing and striving for the true finally arranged themselves as needs among other needs. From that moment, not only belief and conviction, but also examination, denial, distrust and contradiction became forces; all "evil" instincts were subordinated to knowledge, were placed in its service, and acquired the[Pg 156] prestige of the permitted, the honoured, the useful, and finally the appearance and innocence of the good. Knowledge, thus became a portion of life itself, and as life it became a continually growing power: until finally the cognitions and those primeval, fundamental errors clashed with each other, both as life, both as power, both in the same man. The thinker is now the being in whom the impulse to truth and those life-preserving errors wage their first conflict, now that the impulse to truth has also proved itself to be a life-preserving power. In comparison with the importance of this conflict everything else is indifferent; the final question concerning the conditions of life is here raised, and the first attempt is here made to answer it by experiment. How far is truth susceptible of embodiment?—that is the question, that is the experiment.
Origin of Knowledge.—For a long time, human intellect produced mainly mistakes; some of these mistakes turned out to be useful and helped the species survive: those who embraced or inherited these errors fought for their own survival and that of their descendants more effectively. Examples of these flawed beliefs passed down through generations, which have almost become the shared property of humanity, include ideas like: that there are enduring things, that there are equal things, that there are things, substances, and bodies, that a thing is what it seems to be, that our will is free, and that what benefits me is also good for everyone. It was only much later that skeptics and doubters of these ideas emerged. Only much later did truth show itself as the weakest form of knowledge. It seemed as if we couldn’t manage with truth; our nature was suited to the exact opposite; all our higher functions, the perceptions of our senses, and generally every kind of sensation worked in concert with those ancient foundational errors. Furthermore, these propositions became the very standards of knowledge by which "true" and "false" were judged—across the entire realm of pure logic. The strength of concepts, therefore, doesn’t depend on how true they are, but on their age, their embodiment, and how they serve as conditions for life. Where life and knowledge seemed to clash, there has never been serious debate; denial and doubt were regarded as madness. Exceptional thinkers like the Eleatics, who nonetheless advocated against those natural errors, believed it was possible to also live those opposing ideas: they imagined the sage as the person of unwavering, impersonal, and universal intuition, embodying all at once, with a special ability for that alternative type of knowledge; they thought their understanding was also a principle of life. To affirm all of this, however, they had to deceive themselves about their own state: they had to attribute to themselves a lack of personality and unchanging permanence, they had to misinterpret the nature of the philosophical individual, deny the power[Pg 155] of impulses in cognition, and view reason as a completely free and self-originating activity; they turned a blind eye to the fact that they too arrived at their doctrines contrary to valid methods, or through their yearning for ease, exclusive control, or dominance. The emergence of a subtler sincerity and skepticism ultimately made these individuals obsolete; their lives and their judgments also ended up being influenced by the primal impulses and fundamental errors of all sentient beings.—The subtler sincerity and skepticism emerged wherever two opposing maxims seemed to be applicable to life, as both were compatible with the foundational errors; therefore, there could be debate about a higher or lower degree of utility for life; and also where new maxims proved to be not necessarily useful, but at least not harmful, as expressions of an intellectual impulse to engage in a game that was, like all games, innocent and joyful. The human brain gradually filled up with such judgments and beliefs; and within this tangled web, there arose turmoil, conflict, and a desire for power. Not only practicality and pleasure, but every type of impulse participated in the battle for "truths": the intellectual struggle became a business, an attraction, a vocation, a duty, an honor—pursuing and striving for the true finally became a necessity among other needs. From that moment on, not just belief and conviction, but also examination, denial, distrust, and contradiction became forces; all "evil" instincts were subordinated to knowledge, placed in its service, and gained the[Pg 156] prestige of being permissible, respected, useful, and ultimately possessing the appearance and innocence of the good. Knowledge thus became an integral part of life itself, and as life, it evolved into a continuously growing power: until finally, the cognitions and those primal, foundational errors clashed with each other, both as life, both as power, both within the same individual. The thinker is now the being in whom the drive for truth and those life-preserving errors engage in their initial conflict, now that the drive for truth has also proved itself to be a life-sustaining power. In relation to the significance of this conflict, everything else is trivial; the ultimate question regarding the conditions of life is posed here, and the first attempt to answer it through experimentation is made. How far can truth be embodied?—that is the question, that is the experiment.
111.
111.
Origin of the Logical.—Where has logic originated in men's heads? Undoubtedly out of the illogical, the domain of which must originally have been immense. But numberless beings who reasoned otherwise than we do at present, perished; albeit that they may have come nearer to truth than we! Whoever, for example, could not discern the "like" often enough with regard to food, and with regard to animals dangerous to him, whoever, therefore, deduced too slowly, or was too circumspect in his deductions, had smaller probability of survival than he who in all similar cases immediately divined the equality. The preponderating[Pg 157] inclination, however, to deal with the similar as the equal—an illogical inclination, for there is nothing equal in itself—first created the whole basis of logic. It was just so (in order that the conception of substance should originate, this being indispensable to logic, although in the strictest sense nothing actual corresponds to it) that for a long period the changing process in things had to be overlooked, and remain unperceived; the beings not seeing correctly had an advantage over those who saw everything "in flux." In itself every high degree of circumspection in conclusions, every sceptical inclination, is a great danger to life. No living being might have been preserved unless the contrary inclination—to affirm rather than suspend judgment, to mistake and fabricate rather than wait, to assent rather than deny, to decide rather than be in the right—had been cultivated with extraordinary assiduity.—The course of logical thought and reasoning in our modern brain corresponds to a process and struggle of impulses, which singly and in themselves are all very illogical and unjust; we experience usually only the result of the struggle, so rapidly and secretly does this primitive mechanism now operate in us.
Origin of the Logical.—Where did logic come from in people's minds? It undoubtedly emerged from the illogical, which must have initially been vast. However, countless beings who reasoned differently than we do now perished, even though they might have been closer to the truth than we are! For instance, anyone who couldn't recognize the "similarities" enough when it came to food or potentially dangerous animals—anyone who drew conclusions too slowly or was too careful in their reasoning—had a lower chance of survival than those who could quickly realize the similarities in these situations. The predominant inclination to treat the similar as the equal—an illogical tendency, since nothing is inherently equal—first laid the groundwork for logic. It was essential for the concept of substance to develop, as this is necessary for logic, even though nothing in reality corresponds to it in the strictest sense. Therefore, for a long time, the changing nature of things had to be overlooked and remained unnoticed; those who didn’t see things “in flux” had an advantage over those who did. In itself, a high degree of caution in conclusions and a skeptical mindset are significant dangers to life. No living being could have survived unless the opposite tendency—to affirm rather than hesitate, to err and create rather than wait, to agree rather than disagree, to make a decision rather than seek correctness—had been cultivated with remarkable diligence. The way logical thought and reasoning function in our modern minds mirrors a process and struggle of impulses, which individually and collectively are all quite irrational and unfair; we usually only experience the outcome of this struggle, so swiftly and subtly does this primitive mechanism now operate within us.
112.
112.
Cause and Effect.—We say it is "explanation"; but it is only in "description" that we are in advance of the older stages of knowledge and science. We describe better,—we explain just as little as our predecessors. We have discovered a manifold succession where the naïve man and[Pg 158] investigator of older cultures saw only two things, "cause" and "effect," as it was said; we have perfected the conception of becoming, but have not got a knowledge of what is above and behind the conception. The series of "causes" stands before us much more complete in every case; we conclude that this and that must first precede in order that that other may follow—but we have not grasped anything thereby. The peculiarity, for example, in every chemical process seems a "miracle," the same as before, just like all locomotion; nobody has "explained" impulse. How could we ever explain! We operate only with things which do not exist, with lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, divisible spaces—how can explanation ever be possible when we first make everything a conception, our conception! It is sufficient to regard science as the exactest humanising of things that is possible; we always learn to describe ourselves more accurately by describing things and their successions. Cause and effect: there is probably never any such duality; in fact there is a continuum before us, from which we isolate a few portions;—just as we always observe a motion as isolated points, and therefore do not properly see it, but infer it. The abruptness with which many effects take place leads us into error; it is however only an abruptness for us. There is an infinite multitude of processes in that abrupt moment which escape us. An intellect which could see cause and effect as a continuum, which could see the flux of events not according to our mode of perception, as things arbitrarily separated and broken—would throw aside[Pg 159] the conception of cause and effect, and would deny all conditionality.
Cause and Effect.—We call it "explanation," but really, we’re only better at "description" compared to the earlier stages of knowledge and science. Our descriptions are more detailed, but we explain just as little as those before us. We’ve uncovered a complex sequence where earlier thinkers saw only two things: “cause” and “effect.” We’ve refined the idea of processes, but we still lack understanding of what lies beyond and behind that idea. The chain of "causes" is clearer to us now; we can deduce that certain events must happen first for others to follow—but we haven’t truly grasped anything. For example, every chemical process has its peculiarities that still seem like a "miracle," just like all movement; no one has fully "explained" the concept of motion. How could we ever explain? We work only with things that don’t really exist—lines, surfaces, bodies, atoms, divisible times, and divisible spaces—how can we ever truly explain when we first create everything as a conception, our conception? It’s enough to view science as the most precise way of humanizing things that we can achieve; we continually learn to depict ourselves more precisely by detailing things and their sequences. Cause and effect: there’s likely never actually such a simple duality; in reality, there’s a continuum in front of us, from which we isolate a few parts;—just as we always see movement as isolated points and, therefore, don’t truly perceive it but infer it. The suddenness of many effects misleads us; it only seems sudden to us. There are countless processes happening in that unexpected moment that we miss. An intellect that could perceive cause and effect as a continuum, that could see the flow of events outside our perception—separating things arbitrarily and chaotically—would discard the idea of cause and effect altogether and would reject all notions of conditions.
113.
113.
The Theory of Poisons.—So many things have to be united in order that scientific thinking may arise, and all the necessary powers must have been devised, exercised, and fostered singly! In their isolation, however, they have very often had quite a different effect than at present, when they are confined within the limits of scientific thinking and kept mutually in check:—they have operated as poisons; for example, the doubting impulse, the denying impulse, the waiting impulse, the collecting impulse, the disintegrating impulse. Many hecatombs of men were sacrificed ere these impulses learned to understand their juxtaposition and regard themselves as functions of one organising force in one man! And how far are we still from the point at which the artistic powers and the practical wisdom of life shall co-operate with scientific thinking, so that a higher organic system may be formed, in relation to which the scholar, the physician, the artist, and the lawgiver, as we know them at present, will seem sorry antiquities!
The Theory of Poisons.—So many factors need to come together for scientific thinking to emerge, and all the necessary skills must have been developed, practiced, and nurtured individually! However, in their isolation, they often had a very different impact than they do now, when they are limited by scientific thinking and kept in balance with each other:—they have acted as poisons; for instance, the impulse to doubt, the impulse to deny, the impulse to wait, the impulse to collect, the impulse to disintegrate. Countless lives were lost before these impulses learned to recognize their relationship and see themselves as parts of one organizing force in a single person! And how far are we still from the day when the artistic abilities and practical wisdom of life will work together with scientific thought, creating a higher organic system that will make today’s scholars, physicians, artists, and lawmakers seem like outdated relics!
114.
114.
The Extent of the Moral.—We construct a new picture, which we see immediately with the aid of all the old experiences which we have had, always according to the degree of our honesty and justice. The only experiences are moral experiences, even in the domain of sense-perception.
The Extent of the Moral.—We create a new perspective, which we immediately perceive through the lens of all our past experiences, always based on the level of our honesty and fairness. The only experiences that matter are moral experiences, even in the realm of sensory perception.
115.
115.
The Four Errors.—Man has been reared by his errors: firstly, he saw himself always imperfect; secondly,-he attributed to himself—imaginary qualities; thirdly, he felt himself in a false position in relation to the animals and nature; fourthly, he always devised new tables of values, and accepted them for a time as eternal and unconditioned, so that at one time this, and at another time that human impulse or state stood first, and was ennobled in consequence. When one has deducted the effect of these four errors, one has also deducted humanity, humaneness, and "human dignity."
The Four Errors.—Humans have been shaped by their mistakes: first, they always saw themselves as flawed; second, they attributed imaginary qualities to themselves; third, they felt out of place in relation to animals and nature; fourth, they constantly created new value systems and accepted them for a while as eternal and absolute, so that at one point, one human drive or condition took precedence, being glorified as a result. Once you account for the impact of these four errors, you also account for humanity, kindness, and "human dignity."
116.
116.
Herd-Instinct.—Wherever we meet with a morality we find a valuation and order of rank of the human impulses and activities. These valuations and orders of rank are always the expression of the needs of a community or herd: that which is in the first place to its advantage—and in the second place and third place—is also the authoritative standard for the worth of every individual. By morality the individual is taught to become a function of the herd, and to ascribe to himself value only as a function. As the conditions for the maintenance of one community have been very different from those of another community, there have been very different moralities; and in respect to the future essential transformations of herds and communities, states and societies, one can prophesy that there will still be very divergent[Pg 161] moralities. Morality is the herd-instinct in the individual.
Herd Instinct.—Wherever we encounter a system of morality, we find a ranking and evaluation of human impulses and activities. These rankings and evaluations reflect the needs of a community or group: what is most beneficial to it is the primary standard, and the second and third priorities also set the benchmark for the value of each individual. Morality teaches individuals to function as part of the group and to see their own worth solely in relation to that function. Since the conditions for the survival of one community have varied greatly from those of another, there have been many different moral systems; and regarding the future essential changes in groups and communities, states, and societies, we can predict that there will continue to be a wide range of[Pg 161] moralities. Morality is the herd instinct within the individual.
117.
117.
The Herd's Sting of Conscience.—In the longest and remotest ages of the human race there was quite a different sting of conscience from that of the present day. At present one only feels responsible for what one intends and for what one does, and we have our pride in ourselves. All our professors of jurisprudence start with this sentiment of individual independence and pleasure, as if the source of right had taken its rise here from the beginning. But throughout the longest period in the life of mankind there was nothing more terrible to a person than to feel himself independent. To be alone, to feel independent, neither to obey nor to rule, to represent an individual—that was no pleasure to a person then, but a punishment; he was condemned "to be an individual." Freedom of thought was regarded as discomfort personified. While we feel law and regulation as constraint and loss, people formerly regarded egoism as a painful thing, and a veritable evil. For a person to be himself, to value himself according to his own measure and weight—that was then quite distasteful. The inclination to such a thing would have been regarded as madness; for all miseries and terrors were associated with being alone. At that time the "free will" had bad conscience in close proximity to it; and the less independently a person acted, the more the herd-instinct, and not his personal character, expressed itself in his[Pg 162] conduct, so much the more moral did he esteem himself. All that did injury to the herd, whether the individual had intended it or not, then caused him a sting of conscience—and his neighbour likewise, indeed the whole herd!—It is in this respect that we have most changed our mode of thinking.
The Herd's Sting of Conscience.—In the distant past of humanity, the sense of guilt was vastly different from what we experience today. Nowadays, people only feel accountable for their intentions and actions, and we take pride in our individuality. Our legal scholars begin with this notion of personal freedom and satisfaction, as if the idea of rights originated from this standpoint. However, for much of human history, nothing was more terrifying than the feeling of independence. Being alone, feeling self-sufficient, not conforming or having authority, representing oneself as an individual—that was not a source of joy but rather a punishment; one was cursed "to be an individual." Freedom of thought was seen as the embodiment of discomfort. While we view laws and regulations as restrictions and losses, people in the past considered egoism a source of pain and a true evil. For someone to be themselves, to assess their worth based on their own standards—that was completely unappealing then. The desire for such an idea would have been seen as madness because all suffering and fears were linked to isolation. During that time, the concept of "free will" was closely associated with guilt; and the less independently someone acted, the more their behavior reflected the herd instinct rather than their personal character, leading them to regard themselves as more moral. Any harm done to the group, whether intended or not, caused them guilt—along with their neighbors and indeed the whole community! In this regard, our way of thinking has changed the most.
118.
118.
Benevolence—Is it virtuous when a cell transforms itself into the function of a stronger cell? It must do so. And is it wicked when the stronger one assimilates the other? It must do so likewise: it is necessary, for it has to have abundant indemnity and seeks to regenerate itself. One has therefore to distinguish the instinct of appropriation and the instinct of submission in benevolence, according as the stronger or the weaker feels benevolent. Gladness and covetousness are united in the stronger person, who wants to transform something to his function: gladness and desire-to-be-coveted in the weaker person, who would like to become a function.—The former case is essentially pity, a pleasant excitation of the instinct of appropriation at the sight of the weak: it is to be remembered, however, that "strong" and "weak" are relative conceptions.
Benevolence—Is it good when a cell changes to take on the role of a stronger cell? It has to do that. And is it bad when the stronger cell absorbs the other? It has to do that too: it’s necessary because it needs to have enough resources and aims to regenerate itself. So, we have to differentiate between the instinct to take and the instinct to yield in benevolence, depending on whether the stronger or the weaker feels benevolent. Joy and greed are combined in the stronger person, who wants to change something to suit their needs: joy and the wish to be desired are present in the weaker person, who wants to become useful. The first situation is fundamentally pity, a pleasant surge of the instinct to take when seeing the weak: it’s important to remember, though, that "strong" and "weak" are relative terms.
119.
119.
No Altruism!/—I see in many men an excessive impulse and delight in wanting to be a function; they strive after it, and have the keenest scent for all those positions in which precisely they themselves can be functions. Among such persons[Pg 163] are those women who transform themselves into just that function of a man that is but weakly-developed in him, and then become his purse, or his politics, or his social intercourse. Such beings maintain themselves best when they insert themselves in an alien organism; if they do not succeed they become vexed, irritated, and eat themselves up.
No Altruism!/—I notice in many people a strong desire and enjoyment in wanting to be a part of something; they chase it, and have a keen instinct for any roles where they can fill those functions. Among these individuals[Pg 163] are those women who transform into the very function of a man that he has only partially developed, and then become his wallet, or his political sidekick, or his social companion. These individuals thrive best when they immerse themselves in someone else's life; if they fail to do so, they become frustrated, irritated, and end up consuming themselves.
120.
120.
Health of the Soul.—The favourite medico-moral formula (whose originator was Ariston of Chios), "Virtue is the health of the soul," would, for all practical purposes, have to be altered to this: "Thy virtue is the health of thy soul." For there is no such thing as health in itself, and all attempts to define a thing in that way have lamentably failed. It is necessary to know thy aim, thy horizon, thy powers, thy impulses, thy errors, and especially the ideals and fantasies of thy soul, in order to determine what health implies even for thy body. There are consequently innumerable kinds of physical health; and the more one again permits the unique and unparalleled to raise its head, the more one unlearns the dogma of the "Equality of men," so much the more also must the conception of a normal health, together with a normal diet and a normal course of disease, be abrogated by our physicians. And then only would it be time to turn our thoughts to the health and disease of the soul, and make the special virtue of everyone consist in its health; but, to be sure, what appeared as health in one person might appear as the[Pg 164] contrary of health in another. In the end the great question might still remain open:—Whether we could do without sickness for the development of our virtue, and whether our thirst for knowledge and self-knowledge would not especially need the sickly soul as well as the sound one; in short, whether the mere will to health is not a prejudice, a cowardice, and perhaps an instance of the subtlest barbarism and unprogressiveness?
Health of the Soul.—The popular medical-moral saying (created by Ariston of Chios), "Virtue is the health of the soul," would, for practical purposes, need to be changed to this: "Your virtue is the health of your soul." Because there isn’t such a thing as health on its own, and all attempts to define it that way have unfortunately failed. You need to understand your goals, your limits, your abilities, your feelings, your mistakes, and especially the ideals and fantasies of your soul to figure out what health even means for your body. There are therefore countless kinds of physical health; and the more we allow the unique and unparalleled to come forth, the more we unlearn the idea of "Equality of men," and the more our doctors must dismiss the concept of a normal health, along with a normal diet and a normal course of illness. Only then would it be time to focus on the health and disease of the soul, and make each person's unique virtue relate to its health; however, what looks like health in one person might seem like the[Pg 164] opposite of health in another. In the end, a significant question might still linger:—Can we do without illness for the growth of our virtue, and does our desire for knowledge and self-awareness not especially require both the sickly soul and the healthy one? In short, is the simple desire for health not a bias, a sign of cowardice, and perhaps an example of the subtlest form of barbarism and lack of progress?
121.
121.
Life no Argument.—We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live—by the postulating of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content: without these articles of faith no one could manage to live at present! But for all that they are still unproved. Life is no argument; error might be among the conditions of life.
Life no Argument.—We've created a world for ourselves that we can navigate—through the ideas of bodies, lines, surfaces, causes and effects, movement and stillness, form and content: without these beliefs, no one could really get by today! Yet, despite this, they remain unproven. Life is not proof; mistakes could be part of living.
122.
122.
The Element of Moral Scepticism in Christianity.—Christianity also has made a great contribution to enlightenment, and has taught moral scepticism —in a very impressive and effective manner, accusing and embittering, but with untiring patience and subtlety; it annihilated in every individual the belief in his virtues: it made the great virtuous ones, of whom antiquity had no lack, vanish for ever from the earth, those popular men, who, in the belief in their perfection, walked about with the dignity of a hero of the bull-fight. When, trained in this Christian school of scepticism, we[Pg 165] now read the moral books of the ancients, for example those of Seneca and Epictetus, we feel a pleasurable superiority, and are full of secret insight and penetration,—it seems to us as if a child talked before an old man, or a pretty, gushing girl before La Rochefoucauld:—we know better what virtue is! After all, however, we have applied the same scepticism to all religious states and processes, such as sin, repentance, grace, sanctification, &c., and have allowed the worm to burrow so well, that we have now the same feeling of subtle superiority and insight even in reading all Christian books:—we know also the religious feelings better! And it is time to know them well and describe them well, for the pious ones of the old belief die out also; let us save their likeness and type, at least for the sake of knowledge.
The Element of Moral Scepticism in Christianity.—Christianity has also made a significant contribution to enlightenment and has taught moral skepticism—in a very impressive and effective way, often critical and harsh, but with endless patience and subtlety; it destroyed each person's belief in their own virtues. It made the great virtuous individuals, who were abundant in antiquity, disappear forever from the earth—those well-regarded individuals who, believing in their own perfection, walked around with the dignity of a bullfighter. Now, when we, shaped by this Christian skepticism, read the moral works of ancient authors like Seneca and Epictetus, we feel a sense of pleasurable superiority, filled with hidden insight and understanding—it feels as if a child is speaking before an elderly person, or a charming, enthusiastic girl is addressing La Rochefoucauld:—we know better what virtue truly is! Yet, we have applied the same skepticism to all religious states and processes, like sin, repentance, grace, sanctification, etc., and we’ve allowed the doubt to dig so deeply that we now feel that same subtle superiority and understanding even when reading all Christian texts:—we also understand religious feelings better! And it’s time to comprehend them well and describe them accurately, for those who hold onto the old beliefs are fading away too; let us preserve their likeness and essence, at least for the sake of knowledge.
123.
123.
Knowledge more than a Means.—Also without this passion—I refer to the passion for knowledge—science would be furthered: science has hitherto increased and grown up without it. The good faith in science, the prejudice in its favour, by which States are at present dominated (it was even the Church formerly), rests fundamentally on the fact that the absolute inclination and impulse has so rarely revealed itself in it, and that science is regarded not as a passion, but as a condition and an "ethos." Indeed, amour-plaisir of knowledge (curiosity) often enough suffices, amour-vanité suffices, and habituation to it, with the afterthought of obtaining honour and bread; it even suffices[Pg 166] for many that they do not know what to do with a surplus of leisure, except to continue reading, collecting, arranging, observing and narrating; their "scientific impulse" is their ennui. Pope Leo X once (in the brief to Beroaldus) sang the praise of science; he designated it as the finest ornament and the greatest pride of our life, a noble employment in happiness and in misfortune; "without it," he says finally, "all human undertakings would be without a firm basis,—even with it they are still sufficiently mutable and insecure!" But this rather sceptical Pope, like all other ecclesiastical panegyrists of science, suppressed his ultimate judgment concerning it. If one may deduce from his words what is remarkable enough for such a lover of art, that he places science above art it is alter all, however, only from politeness that he omits to speak of that which he places high above all science: the "revealed truth," and the "eternal salvation o the soul,"—what are ornament, pride, entertainment and security of life to him, in comparison thereto? "Science is something of secondary rank, nothing ultimate or unconditioned, no object of passion"—this judgment was kept back in Leos soul: the truly Christian judgment concerning science! In antiquity its dignity and appreciation were lessened by the fact that, even among its most eager disciples, the striving after virtue stood foremost and that people thought they had given the highest praise to knowledge when they celebrated it as the best means to virtue. It is something new in history that knowledge claims to be more than a means.
Knowledge more than a Means.—Also without this passion—I mean the passion for knowledge—science would still advance: it has grown and developed without it until now. The trust in science, the bias in its favor that currently influences States (and once influenced the Church), fundamentally rests on the fact that the absolute desire and drive for knowledge have so rarely shown themselves in it, and that science is seen not as a passion, but as a state of being and an "ethos." Indeed, the love for knowledge (curiosity) is often enough, vanity is enough, and getting used to it, along with the aim of gaining respect and a living; for many, it’s enough that they don’t know how to spend their extra free time except to keep reading, collecting, organizing, observing, and telling stories—their "scientific impulse" is their boredom. Pope Leo X once praised science (in the brief to Beroaldus); he called it the finest ornament and the greatest pride of our lives, a noble pursuit in joy and in sorrow; "without it," he ultimately states, "all human endeavors would lack a solid foundation—even with it, they are still quite unstable and uncertain!" But this somewhat skeptical Pope, like all other church supporters of science, held back his final judgment about it. If we can infer from his words, notable for such an admirer of art, that he places science above art, it’s still polite of him not to mention what he holds even higher than all science: the "revealed truth," and the "eternal salvation of the soul"—what are adornment, pride, entertainment, and security in life to him compared to that? "Science is something of secondary importance, nothing ultimate or unconditional, no object of passion"—this judgment was suppressed in Leo’s soul: the truly Christian perspective on science! In antiquity, its respect and value were diminished by the fact that, even among its most devoted followers, striving for virtue took priority, and people thought they had delivered the highest praise to knowledge when they recognized it as the best means to virtue. It is a new phenomenon in history that knowledge claims to be more than just a means.
124.
124.
In the Horizon of the Infinite.—We have left the land and have gone aboard ship! We have broken down the bridge behind us,—nay, more, the land behind us! Well, little ship! look out! Beside thee is the ocean; it is true it does not always roar, and sometimes it spreads out like silk and gold and a gentle reverie. But times will come when thou wilt feel that it is infinite, and that there is nothing more frightful than infinity. Oh, the poor bird that felt itself free, and now strikes against the walls of this cage! Alas, if home-sickness for the land should attack thee, as if there had been more freedom there,—and there is no "land" any longer!
In the Horizon of the Infinite.—We’ve left the land and boarded the ship! We’ve burned the bridges behind us—no, more than that, we’ve left the land behind! Well, little ship! Be careful! The ocean is beside you; it’s true it doesn’t always roar, and sometimes it spreads out like silk and gold in a gentle dream. But there will be times when you’ll feel that it’s infinite, and that nothing is more terrifying than infinity. Oh, the poor bird that thought it was free, now banging against the walls of this cage! Alas, if homesickness for the land should hit you, as if there were more freedom there—and there’s no “land” anymore!
125.
125.
The Madman.—Have you ever heard of the madman who on a bright morning lighted a lantern and ran to the market-place calling out unceasingly: "I seek God! I seek God!"—As there were many people standing about who did not believe in God, he caused a great deal of amusement. Why! is he lost? said one. Has he strayed away like a child? said another. Or does he keep himself hidden? Is he afraid of us? Has he taken a sea-voyage? Has he emigrated?—the people cried out laughingly, all in a hubbub. The insane man jumped into their midst and transfixed them with his glances. "Where is God gone?" he called out. "I mean to tell you! We have killed him,—you and I! We are all his murderers! But how have we done it? How were we able to drink up the[Pg 168] sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we loosened this earth from its sun? Whither does it now move? Whither do we move? Away from all suns? Do we not dash on unceasingly? Back-wards, sideways, forewards, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Do we not stray, as through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe upon us? Has it not become colder? Does not night come on continually, darker and darker? Shall we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the noise of the grave-diggers who are burying God? Do we not smell the divine putrefaction?—for even Gods putrefy! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How shall we console ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and the mightiest that the world has hitherto possessed, has bled to death under our knife,—who will wipe the blood from us? With what water could we cleanse ourselves? What lustrums, what sacred games shall we have to devise? Is not the magnitude of this deed too great for us? Shall we not ourselves have to become Gods, merely to seem worthy of it? There never was a greater event,—and on account of it, all who are born after us belong to a higher history than any history hitherto!"—Here the madman was silent and looked again at his hearers; they also were silent and looked at him in surprise. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, so that it broke in pieces and was extinguished. "I come too early," he then said, "I am not yet at the right time. This[Pg 169] prodigious event is still on its way, and is travelling,—it has not yet reached men's ears. Lightning and thunder need time, the light of the stars needs time, deeds need time, even after they are done, to be seen and heard. This deed is as yet further from them than the furthest star,—and yet they have done it!"—It is further stated that the madman made his way into different churches on the same day, and there intoned his Requiem æternam deo. When led out and called to account, he always gave the reply: "What are these churches now, if they are not the tombs and monuments of God?"—
The Madman.—Have you ever heard about the madman who, on a bright morning, lit a lantern and ran to the marketplace shouting continuously: "I’m looking for God! I’m looking for God!"—Since many people there didn’t believe in God, he became a source of great amusement. “Is he lost?” asked one. “Has he wandered off like a child?” asked another. “Or is he keeping himself hidden? Is he scared of us? Has he gone on a sea voyage? Has he left us?”—the crowd laughed, all in a frenzy. The madman jumped into their midst and pinned them down with his gaze. “Where has God gone?” he shouted. “I tell you! We have killed him,—you and I! We are all his murderers! But how did we do it? How were we able to drink up the[Pg 168] sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the whole horizon? What did we do when we separated this earth from its sun? Where does it move now? Where do we move? Away from all suns? Are we not rushing on endlessly? Backward, sideways, forward, in all directions? Is there still an above and below? Are we not wandering through infinite nothingness? Does not empty space breathe on us? Has it not grown colder? Does not night come on continually, growing darker and darker? Will we not have to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear the sound of grave diggers burying God? Do we not sense the divine decay?—for even Gods decay! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How will we comfort ourselves, the most murderous of all murderers? The holiest and mightiest thing that the world has ever had has bled to death under our knife,—who will wipe the blood from us? With what water can we cleanse ourselves? What rites, what sacred games will we need to create? Is the weight of this act not too great for us? Must we not ourselves become Gods, just to seem worthy of it? There has never been a greater event,—and because of it, everyone born after us belongs to a history greater than any history before!"—Here the madman became silent and looked again at his audience; they too were silent and stared at him in disbelief. Finally, he threw his lantern to the ground, shattering it and extinguishing the light. "I come too early," he then said, "I am not yet at the right moment. This[Pg 169] monumental event is still on its way, and is traveling,—it hasn't yet reached people's ears. Lightning and thunder take time, the light from the stars takes time, actions take time, even after they happen, to be seen and heard. This act is still further from them than the farthest star,—and yet they have done it!”—It is also said that the madman entered different churches that same day and intoned his Requiem æternam deo. When he was led out and questioned, he always replied: "What are these churches now, if not the tombs and monuments of God?"—
126.
126.
Mystical Explanations.—Mystical explanations are regarded as profound; the truth is that they do not even go the length of being superficial.
Mystical Explanations.—Mystical explanations are seen as deep; the reality is that they don't even scratch the surface.
127.
127.
After-Effect of the most Ancient Religiousness.—The thoughtless man thinks that the Will is the only thing that operates, that willing is something simple, manifestly given, underived, and comprehensible in itself. He is convinced that when he does anything, for example, when he delivers a blow, it is he who strikes, and he has struck because he willed to strike. He does not notice anything of a problem therein, but the feeling of willing suffices to him, not only for the acceptance of cause and effect, but also for the belief that he understands their relationship. Of the mechanism of the occurrence, and of the manifold subtle operations[Pg 170] that must be performed in order that the blow may result, and likewise of the incapacity of the Will in itself to effect even the smallest part of those operations—he knows nothing. The Will is to him a magically operating force; the belief in the Will as the cause of effects is the belief in magically operating forces. In fact, whenever he saw anything happen, man originally believed in a Will as cause, and in personally willing beings operating in the background,—the conception of mechanism was very remote from him. Because, however, man for immense periods of time believed only in persons (and not in matter, forces, things, &c.), the belief in cause and effect has become a fundamental belief with him, which he applies everywhere when anything happens,—and even still uses instinctively as a piece of atavism of remotest origin. The propositions, "No effect without a cause," and "Every effect again implies a cause," appear as generalisations of several less general propositions:—"Where there is operation there has been willing." "Operating is only possible on willing beings." "There is never a pure, resultless experience of activity, but every experience involves stimulation of the Will" (to activity, defence, revenge or retaliation). But in the primitive period of the human race, the latter and the former propositions were identical, the first were not generalisations of the second, but the second were explanations of the first.—Schopenhauer, with his assumption that all that exists is something volitional, has set a primitive mythology on the throne; he seems never to have attempted an analysis of the Will, because[Pg 171] he believed like everybody in the simplicity and immediateness of all volition:—while volition is in fact such a cleverly practised mechanical process that it almost escapes the observing eye. I set the following propositions against those of Schopenhauer:—Firstly, in order that Will may arise, an idea of pleasure and pain is necessary. Secondly, that a vigorous excitation may be felt as pleasure or pain, is the affair of the interpreting intellect, which, to be sure, operates thereby for the most part unconsciously to us, and one and the same excitation may be interpreted as pleasure or pain. Thirdly, it is only in an intellectual being that there is pleasure, displeasure and Will; the immense majority of organisms have nothing of the kind.
After-Effect of the most Ancient Religiousness.—The thoughtless person believes that the Will is the only force at work, that willing is something simple, obvious, inherent, and easy to understand on its own. They're convinced that when they do something, like throwing a punch, it is they who hit, and they've done it because they willed to do so. They don’t see any issue with this, and the feeling of willing is enough for them, not only to accept cause and effect but also to think they understand how they’re connected. They have no knowledge of the mechanism involved, and of the many intricate actions[Pg 170] needed to produce the strike, nor of how the Will itself lacks the ability to perform even the tiniest part of those actions—they know nothing of this. To them, the Will is a magically operating force; believing in the Will as the cause of effects is akin to believing in magical powers. In fact, whenever they witnessed something occur, early humans believed in a Will as the cause, and in personal willing beings acting behind the scenes—the idea of mechanism was very distant from them. However, because humans believed for incredibly long periods only in persons (not in matter, forces, things, etc.), the belief in cause and effect has become a fundamental tenet for them, which they apply universally when anything happens—and they still instinctively use it as a remnant of their earliest heritage. The statements, "No effect without a cause," and "Every effect implies a cause," appear as generalizations of several more specific propositions:—"Where there is action, there has been willing." "Action is only possible with willing beings." "There is never a pure, resultless experience of activity, but every experience involves the stimulation of the Will" (to act, defend, retaliate, or get revenge). But in the early days of humanity, the latter and earlier propositions were identical; the former weren’t just generalizations of the latter, but the latter were explanations of the former.—Schopenhauer, with his belief that everything that exists is something volitional, has put a primitive mythology on a pedestal; he seems never to have attempted to analyze the Will, because[Pg 171] he believed, like everyone else, in the simplicity and immediacy of all volition:—while volition is actually such a cleverly executed mechanical process that it almost evades notice. I propose the following counterpoints to Schopenhauer’s claims:—First, to trigger the Will, an idea of pleasure and pain is necessary. Second, the perception of a strong stimulus as pleasure or pain depends on the interpreting intellect, which mostly operates in an unconscious manner for us, and one and the same stimulus may be perceived as either pleasure or pain. Third, pleasure, displeasure, and Will only exist in intellectual beings; the vast majority of organisms lack any such experiences.
128.
128.
The Value of Prayer.—Prayer has been devised for such men as have never any thoughts of their own, and to whom an elevation of the soul is unknown, or passes unnoticed; what shall these people do in holy places and in all important situations in life which require repose and some kind of dignity? In order at least that they may not disturb, the wisdom of all the founders of religions, the small as well as the great, has commended to them the formula of prayer, as a long mechanical labour of the lips, united with an effort of the memory, and with a uniform, prescribed attitude of hands and feet—and eyes! They may then, like the Tibetans, chew the cud of their "om mane padme hum," innumerable times, or, as in Benares, count the name of the God Ram-Ram-Ram (etc., with or[Pg 172] without grace) on their fingers; or honour Vishnu with his thousand names of invocation, Allah with his ninety-nine; or they may make use of the prayer-wheels and the rosary: the main thing is that they are settled down for a time at this work, and present a tolerable appearance; their mode of prayer is devised for the advantage of the pious who have thought and elevation of their own. But even these have their weary hours when a series of venerable words and sounds, and a mechanical, pious ritual does them good. But supposing that these rare men—in every religion the religious man is an exception—know how to help themselves, the poor in spirit do not know, and to forbid them the prayer-babbling would mean to take their religion from them, a fact which Protestantism brings more and more to light. All that religion wants with such persons is that they should keep still with their eyes, hands, legs, and all their organs: they thereby become temporarily beautified and—more human-looking!
The Value of Prayer.—Prayer has been created for those who never have thoughts of their own and to whom an uplifted spirit is unfamiliar or unnoticed. What should these individuals do in sacred places and significant moments in life that require peace and a sense of dignity? So they won’t disturb, the wisdom of all the founders of religions, both small and great, has recommended to them the practice of prayer, which is a long, mechanical exercise of the lips, combined with an effort of memory, and a consistent, prescribed posture of hands, feet—and eyes! They might, like the Tibetans, endlessly recite their "om mane padme hum,” countless times, or, in Benares, repeat the name of God, Ram-Ram-Ram (etc., with or[Pg 172] without grace) on their fingers; or honor Vishnu with his thousand names or Allah with his ninety-nine; or they might use prayer wheels and rosaries: the important thing is that they are engaged in this work for a while and present a decent appearance. Their style of prayer is designed for the benefit of the devout who have their own thoughts and inspiration. But even these individuals experience their tiring moments when a series of ancient words and sounds, along with a mechanical, devotional ritual, provides comfort. However, assuming that these rare people—in every religion, a truly religious person is an exception—know how to support themselves, the spiritually poor do not know how, and to deny them their prayer practice would mean taking their religion away from them, a fact that Protestantism increasingly highlights. All that religion desires from such individuals is that they should keep still with their eyes, hands, legs, and all their other senses: they thus become temporarily more presentable and—more human!
129.
129.
The Conditions for God.—"God himself cannot subsist without wise men," said Luther, and with good reason; but "God can still less subsist without unwise men,"—good Luther did not say that!
The Conditions for God.—"God himself cannot exist without wise people," said Luther, and he had good reason for that; but "God can even less exist without foolish people,"—good Luther didn't say that!
130.
130.
A Dangerous Resolution.—The Christian resolution to find the world ugly and bad, has made the world ugly and bad.
A Dangerous Resolution.—The Christian decision to view the world as ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.
131.
131.
Christianity and Suicide.—Christianity made use of the excessive longing for suicide at the time of its origin as a lever for its power: it left only two forms of suicide, invested them with the highest dignity and the highest hopes, and forbade all others with dreadful threatenings. But martyrdom and the slow self-annihilation of the ascetic were permitted.
Christianity and Suicide.—Christianity took advantage of the intense desire for suicide during its early days to assert its influence: it recognized only two types of suicide, gave them the greatest honor and the highest hopes, and condemned all others with severe warnings. However, martyrdom and the gradual self-destruction of the ascetic were allowed.
132.
132.
Against Christianity.—It is now no longer our reason, but our taste that decides against Christianity.
Against Christianity.—It’s no longer our logic, but our preferences that turn us away from Christianity.
133.
133.
Axioms.—An unavoidable hypothesis on which mankind must always fall back again, is in the long run more powerful than the most firmly believed belief in something untrue (like the Christian belief). In the long run: that means a hundred thousand years hence.
Axioms.—An unavoidable assumption that humanity must always rely on is ultimately more powerful than the strongest belief in something false (like the Christian belief). In the long run: that means a hundred thousand years from now.
134.
134.
Pessimists as Victims.—When a profound dislike of existence gets the upper hand, the after-effect of a great error in diet of which a people has been long guilty comes to light. The spread of Buddhism (not its origin) is thus to a considerable extent dependent on the excessive and almost exclusive rice-fare of the Indians, and on the universal enervation that results therefrom. Perhaps the modern, European discontentedness is to be looked[Pg 174] upon as caused by the fact that the world of our forefathers, the whole Middle Ages, was given to drink, owing to the influence of German tastes in Europe: the Middle Ages, that means the alcoholic poisoning of Europe.—The German dislike of life (including the influence of the cellar-air and stove-poison in German dwellings), is essentially a cold-weather complaint.
Pessimists as Victims.—When a deep dislike of life takes over, the aftermath of a long-standing dietary mistake among a population becomes clear. The spread of Buddhism (not its origin) is significantly linked to the excessive and almost exclusive reliance on rice in the Indian diet, along with the widespread weakness that results from it. Perhaps today's European discontent can be seen as stemming from the fact that the world of our ancestors, the entire Middle Ages, was influenced by a drinking culture shaped by German preferences in Europe: the Middle Ages, which translates to the alcoholic poisoning of Europe.—The German aversion to life (including the effects of the stale air and harmful gases in German homes) is essentially a condition related to cold weather.
135.
135.
Origin of Sin—Sin, as it is at present felt wherever Christianity prevails or has prevailed is a Jewish feeling and a Jewish invention; and in respect to this background of all Christian morality Christianity has in fact aimed at "Judaising" the whole world. To what an extent this has succeeded in Europe is traced most accurately in our remarkable alienness to Greek antiquity—a world without the feeling of sin—in our sentiments even at present; in spite of all the good will to approximation and assimilation, which whole generations and many distinguished individuals have not failed to display. "Only when thou repentest is God gracious to thee"—that would arouse the laughter or the wrath of a Greek: he would say, "Slaves may have such sentiments." Here a mighty being, an almighty being, and yet a revengeful being, is presupposed; his power is so great that no injury whatever can be done to him except in the point of honour. Every sin is an infringement of respect, a crimen læsæ majestatis divinæ—and nothing more! Contrition, degradation, rolling-in-the-dust,—these are the first and[Pg 175] last conditions on which his favour depends: the restoration, therefore, of his divine honour! If injury be caused otherwise by sin, if a profound, spreading evil be propagated by it, an evil which, like a disease, attacks and strangles one man after another—that does not trouble this honour-craving Oriental in heaven; sin is an offence against him, not against mankind!—to him on whom he has bestowed his favour he bestows also this indifference to the natural consequences of sin. God and mankind are here thought of as separated as so antithetical that sin against the latter cannot be at all possible,—all deeds are to be looked upon solely with respect to their supernatural consequences, and not with respect to their natural results: it is thus that the Jewish feeling, to which all that is natural seems unworthy in itself, would have things. The Greeks, on the other hand, were more familiar with the thought that transgression also may have dignity,—even theft, as in the case of Prometheus, even the slaughtering of cattle as the expression of frantic jealousy, as in the case of Ajax; in their need to attribute dignity to transgression and embody it therein, they invented tragedy,—an art and a delight, which in its profoundest essence has remained alien to the Jew, in spite of all his poetic endowment and taste for the sublime.
Origin of Sin—Sin, as it is currently experienced wherever Christianity exists or has existed, is a Jewish sentiment and a Jewish concept. In relation to this foundation of all Christian morality, Christianity has essentially sought to "Jewishify" the entire world. The extent of this success in Europe is most clearly reflected in our significant detachment from Greek antiquity—a culture devoid of the notion of sin—even in our feelings today; despite all the willingness to adapt and integrate that entire generations and many notable individuals have shown. "Only when you repent is God gracious to you"—that would provoke laughter or anger from a Greek: he would say, "Only slaves think like this." Here, a powerful being, an all-powerful being, and yet a vengeful being, is assumed; his power is so immense that no injury can be done to him except in terms of honor. Every sin is a violation of respect, a crimen læsæ majestatis divinæ—and nothing more! Sorrow, humiliation, and self-abasement—these are the primary and[Pg 175] overriding conditions on which his favor depends: the restoration of his divine honor! If harm is caused in other ways by sin, if a deep-seated, spreading evil results from it, an evil that attacks and suffocates one person after another like a disease—that does not concern this honor-demanding Oriental in heaven; sin is an offense against him, not against humanity!—to him who has received his favor, he also grants this indifference to the natural consequences of sin. God and humanity are viewed as so distinct that sin against the latter is thought to be impossible—every action is to be assessed only in terms of its supernatural consequences, not its natural outcomes: this is how the Jewish sentiment, which finds all that is natural unworthy in itself, would have it. The Greeks, on the other hand, were more accustomed to the idea that transgression can have dignity—even theft, as in the case of Prometheus, or the killing of cattle as an expression of wild jealousy, as in the case of Ajax; in their quest to endow transgression with dignity and represent it, they created tragedy—an art and a pleasure that has fundamentally remained foreign to the Jew, despite his poetic gifts and appreciation for the sublime.
136.
136.
The Chosen People.—The Jews, who regard themselves as the chosen people among the nations, and that too because they are the moral genius among the nations (in virtue of their capacity for despising[Pg 176] the human in themselves more than any other people)—the Jews have a pleasure in their divine monarch and saint similar to that which the French nobility had in Louis XIV. This nobility had allowed its power and autocracy to be taken from it, and had become contemptible: in order not to feel this, in order to be able to forget it, an unequalled royal magnificence, royal authority and plenitude of power was needed, to which there was access only for the nobility. As in accordance with this privilege they raised themselves to the elevation of the court, and from that elevation saw everything under them,—saw everything contemptible,—they got beyond all uneasiness of conscience. They thus elevated intentionally the tower of the royal power more and more into the clouds, and set the final coping-stone of their own power thereon.
The Chosen People.—The Jews, who see themselves as the chosen people among the nations, do so because they believe they are the moral leaders among them (thanks to their ability to despise[Pg 176] the flawed aspects of humanity within themselves more than any other group)—they take pleasure in their divine ruler and saint in a way similar to how the French nobility admired Louis XIV. This nobility had allowed its power and authority to be stripped away, becoming contemptible: to avoid feeling this, to distract themselves, they required an unequalled royal grandeur, royal power, and complete authority, which was accessible only to the nobility. By virtue of this privilege, they elevated themselves to the splendor of the court, and from that high position, they viewed everything beneath them—viewed everything as contemptible—thus freeing themselves from any discomfort about their conscience. They intentionally raised the tower of royal power higher and higher into the clouds, placing the final stone of their own power on top of it.
137.
137.
Spoken in Parable.—A Jesus Christ was only possible in a Jewish landscape—I mean in one over which the gloomy and sublime thunder-cloud of the angry Jehovah hung continually. Here only was the rare, sudden flashing of a single sunbeam through the dreadful, universal and continuous nocturnal-day regarded as a miracle of "love," as a beam of the most unmerited "grace." Here only could Christ dream of his rainbow and celestial ladder on which God descended to man; everywhere else the clear weather and the sun were considered the rule and the commonplace.
Spoken in Parable.—A Jesus Christ could only exist in a Jewish setting—I mean in one overshadowed by the dark and majestic storm-cloud of the wrathful Jehovah. Only here could the unexpected burst of a single sunbeam breaking through the terrifying, constant night be seen as a miracle of "love," a flash of the most undeserved "grace." Only in this place could Christ envision his rainbow and heavenly ladder connecting God to humanity; elsewhere, clear skies and sunshine were seen as the norm and the ordinary.
138.
138.
The Error of Christ.—The founder of Christianity thought there was nothing from which men suffered so much as from their sins:—it was his error, the error of him who felt himself without sin, to whom experience was lacking in this respect! It was thus that his soul filled with that marvellous, fantastic pity which had reference to a trouble that even among his own people, the inventors of sin, was rarely a great trouble! But Christians understood subsequently how to do justice to their master, and how to sanctify his error into a "truth."
The Error of Christ.—The founder of Christianity believed that nothing caused people as much suffering as their sins. This was his mistake, coming from someone who saw himself as sinless and lacked experience in this area! His soul then filled with that incredible, whimsical compassion for a struggle that, even among his own people, who were the creators of sin, was rarely a significant issue! However, Christians later figured out how to honor their master and turn his mistake into a "truth."
139.
139.
Colour of the Passions.—Natures such as the apostle Paul, have an evil eye for the passions; they learn to know only the filthy, the distorting, and the heart-breaking in them,—their ideal aim, therefore, is the annihilation of the passions; in the divine they see complete purification from passion. The Greeks, quite otherwise than Paul and the Jews, directed their ideal aim precisely to the passions, and loved, elevated, embellished and deified them: in passion they evidently not only felt themselves happier, but also purer and diviner than otherwise.—And now the Christians? Have they wished to become Jews in this respect? Have they perhaps become Jews?
Color of the Passions.—Natures like the apostle Paul have a negative view of the passions; they only recognize the filthy, the distorting, and the heart-wrenching aspects of them—therefore, their ultimate goal is to eliminate the passions. In the divine, they see complete freedom from passion. The Greeks, in stark contrast to Paul and the Jews, aimed their ideals directly at the passions, and they loved, uplifted, beautified, and even worshipped them: in passion, they not only felt happier but also purer and more divine than otherwise. —And what about the Christians? Have they wanted to become like the Jews in this regard? Have they perhaps actually become Jews?
140.
140.
Too Jewish.—If God had wanted to become an object of love, he would first of all have had to[Pg 178] forgo judging and justice:-a judge, and even a gracious judge, is no object of love. The founder of Christianity showed too little of the finer feelings in this respect—being a Jew.
Too Jewish.—If God wanted to be an object of love, he would first have to[Pg 178] give up judging and justice: a judge, even a kind one, isn't really someone to love. The founder of Christianity didn’t express enough of those deeper emotions in this regard—because he was a Jew.
141.
141.
Too Oriental.—What? A God who loves men provided that they believe in him, and who hurls frightful glances and threatenings at him who does not believe in this love! What? A conditioned love as the feeling of an almighty God! A love which has not even become master of the sentiment of honour and of the irritable desire for vengeance! How Oriental is all that! "If I love thee, what does it concern thee?"[1] is already a sufficient criticism of the whole of Christianity.
Too Oriental.—What? A God who loves people as long as they believe in Him, and who casts terrifying looks and threats at those who don’t believe in this love? What? A love that comes with conditions from an all-powerful God! A love that hasn’t even taken control of the sentiment of honor and the quick wish for revenge! How Oriental is all of this! "If I love you, what does it matter to you?"[1] is already enough to critique the entirety of Christianity.
142.
142.
Frankincense.—Buddha says: "Do not flatter thy benefactor!" Let one repeat this saying in a Christian church:—it immediately purifies the air.
Frankincense.—Buddha says: "Don’t flatter your benefactor!" If someone says this in a Christian church, it instantly purifies the atmosphere.
143.
143.
The Greatest Utility of Polytheism.—For the individual to set up his own ideal and derive from it his laws, his pleasures and his rights—that has perhaps been hitherto regarded as the most monstrous of all human aberrations, and as idolatry in itself; in fact, the few who have ventured to do this have always needed to apologise to themselves,[Pg 179] usually in this wise: "Not I! not I! but a God, through my instrumentality!" It was in the marvellous art and capacity for creating Gods—in polytheism—that this impulse was permitted to discharge itself, it was here that it became purified, perfected, and ennobled; for it was originally a commonplace and unimportant impulse, akin to stubbornness, disobedience and envy. To be hostile to this impulse towards the individual ideal,—that was formerly the law of every morality. There was then only one norm, "the man"—and every people believed that it had this one and ultimate norm. But above himself, and outside of himself, in a distant over-world, a person could see a multitude of norms: the one God was not the denial or blasphemy of the other Gods! It was here that individuals were first permitted, it was here that the right of individuals was first respected. The inventing of Gods, heroes, and supermen of all kinds, as well as co-ordinate men and undermen—dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, devils—was the inestimable preliminary to the justification of the selfishness and sovereignty of the individual: the freedom which was granted to one God in respect to other Gods, was at last given to the individual himself in respect to laws, customs and neighbours. Monotheism, on the contrary, the rigid consequence of the doctrine of one normal human being—consequently the belief in a normal God, beside whom there are only false, spurious Gods—has perhaps been the greatest danger of mankind in the past: man was then threatened by that premature state of inertia, which, so far as we can see, most of the[Pg 180] other species of animals reached long ago, as creatures who all believed in one normal animal and ideal in their species, and definitely translated their morality of custom into flesh and blood. In polytheism man's free-thinking and many-sided thinking had a prototype set up: the power to create for himself new and individual eyes, always newer and more individualised: so that these are no eternal horizons and perspectives.
The Greatest Utility of Polytheism.—For an individual to establish their own ideal and derive their laws, pleasures, and rights from it—that has perhaps been seen as the most outrageous of all human deviations, and as idolatry itself; in fact, the few who have dared to do this have always felt the need to justify themselves,[Pg 179] often saying: "Not me! Not me! but a God, through my influence!" It was in the incredible art and ability to create Gods—in polytheism—that this impulse found a way to express itself, where it became purified, refined, and elevated; for it originally was a trivial and insignificant impulse, similar to stubbornness, disobedience, and envy. To be against this impulse toward individual ideals—was once the rule of every moral code. There was then only one standard, "the person"—and each culture believed it had this one ultimate standard. But beyond themselves, and outside of themselves, in a distant higher realm, one could see a variety of standards: the one God was not the rejection or dismissal of the other Gods! It was here that individuals were first allowed, it was here that individual rights were first acknowledged. The invention of Gods, heroes, and all kinds of superhumans, as well as ordinary people and lesser beings—dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, devils—was the invaluable groundwork for validating the selfishness and independence of the individual: the freedom given to one God in relation to other Gods was finally extended to the individual themselves in relation to laws, customs, and neighbors. Monotheism, on the other hand, the strict outcome of the belief in one standard human being—thus the belief in a standard God, alongside whom there are only false, inferior Gods—has perhaps posed the greatest threat to humanity in the past: people were then at risk of falling into a premature state of stagnation, which, as far as we can tell, most of the[Pg 180] other animal species reached long ago, as beings who all believed in one standard animal and ideal in their species and explicitly translated their moral customs into reality. In polytheism, man's free and diverse thinking had a model established: the ability to create for themselves new and individual perspectives, continuously newer and more personalized: so that these are no eternal horizons and viewpoints.
144.
144.
Religious Wars.—The greatest advance of the masses hitherto has been religious war, for it proves that the masses have begun to deal reverently with conceptions of things. Religious wars only result when human reason generally has been refined by the subtle disputes of sects; so that even the populace becomes punctilious and regards trifles as important, actually thinking it possible that the "eternal salvation of the soul" may depend upon minute distinctions of concepts.
Religious Wars.—The biggest progress of the masses so far has been religious war, as it shows that the masses have started to approach ideas with respect. Religious wars only happen when human reason has been refined by the complex arguments of different sects; this makes even ordinary people careful and view small details as significant, genuinely believing that the "eternal salvation of the soul" might depend on minor differences in concepts.
145.
145.
Danger of Vegetarians.—The immense prevalence of rice-eating impels to the use of opium and narcotics, in like manner as the immense prevalence of potato-eating impels to the use of brandy:—it also impels, however, in its more subtle after-effects to modes of thought and feeling which operate narcotically. This is in accord with the fact that those who promote narcotic modes of thought and feeling, like those Indian teachers,[Pg 181] praise a purely vegetable diet, and would like to make it a law for the masses: they want thereby to call forth and augment the need which they are in a position to satisfy.
Danger of Vegetarians.—The widespread consumption of rice leads to the use of opium and other narcotics, just like the widespread consumption of potatoes leads to the use of brandy. However, it also encourages more subtle ways of thinking and feeling that act in a narcotic manner. This aligns with the reality that those who advocate for narcotic ways of thinking and feeling, similar to those Indian teachers,[Pg 181] promote a completely plant-based diet and would like to enforce it as a law for the masses: they aim to create and increase the need that they can fulfill.
146.
146.
German Hopes.—Do not let us forget that the names of peoples are generally names of reproach. The Tartars, for example, according to their name, are "the dogs"; they were so christened by the Chinese. "Deutschen" (Germans) means originally "heathen": it is thus that the Goths after their conversion named the great mass of their unbaptized fellow-tribes, according to the indication in their translation of the Septuagint, in which the heathen are designated by the word which in Greek signifies "the nations." (See Ulfilas.)—It might still be possible for the Germans to make an honourable name ultimately out of their old name of reproach, by becoming the first non-Christian nation of Europe; for which purpose Schopenhauer, to their honour, regarded them as highly qualified. The work of Luther would thus be consummated,—he who taught them to be anti-Roman, and to say: "Here I stand! I cannot do otherwise!"—
German Hopes.—Let’s not forget that names of nations often carry negative connotations. For instance, the Tartars are referred to as "the dogs," a label given to them by the Chinese. The term "Deutschen" (Germans) originally means "heathen"; this was how the Goths, after converting to Christianity, referred to the majority of their unbaptized tribes, based on how the Septuagint translates the term for the people outside their faith, which in Greek signifies "the nations." (See Ulfilas.)—It might still be possible for the Germans to transform their historically derogatory name into a respected one by becoming the first non-Christian nation in Europe; Schopenhauer believed they were well-suited for this. In doing so, the work of Luther would be fulfilled — he who taught them to be anti-Roman and to declare: "Here I stand! I cannot do otherwise!"—
147.
147.
Question and Answer.—What do savage tribes at present accept first of all from Europeans? Brandy and Christianity, the European narcotics.—And by what means are they fastest ruined?—By the European narcotics.
Question and Answer.—What do primitive tribes today take from Europeans first? Alcohol and religion, the European substances. —And how are they quickly destroyed? —By the European substances.
148.
148.
Where Reformations Originate.—At the time of the great corruption of the church it was least of all corrupt in Germany: it was on that account that the Reformation originated here, as a sign that even the beginnings of corruption were felt to be unendurable. For, comparatively speaking, no people was ever more Christian than the Germans at the time of Luther; their Christian culture was just about to burst into bloom with a hundred-fold splendour,—one night only was still lacking; but that night brought the storm which put an end to all.
Where Reformations Originate.—When the church was deeply corrupted, Germany was the least affected by it; that's why the Reformation started here, as a clear sign that even the first signs of corruption were intolerable. Compared to others, no nation was ever more Christian than the Germans during Luther's time; their Christian culture was on the verge of flourishing with immense beauty—only one night remained; but that night unleashed a storm that ended everything.
149.
149.
The Failure of Reformations.—It testifies to the higher culture of the Greeks, even in rather early ages, that attempts to establish new Grecian religions frequently failed; it testifies that quite early there must have been a multitude of dissimilar individuals in Greece, whose dissimilar troubles were not cured by a single recipe of faith and hope. Pythagoras and Plato, perhaps also Empedocles, and already much earlier the Orphic enthusiasts, aimed at founding new religions; and the two first-named were so endowed with the qualifications for founding religions, that one cannot be sufficiently astonished at their failure: they just reached the point of founding sects. Every time that the Reformation of an entire people fails and only sects raise their heads, one may conclude that the people already contains many types, and has begun to free itself from the gross[Pg 183] herding instincts and the morality of, custom,—a momentous state of suspense, which one is accustomed to disparage as decay of morals and corruption, while it announces the maturing of the egg and the early rupture of the shell. That Luther's Reformation succeeded in the north, is a sign that the north had remained backward in comparison with the south of Europe, and still had requirements tolerably uniform in colour and kind; and there would have been no Christianising of Europe at all, if the culture of the old world of the south had not been gradually barbarized by an excessive admixture of the blood of German barbarians, and thus lost its ascendency. The more universally and unconditionally an individual, or the thought of an individual, can operate, so much more homogeneous and so much lower must be the mass that is there operated upon; while counter-strivings betray internal counter-requirements, which also want to gratify and realise themselves. Reversely, one may always conclude with regard to an actual elevation of culture, when powerful and ambitious natures only produce a limited and sectarian effect: this is true also for the separate arts, and for the provinces of knowledge. Where there is ruling there are masses: where there are masses there is need of slavery. Where there is slavery the individuals are but few, and have the instincts and conscience of the herd opposed to them.
The Failure of Reformations.—It shows the advanced culture of the Greeks, even in early times, that attempts to create new Greek religions often failed; it indicates that there must have been a variety of different individuals in Greece who couldn’t be fixed by a single recipe of faith and hope. Pythagoras and Plato, along with perhaps Empedocles and even earlier the Orphic enthusiasts, tried to establish new religions; and the first two had the qualities necessary to start religions, making their failure quite surprising: they only succeeded in forming sects. Whenever an entire people's reformation fails and only sects emerge, it suggests that the people already have many types and have begun to free themselves from basic herd instincts and traditional morality—a significant state of uncertainty, often dismissed as moral decay and corruption, while actually signaling the maturation of an egg and the early breaking of the shell. Luther's Reformation succeeding in the north indicates that the north was lagging behind compared to southern Europe, still having fairly uniform needs; and there wouldn’t have been any Christianization of Europe at all if the culture of the old southern world hadn’t been gradually degraded by too much mixing with the blood of Germanic barbarians, causing it to lose its dominance. The more universally and unconditionally an individual or an individual's thought can operate, the more homogeneous and lower must be the mass being influenced; while counter-efforts reveal internal conflicting needs that also want to express and realize themselves. Conversely, one can always conclude about actual cultural advancement when powerful and ambitious individuals create only a limited and sectarian impact: this applies to different arts as well as areas of knowledge. Where there is control, there are masses: and where there are masses, there is a need for slavery. Where slavery exists, the individuals are few, and their instincts and conscience are at odds with those of the herd.
150.
150.
Criticism of Saints.—Must one then, in order to have a virtue, be desirous of having it precisely[Pg 184] in its most brutal form?—as the Christian saints desired and needed;—those who only endured life with the thought that at the sight of their virtue self-contempt might seize every man. A virtue with such an effect I call brutal.
Criticism of Saints.—Does one really need to want a virtue in its most harsh form to possess it?—like the Christian saints did;—those who merely endured life with the hope that their virtue would inspire self-contempt in everyone else. I refer to a virtue that has such an impact as brutal.
151.
151.
The Origin of Religion.—The metaphysical requirement is not the origin of religions, as Schopenhauer claims, but only a later sprout from them. Under the dominance of religious thoughts we have accustomed ourselves to the idea of "another (back, under, or upper) world," and feel an uncomfortable void and privation through the annihilation of the religious illusion;—and then "another world" grows out of this feeling once more, but now it is only a metaphysical world, and no longer a religious one. That however which in general led to the assumption of "another world" in primitive times, was not an impulse or requirement, but an error in the interpretation of certain natural phenomena, a difficulty of the intellect.
The Origin of Religion.—The need for metaphysical concepts isn't the origin of religions, as Schopenhauer suggests, but rather a later development from them. Under the influence of religious ideas, we've gotten used to the notion of "another (back, under, or upper) world," and we experience a troubling void and lack when the religious illusion fades away;—and then "another world" emerges from this feeling again, but now it's just a metaphysical world, not a religious one anymore. What originally led to the belief in "another world" in ancient times was not an instinct or necessity, but an error in interpreting certain natural events, a struggle of the mind.
152.
152.
The greatest Change.—The lustre and the hues of all things have changed! We no longer quite understand how earlier men conceived of the most familiar and frequent things,—for example, of the day, and the awakening in the morning: owing to their belief in dreams the waking state seemed to them differently illuminated. And similarly of the whole of life, with its reflection of death and its significance: our "death" is an entirely different[Pg 185] death. All events were of a different lustre, for a God shone forth in them; and similarly of all resolutions and peeps into the distant future: for people had oracles, and secret hints, and believed in prognostication. "Truth" was conceived in quite a different manner, for the insane could formerly be regarded as its mouthpiece—a thing which makes us shudder, or laugh. Injustice made a different impression on the feelings: for people were afraid of divine retribution, and not only of legal punishment and disgrace. What joy was there in an age when men believed in the devil and tempter! What passion was there when people saw demons lurking close at hand! What philosophy was there when doubt was regarded as sinfulness of the most dangerous kind, and in fact as an outrage on eternal love, as distrust of everything good, high, pure, and compassionate!—We have coloured things anew, we paint them over continually,—but what have we been able to do hitherto in comparison with the splendid colouring of that old master!—I mean ancient humanity.
The greatest Change.—The colors and brightness of everything have changed! We no longer fully grasp how people from earlier times viewed the most familiar and common things—for example, the day and waking up in the morning: their belief in dreams made the waking state feel differently lit. The same goes for all of life, with its reflection of death and its meaning: our "death" is an entirely different[Pg 185] death. All events carried a different shine because a God was present in them; and likewise, all decisions and glimpses into the future had a different weight: people had oracles, secret clues, and believed in prophecies. "Truth" was understood in a completely different way, as the insane could once be seen as its spokesperson—a thought that makes us shudder or laugh. Injustice had a different impact on emotions: people were afraid of divine punishment, not just legal consequences and shame. How much joy existed in an age when people believed in the devil and tempter! What passion filled their lives when they saw demons lurking nearby! What a different kind of philosophy there was when doubt was seen as one of the gravest sins, an insult to eternal love, a lack of trust in all that is good, high, pure, and compassionate!—We have repainted things anew, constantly covering them over—but what have we achieved so far compared to the splendid coloring of that old master!—I mean ancient humanity.
153.
153.
Homo poeta.—"I myself who have made this tragedy of tragedies altogether independently, in so far as it is completed; I who have first entwined the perplexities of morality about existence, and have tightened them so that only a God could unravel them—so Horace demands!—I have already in the fourth act killed all the Gods—for the sake of morality! What is now to be done about the fifth act? Where shall I get the[Pg 186] tragic dénouement! Must I now think about a comic dénouement?"
Homo poeta.—"I, the one who created this ultimate tragedy completely on my own, up to this point; I’m the one who first wove the confusions of morality into existence and made them so complex that only a God could solve them—just as Horace demands! I’ve already killed all the Gods in the fourth act—for the sake of morality! What do I do now about the fifth act? Where will I get the[Pg 186] tragic dénouement! Should I now consider a comic dénouement?"
154.
154.
Differences in the Dangerousness of Life.—You don't know at all what you experience; you run through life as if intoxicated, and now and then fall down a stair. Thanks however to your intoxication you still do not break your limbs: your muscles are too languid and your head too confused to find the stones of the staircase as hard as we others do! For, us life is a greater danger: we are made of glass—alas, if we should strike against anything! And all is lost if we should fall!
Differences in the Dangerousness of Life.—You have no idea what you're really going through; you rush through life like you're in a daze, and every now and then you trip down some stairs. But because of your daze, you don’t end up breaking any bones: your muscles are too relaxed and your mind too foggy to feel the stairs as painfully as the rest of us do! For us, life is a bigger risk: we’re fragile—oh, what if we were to hit something! Everything would be lost if we were to fall!
155.
155.
What we Lack.—We love the grandeur of Nature, and have discovered it; that is because human grandeur is lacking in our minds. It was the reverse with the Greeks: their feeling towards Nature was quite different from ours.
What we Lack.—We love the grandeur of Nature and have recognized it; that’s because we lack a sense of human grandeur in our minds. The opposite was true for the Greeks: their relationship with Nature was completely different from ours.
156.
156.
The most Influential Person.—The fact that a person resists the whole spirit of his age, stops it at the door and calls it to account, must exert an influence! It is indifferent whether he wishes to exert an influence; the point is that he can.
The most Influential Person.—The fact that someone stands against the entire spirit of their time, shuts it out, and holds it accountable, must have an impact! It doesn't matter if they intend to make an impact; what matters is that they can.
157.
157.
Mentiri.—Take care!—he reflects: he will have a lie ready immediately. This is a stage in[Pg 187] the civilisation of whole nations. Consider only what the Romans expressed by mentiri!
To lie.—Be careful!—he thinks: he'll have a lie prepared right away. This represents a stage in[Pg 187] the development of entire nations. Just think about what the Romans meant by to lie!
158.
158.
An Inconvenient Peculiarity.—To find everything deep is an inconvenient peculiarity: it makes one constantly strain one's eyes, so that in the end one always finds more than one wishes.
An Inconvenient Peculiarity.—Finding everything too deep is an annoying quirk: it makes you constantly squint, and in the end, you always discover more than you bargained for.
159.
159.
Every Virtue has its Time.—The honesty of him who is at present inflexible often causes him remorse; for inflexibility is the virtue of a time different from that in which honesty prevails.
Every Virtue has its Time.—The honesty of someone who is currently unyielding often leads to regret; because being unyielding is a virtue suited to a different time than the one when honesty is valued.
160.
160.
In Intercourse with Virtues.—One can also be undignified and flattering towards a virtue.
In Intercourse with Virtues.—One can also be unrefined and sycophantic towards a virtue.
161.
161.
To the Admirers of the Age.—The runaway priest and the liberated criminal are continually making grimaces; what they want is a look without a past. But have you ever seen men who know that their looks reflect the future, and who are so courteous to you, the admirers of the "age," that they assume a look without a future?—
To the Admirers of the Age.—The runaway priest and the freed criminal are always making faces; what they seek is an expression without a past. But have you ever noticed men who understand that their expressions signal the future, and who are so polite to you, the admirers of the "age," that they adopt an expression without a future?—
162.
162.
Egoism.—Egoism is the perspective law of our sentiment, according to which the near appears large and momentous, while in the distance the magnitude and importance of all things diminish.
Egoism.—Egoism is the perspective principle of our feelings, where what is close seems big and significant, while things in the distance lose their size and importance.
163.
163.
After a Great Victory.—The best thing in a great victory is that it deprives the conqueror of the fear of defeat. "Why should I not be worsted for once?" he says to himself, "I am now rich enough to stand it."
After a Great Victory.—The best part of a huge win is that it takes away the conqueror's fear of losing. "Why shouldn't I lose this time?" he thinks to himself, "I have enough wealth to handle it."
164.
164.
Those who Seek Repose.—I recognise the minds that seek repose by the many dark objects with which they surround themselves: those who want to sleep darken their chambers, or creep into caverns. A hint to those who do not know what they really seek most, and would like to know!
Those who Seek Repose.—I can see the people who look for peace by the many dark things they surround themselves with: those who want to sleep darken their rooms or hide in caves. A tip for those who aren’t sure what they truly want and wish to find out!
165.
165.
The Happiness of Renunciation.—He who has absolutely dispensed with something for a long time will almost imagine, when he accidentally meets with it again, that he has discovered it,—and what happiness every discoverer has! Let us be wiser than the serpents that lie too long in the same sunshine.
The Happiness of Renunciation.—Someone who has completely given up something for a long time will nearly believe that when they come across it again, they’ve found it for the first time,—and what joy every discoverer feels! Let’s be smarter than the snakes that stay too long in the same sunlight.
166.
166.
Always in our own Society.—All that is akin to me in nature and history speaks to me, praises me, urges me forward and comforts me—: other things are unheard by me, or immediately forgotten. We are only in our own society always.
Always in our own Society.—Everything that is similar to me in nature and history speaks to me, praises me, motivates me, and comforts me; other things go unheard or are quickly forgotten. We are always only in our own society.
167.
167.
Misanthropy and Philanthropy.—We only speak about being sick of men when we can no longer[Pg 189] digest them, and yet have the stomach full of them. Misanthropy is the result of a far too eager philanthropy and "cannibalism,"—but who ever bade you swallow men like oysters, my Prince Hamlet?
Misanthropy and Philanthropy.—We only talk about being fed up with people when we can’t stand them anymore, yet we’re still full of them. Misanthropy comes from being too passionate about helping others and "cannibalism,"—but who told you to swallow people like oysters, my Prince Hamlet?
168.
168.
Concerning an Invalid.—"Things go badly with him!"—What is wrong?—" He suffers from the longing to be praised, and finds no sustenance for it."—Inconceivable! All the world does honour to him, and he is reverenced not only in deed but in word!—"Certainly, but he is dull of hearing for the praise. When a friend praises him it sounds to him as if the friend praised himself; when an enemy praises him, it sounds to him as if the enemy wanted to be praised for it; when, finally, some one else praises him—there are by no means so many of these, he is so famous!—he is offended because they neither want him for a friend nor for an enemy; he is accustomed to say: 'What do I care for those who can still pose as the all-righteous towards me!'"
About an Invalid.—"Things are going badly for him!"—What's wrong?—"He craves recognition but finds none."—Unbelievable! Everyone honors him, and he is respected in both actions and words!—"True, but he’s deaf to the praise. When a friend praises him, it sounds to him like the friend is praising himself; when an enemy praises him, it feels like the enemy wants to be recognized for it; and when someone else praises him—there aren't that many of these, given his fame!—he feels insulted because they neither want him as a friend nor an enemy; he usually says, 'What do I care for those who can still act like they are better than me!'"
169.
169.
Avowed Enemies.—Bravery in presence of an enemy is a thing by itself: a person may possess it and still be a coward and an irresolute num-skull. That was Napoleon's opinion concerning the "bravest man" he knew, Murat:—whence it follows that avowed enemies are indispensable to some men, if they are to attain to their virtue, to their manliness, to their cheerfulness.
Avowed Enemies.—Courage in front of an enemy is unique: someone can have it and still be a coward and an uncertain fool. That was Napoleon's view regarding the "bravest man" he knew, Murat:—thus it follows that openly declared enemies are essential for some people if they are to reach their virtue, their manhood, their happiness.
170.
170.
With, the Multitude.—He has hitherto gone with the multitude and is its panegyrist; but one day he will be its opponent! For he follows it in the belief that his laziness will find its advantage thereby: he has not yet learned that the multitude is not lazy enough for him! that it always presses forward! that it does not allow any one to stand still!—And he likes so well to stand still!
With, the Multitude.—So far, he has gone along with the crowd and praised it; but one day he will become its critic! He follows it thinking that his laziness will benefit from it: he hasn’t yet realized that the crowd isn’t lazy enough for him! It’s always moving forward! It doesn’t let anyone stay still!—And he loves to stay still!
171.
171.
Fame.—When the gratitude of many to one casts aside all shame, then fame originates.
Fame.—When the gratitude of many toward one overrides any sense of shame, that’s where fame begins.
172.
172.
The Perverter of Taste.—A: "You are a perverter of taste—they say so everywhere!" B: "Certainly! I pervert every one's taste for his party:—no party forgives me for that."
The Perverter of Taste.—A: "You're a perverter of taste—everyone says so!" B: "Of course! I mess with everyone's taste for their party:—no party ever forgives me for that."
173.
173.
To be Profound and to Appear Profound.—He who knows that he is profound strives for clearness; he who would like to appear profound to the multitude strives for obscurity. The multitude thinks everything profound of which it cannot see the bottom; it is so timid and goes so unwillingly into the water.
To be Profound and to Appear Profound.—Those who understand their depth work towards clarity; those who want to seem deep to the masses work towards ambiguity. The masses consider anything profound that they can’t fully grasp; they are so hesitant and so reluctant to dive in.
174.
174.
Apart.—Parliamentarism, that is to say, the public permission to choose between five main political[Pg 191] opinions, insinuates itself into the favour of the numerous class who would fain appear independent and individual, and like to fight for their opinions. After all, however, it is a matter of indifference whether one opinion is imposed upon the herd, or five opinions are permitted to it.—He who diverges from the five public opinions and goes apart, has always the whole herd against him.
Apart.—Parliamentarism, which means the public's right to choose among five main political[Pg 191] opinions, appeals to the many people who want to seem independent and individual, and enjoy advocating for their views. Ultimately, though, it doesn't really matter if one opinion is forced on the masses or if five opinions are allowed to exist. —Anyone who strays from the five public opinions and stands apart will always find the entire crowd against them.
175.
175.
Concerning Eloquence.—What has hitherto had the most convincing eloquence? The rolling of the drum: and as long as kings have this at their command, they will always be the best orators and popular leaders.
Concerning Eloquence.—What has been the most persuasive form of eloquence so far? The sound of a drum: and as long as rulers have this at their disposal, they will always be the best speakers and the most popular leaders.
176.
176.
Compassion.—The poor, ruling princes! All their rights now change unexpectedly into claims, and all these claims immediately sound like pretensions! And if they but say "we," or "my people," wicked old Europe begins laughing. Verily, a chief-master-of-ceremonies of the modern world would make little ceremony with them; perhaps he would decree that "les souverains rangent aux parvenus."
Compassion.—The poor ruling princes! All their rights now unexpectedly turn into claims, and these claims instantly come off as pretentious! And if they dare to say "we" or "my people," wicked old Europe starts laughing. Truly, a chief master of ceremonies in the modern world wouldn’t waste time with them; maybe he would declare that "les souverains rangent aux parvenus."
177.
177.
On "Educational Matters."—In Germany an important educational means is lacking for higher men; namely, the laughter of higher men; these men do not laugh in Germany.
On "Educational Matters."—In Germany, an important educational tool is missing for educated individuals; specifically, the laughter of educated individuals; these individuals do not laugh in Germany.
178.
178.
For Moral Enlightenment.—The Germans must be talked out of their Mephistopheles—and out of their Faust also. These are two moral prejudices against the value of knowledge.
For Moral Enlightenment.—The Germans need to be convinced to move beyond their Mephistopheles—and also their Faust. These are two moral biases against the importance of knowledge.
179.
179.
Thoughts.—Thoughts are the shadows of our sentiments—always however obscurer, emptier and simpler.
Thoughts.—Thoughts are the shadows of our feelings—always, however, more unclear, less substantial, and simpler.
180.
180.
The Good Time for Free Spirits.—Free Spirits take liberties even with regard to Science—and meanwhile they are allowed to do so,—while the Church still remains!—In so far they have now their good time.
The Good Time for Free Spirits.—Free Spirits take liberties even with Science—and they are allowed to do so,—while the Church still exists!—In this sense, they are truly enjoying their time.
181.
181.
Following and Leading.—A: "Of the two, the one will always follow, the other will always lead, whatever be the course of their destiny. And yet the former is superior to the other in virtue and intellect." B: "And yet? And yet? That is spoken for the others; not for me, not for us!—Fit secundum regulam."
Following and Leading.—A: "Out of the two, one will always follow while the other will always lead, no matter what their fate is. And yet, the follower is superior to the leader in virtue and intellect." B: "And yet? And yet? That's what you've said for others; it doesn't apply to me, not to us!—Fit secundum regulam."
182.
182.
In Solitude.—When one lives alone one does not speak too loudly, and one does not write too loudly either, for one fears the hollow reverberation—the criticism of the nymph Echo.—And all voices sound differently in solitude!
In Solitude.—When you live alone, you don’t speak too loudly, and you don’t write too loudly either, because you worry about the empty echo—the judgment of the nymph Echo.—And every voice sounds different when you're alone!
183.
183.
The Music of the Best Future.—The first musician for me would be he who knew only the sorrow of the profoundest happiness, and no other sorrow: there has not hitherto been such a musician.
The Music of the Best Future.—The ideal musician for me would be someone who understands only the sadness that comes from the deepest happiness, and no other kind of sorrow: such a musician has yet to exist.
184.
184.
Justice.—Better allow oneself to be robbed than have scarecrows around one—that is my taste. And under all circumstances it is just a matter of taste—and nothing more!
Justice.—I’d rather be robbed than have scarecrows nearby—that’s just my preference. And in all situations, it's really just a matter of preference—and nothing more!
185.
185.
Poor.—He is now poor, but not because everything has been taken from him, but because he has thrown everything away:—what does he care? He is accustomed to find new things.—It is the poor who misunderstand his voluntary poverty.
Poor.—He is now poor, but not because everything has been taken from him, but because he has thrown everything away:—what does he care? He is used to finding new things.—It’s the poor who misinterpret his intentional poverty.
186.
186.
Bad Conscience.—All that he now does is excellent and proper—and yet he has a bad conscience with it all. For the exceptional is his task.
Bad Conscience.—Everything he does now is great and right—and yet he feels guilty about it all. Because the extraordinary is his responsibility.
187.
187.
Offensiveness in Expression.—This artist offends me by the way in which he expresses his ideas, his very excellent ideas: so diffusely and forcibly, and with such gross rhetorical artifices, as if he were speaking to the mob. We feel always as if "in bad company" when devoting some time to his art.
Offensiveness in Expression.—This artist annoys me with how he expresses his ideas, which are actually very good ideas: so wordy and forceful, and with such clumsy rhetorical tricks, as if he were talking to a crowd. We always feel like we’re “in bad company” when we spend time on his art.
188.
188.
Work.—How closely work and the workers now stand even to the most leisurely of us! The royal courtesy in the words: "We are all workers," would have been a cynicism and an indecency even under Louis XIV.
Work.—How closely work and the workers are now connected, even to the most leisurely among us! The royal courtesy in the phrase: "We are all workers," would have been considered cynical and inappropriate even during the time of Louis XIV.
189.
189.
The Thinker.—He is a thinker: that is to say, he knows how to take things more simply than they are.
The Thinker.—He is a thinker; in other words, he understands how to see things more simply than they really are.
190.
190.
Against Eulogisers.—A: "One is only praised by one's equals!" B: "Yes! And he who praises you says: 'You are my equal!'"
Against Eulogisers.—A: "You’re only praised by those who are on your level!" B: "Exactly! And the person who praises you is saying: 'You are my equal!'"
191.
191.
Against many a Vindication.—The most perfidious manner of injuring a cause is to vindicate it intentionally with fallacious arguments.
Against many a Vindication.—The most deceitful way to harm a cause is to defend it purposefully with misleading arguments.
192.
192.
The Good-natured.—What is it that distinguishes the good-natured, whose countenances beam kindness, from other people? They feel quite at ease in presence of a new person, and are quickly enamoured of him; they therefore wish him well; their first opinion is: "He pleases me." With them there follow in succession the wish to appropriate (they make little scruple about the person's worth), rapid appropriation, joy in the possession, and actions in favour of the person possessed.
The Good-natured.—What sets good-natured people apart, whose faces radiate kindness, from others? They feel comfortable around newcomers and quickly take a liking to them; as a result, they genuinely want the best for them. Their initial thought is: "I like this person." They then experience a series of feelings: the desire to get close (without much concern for the person's value), fast attachment, joy in having that connection, and actions that benefit the person they care about.
193.
193.
Kant's Joke.—Kant tried to prove, in a way that dismayed "everybody," that "everybody" was in the right:—that was his secret joke. He wrote against the learned, in favour of popular prejudice; he wrote, however, for the learned and not for the people.
Kant's Joke.—Kant attempted to demonstrate, in a way that shocked "everyone," that "everyone" was justified: that was his hidden joke. He wrote against academics, advocating for common beliefs; however, he actually wrote for the academics and not for the general public.
194.
194.
The "Open-hearted" Man.—That man acts probably always from concealed motives; for he has always communicable motives on his tongue, and almost in his open hand.
The "Open-hearted" Man.—That man likely always acts from hidden motives; because he always has shareable motives on his lips, and almost in his open hand.
195.
195.
Laughable!—See! See! He runs away from men—: they follow him, however, because he runs before them,—they are such a gregarious lot!
Ridiculous!—Look! Look! He runs away from people—: they chase him, though, because he runs ahead of them,—they're such a social bunch!
196.
196.
The Limits of our Sense of Hearing.—We hear only the questions to which we are capable of finding an answer.
The Limits of our Sense of Hearing.—We only hear the questions that we can actually answer.
197.
197.
Caution therefore!—There is nothing we are fonder of communicating to others than the seal of secrecy—together with what is under it.
Caution, then!—There’s nothing we like more than sharing the secret we’ve got—along with what it contains.
198.
198.
Vexation of the Proud Man.—The proud man is vexed even with those who help him forward: he looks angrily at his carriage-horses.
Vexation of the Proud Man.—The proud man is annoyed even by those who assist him: he glares at his carriage horses.
199.
199.
Liberality.—Liberality is often only a form of timidity in the rich.
Liberality.—Generosity is often just a disguise for the insecurity of the wealthy.
200.
200.
Laughing.—To laugh means to love mischief, but with a good conscience.
Laughing.—Laughing means enjoying playfulness, but with a clear conscience.
201.
201.
In Applause.—In applause there is always some kind of noise: even in self-applause.
In Applause.—In applause, there's always some sort of noise: even in self-applause.
202.
202.
A Spendthrift.—He has not yet the poverty of the rich man who has counted all his treasure,—he squanders his spirit with the irrationalness of the spendthrift Nature.
A Spendthrift.—He doesn’t yet have the poverty of a rich man who has counted all his wealth—he wastes his energy with the foolishness of a spendthrift nature.
203.
203.
Hic niger est.—Usually he has no thoughts,—but in exceptional cases bad thoughts come to him.
Hic niger est.—Most of the time he doesn’t think much,—but sometimes he has negative thoughts.
204.
204.
Beggars and Courtesy.—"One is not discourteous when one knocks at a door with a stone when the bell-pull is awanting"—so think all beggars and necessitous persons, but no one thinks they are in the right.
Beggars and Courtesy.—"You're not being rude when you knock on a door with a stone if there's no doorbell"—that's what all beggars and people in need believe, but no one thinks they are justified in doing so.
205.
205.
Need.—Need is supposed to be the cause of things; but in truth it is often only the result of things.
Need.—Need is thought to be the cause of things; but in reality, it is often just the outcome of things.
206.
206.
During the Rain.—It rains, and I think of the poor people who now crowd together with their many cares, which they are unaccustomed to conceal; all of them, therefore, ready and anxious to give pain to one another, and thus provide themselves with a pitiable kind of comfort, even in bad weather. This, this only, is the poverty of the poor!
During the Rain.—It’s raining, and I think about the struggling people who are now huddled together with their worries, which they usually hide; all of them, therefore, are eager and anxious to hurt one another, finding a sad sort of comfort, even in bad weather. This, this alone, is the true poverty of the poor!
207.
207.
The Envious Man.—That is an envious man—it is not desirable that he should have children; he would be envious of them, because he can no longer be a child.
The Envious Man.—That is an envious man—it’s not a good idea for him to have children; he would be envious of them, since he can no longer be a child.
208.
208.
A Great Man!—Because a person is "a great man," we are not authorised to infer that he is a man. Perhaps he is only a boy, or a chameleon of all ages, or a bewitched girl.
A Great Man!—Just because someone is called "a great man" doesn't mean we can assume he is actually a man. He could just as easily be a boy, or someone who changes with every age, or even an enchanted girl.
209.
209.
A Mode of Asking for Reasons.—There is a mode of asking for our reasons which not only makes us forget our best reasons, but also arouses in us a spite and repugnance against reason generally:-a very stupefying mode of questioning, and really an artifice of tyrannical men!
A Way of Asking for Reasons.—There’s a way of asking for our reasons that not only makes us forget our best reasons, but also stirs up a bitterness and aversion to reason in general—a very numbing style of questioning, and truly a trick used by oppressive individuals!
210.
210.
Moderation in Diligence.—One must not be anxious to surpass the diligence of one's father—that would make one ill.
Moderation in Diligence.—One should not feel pressured to outdo their father's hard work—that could be harmful.
211.
211.
Secret Enemies.—To be able to keep a secret enemy—that is a luxury which the morality even of the highest-minded persons can rarely afford.
Secret Enemies.—Being able to maintain a secret enemy—that's a luxury that even the most morally upright individuals can seldom manage.
212.
212.
Not Letting oneself be Deluded.—His spirit has bad manners, it is hasty and always stutters with impatience; so that one would hardly suspect the deep breathing and the large chest of the soul in which it resides.
Not Letting Oneself Be Deluded.—His spirit has poor manners; it's quick-tempered and always stammers in frustration, making it hard to see the deep breaths and the expansive heart of the soul it inhabits.
213.
213.
The Way to Happiness.—A sage asked of a fool the way to happiness. The fool answered without delay, like one who had been asked the way to the next town: "Admire yourself, and live on the street!" "Hold," cried the sage, "you require too much; it suffices to admire oneself!" The fool replied: "But how can one constantly admire without constantly despising?"
The Way to Happiness.—A wise person asked a fool how to find happiness. The fool quickly replied, as if asked for directions to the nearest town: "Love yourself, and live on the streets!" "Wait," the wise person exclaimed, "that's asking too much; just loving yourself is enough!" The fool responded, "But how can you always love yourself without also hating yourself at times?"
214.
214.
Faith Saves.—Virtue gives happiness and a state of blessedness only to those who have a strong faith in their virtue:—not, however, to the more refined souls whose virtue consists of a profound distrust of themselves and of all virtue. After all, therefore, it is "faith that saves" here also!—and be it well observed, not virtue!
Faith Saves.—Virtue brings happiness and a sense of blessedness only to those who have a strong belief in their own virtue; however, it doesn't apply to those more refined individuals whose virtue is rooted in a deep distrust of themselves and of all virtue. Ultimately, it is "faith that saves" here as well!—and let's note, not virtue!
215.
215.
The Ideal and the Material.—You have a noble ideal before your eyes: but are you also such a noble stone that such a divine image could be formed out of you? And without that—is not all your labour barbaric sculpturing? A blasphemy of your ideal?
The Ideal and the Material.—You have a great ideal in front of you: but are you also such a remarkable person that such a divine image could be created from you? And without that— isn’t all your work just rough sculpting? A betrayal of your ideal?
216.
216.
Danger in the Voice.—With a very loud voice a person is almost incapable of reflecting on subtle matters.
Danger in the Voice.—When someone speaks very loudly, they find it hard to consider subtle issues.
217.
217.
Cause and Effect.—Before the effect one believes in other causes than after the effect.
Cause and Effect.—Before the effect, people believe in different causes than they do after the effect.
218.
218.
My Antipathy.—I do not like those people who, in order to produce an effect, have to burst like bombs, and in whose neighbourhood one is always in danger of suddenly losing one's hearing—or even something more.
My Antipathy.—I don’t like those people who, to make an impression, have to explode like fireworks, and near whom you’re always at risk of suddenly losing your hearing—or even something worse.
219.
219.
The Object of Punishment.—The object of punishment is to improve him who punishes,—that is the ultimate appeal of those who justify punishment.
The Purpose of Punishment.—The purpose of punishment is to improve the one who punishes,—that is the main argument of those who defend punishment.
220.
220.
Sacrifice.—The victims think otherwise than the spectators about sacrifice and sacrificing: but they have never been allowed to express their opinion.
Sacrifice.—The victims see sacrifice and sacrificing differently than the spectators do: however, they have never been given a chance to share their perspective.
221.
221.
Consideration.—Fathers and sons are much more considerate of one another than mothers and daughters.
Consideration.—Fathers and sons are way more thoughtful of each other than mothers and daughters.
222.
222.
Poet and Liar.—The poet sees in the liar his foster-brother whose milk he has drunk up; the latter has thus remained wretched, and has not even attained to a good conscience.
Poet and Liar.—The poet views the liar as his brother, someone from whom he has learned and taken much; the liar, in turn, remains miserable and hasn't even reached a sense of moral clarity.
223.
223.
Vicariousness of the Senses.—"We have also eyes in order to hear with them,"—said an old confessor who had grown deaf; "and among the blind he that has the longest ears is king."
Vicariousness of the Senses.—"We also have eyes so we can hear with them,"—said an old confessor who had become deaf; "and among the blind, the one with the longest ears is king."
224.
224.
Animal Criticism.—I fear the animals regard man as a being like themselves, seriously endangered by the loss of sound animal understanding;—they regard him perhaps as the absurd animal, the laughing animal, the crying animal, the unfortunate animal.
Animal Criticism.—I worry that animals see humans as creatures similar to themselves, genuinely at risk due to a lack of true animal understanding;—they might view us as the ridiculous animal, the laughing animal, the crying animal, the unfortunate animal.
225.
225.
The Natural.—"Evil has always had the great effect! And Nature is evil! Let us therefore be natural!"—so reason secretly the great aspirants after effect, who are too often counted among great men.
The Natural.—"Evil has always had a huge impact! And Nature is evil! So let's be natural!"—this is how the ambitious seekers of influence think in secret, who are often mistakenly regarded as great individuals.
226.
226.
The Distrustful and their Style.—We say the strongest things simply, provided people are about us who believe in our strength:—such an environment educates to "simplicity of style." The distrustful, on the other hand, speak emphatically; they make things emphatic.
The Distrustful and their Style.—We express our strongest thoughts simply, as long as there are people around us who believe in our capabilities:—such an environment fosters "simplicity of style." In contrast, the distrustful speak in an exaggerated way; they emphasize everything.
227.
227.
Fallacy, Fallacy.—He cannot rule himself; therefore that woman concludes that it will be easy to rule him, and throws out her lines to catch him;—the poor creature, who in a short time will be his slave.
Fallacy, Fallacy.—He can't control himself; so that woman thinks it will be easy to control him, and she tries to reel him in;—the poor guy, who soon will be her slave.
228.
228.
Against Mediators.—He who attempts to mediate between two decided thinkers is rightly called mediocre: he has not an eye for seeing the unique; similarising and equalising are signs of weak eyes.
Against Mediators.—Someone who tries to mediate between two strong thinkers is rightly considered mediocre: they lack the ability to see what makes each one unique; trying to make everything similar and equal shows a lack of clear vision.
229.
229.
Obstinacy and Loyalty.—Out of obstinacy he holds fast to a cause of which the questionableness has become obvious,—he calls that, however, his "loyalty."
Obstinacy and Loyalty.—Out of stubbornness, he clings to a cause that is clearly questionable—he calls that, however, his "loyalty."
230.
230.
Lack of Reserve.—His whole nature fails to convince—that results from the fact that he has never been reticent about a good action he has performed.
Lack of Reserve.—His entire character struggles to convince—this is due to the fact that he has never been discreet about any good deed he has done.
231.
231.
The "Plodders."—Persons slow of apprehension think that slowness forms part of knowledge.
The "Plodders."—People who are slow to understand believe that being slow is part of being knowledgeable.
232.
232.
Dreaming.—Either one does not dream at all, or one dreams in an interesting manner. One must learn to be awake in the same fashion:—either not at all, or in an interesting manner.
Dreaming.—You either don’t dream at all, or you dream in a fascinating way. You need to learn to be awake the same way:—either not at all, or in a fascinating way.
233.
233.
The most Dangerous Point of View.—What I now do, or neglect to do, is as important for all that is to come, as the greatest event of the past: in this immense perspective of effects all actions are equally great and small.
The most Dangerous Point of View.—What I do now, or fail to do, is just as important for everything that lies ahead, as the most significant event of the past: in this vast perspective of consequences, all actions are equally significant and trivial.
234.
234.
Consolatory Words of a Musician.—"Your life does not sound into people's ears: for them you live a dumb life, and all refinements of melody, all fond resolutions in following or leading the way, are concealed from them. To be sure you do not parade the thoroughfares with regimental music,—but these good people have no right to say on that account that your life is lacking in music. He that hath ears let him hear."
Consolatory Words of a Musician.—"Your life isn't heard by others: to them, you live a silent life, and all the nuances of melody, all the heartfelt intentions in following or guiding the way, are hidden from view. Sure, you don't march through the streets with loud music—but these good people have no right to claim that your life lacks music because of that. Those who have ears should listen."
235.
235.
Spirit and Character.—Many a one attains his full height of character, but his spirit is not adapted to the elevation,—and many a one reversely.
Spirit and Character.—Many people reach their full potential in character, but their spirit doesn't match that level, and many others experience the opposite.
236.
236.
To Move the Multitude.—Is it not necessary for him who wants to move the multitude to give a stage representation of himself? Has he not first to translate himself into the grotesquely obvious, and then set forth his whole personality and cause in that vulgarised and simplified fashion?
To Move the Multitude.—Isn’t it essential for someone who wants to sway the masses to put on a performance of themselves? Do they not first need to present themselves in a ridiculously obvious way, and then show their entire personality and beliefs in that simplified and over-the-top manner?
237.
237.
The Polite Man.—"He is so polite!"—Yes, he has always a sop for Cerberus with him, and is so timid that he takes everybody for Cerberus, even you and me,—that is his "politeness."
The Polite Man.—"He is so polite!"—Yes, he always carries a treat for Cerberus and is so anxious that he sees everyone as Cerberus, even you and me—that's his "politeness."
238.
238.
Without Envy.—He is wholly without envy, but there is no merit therein: for he wants to conquer a land which no one has yet possessed and hardly any one has even seen.
Without Envy.—He feels no envy at all, but that doesn't make him special: he wants to take over a land that no one has claimed yet and barely anyone has even laid eyes on.
239.
239.
The Joyless Person.—A single joyless person is enough to make constant displeasure and a clouded heaven in a household; and it is only by a miracle that such a person is lacking!—Happiness is not nearly such a contagious disease;—how is that?
The Joyless Person.—One joyless person is enough to create constant dissatisfaction and a gloomy atmosphere in a household; and it seems like it takes a miracle to find someone like that who isn’t around!—Happiness isn’t nearly as infectious; why is that?
240.
240.
On the Sea-Shore.—I would not build myself a house (it is an element of my happiness not to be a house-owner!). If I had to do so, however, I should build it, like many of the Romans, right[Pg 204] into the sea,—I should like to have some secrets in common with that beautiful monster.
On the Sea-Shore.—I wouldn’t want to own a house (it actually adds to my happiness not being a homeowner!). But if I had to, I would build it, like many Romans did, right[Pg 204] into the sea—I would love to share some secrets with that beautiful monster.
241.
241.
Work and Artist.—This artist is ambitious and nothing more; ultimately, however, his work is only a magnifying-glass, which he offers to every one who looks in his direction.
Work and Artist.—This artist is driven and nothing more; ultimately, though, his work is just a magnifying glass that he presents to anyone who looks his way.
242.
242.
Suum cuique.—However great be my greed of knowledge, I cannot appropriate aught of things but what already belongs to me,—the property of others still remains in the things. How is it possible for a man to be a thief or a robber?
Suum cuique.—No matter how much I want to know, I can only take what already belongs to me—the things owned by others still belong to them. How can someone truly be a thief or a robber?
243.
243.
Origin of "Good" and "Bad."—He only will devise an improvement who can feel that "this is not good."
Origin of "Good" and "Bad."—Only someone who can recognize that "this is not good" will come up with a way to improve it.
244.
244.
Thoughts and Words.—Even our thoughts we are unable to render completely in words.
Thoughts and Words.—Even our thoughts cannot be fully expressed in words.
245.
245.
Praise in Choice.—The artist chooses his subjects; that is his mode of praising.
Praise in Choice.—The artist selects his subjects; that's how he expresses his admiration.
246.
246.
Mathematics.—We want to carry the refinement and rigour of mathematics into all the sciences, as far as it is in any way possible, not in the belief that[Pg 205] we shall apprehend things in this way, but in order thereby to assert our human relation to things. Mathematics is only a means to general and ultimate human knowledge.
Mathematics.—We aim to bring the sophistication and precision of mathematics into all sciences whenever possible, not because we think we can fully understand everything this way, but to assert our connection to the world. Mathematics is merely a tool for gaining broader and deeper human knowledge.
247.
247.
Habits.—All habits make our hand wittier and our wit unhandier.
Habits.—All habits make our hands more skillful and our wit less useful.
248.
248.
Books.—Of what account is a book that never carries us away beyond all books?
Books.—What value does a book have if it doesn't take us beyond all other books?
249.
249.
The Sigh of the Seeker of Knowledge.—"Oh, my covetousness! In this soul there is no disinterestedness—but an all-desiring self, which, by means of many individuals, would fain see as with its own eyes, and grasp as with its own hands—a self bringing back even the entire past, and wanting to lose nothing that could in anyway belong to it! Oh, this flame of my covetousness! Oh, that I were reincarnated in a hundred individuals!"—He who does not know this sigh by experience, does not know the passion of the seeker of knowledge either.
The Sigh of the Seeker of Knowledge.—"Oh, my greed! In this soul, there is no selflessness—only an all-consuming self that, through many individuals, longs to see with its own eyes and hold with its own hands—a self that wants to reclaim the entire past and miss nothing that could possibly belong to it! Oh, this fire of my greed! Oh, that I could be reborn in a hundred individuals!"—Those who have not experienced this sigh do not truly understand the passion of the seeker of knowledge.
250.
250.
Guilt.—Although the most intelligent judges of the witches, and even the witches themselves, were convinced of the guilt of witchcraft, the guilt, nevertheless, was not there. So it is with all guilt.
Guilt.—Even though the smartest judges of the witches, and the witches themselves, believed in the guilt of witchcraft, that guilt simply wasn’t present. It’s the same with all guilt.
251.
251.
Misunderstood Sufferers.—Great natures suffer otherwise than their worshippers imagine; they suffer most severely from the ignoble, petty emotions of certain evil moments; in short, from doubt of their own greatness;—not however from the sacrifices and martyrdoms which their tasks require of them. As long as Prometheus sympathises with men and sacrifices himself for them, he is happy and proud in himself; but on becoming envious of Zeus and of the homage which mortals pay him—then Prometheus suffers!
Misunderstood Sufferers.—Great individuals experience suffering in ways that their admirers often don’t realize; they are primarily hurt by the low, trivial emotions that arise during certain dark moments—specifically, by doubt about their own greatness; not, however, by the sacrifices and hardships that their roles demand. As long as Prometheus empathizes with humanity and puts himself on the line for them, he feels happy and proud of himself; but once he becomes envious of Zeus and the reverence that mortals give him—then Prometheus suffers!
252.
252.
Better to be in Debt.—"Better to remain in debt than to pay with money which does not bear our stamp!"—that is what our sovereignty prefers.
Better to be in Debt.—"It's better to stay in debt than to pay with money that doesn't have our stamp!"—that's what our sovereignty prefers.
253.
253.
Always at Home.—One day we attain our goal—and then refer with pride to the long journeys we have made to reach it. In truth, we did not notice that we travelled. We got into the habit of thinking that we were at home in every place.
Always at Home.—One day we reach our goal—and then we look back proudly at the long journeys we took to get here. The truth is, we didn't even realize we were on a journey. We became so used to feeling at home in every place.
254.
254.
Against Embarrassment.—He who is always thoroughly occupied is rid of all embarrassment.
Against Embarrassment.—Someone who is constantly busy has no time for embarrassment.
255.
255.
Imitators.—A: "What? You don't want to have imitators?" B: "I don't want people to do[Pg 207] anything after me; I want every one to do something before himself (as a pattern to himself)—just as I do." A: "Consequently—?"
Imitators.—A: "What? You don't want any imitators?" B: "I don't want people to do[Pg 207] anything after me; I want everyone to do something before themselves (as a model for themselves)—just like I do." A: "So—?"
256.
256.
Skinniness.—All profound men have their happiness in imitating the flying-fish at times, and playing on the crests of the waves; they think that what is best of all in things is their surface: their skinniness—sit venia verbo.
Skinniness.—All deep thinkers find joy in occasionally gliding like flying fish and riding on the tops of the waves; they believe that the best part of everything is its surface: its skinniness—sit venia verbo.
257.
257.
From Experience.—A person often does not know how rich he is, until he learns from experience what rich men even play the thief on him.
From Experience.—A person often doesn’t realize how wealthy he is until he learns from experience how wealthy people can even take advantage of him.
258.
258.
The Deniers of Chance.—No conqueror believes in chance.
The Deniers of Chance.—No conqueror believes in luck.
259.
259.
From Paradise.—"Good and Evil are God's prejudices"—said the serpent.
From Paradise.—"Good and Evil are God's biases"—said the serpent.
260.
260.
One times One.—One only is always in the wrong, but with two truth begins.—One only cannot prove himself right; but two are already beyond refutation.
One times One.—One alone is always in the wrong, but with two, truth starts to emerge.—One alone can't prove himself right; but two are already beyond dispute.
261.
261.
Originality.—What is originality? To see something that does not yet bear a name, that cannot yet be named, although it is before everybody's[Pg 208] eyes. As people are usually constituted, it is the name that first makes a thing generally visible to them.—Original persons have also for the most part been the namers of things.
Originality.—What is originality? It's about seeing something that hasn’t been named yet, something that can’t be named, even though it's right in front of everyone[Pg 208]. Typically, it's the name that helps people recognize something. —Most original people have also been the ones to name things.
262.
262.
Sub specie æterni.—A: "You withdraw faster and faster from the living; they will soon strike you out of their lists!"—B: "It is the only way to participate in the privilege of the dead." A: "In what privilege?"—B: "No longer having to die."
From the perspective of eternity.—A: "You're pulling away from the living more and more; they'll soon remove you from their circle!"—B: "It's the only way to share in the privilege of the dead." A: "What privilege?"—B: "Not having to die anymore."
263.
263.
Without Vanity.—When we love we want our defects to remain concealed,—not out of vanity, but lest the person loved should suffer therefrom. Indeed, the lover would like to appear as a God,—and not out of vanity either.
Without Vanity.—When we love, we want our flaws to stay hidden—not because of vanity, but to spare the person we love from pain. In fact, the lover wishes to seem like a God—and not from vanity, either.
264.
264.
What we Do.—What we do is never understood, but only praised and blamed.
What we Do.—What we do is never fully understood, but it’s always praised or criticized.
265.
265.
Ultimate Scepticism.—But what after all are man's truths?—They are his irrefutable errors.
Ultimate Skepticism.—But what are man's truths anyway?—They are his undeniable mistakes.
266.
266.
Where Cruelty is Necessary.—He who is great is cruel to his second-rate virtues and judgments.
Where Cruelty is Necessary.—A great person can be harsh towards inferior virtues and opinions.
267.
267.
With a high Aim.—With a high aim a person is superior even to justice, and not only to his deeds and his judges.
With a high Aim.—With a lofty goal, a person surpasses even justice, as well as their actions and their judges.
268.
268.
What makes Heroic?—To face simultaneously one's greatest suffering and one's highest hope.
What makes Heroic?—To confront both your deepest pain and your highest aspiration at the same time.
269.
269.
What dost thou Believe in?—In this: That the weights of all things must be determined anew.
What do you believe in?—In this: That the value of everything must be reassessed.
270.
270.
What Saith thy Conscience?—"Thou shalt become what thou art."
What Does Your Conscience Say?—"You will become what you are."
271.
271.
Where are thy Greatest Dangers?—In pity.
Where are your Greatest Dangers?—In pity.
272.
272.
What dost thou Love in others?—My hopes.
What do you love in others?—My hopes.
273.
273.
Whom dost thou call Bad?—Him who always wants to put others to shame.
Who do you call bad?—Someone who always tries to shame others.
274.
274.
What dost thou think most humane?—To spare a person shame.
What do you think is the most humane thing?—To spare someone from shame.
275.
275.
What is the Seal of Attained Liberty?—To be no longer ashamed of oneself.
What is the Seal of Attained Liberty?—To no longer be ashamed of who you are.
BOOK FOURTH
SANCTUS JANUARIUS
Thou who with cleaving fiery lances
The stream of my soul from
its ice dost free,
Till with a rush and a roar it advances
To enter with glorious hoping the sea:
Brighter to see and purer ever,
Free in the bonds of thy sweet constraint,—
So it praises thy wondrous endeavour,
January, thou beauteous saint!
Genoa, January 1882.
You who with piercing fiery lances
Free the flow of my soul from
its cold grip,
Until with a rush and a roar it surges
To step into the sea with bright hope:
Brighter to see and purer forever,
Free in the bonds of your sweet control,—
So it praises your amazing effort,
January, you lovely saint!
Genoa, January 1882.
276.
276.
For the New Year.—I still live, I still think; I must still live, for I must still think. Sum, ergo cogito: cogito, ergo sum. To-day everyone takes the liberty of expressing his wish and his favourite thought: well, I also mean to tell what I have wished for myself to-day, and what thought first crossed my mind this year,—a thought which ought to be the basis, the pledge and the sweetening of all my future life! I want more and more to perceive the necessary characters in things as the beautiful:—I shall thus be one of those who beautify things. Amor fati: let that henceforth be my love! I do not want to wage war with the ugly. I do not want to accuse, I do not want even to accuse the accusers. Looking aside, let that be my sole negation! And all in all, to sum up: I wish to be at any time hereafter only a yea-sayer!
For the New Year.—I'm still alive, I'm still thinking; I have to stay alive, because I have to keep thinking. I am, therefore I think; I think, therefore I am. Today, everyone feels free to share their wishes and favorite thoughts: well, I want to share what I've wished for myself today, and the thought that first came to mind this year—a thought that should be the foundation, the promise, and the joy of all my future life! I want to increasingly see the necessary aspects of things as beautiful:—in doing so, I will be one of those who beautify things. Love of fate: let that be my love from now on! I don’t want to fight against the ugly. I don’t want to blame, I don’t even want to blame the blamers. Looking away, let that be my only negativity! And to sum it all up: I wish to be, from now on, just a yay-sayer!
277.
277.
Personal Providence.—There is a certain climax in life, at which, notwithstanding all our freedom, and however much we may have denied all directing reason and goodness in the beautiful chaos of existence, we are once more in great danger of intellectual bondage, and have to face our[Pg 214] hardest test. For now the thought of a personal Providence first presents itself before us with its most persuasive force, and has the best of advocates, apparentness, in its favour, now when it is obvious that all and everything that happens to us always turns out for the best. The life of every day and of every hour seems to be anxious for nothing else but always to prove this proposition anew; let it be what it will, bad or good weather, the loss of a friend, a sickness, a calumny, the non-receipt of a letter, the spraining of one's foot, a glance into a shop-window, a counter-argument, the opening of a book, a dream, a deception:—it shows itself immediately, or very soon afterwards, as something "not permitted to be absent,"—it is full of profound significance and utility precisely for us! Is there a more dangerous temptation to rid ourselves of the belief in the Gods of Epicurus, those careless, unknown Gods, and believe in some anxious and mean Divinity, who knows personally every little hair on our heads, and feels no disgust in rendering the most wretched services? Well—I mean in spite of all this! we want to leave the Gods alone (and the serviceable genii likewise), and wish to content ourselves with the assumption that our own practical and theoretical skilfulness in explaining and suitably arranging events has now reached its highest point. We do not want either to think too highly of this dexterity of our wisdom, when the wonderful harmony which results from playing on our instrument sometimes surprises us too much: a harmony which sounds too well for[Pg 215] us to dare to ascribe it to ourselves. In fact, now and then there is one who plays with us—beloved Chance: he leads our hand occasionally, and even the all-wisest Providence could not devise any finer music than that of which our foolish hand is then capable.
Personal Providence.—There comes a significant moment in life when, despite all our freedom and however much we deny any guiding reason or goodness in the beautiful chaos of existence, we face a serious risk of intellectual enslavement and have to confront our[Pg 214] toughest challenge. At this point, the idea of personal Providence emerges with its most convincing strength and benefits from the powerful advocate of obviousness, especially when it seems clear that everything that happens to us ultimately works out for the best. Each day and every hour appear eager to demonstrate this idea once again; whether it's bad or good weather, losing a friend, getting sick, facing slander, not receiving a letter, twisting an ankle, catching a glimpse in a shop window, encountering a counter-argument, opening a book, dreaming, or experiencing deceit—these situations soon reveal themselves as something "that can’t be absent," filled with deep meaning and usefulness specifically for us! Is there a greater temptation to abandon belief in the careless, unknown gods of Epicurus and to accept the existence of a petty and anxious deity, who personally knows every little hair on our heads and takes pleasure in providing the most miserable services? Still—despite all this! We want to leave the gods aside (along with any helpful spirits), and prefer to believe that our ability to practically and theoretically explain and organize events has reached its peak. We don’t want to overestimate this skillfulness when the astonishing harmony that appears as we play our instrument sometimes takes us by surprise: a harmony that sounds so good for[Pg 215] us that we hesitate to attribute it to ourselves. In fact, now and then, there is someone who plays with us—beloved Chance: she guides our hand at times, and even the wisest Providence couldn’t create any music more exquisite than what our foolish hand is then capable of producing.
278.
278.
The Thought of Death.—It gives me a melancholy happiness to live in the midst of this confusion of streets, of necessities, of voices: how much enjoyment, impatience and desire, how much thirsty life and drunkenness of life comes to light here every moment! And yet it will soon be so still for all these shouting, lively, life-loving people! How everyone's shadow, his gloomy travelling-companion stands behind him! It is always as in the last moment before the departure of an emigrant-ship: people have more than ever to say to one another, the hour presses, the ocean with its lonely silence waits impatiently behind all the noise—so greedy, so certain of its prey! And all, all, suppose that the past has been nothing, or a small matter, that the near future is everything: hence this haste, this crying, this self-deafening and self-overreaching! Everyone wants to be foremost in this future,—and yet death and the stillness of death are the only things certain and common to all in this future! How strange that this sole thing that is certain and common to all, exercises almost no influence on men, and that they are the furthest from regarding themselves as the brotherhood of death! It makes me happy to see that[Pg 216] men do not want to think at all of the idea of death! I would fain do something to make the idea of life even a hundred times more worthy of their attention.
The Thought of Death.—I feel a bittersweet joy living amidst this chaotic mix of streets, needs, and voices: how much enjoyment, impatience, and desire, how much vibrant life and intoxication with life emerge here every moment! And yet, it will soon be so quiet for all these shouting, lively, life-loving people! Everyone's shadow, their gloomy traveling companion, lingers behind them! It’s always like that last moment before an immigrant ship departs: people have more than ever to say to each other, time is pressing, and the ocean with its lonely silence waits impatiently behind all the noise—so desperate, so sure of its catch! And everyone thinks that the past has been insignificant or unimportant, that the near future is everything: hence this rush, this shouting, this deafening noise and reaching for more! Everyone wants to be at the forefront of this future—and yet death and the stillness of death are the only things guaranteed and common to all in this future! How strange that this one certainty that unites us all has almost no impact on people, and that they are the furthest from seeing themselves as part of the brotherhood of death! It brings me joy to see that[Pg 216] people don't want to think about the idea of death at all! I would love to do something to make the idea of life even a hundred times more worthy of their attention.
279.
279.
Stellar Friendship.—We were friends, and have become strangers to each other. But this is as it ought to be, and we do not want either to conceal or obscure the fact, as if we had to be ashamed of it. We are two ships, each of which has its goal and its course; we may, to be sure, cross one another in our paths, and celebrate a feast together as we did before,—and then the gallant ships lay quietly in one harbour, and in one sunshine, so that it might have been thought they were already at their goal, and that they had had one goal. But then the almighty strength of our tasks forced us apart once more into different seas and into different zones, and perhaps we shall never see one another again,—or perhaps we may see one another, but not know one another again; the different seas and suns have altered us! That we had to become strangers to one another is the law to which we are subject: just by that shall we become more sacred to one another! Just by that shall the thought of our former friendship become holier! There is probably some immense, invisible curve and stellar orbit in which our courses and goals, so widely different, may be comprehended as small stages of the way,—let us raise ourselves to this thought! But our life is too short, and our power of vision too limited for[Pg 217] us to be more than friends in the sense of that sublime possibility.—And so we will believe in our stellar friendship, though we should have to be terrestrial enemies to one another.
Stellar Friendship.—We were friends, but now we’ve become strangers. However, this is how it’s meant to be, and we don’t want to hide or downplay it, as if we should be ashamed. We are like two ships, each with its own destination and path; we might cross each other’s paths and celebrate together like we used to,—and for a moment, it would seem like we’re in the same harbor, basking in the same sunshine, making it appear as if we had the same destination. But the immense demands of our journeys will pull us apart again into different waters and different places, and maybe we’ll never see each other again,—or perhaps we will, but we won’t recognize each other; the different waters and suns have changed us! The fact that we’ve become strangers is just the way things are: through this, we will grow more precious to each other! Through this, the memory of our past friendship will become more sacred! There is likely some vast, invisible curve and starry path where our vastly different journeys and goals can be comprehended as small parts of a larger whole,—let’s aspire to that thought! But our lives are too short, and our vision too limited for[Pg 217] us to achieve more than a friendship defined by that noble potential.—So we will believe in our stellar friendship, even if we have to be earthly enemies to one another.
280.
280.
Architecture for Thinkers.—An insight is needed (and that probably very soon) as to what is specially lacking in our great cities—namely, quiet, spacious, and widely extended places for reflection, places with long, lofty colonnades for bad weather, or for too sunny days, where no noise of wagons or of shouters would penetrate, and where a more refined propriety would prohibit loud praying even to the priest: buildings and situations which as a whole would express the sublimity of self-communion and seclusion from the world. The time is past when the Church possessed the monopoly of reflection, when the vita contemplativa had always in the first place to be the vita religiosa: and everything that the Church has built expresses this thought. I know not how we could content ourselves with their structures, even if they should be divested of their ecclesiastical purposes: these structures speak a far too pathetic and too biassed speech, as houses of God and places of splendour for supernatural intercourse, for us godless ones to be able to think our thoughts in them. We want to have ourselves translated into stone and plant, we want to go for a walk in ourselves when we wander in these halls and gardens.
Architecture for Thinkers.—We need to figure out (and probably pretty soon) what's missing in our big cities—specifically, quiet, spacious, and expansive places for reflection. We need areas with long, high colonnades for bad weather or very sunny days, where no noise from wagons or shouting would disturb us, and where a more refined sense of propriety would even prevent loud praying, even from the priest: buildings and spaces that, as a whole, convey the greatness of self-reflection and retreat from the world. The era when the Church held a monopoly on reflection is over; the vita contemplativa no longer has to always come before the vita religiosa: and everything the Church has built reflects this idea. I can’t see how we could be satisfied with their structures, even if they were stripped of their religious purposes: these buildings speak a language that is far too emotional and biased, as houses of God and places of grandeur for supernatural communication, for us non-religious people to be able to think our thoughts in them. We want ourselves translated into stone and plants; we want to feel like we’re walking through ourselves when we wander in these halls and gardens.
281.
281.
Knowing how to Find the End.—Masters of the first rank are recognised by knowing in a perfect manner how to find the end, in the whole as well as in the part; be it the end of a melody or of a thought, be it the fifth act of a tragedy or of a state affair. The masters of the second degree always become restless towards the end, and seldom dip down into the sea with such proud, quiet equilibrium as for example, the mountain-ridge at Porto fino—where the Bay of Genoa sings its melody to an end.
Knowing How to Find the End.—Top-tier masters are recognized by their exceptional ability to find the end, both in the whole and in the part; whether it's the end of a melody or a thought, or the final act of a tragedy or a political affair. Masters of the second level often feel anxious towards the end and rarely dive into the depths with the same proud, calm balance as, for example, the mountain ridge at Porto Fino—where the Bay of Genoa concludes its melody.
282.
282.
The Gait.—There are mannerisms of the intellect by which even great minds betray that they originate from the populace, or from the semi-populace—it is principally the gait and step, of their thoughts which betray them; they cannot walk. It was thus that even Napoleon, to his profound chagrin, could not walk "legitimately" and in princely fashion on occasions when it was necessary to do so properly, as in great coronation processions and on similar occasions: even there he was always just the leader of a column—proud and brusque at the same time, and very self-conscious of it all.—It is something laughable to see those writers who make the folding robes of their periods rustle around them: they want to cover their feet.
The Gait.—There are certain ways of thinking that reveal when even the greatest minds come from ordinary backgrounds or the semi-ordinary—it's mainly their gait and the way they carry their thoughts that give them away; they simply cannot walk. This was evident with Napoleon, who, much to his embarrassment, couldn't walk "properly" and with the grace expected during important events like grand coronation parades and similar occasions: at those moments, he was always just the leader of a group—proud, abrupt, and very aware of it all. It’s almost comical to watch those writers who make the ceremonial robes of their time rustle around them; they’re trying to hide their feet.
283.
283.
Pioneers.—I greet all the signs indicating that a more manly and warlike age is commencing, which will, above all, bring heroism again into honour![Pg 219] For it has to prepare the way for a yet higher age, and gather the force which the latter will one day require,—the age which will carry heroism into knowledge, and wage war for the sake of ideas and their consequences. For that end many brave pioneers are now needed, who, however, cannot originate out of nothing,—and just as little out of the sand and slime of present-day civilisation and the culture of great cities: men silent, solitary and resolute, who know how to be content and persistent in invisible activity: men who with innate disposition seek in all things that which is to be overcome in them: men to whom cheerfulness, patience, simplicity, and contempt of the great vanities belong just as much as do magnanimity in victory and indulgence to the trivial vanities of all the vanquished: men with an acute and independent judgment regarding all victors, and concerning the part which chance has played in the winning of victory and fame: men with their own holidays, their own work-days, and their own periods of mourning; accustomed to command with perfect assurance, and equally ready, if need be, to obey, proud in the one case as in the other, equally serving their own interests: men more imperilled, more productive, more happy! For believe me!—the secret of realising the largest productivity and the greatest enjoyment of existence is to live in danger! Build your cities on the slope of Vesuvius! Send your ships into unexplored seas! Live in war with your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers and spoilers, ye knowing ones, as long as ye cannot be rulers and possessors! The time will soon pass when you[Pg 220] can be satisfied to live like timorous deer concealed in the forests. Knowledge will finally stretch out her hand for that which belongs to her:—she means to rule and possess, and you with her!
Pioneers.—I welcome all the signs that a tougher, more combative era is beginning, which will, above all, restore honor to heroism![Pg 219] This new age must lay the groundwork for an even higher age, gathering the strength that will be needed—an age where heroism transforms into knowledge and fights for ideas and their outcomes. To achieve this, we need many brave pioneers, who cannot emerge from nothing—nor from the sand and muck of today's civilization and the culture of major cities: men who are quiet, solitary, and determined, knowing how to be content and persistent in their unseen efforts: men who naturally seek to identify what needs to be overcome in everything: men for whom cheerfulness, patience, simplicity, and disdain for the empty frivolities are as important as magnanimity in victory and tolerance for the trivial vanities of all who are defeated: men with sharp and independent insight into all who prevail, and into the role chance played in achieving victory and fame: men who have their own holidays, their own work days, and their own mourning periods; used to commanding with confidence, and equally ready, if necessary, to obey, proud in both situations, serving their own interests: men who are more at risk, more productive, more fulfilled! For believe me!—the key to achieving the greatest productivity and the highest enjoyment of life is to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted waters! Engage in battle with your peers and with yourselves! Be outlaws and plunderers, you knowledgeable ones, as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors! The time will soon come when you[Pg 220] can no longer settle for living like fearful deer hidden in the forests. Knowledge will ultimately reach out for what belongs to her:—she intends to rule and possess, and you along with her!
284.
284.
Belief in Oneself—In general, few men have belief in themselves:—and of those few some are endowed with it as a useful blindness or partial obscuration of intellect (what would they perceive if they could see to the bottom of themselves!). The others must first acquire the belief for themselves: everything good, clever, or great that they do, is first of all an argument against the sceptic that dwells in them: the question is how to convince or persuade this sceptic, and for that purpose genius almost is needed. They are signally dissatisfied with themselves.
Belief in Oneself—Overall, very few people truly believe in themselves: and among those few, some have this belief as a sort of useful blindness or limited awareness (imagine what they would realize if they could see deep inside themselves!). The others need to build their belief from scratch: everything good, smart, or significant they achieve serves as a counterargument to the doubt that lives within them: the challenge is to convince or persuade that doubt, and for that, a bit of genius is often required. They are distinctly unhappy with who they are.
285.
285.
Excelsior!—"Thou wilt never more pray, never more worship, never more repose in infinite trust—thou refusest to stand still and dismiss thy thoughts before an ultimate wisdom, an ultimate virtue, an ultimate power,—thou hast no constant guardian and friend in thy seven solitudes—thou livest without the outlook on a mountain that has snow on its head and fire in its heart—there is no longer any requiter for thee, nor any amender with, his finishing touch—there is no longer any reason in that which happens, or any love in that which will happen to thee—there is no longer any resting-place for thy weary heart, where it has only to find[Pg 221] and no longer to seek, thou art opposed to any kind of ultimate peace, thou desirest the eternal recurrence of war and peace:—man of renunciation, wilt thou renounce in all these things? Who will give thee the strength to do so? No one has yet had this strength!"—There is a lake which one day refused to flow away, and threw up a dam at the place where it had hitherto discharged: since then this lake has always risen higher and higher. Perhaps the very renunciation will also furnish us with the strength with which the renunciation itself can be borne; perhaps man will ever rise higher and higher from that point onward, when he no longer flows out into a God.
Excelsior!—"You will never pray again, never worship, never find rest in infinite trust—you refuse to stand still and set aside your thoughts before an ultimate wisdom, an ultimate virtue, an ultimate power—you have no constant guardian and friend in your seven solitudes—you live without the view of a mountain that has snow on its peak and fire in its heart—there is no longer any reward for you, nor any fixer to add his finishing touch—there is no longer any reason in what happens, or any love in what will happen to you—there is no longer a resting place for your weary heart, where it only has to find[Pg 221] and no longer seek, you are opposed to any kind of ultimate peace, you desire the endless cycle of war and peace:—person of renunciation, will you give up all these things? Who will give you the strength to do so? No one has ever had this strength!"—There is a lake that one day decided not to flow away and built a dam at the spot where it had always drained: since then this lake has continued to rise higher and higher. Maybe that very renunciation will also give us the strength to bear the renunciation itself; perhaps humanity will keep rising higher and higher from that moment on, when it no longer flows out into a God.
286.
286.
A Digression.—Here are hopes; but what will you see and hear of them, if you have not experienced glance and glow and dawn of day in your own souls? I can only suggest—I cannot do more! To move the stones, to make animals men—would you have me do that? Alas, if you are yet stones and animals, you must seek your Orpheus!
A Digression.—Here are hopes; but what will you see and hear of them if you haven’t felt the spark and light and new beginnings in your own souls? I can only suggest—I can't do more! To move the stones, to turn animals into humans—would you want me to do that? Sadly, if you are still stones and animals, you need to find your Orpheus!
287.
287.
Love of Blindness.—"My thoughts," said the wanderer to his shadow, "ought to show me where I stand, but they should not betray to me whither I go. I love ignorance of the future, and do not want to come to grief by impatience and anticipatory tasting of promised things."
Love of Blindness.—"My thoughts," said the wanderer to his shadow, "should help me understand where I am, but they shouldn't reveal where I'm headed. I cherish not knowing the future, and I don’t want to suffer from impatience and the premature craving for things that are promised."
288.
288.
Lofty Moods.—It seems to me that most men do not believe in lofty moods, unless it be for the moment, or at the most for a quarter of an hour,—except the few who know by experience a longer duration of high feeling. But to be absolutely a man with a single lofty feeling, the incarnation of a single lofty mood—that has hitherto been only a dream and an enchanting possibility: history does not yet give us any trustworthy example of it Nevertheless one might also some day produce such men—when a multitude of favourable conditions have been created and established, which at present even the happiest chance is unable to throw together. Perhaps that very state which has hitherto entered into our soul as an exception, felt with horror now and then, may be the usual condition of those future souls: a continuous movement between high and low, and the feeling of high and low, a constant state of mounting as on steps, and at the same time reposing as on clouds.
Lofty Moods.—It seems to me that most people don’t really believe in lofty moods, except maybe for a moment or, at most, for fifteen minutes—unless they’re among the few who have experienced a longer duration of high feelings. But to truly be a person embodying a single lofty feeling, the essence of one elevated mood—that has so far been just a dream and a captivating possibility: history hasn’t yet given us any reliable example of it. Still, it’s possible that one day such individuals could emerge—if a range of favorable conditions have been created and established, which even the best chance right now cannot bring together. Perhaps that very state which has so far entered our souls as an exception, felt with dread at times, might be the usual state of those future souls: a continuous shift between highs and lows, and the awareness of highs and lows, a constant experience of ascending like on steps, while also resting like on clouds.
289.
289.
Aboard Ship!—When one considers how a full philosophical justification of his mode of living and thinking operates upon every individual—namely, as a warming, blessing, and fructifying sun, specially shining on him; how it makes him independent of praise and blame, self-sufficient, rich and generous in the bestowal of happiness and kindness; how it unceasingly transforms the evil to the good, brings all the energies to bloom[Pg 223] and maturity, and altogether hinders the growth of the greater and lesser weeds of chagrin and discontent —one at last cries out importunately: Oh, that many such new suns were created! The evil man, also, the unfortunate man, and the exceptional man, shall each have his philosophy, his rights, and his sunshine! It is not sympathy with them that is necessary!—we must unlearn this arrogant fancy, notwithstanding that humanity has so long learned it and used it exclusively,—we have not to set up any confessor, exorcist, or pardoner for them! It is a new justice, however, that is necessary! And a new solution! And new philosophers! The moral earth also is round! The moral earth also has its antipodes! The antipodes also have their right to exist! there is still another world to discover—and more than one! Aboard ship! ye philosophers!
Aboard Ship!—When you think about how a complete philosophical justification for one’s way of living and thinking affects each person—like a warm, blessing, and nurturing sun shining just for them; how it grants them independence from praise and criticism, makes them self-sufficient, and allows them to be generous in sharing happiness and kindness; how it continually turns bad into good, brings all energies to flourish[Pg 223] and mature, and entirely prevents the growth of both major and minor weeds of disappointment and discontent—one can’t help but exclaim urgently: Oh, if only many more of these new suns could be created! The evil person, the unfortunate person, and the exceptional person should each have their own philosophy, their rights, and their own sunshine! It’s not sympathy for them that we need!—we must forget this arrogant notion, despite humanity having learned and relied on it for so long—we don’t need to create any confessor, exorcist, or pardoner for them! What is required is a new justice, a fresh solution! And new philosophers! The moral world is also round! The moral world also has its opposites! The opposites also have a right to exist! There is still another world to explore—and more than one! Aboard ship! You philosophers!
290.
290.
One Thing is Needful—To "give style" to one's character—that is a grand and a rare art! He who surveys all that his nature presents in its strength and in its weakness, and then fashions it into an ingenious plan, until everything appears artistic and rational, and even the weaknesses enchant the eye—exercises that admirable art. Here there has been a great amount of second nature added, there a portion of first nature has been taken away:—in both cases with long exercise and daily labour at the task. Here the ugly, which does not permit of being taken away, has been concealed, there it has been re-interpreted[Pg 224] into the sublime. Much of the vague, which refuses to take form, has been reserved and utilised for the perspectives:—it is meant to give a hint of the remote and immeasurable. In the end, when the work has been completed, it is revealed how it was the constraint of the same taste that organised and fashioned it in whole and in part: whether the taste was good or bad is of less importance than one thinks,—it is sufficient that it was a taste!—It will be the strong imperious natures which experience their most refined joy in such constraint, in such confinement and perfection under their own law; the passion of their violent volition lessens at the sight of all disciplined nature, all conquered and ministering nature: even when they have palaces to build and gardens to lay out, it is not to their taste to allow nature to be free.—It is the reverse with weak characters who have not power over themselves, and hate the restriction of style: they feel that if this repugnant constraint were laid upon them, they would necessarily become vulgarised under it: they become slaves as soon as they serve, they hate service. Such intellects—they may be intellects of the first rank—are always concerned with fashioning and interpreting themselves and their surroundings as free nature—wild, arbitrary, fantastic, confused and surprising: and it is well for them to do so, because only in this manner can they please themselves! For one thing is needful: namely, that man should attain to satisfaction with himself—be it but through this or that fable and artifice: it is only then that man's aspect is at all[Pg 225] endurable! He who is dissatisfied with himself is ever ready to avenge himself on that account: we others will be his victims, if only in having always to endure his ugly aspect. For the aspect of the ugly makes one mean and sad.
One Thing is Needful—To "give style" to one's character—that's a grand and rare skill! Those who look at their strengths and weaknesses, and then craft them into a clever plan, making everything seem artistic and rational—where even flaws are appealing—are practicing that admirable skill. Here, a lot of second nature has been added, and there, a bit of first nature has been removed: both through long practice and daily effort. Here, the unattractive, which can't be removed, has been hidden, while there it has been reinterpreted[Pg 224] into something sublime. Much of the unclear, which won't take shape, has been set aside and used to create perspective: meant to hint at the distant and infinite. In the end, when the work is done, it's clear that the same taste organized and shaped it, both in whole and in part: whether the taste was good or bad matters less than one might think—it’s enough that it was a taste! The strong, commanding individuals find their greatest joy in such constraints, in perfecting their own law; their passionate drive diminishes when they see all nature disciplined and serving: even when they have palaces to build and gardens to design, they prefer not to let nature be free. The opposite is true for weak characters who lack self-control and hate the limits of style: they feel that if they were subjected to this unpleasant constraint, they would inevitably become vulgar: they become slaves as soon as they serve, and they despise service. Such minds—they could be top-tier intellects—are always focused on shaping and interpreting themselves and their environments as free nature—wild, random, fantastical, chaotic, and surprising: and it's best for them to do so because that’s the only way they can satisfy themselves! For one thing is essential: that a person should attain to satisfaction with themselves—whether through this or that story or artifice: only then is a person's appearance at all[Pg 225] bearable! Those who are unhappy with themselves are always ready to take it out on others: we may become their victims, if only because we have to endure their unpleasant appearances. The look of the unattractive makes one feel mean and sad.
291.
291.
Genoa.—I have looked upon this city, its villas and pleasure-grounds, and the wide circuit of its inhabited heights and slopes, for a considerable time: in the end I must say that I see countenances out of past generations,—this district is strewn with the images of bold and autocratic men. They have lived and have wanted to live on—they say so with their houses, built and decorated for centuries, and not for the passing hour: they were well disposed to life, however ill-disposed they may often have been towards themselves. I always see the builder, how he casts his eye on all that is built around him far and near, and likewise on the city, the sea, and the chain of mountains; how he expresses power and conquest with his gaze: all this he wishes to fit into his plan, and in the end make it his property, by its becoming a portion of the same. The whole district is overgrown with this superb, insatiable egoism of the desire to possess and exploit; and as these men when abroad recognised no frontiers, and in their thirst for the new placed a new world beside the old, so also at home everyone rose up against everyone else, and devised some mode of expressing his superiority, and of placing between himself and his neighbour his personal illimitableness. Everyone[Pg 226] won for himself his home once more by over-powering it with his architectural thoughts, and by transforming it into a delightful sight for his race. When we consider the mode of building cities in the north, the law and the general delight in legality and obedience, impose upon us: we thereby divine the propensity to equality and submission which must have ruled in those builders. Here, however, on turning every corner you find a man by himself, who knows the sea, knows adventure, and knows the Orient, a man who is averse to law and to neighbour, as if it bored him to have to do with them, a man who scans all that is already old and established, with envious glances: with a wonderful craftiness of fantasy, he would like, at least in thought, to establish all this anew, to lay his hand upon it, and introduce his meaning into it—if only for the passing hour of a sunny afternoon, when for once his insatiable and melancholy soul feels satiety, and when only what is his own, and nothing strange, may show itself to his eye.
Genoa.—I have spent a lot of time looking at this city, its villas and parks, and the vast expanse of its hills and slopes. In the end, I must say that I see faces from past generations—this area is filled with the images of bold and powerful individuals. They lived and wanted to live on—they communicate this through their homes, built and decorated for centuries, not just for the moment. They were generally inclined towards life, regardless of how often they may have been at odds with themselves. I always envision the builder, watching everything that’s built around him, both far and near, as well as the city, the sea, and the mountain range; how he conveys strength and dominance through his gaze: all of this he wants to integrate into his vision, ultimately making it his own, by incorporating it into himself. The entire area is thick with this magnificent, insatiable egoism of the desire to own and exploit; and just as these men acknowledged no boundaries when exploring, boldly placing a new world alongside the old, at home, everyone clashed with each other, devising ways to demonstrate their superiority and create distance from their neighbors, asserting their personal boundlessness. Each person[Pg 226] reclaimed his home by overwhelming it with his architectural ideas, turning it into a beautiful sight for his people. When we think of how cities are built in the north, the law and a general love for legality and conformity weighs on us: we can sense the drive for equality and submission that must have influenced those builders. Here, however, at every turn, you encounter individuals who are self-reliant, who know the sea, crave adventure, and are familiar with the East, people who are indifferent to law and their neighbors, as if dealing with them bores them. They survey all that is old and established with envious eyes: with a remarkable flair for imagination, they wish, at least in thought, to recreate all of it, to lay claim to it, and infuse their meaning into it—if only for the brief moment of a sunny afternoon, when at last their insatiable and melancholy souls feel satisfied, and only what belongs to them, nothing unfamiliar, can be seen.
292.
292.
To the Preachers of Morality.—I do not mean to moralise, but to those who do, I would give this advice: if you mean ultimately to deprive the best things and the best conditions of all honour and worth, continue to speak of them in the same way as heretofore! Put them at the head of your morality, and speak from morning till night of the happiness of virtue, of repose of soul, of righteousness, and of reward and punishment in the nature of things: according as you go on in this manner,[Pg 227] all these good things will finally acquire a popularity and a street-cry for themselves: but then all the gold on them will also be worn off, and more besides: all the gold in them will have changed into lead. Truly, you understand the reverse art of alchemy, the depreciating of the most valuable things! Try, just for once, another recipe, in order not to realise as hitherto the opposite of what you mean to attain: deny those good things, withdraw from them the applause of the populace and discourage the spread of them, make them once more the concealed chastities of solitary souls, and say: morality is something forbidden! Perhaps you will thus attract to your cause the sort of men who are only of any account, I mean the heroic. But then there must be something formidable in it, and not as hitherto something disgusting I Might one not be inclined to say at present with reference to morality what Master Eckardt says: "I pray God to deliver me from God!"
To the Preachers of Morality.—I don’t intend to preach, but for those who do, I have some advice: if you really want to strip the best things and the best situations of all their honor and value, keep talking about them the same way you always have! Put them at the forefront of your morals, and talk from dawn till dusk about the happiness that comes from virtue, the peace of mind, the righteousness, and the concepts of reward and punishment in life. The more you do this, all these good things will eventually gain a following and become popular: but then, all the shine will wear off them, and even more than that: all the gold in them will turn into lead. Truly, you know the opposite of the art of alchemy, the devaluation of the most precious things! Try, just this once, a different approach, so you don’t end up achieving the opposite of what you want: deny those good things, take away their popularity and discourage their spread, make them once again the hidden treasures of solitary souls, and say: morality is something forbidden! Maybe then you’ll draw in the kind of people who really matter, I mean the heroic. But there needs to be something formidable about it, not what’s been considered disgusting. Might one not be tempted to say about morality what Master Eckardt says: "I pray God to deliver me from God!"
293.
293.
Our Atmosphere.—We know it well: in him who only casts a glance now and then at science, as when taking a walk (in the manner of women, and alas! also like many artists), the strictness in its service, its inexorability in small matters as well as in great, its rapidity in weighing, judging and condemning, produce something of a feeling of giddiness and fright. It is especially terrifying to him that the hardest is here demanded, that the best is done without the reward of praise or distinction; it is rather as among soldiers—almost[Pg 228] nothing but blame and sharp reprimand is heard; for doing well prevails here as the rule, doing ill as the exception; the rule, however, has, here as everywhere, a silent tongue. It is the same with this "severity of science" as with the manners and politeness of the best society: it frightens the uninitiated. He, however, who is accustomed to it, does not like to live anywhere but in this clear, transparent, powerful, and highly electrified atmosphere, this manly atmosphere. Anywhere else it is not pure and airy enough for him: he suspects that there his best art would neither be properly advantageous to anyone else, nor a delight to himself, that through misunderstandings half of his life would slip through his fingers, that much foresight, much concealment, and reticence would constantly be necessary,—nothing but great and useless losses of power! In this keen and clear element, however, he has his entire power: here he can fly! Why should he again go down into those muddy waters where he has to swim and wade and soil his wings!—No! There it is too hard for us to live! we cannot help it that we are born for the atmosphere, the pure atmosphere, we rivals of the ray of light; and that we should like best to ride like it on the atoms of ether, not away from the sun, but towards the sun! That, however, we cannot do:—so we want to do the only thing that is in our power: namely, to bring light to the earth, we want to be "the light of the earth!" And for that purpose we have our wings and our swiftness and our severity, on that account we are manly, and even terrible like the fire. Let those fear us, who[Pg 229] do not know how to warm and brighten themselves by our influence!
Our Atmosphere.—We understand it well: for someone who only occasionally glances at science during a walk (like women often do, and sadly, many artists as well), the strict nature of its demands, its relentless focus on both minor and major details, and its speed in evaluating, judging, and condemning can create a sense of dizziness and fear. It’s particularly daunting that the hardest work is expected here, and the best efforts often go without recognition or praise; it’s similar to soldiers—almost[Pg 228] only blame and harsh reprimands are heard; doing well is the norm, while failure is the exception; yet, as always, the norm often goes unspoken. This "severity of science" is akin to the manners and etiquette of high society: it intimidates those who are inexperienced. However, those who are used to it prefer to exist in this clear, transparent, powerful, and highly charged atmosphere, this manly atmosphere. Anywhere else feels too impure and stifling for them: they suspect that there, their best work wouldn’t truly benefit others or bring them joy, that miscommunications would cause much of their life to slip away, and that constant caution, secrecy, and reserve would be necessary—only leading to great and unnecessary losses of potential! In this sharp and clear environment, however, they have all their strength: here they can soar! Why should they return to those murky waters where they must swim and wade, soiling their wings?—No! It’s too difficult for us to live there! We can’t help but feel that we are made for this atmosphere, the pure atmosphere, as rivals of light; and that we would prefer to ride upon the ether’s atoms, not away from the sun, but towards the sun! Yet, we cannot do that: so we aim to accomplish the only thing within our control: to bring light to earth, we want to be "the light of the earth!" And for that, we have our wings, our speed, and our severity; that’s why we are strong and even fierce like fire. Let those fear us who[Pg 229] don’t know how to warm and brighten themselves by our influence!
294.
294.
Against the Disparagers of Nature.—They are disagreeable to me, those men in whom every natural inclination forthwith becomes a disease, something disfiguring, or even disgraceful. They have seduced us to the opinion that the inclinations and impulses of men are evil; they are the cause of our great injustice to our own nature, and to all nature! There are enough of men who may yield to their impulses gracefully and carelessly: but they do not do so, for fear of that imaginary "evil thing" in nature! That is the cause why there is so little nobility to be found among men: the indication of which will always be to have no fear of oneself, to expect nothing disgraceful from oneself, to fly without hesitation whithersoever we are impelled—we free-born birds! Wherever we come, there will always be freedom and sunshine around us.
Against the Disparagers of Nature.—I find those men unpleasant who turn every natural inclination into a problem, something ugly or even shameful. They have convinced us to believe that human desires and impulses are bad; they are responsible for the deep injustice we do to our own nature and to all of nature! There are plenty of people who can embrace their impulses freely and without worry, but they hold back, fearing that made-up "evil thing" in nature! That is the reason there is so little nobility among people: the sign of which will always be to not fear oneself, to expect nothing shameful from oneself, to soar without hesitation wherever we are driven—we free-spirited beings! Wherever we go, there will always be freedom and sunlight surrounding us.
295.
295.
Short-lived Habits.—I love short-lived habits, and regard them as an invaluable means for getting a knowledge of many things and various conditions, to the very bottom of their sweetness and bitterness; my nature is altogether arranged for short-lived habits, even in the needs of its bodily health, and in general, as far as I can see, from the lowest up to the highest matters. I always think that this will at last satisfy me permanently (the short-lived habit has also this[Pg 230] characteristic belief of passion, the belief in everlasting duration; I am to be envied for having found it and recognised it), and then it nourishes me at noon and at eve, and spreads a profound satisfaction around me and in me, so that I have no longing for anything else, not needing to compare, or despise, or hate. But one day the habit has had its time: the good thing separates from me, not as something which then inspires disgust in me—but peaceably, and as though satisfied with me, as I am with it; as if we had to be mutually thankful, and thus shook hands for farewell. And already the new habit waits at the door, and similarly also my belief—indestructible fool and sage that I am!—that this new habit will be the right one, the ultimate right one. So it is with me as regards foods, thoughts, men, cities, poems, music, doctrines, arrangements of the day, and modes of life.—On the other hand, I hate permanent habits, and feel as if a tyrant came into my neighbourhood, and as if my life's breath condensed, when events take such a form that permanent habits seem necessarily to grow out of them: for example, through an official position, through constant companionship with the same persons, through a settled abode, or through a uniform state of health. Indeed, from the bottom of my soul I am gratefully disposed to all my misery and sickness, and to whatever is imperfect in me, because such things leave me a hundred back-doors through which I can escape from permanent habits. The most unendurable thing, to be sure, the really terrible thing, would be a life without habits, a life which[Pg 231] continually required improvisation:—that would be my banishment and my Siberia.
Short-lived Habits.—I enjoy short-lived habits and see them as an essential way to understand many things and different situations, diving deep into their sweetness and bitterness; my nature is completely suited for short-lived habits, even when it comes to my physical health, and generally, as far as I can tell, from the most trivial to the most significant matters. I always believe that this will eventually satisfy me permanently (the short-lived habit also has this[Pg 230] characteristic of passion, the belief in everlasting duration; I should be envied for discovering and acknowledging this), and then it sustains me at noon and evening, creating a profound sense of satisfaction within and around me, so I have no desire for anything else, without needing to compare, scorn, or resent. But one day, the habit has reached its time: the good thing separates from me, not as something that then repulses me—but peacefully, as if satisfied with me, just as I am with it; as if we owe each other gratitude, and thus shook hands for a farewell. And already, the new habit is waiting at the door, along with my belief—indestructible fool and sage that I am!—that this new habit will be the right one, the ultimate one. This is how I feel about food, thoughts, people, cities, poems, music, beliefs, daily schedules, and lifestyles. On the flip side, I dislike permanent habits, feeling like a tyrant has entered my space, and it feels like my very breath condenses when things take shape in such a way that permanent habits seem inevitable: for instance, through a job position, constant time spent with the same people, having a fixed home, or through a consistent state of health. In truth, from the depths of my soul, I hold a grateful perspective towards all my suffering and illnesses, and all that is imperfect in me, because those things leave me a hundred escape routes to avoid permanent habits. The most unbearable thing, undeniably, the truly terrible thing, would be a life without habits, a life that[Pg 231] constantly demanded improvisation:—that would be my exile and my Siberia.
296.
296.
A Fixed Reputation.—A fixed reputation was formerly a matter of the very greatest utility; and wherever society continues to be ruled by the herd-instinct, it is still most suitable for every individual to give to his character and business the appearance of unalterableness,—even when they are not so in reality. "One can rely on him, he remains the same"—that is the praise which has most significance in all dangerous conditions of society. Society feels with satisfaction that it has a reliable tool ready at all times in the virtue of this one, in the ambition of that one, and in the reflection and passion of a third one,—it honours this tool-like nature, this self-constancy, this unchangeableness in opinions, efforts, and even in faults, with the highest honours. Such a valuation, which prevails and has prevailed everywhere simultaneously with the morality of custom, educates "characters," and brings all changing, re-learning, and self-transforming into disrepute. Be the advantage of this mode of thinking ever so great otherwise, it is in any case the mode of judging which is most injurious to knowledge: for precisely the good-will of the knowing one ever to declare himself unhesitatingly as opposed to his former opinions, and in general to be distrustful of all that wants to be fixed in him—is here condemned and brought into disrepute. The disposition of the thinker, as incompatible with[Pg 232] a "fixed reputation," is regarded as dishonourable, while the petrifaction of opinions has all the honour to itself:—we have at present still to live under the interdict of such rules! How difficult it is to live when one feels that the judgment of many millenniums is around one and against one. It is probable that for many millenniums knowledge was afflicted with a bad conscience, and there must have been much self-contempt and secret misery in the history of the greatest intellects.
A Fixed Reputation.—A fixed reputation used to be incredibly valuable; and wherever society is still influenced by group mentality, it's still best for each person to present their character and business as unchanging—even if they aren't really that way. "You can count on him; he stays the same"—that's the kind of praise that carries the most weight in society's most challenging situations. Society feels reassured knowing it has a dependable tool available at all times because of one person's virtues, another's ambition, and yet another's reflections and passions—it elevates this tool-like nature, this consistency, this unchanging stance on opinions, efforts, and even flaws, to the highest respect. This kind of judgment, which has been widespread alongside the morality of tradition, cultivates "characters" and discredits any forms of change, relearning, and self-transformation. No matter the benefits of this way of thinking, it ultimately undermines knowledge: because the willingness of a thinker to unequivocally oppose their earlier beliefs, and to generally be skeptical of anything that seeks to establish permanence within them, is here criticized and disrespected. The mindset of the thinker, seen as incompatible with[Pg 232] a "fixed reputation," is viewed as dishonorable, while the rigidity of opinions receives all the respect:—we still have to navigate life under the constraints of such beliefs! It's incredibly challenging to live when one senses the judgment of countless generations surrounding and opposing them. Knowledge has likely grappled with a guilty conscience for many millennia, and there must have been significant self-loathing and hidden suffering throughout the histories of the greatest minds.
297.
297.
Ability to Contradict—Everyone knows at present that the ability, to endure contradiction is a good indication of culture. Some people even know that the higher man courts opposition, and provokes it, so as to get a cue to his hitherto unknown partiality. But the ability to contradict, the attainment of a good conscience in hostility to the accustomed, the traditional and the hallowed,—that is more than both the above-named abilities, and is the really great, new and astonishing thing in our culture, the step of all steps of the emancipated intellect: who knows that?—
Ability to Contradict—Everyone knows today that the ability to handle contradiction is a solid sign of being cultured. Some people even understand that a more evolved person seeks out opposition and challenges it to discover their previously hidden biases. But the ability to contradict, achieving a good conscience in opposition to what is familiar, traditional, and revered—that is more significant than both of the above abilities and represents the truly remarkable, new, and surprising aspect of our culture, the major leap of the liberated mind: who knows that?—
298.
298.
A Sigh.—I caught this notion on the way, and rapidly took the readiest, poor words to hold it fast, so that it might not again fly away. But it has died in these dry words, and hangs and flaps about in them—and now I hardly know, when I look upon it, how I could have had such happiness when I caught this bird.
A Sigh.—I got this idea on my way, and quickly grabbed whatever simple words I could to hold onto it, so it wouldn’t escape again. But it has faded in these dry words, and hangs around in them—and now I barely remember, when I look at it, how I could have felt such happiness when I caught this bird.
299.
299.
What one should Learn from Artists.—What means have we for making things beautiful, attractive, and desirable, when they are not so?—and I suppose they are never so in themselves! We have here something to learn from physicians, when, for example, they dilute what is bitter, or put wine and sugar into their mixing-bowl; but we have still more to learn from artists, who in fact, are continually concerned in devising such inventions and artifices. To withdraw from things until one no longer sees much of them, until one has even to see things into them, in order to see them at all—or to view them from the side, and as in a frame—or to place them so that they partly disguise themselves and only permit of perspective views—or to look at them through coloured glasses, or in the light of the sunset—or to furnish them with a surface or skin which is not fully transparent: we should learn all this from artists, and moreover be wiser than they. For this fine power of theirs usually ceases with them where art ceases and life begins; we, however, want to be the poets of our lives, and first of all in the smallest and most commonplace matters.
What one should Learn from Artists.—How can we make things beautiful, attractive, and desirable when they aren't?—and I think they’re never truly that on their own! We have something to learn from doctors, for instance, when they mix bitter medicine with wine and sugar; but we have even more to learn from artists, who are always coming up with new inventions and tricks. To step back from things until we hardly notice them, until we have to look deeper to see them at all—or to view them from an angle, as if in a frame—or to arrange them so they partly hide themselves and only allow glimpses—or to look at them through colored lenses, or during sunset—or to give them a surface or layer that isn’t completely clear: we should learn all this from artists and, importantly, strive to be even wiser than they are. For this incredible ability of theirs usually ends where their art ends and life begins; we, however, want to be the poets of our own lives, starting with the smallest and most ordinary things.
300.
300.
Prelude to Science.—Do you believe then that the sciences would have arisen and grown up if the sorcerers, alchemists, astrologers and witches had not been their forerunners; those who, with their promisings and foreshadowings, had first to[Pg 234] create a thirst, a hunger, and a taste for hidden and forbidden powers? Yea, that infinitely more had to be promised than could ever be fulfilled, in order that something might be fulfilled in the domain of knowledge? Perhaps the whole of religion, also, may appear to some distant age as an exercise and a prelude, in like manner as the prelude and preparation of science here exhibit themselves, though not at all practised and regarded as such. Perhaps religion may have been the peculiar means for enabling individual men to enjoy but once the entire self-satisfaction of a God and all his self-redeeming power. Indeed!—one may ask—would man have learned at all to get on the tracks of hunger and thirst for himself, and to extract satiety and fullness out of himself, without that religious schooling and preliminary history? Had Prometheus first to fancy that he had stolen the light, and that he did penance for the theft,—in order finally to discover that he had created the light, in that he had longed for the light, and that not only man, but also God, had been the work of his hands and the clay in his hands? All mere creations of the creator?—just as the illusion, the theft, the Caucasus, the vulture, and the whole tragic Prometheia of all thinkers?
Prelude to Science.—Do you really think that the sciences would have developed and evolved if sorcerers, alchemists, astrologers, and witches hadn’t paved the way? Those who, with their promises and prophecies, first had to[Pg 234] create a thirst, a hunger, and a desire for hidden and forbidden powers? Yes, that infinitely more had to be promised than could ever be delivered, so that something could actually be achieved in the realm of knowledge? Perhaps the whole of religion, too, will seem to some future generation like a practice and a precursor, just as the prelude and groundwork of science do here, even though they were not seen or practiced that way at all. Maybe religion served as a unique means for individuals to briefly experience the complete self-satisfaction of a God and all his self-redeeming power. Truly!—one might ask—would humans have ever learned to tap into their own hunger and thirst for themselves, and to find fulfillment and satisfaction within themselves, without that religious education and background? Did Prometheus first need to believe he had stolen the light and suffer for that theft, only to eventually realize he had actually created the light, by desiring the light, and that not only humanity but also God had been formed by his hands and molded from the clay in his hands? All mere creations of the creator?—just like the illusion, the theft, the Caucasus, the vulture, and the entire tragic Prometheia of all thinkers?
301.
301.
Illusion of the Contemplative.—Higher men are distinguished from lower, by seeing and hearing immensely more, and in a thoughtful manner—and it is precisely this that distinguishes man from the animal, and the higher animal from the lower. The world always becomes fuller for him[Pg 235] who grows up to the full stature of humanity; there are always more interesting fishing-hooks, thrown out to him; the number of his stimuli is continually on the increase, and similarly the varieties of his pleasure and pain,—the higher man becomes always at the same time happier and unhappier. An illusion, however, is his constant accompaniment all along: he thinks he is placed as a spectator and auditor before the great pantomime and concert of life; he calls his nature a contemplative nature, and thereby overlooks the fact that he himself is also a real creator, and continuous poet of life,—that he no doubt differs greatly from the actor in this drama, the so-called practical man, but differs still more from a mere onlooker or spectator before the stage. There is certainly vis contemplativa, and re-examination of his work peculiar to him as poet, but at the same time, and first and foremost, he has the vis creativa, which the practical man or doer lacks, whatever appearance and current belief may say to the contrary. It is we, who think and feel, that actually and unceasingly make something which did not before exist: the whole eternally increasing world of valuations, colours, weights, perspectives, gradations, affirmations and negations. This composition of ours is continually learnt, practised, and translated into flesh and actuality, and even into the commonplace, by the so-called practical men (our actors, as we have said). Whatever has value in the present world, has not it in itself, by its nature,—nature is always worthless:—but a value was once given to it, bestowed upon it[Pg 236] and it was we who gave and bestowed! We only have created the world which is of any account to man!—But it is precisely this knowledge that we lack, and when we get hold of it for a moment we have forgotten it the next: we misunderstand our highest power, we contemplative men, and estimate ourselves at too low a rate,—we are neither as proud nor as happy as we might be.
Illusion of the Contemplative.—Higher individuals stand apart from those who are lower by perceiving and understanding far more, and in a deeper way—and it is this very capacity that sets humans apart from animals, and higher animals apart from those that are lower. The world continually becomes more vibrant for someone who develops fully into humanity; there are always more intriguing opportunities presented to them; the number of stimuli they encounter is constantly increasing, along with the variety of their experiences of pleasure and pain—the higher individual simultaneously becomes both happier and unhappier. However, an illusion is their constant companion: they believe they are positioned as a spectator and audi before the grand play and concert of life; they label their nature as a contemplative nature, overlooking the fact that they are also a genuine creator and an ongoing poet of life—no doubt different from the actor in this drama, the so-called practical person, but even more distinct from a mere onlooker or spectator before the stage. There is certainly a vis contemplativa and a re-evaluation of their work unique to them as poets, but, first and foremost, they possess a vis creativa that the practical person or doer lacks, despite appearances and what is commonly believed. It is us, who think and feel, who actually and continuously create something that didn’t exist before: the entire ever-expanding realm of values, colors, weights, perspectives, gradations, affirmations, and negations. This creation of ours is constantly learned, practiced, and transformed into reality, even into the mundane, by the so-called practical individuals (our actors, as we said). Whatever has value in today's world doesn't inherently possess it—nature is always without worth:—but it was once assigned a value, given to it[Pg 236] and it was us who assigned and conferred it! We have only created the world that holds significance for humans!—Yet it is precisely this understanding that we lack, and when we grasp it momentarily, we soon forget it: we misinterpret our greatest power, we contemplative individuals, and undervalue ourselves—we are neither as proud nor as happy as we could be.
302.
302.
The Danger of the Happiest Ones.—To have fine senses and a fine taste; to be accustomed to the select and the intellectually best as our proper and readiest fare; to be blessed with a strong, bold, and daring soul; to go through life with a quiet eye and a firm step, ever ready for the worst as for a festival, and full of longing for undiscovered worlds and seas, men and Gods; to listen to all joyous music, as if there perhaps brave men, soldiers and seafarers, took a brief repose and enjoyment, and in the profoundest pleasure of the moment were overcome with tears and the whole purple melancholy of happiness: who would not like all this to be his possession, his condition! It was the happiness of Homerr! The condition of him who invented the Gods for the Greeks,—nay, who invented his Gods for himself! But let us not conceal the fact that with this happiness of Homer in one's soul, one is more liable to suffering than any other creature under the sun! And only at this price do we purchase the most precious pearl that the waves of existence have hitherto washed ashore! As its possessor one always becomes more[Pg 237] sensitive to pain, and at last too sensitive: a little displeasure and loathing sufficed in the end to make Homer disgusted with life. He was unable to solve a foolish little riddle which some young fishers proposed to him! Yes, the little riddles are the dangers of the happiest ones!—
The Danger of the Happiest Ones.—To have refined senses and a great taste; to be used to the select and the intellectually best as our normal and comfortable fare; to be blessed with a strong, bold, and adventurous spirit; to navigate life with a calm demeanor and a confident stride, always prepared for the worst just as much as for a celebration, and filled with a yearning for undiscovered worlds and seas, people and gods; to enjoy all joyful music, as if perhaps brave men, soldiers, and sailors were taking a short break to relish life, and in the deepest joy of the moment were overcome with tears and the whole deep sadness of happiness: who wouldn’t want all this to be theirs, their state of being! It was the happiness of Homer! The state of the one who created the gods for the Greeks—indeed, who crafted his own gods for himself! But let’s not hide the fact that with this Homeric happiness in one’s soul, one is more susceptible to suffering than anyone else under the sun! And it is only at this cost that we gain the most precious pearl that the waves of existence have ever washed ashore! As its possessor, one becomes increasingly[Pg 237] sensitive to pain, and ultimately too sensitive: a little annoyance and disgust were enough to leave Homer disillusioned with life. He couldn’t even solve a silly little riddle that some young fishermen posed to him! Yes, the little riddles are the dangers for the happiest ones!—
303.
303.
Two Happy Ones.—Certainly this man, notwithstanding his youth, understands the improvisation of life, and astonishes even the acutest observers. For it seems that he never makes a mistake, although he constantly plays the most hazardous games. One is reminded of the improvising masters of the musical art, to whom even the listeners would fain ascribe a divine infallibility of the hand, notwithstanding that they now and then make a mistake, as every mortal is liable to do. But they are skilled and inventive, and always ready in a moment to arrange into the structure of the score the most accidental tone (where the jerk of a finger or a humour brings it about), and to animate the accident with a fine meaning and soul.—Here is quite a different man: everything that he intends and plans fails with him in the long run. That on which he has now and again set his heart has already brought him several times to the abyss, and to the very verge of ruin; and if he has as yet got out of the scrape, it certainly has not been merely with a "black eye." Do you think he is unhappy over it? He resolved long ago not to regard his own wishes and plans as of so much importance. "If this does not succeed with[Pg 238] me," he says to himself, "perhaps that will succeed; and on the whole I do not know but that I am under more obligation to thank my failures than any of my successes. Am I made to be headstrong, and to wear the bull's horns? That which constitutes the worth and the sum of life for me, lies somewhere else; I know more of life, because I have been so often on the point of losing it; and just on that account I have more of life than any of you!"
Two Happy Ones.—This man, despite his youth, clearly understands the improvisation of life and surprises even the sharpest observers. It seems he never makes a mistake, even though he constantly takes the biggest risks. He reminds one of the masters of musical improvisation, whom listeners tend to see as having a divine infallibility, despite sometimes making mistakes, as everyone does. But these musicians are skilled and creative, always able to incorporate even the most accidental note—whether due to a slip of the finger or a moment of inspiration—into their performance, imbuing the accident with meaning and vitality. This man, however, is different: everything he intends and plans ultimately backfires. His aspirations have brought him to the brink of disaster several times, and even if he has managed to escape, it hasn't come without some damage. Does he feel unhappy about it? Long ago, he decided not to place too much importance on his wishes and plans. "If this doesn't work out for me," he tells himself, "maybe that will work; and overall, I might actually owe more gratitude to my failures than to my successes. Am I meant to be stubborn and wear the bull's horns? What really holds value and meaning in life for me lies elsewhere; I understand life more deeply because I've been close to losing it so many times, and for that reason, I have more of life than any of you!"
304.
304.
In Doing we Leave Undone.—In the main all those moral systems are distasteful to me which say: "Do not do this! Renounce! Overcome thyself!" On the other hand I am favourable to those moral systems which stimulate me to do something, and to do it again from morning till evening, to dream of it at night, and think of nothing else but to do it well, as well as is possible for me alone! From him who so lives there fall off one after the other the things that do not pertain to such a life: without hatred or antipathy, he sees this take leave of him to-day, and that to-morrow, like the yellow leaves which every livelier breeze strips from the tree: or he does not see at all that they take leave of him, so firmly is his eye fixed upon his goal, and generally forward, not sideways, backward, or downward. "Our doing must determine what we leave undone; in that we do, we leave undone"—so it pleases me, so runs my placitum. But I do not mean to strive with open eyes for my impoverishment; I do not like any of the negative[Pg 239] virtues whose very essence is negation and self-renunciation.
In Doing we Leave Undone.—Overall, I’m not a fan of moral systems that say: "Don't do this! Give it up! Overcome yourself!" On the flip side, I support moral systems that inspire me to take action, to keep doing it from morning till night, to dream about it at night, and to think of nothing else but doing it well, as well as I can alone! For someone who lives this way, things that don't fit such a life naturally fall away one by one: without hatred or resentment, they watch this leave him today, and that tomorrow, like the yellow leaves that each lively breeze strips from a tree; or he might not even notice they’re leaving him at all, so focused is he on his goal, generally looking ahead, not sideways, backwards, or downward. "What we do must dictate what we leave undone; in our actions, we leave things aside"—that pleases me, that’s how my principles run. But I don't intend to strive with open eyes toward my own impoverishment; I don’t like any of the negative[Pg 239] virtues that are all about negation and self-denial.
305.
305.
Self-control—Those moral teachers who first and foremost order man to get himself into his own power, induce thereby a curious infirmity in him—namely, a constant sensitiveness with reference to all natural strivings and inclinations, and as it were, a sort of itching. Whatever may henceforth drive him, draw him, allure or impel him, whether internally or externally—it always seems to this sensitive being as if his self-control were in danger: he is no longer at liberty to trust himself to any instinct, to any free flight, but stands constantly with defensive mien, armed against himself, with sharp distrustful eye, the eternal watcher of his stronghold, to which office he has appointed himself. Yes, he can be great in that position! But how unendurable he has now become to others, how difficult even for himself to bear, how impoverished and cut off from the finest accidents of his soul! Yea, even from all further instruction! For we must be able to lose ourselves at times, if we want to learn something of what we have not in ourselves.
Self-control—Those moral teachers who primarily instruct people to take control of themselves create a strange weakness in them—specifically, a constant sensitivity toward all natural urges and desires, which can feel like a kind of itch. Whatever drives, attracts, or pushes him, whether from within or outside, always seems to threaten his self-control: he can no longer trust any instinct or give in to any spontaneity, but instead stands forever on guard, ready to defend against himself, with a sharp, distrustful gaze, like a watchman of his own fortress, a role he has assigned to himself. Yes, he can be great in that role! But he has become unbearable to others, hard for himself to tolerate, and is left impoverished and cut off from the most beautiful experiences of his soul! Indeed, even from all further instruction! For we must sometimes be able to lose ourselves if we want to learn about what we don’t already possess.
306.
306.
Stoic and Epicurean.—The Epicurean selects the situations, the persons, and even the events which suits his extremely sensitive, intellectual constitution; he renounces the rest—that is to say, by far the greater part of experience—because it would be[Pg 240] too strong and too heavy fare for him. The Stoic, on the contrary, accustoms himself to swallow stones and vermin, glass-splinters and scorpions, without feeling any disgust: his stomach is meant to become indifferent in the end to all that the accidents of existence cast into it:—he reminds one of the Arabic sect of the Assaua, with which the French became acquainted in Algiers; and like those insensible persons, he also likes well to have an invited public at the exhibition of his insensibility, the very thing the Epicurean willingly dispenses with:—he has of course his "garden"! Stoicism may be quite advisable for men with whom fate improvises, for those who live in violent times and are dependent on abrupt and changeable individuals. He, however, who anticipates that fate will permit him to spin "a long thread," does well to make his arrangements in Epicurean fashion; all men devoted to intellectual labour have done it hitherto! For it would be a supreme loss to them to forfeit their fine sensibility, and to acquire the hard, stoical hide with hedgehog prickles in exchange.
Stoic and Epicurean.—The Epicurean chooses the situations, people, and even events that suit his very sensitive, intellectual nature; he avoids everything else—that is, the vast majority of experiences—because it would be[Pg 240] too overwhelming and burdensome for him. The Stoic, on the other hand, trains himself to endure hardships and unpleasant things, like stones and vermin, glass shards and scorpions, without feeling disgust: his mindset is meant to become indifferent to whatever life throws at him. He’s reminiscent of the Arabic sect of the Assaua, which the French encountered in Algiers; like those stoic individuals, he enjoys having an audience to witness his indifference, something the Epicurean gladly avoids. Of course, he has his "garden"! Stoicism can be quite beneficial for those who live in unpredictable times and are at the mercy of sudden, changing people. However, for someone who expects that fate will allow him to weave "a long thread," it’s wise to plan in an Epicurean manner; all intellectuals have done so up to now! It would be a tremendous loss for them to sacrifice their refined sensitivity for the tough, stoic shell filled with prickly hedgehog spines in return.
307.
307.
In Favour of Criticism.—Something now appears to thee as an error which thou formerly lovedst as a truth, or as a probability: thou pushest it from thee and imaginest that thy reason has there gained a victory. But perhaps that error was then, when thou wast still another person—thou art always another person,—just as necessary to thee as all thy present "truths," like a skin, as it[Pg 241] were, which concealed and veiled from thee much which thou still mayst not see. Thy new life, and not thy reason, has slain that opinion for thee: thou dost not require it any longer, and now it breaks down of its own accord, and the irrationality crawls out of it as a worm into the light. When we make use of criticism it is not something arbitrary and impersonal,—it is, at least very often, a proof that there are lively, active forces in us, which cast a skin. We deny, and must deny, because something in us wants to live and affirm itself, something which we perhaps do not as yet know, do not as yet see!—So much in favour of criticism.
In Favor of Criticism.—Something that once seemed like a truth or a possibility to you now appears to be an error: you push it away and think you've achieved a victory with your reasoning. But that error may have been a part of you when you were a different person—you are always becoming a different person—just as necessary to you as all your current "truths," like a skin, which concealed and hid from you a lot that you still may not see. Your new life, not your reason, has killed that opinion for you: you no longer need it, and now it collapses on its own while its irrationality emerges like a worm into the light. When we use criticism, it's not something random or impersonal—it often shows that there are vibrant, active forces within us that are shedding a skin. We deny, and we must deny, because something in us wants to live and assert itself, something that we may not yet understand, may not yet see!—So much in favor of criticism.
308.
308.
The History of each Day.—What is it that constitutes the history of each day for thee? Look at thy habits of which it consists: are they the product of numberless little acts of cowardice and laziness, or of thy bravery and inventive reason? Although the two cases are so different, it is possible that men might bestow the same praise upon thee, and that thou mightst also be equally useful to them in the one case as in the other. But praise and utility and respectability may suffice for him whose only desire is to have a good conscience,—not however for thee, the "trier of the reins," who hast a consciousness of the conscience!
The History of Each Day.—What makes up the history of each day for you? Look at your habits that shape it: are they the result of countless little acts of cowardice and laziness, or of your courage and creative thinking? Even though these situations are so different, it’s possible that people could give you the same praise, and that you could be just as helpful to them in either case. But praise, usefulness, and respectability might be enough for someone whose only desire is to have a clear conscience—not for you, the “examiner of the reins,” who has a consciousness of the conscience!
309.
309.
Out of the Seventh Solitude.—One day the wanderer shut a door behind him, stood still, and[Pg 242] wept. Then he said: "Oh, this inclination and impulse towards the true, the real, the non-apparent, the certain! How I detest it! Why does this gloomy and passionate taskmaster follow just me? I should like to rest, but it does not permit me to do so. Are there not a host of things seducing me to tarry! Everywhere there are gardens of Armida for me, and therefore there will ever be fresh separations and fresh bitterness of heart! I must set my foot forward, my weary wounded foot: and because I feel I must do this, I often cast grim glances back at the most beautiful things which could not detain me—because they could not detain me!"
Out of the Seventh Solitude.—One day, the wanderer closed a door behind him, stood still, and[Pg 242] cried. Then he said: "Oh, this urge and drive toward the true, the real, the unseen, the certain! How I loathe it! Why does this dark and intense taskmaster follow just me? I want to rest, but it won’t let me. Aren't there countless things tempting me to linger? Everywhere there are gardens of Armida waiting for me, and that means there will always be new separations and fresh heartbreak! I must move forward, my tired, wounded foot: and because I know I have to do this, I often look back darkly at the most beautiful things that couldn’t hold me—because they couldn’t hold me!"
310.
310.
Will and Wave.—How eagerly this wave comes hither, as if it were a question of its reaching something! How it creeps with frightful haste into the innermost corners of the rocky cliff! It seems that it wants to forestall some one; it seems that something is concealed there that has value, high value.—And now it retreats somewhat more slowly, still quite white with excitement,—is it disappointed? Has it found what it sought? Does it merely pretend to be disappointed?—But already another wave approaches, still more eager and wild than the first, and its soul also seems to be full of secrets, and of longing for treasure-seeking. Thus live the waves,—thus live we who exercise will!—I do not say more.—But what! Ye distrust me? Ye are angry at me, ye beautiful monsters? Do ye fear that I will quite betray your secret? Well! Just[Pg 243] be angry with me, raise your green, dangerous bodies as high as ye can, make a wall between me and the sun—as at present! Verily, there is now nothing more left of the world save green twilight and green lightning-flashes. Do as ye will, ye wanton creatures, roar with delight and wickedness—or dive under again, pour your emeralds down into the depths, and cast your endless white tresses of foam and spray over them—it is all the same to me, for all is so well with you, and I am so pleased with you for it all: how could I betray you! For—take this to heart!—I know you and your secret, I know your race! You and I are indeed of one race! You and I have indeed one secret!
Will and Wave.—How eagerly this wave comes here, as if it’s desperate to reach something! It rushes into the deepest corners of the rocky cliff with terrifying speed! It seems like it wants to beat someone to it; it seems like something valuable, incredibly valuable, is hidden there.—And now it pulls back a bit more slowly, still quite white with excitement— is it disappointed? Has it found what it was looking for? Is it just pretending to be disappointed?—But already another wave comes in, even more eager and wild than the first, and it too seems full of secrets and longing to find treasure. This is how the waves live—this is how we who have will live!—I won’t say more.—But what! You don’t trust me? You’re angry with me, you beautiful monsters? Are you afraid I’ll expose your secret? Fine! Just[Pg 243] be angry with me, raise your green, dangerous bodies as high as you can, create a barrier between me and the sun—just like now! Honestly, there’s nothing left of the world except green twilight and green lightning flashes. Do as you please, you playful creatures, roar with joy and mischief—or dive back down, pouring your emeralds into the depths, and drape your endless white waves of foam and spray over them—it’s all the same to me, because everything is so good with you, and I’m so happy with you for it all: how could I betray you! For—remember this!—I know you and your secret, I know your kind! You and I are indeed of the same kind! You and I actually share one secret!
311.
311.
Broken Lights.—We are not always brave, and when we are weary, people of our stamp are liable to lament occasionally in this wise:—"It is so hard to cause pain to men—oh, that it should be necessary! What good is it to live concealed, when we do not want to keep to ourselves that which causes vexation? Would it not be more advisable to live in the madding crowd, and compensate individuals for sins that are committed, and must be committed, against mankind in general? Foolish with fools, vain with the vain, enthusiastic with enthusiasts? Would that not be reasonable when there is such an inordinate amount of divergence in the main? When I hear of the malignity of others against me—is not my first feeling that of satisfaction? It is well that it should be so!—I seem to myself to say to them—[Pg 244]I am so little in harmony with you, and have so much truth on my side: see henceforth that ye be merry at my expense as often as ye can! Here are my defects and mistakes, here are my illusions, my bad taste, my confusion, my tears, my vanity, my owlish concealment, my contradictions! Here you have something to laugh at! Laugh then, and enjoy yourselves! I am not averse to the law and nature of things, which is that defects and errors should give pleasure!—To be sure, there were once 'more glorious' times, when as soon as any one got an idea, however moderately new it might be, he would think himself so indispensable as to go out into the street with it, and call to everybody: 'Behold! the kingdom of heaven is at hand!'—I should not miss myself, if I were a-wanting. We are none of us indispensable!"—As we have said, however, we do not think thus when we are brave; we do not think about it at all.
Broken Lights.—We aren't always brave, and when we're tired, people like us tend to occasionally complain like this:—"It's so hard to hurt others—oh, why does it have to be necessary? What’s the point of living in hiding when we don't want to bottle up what causes us frustration? Wouldn't it make more sense to be part of the noisy crowd and make it up to people for the wrongs that are done, and must be done, against humanity as a whole? Acting foolish with the foolish, shallow with the shallow, excited with the excited? Wouldn't that be reasonable when there's such a huge amount of difference overall? When I hear about how others mean me harm—doesn’t my first reaction tend to be one of satisfaction? It’s good that it’s that way!—I feel like saying to them—[Pg 244]I am so out of sync with you, and I have so much truth on my side: from now on, enjoy yourselves at my expense as much as you want! Here are my flaws and mistakes, here are my delusions, my poor taste, my confusion, my tears, my vanity, my silly hiding, my contradictions! Here’s something for you to laugh at! Go ahead, laugh and have fun! I'm not against the way things are, which is that flaws and mistakes should bring joy!—Of course, there were once 'better' times, when as soon as anyone had an idea, no matter how slightly new it might be, they’d think they were so essential that they would walk into the street with it and shout to everyone: 'Look! The kingdom of heaven is near!'—I wouldn't miss myself if I wasn't around. None of us are essential!"—As we've said, however, we don’t think this way when we’re feeling brave; we don't think about it at all.
312.
312.
My Dog.—I have given a name to my pain, and call it "a dog,"—it is just as faithful, just as importunate and shameless, just as entertaining, just as wise, as any other dog—and I can domineer over it, and vent my bad humour on it, as others do with their dogs, servants, and wives.
My Dog.—I’ve named my pain “a dog”—it’s just as loyal, just as annoying and shameless, just as entertaining, and just as smart as any other dog—and I can control it and take out my bad mood on it, just like others do with their dogs, servants, and wives.
313.
313.
No Picture of a Martyr.—I will take my cue from Raphael, and not paint any more[Pg 245] martyr-pictures. There are enough of sublime things without its being necessary to seek sublimity where it is linked with cruelty; moreover my ambition would not be gratified in the least if I aspired to be a sublime executioner.
No Picture of a Martyr.—I will follow Raphael's lead and not create any more[Pg 245] martyr paintings. There are already plenty of amazing things without needing to find greatness connected to cruelty; besides, my ambition wouldn’t be satisfied at all if I aimed to be a great executioner.
314.
314.
New Domestic Animals.—I want to have my lion and my eagle about me, that I may always have hints and premonitions concerning the amount of my strength or weakness. Must I look down on them to-day, and be afraid of them? And will the hour come once more when they will look up to me, and tremble?—
New Domestic Animals.—I want to have my lion and my eagle around me so I can always get reminders and warnings about my strength or weakness. Should I look down on them today and be afraid of them? And will the time come again when they will look up to me and feel scared?—
315.
315.
The Last Hour.—Storms are my danger. Shall I have my storm in which I perish, as Oliver Cromwell perished in his storm? Or shall I go out as a light does, not first blown out by the wind, but grown tired and weary of itself—a burnt-out light? Or finally, shall I blow myself out, so as not to burn out?
The Last Hour.—Storms are my threat. Will I face my own storm in which I meet my end, like Oliver Cromwell did? Or will I fade away like a light, not snuffed out by the wind, but worn out and exhausted—a burnt-out light? Or in the end, will I extinguish myself, so I don’t burn out?
316.
316.
Prophetic Men.—Ye cannot divine how sorely prophetic men suffer: ye think only that a fine "gift" has been given to them, and would fain have it yourselves,—but I will express my meaning by a simile. How much may not the animals suffer from the electricity of the atmosphere and the clouds! Some of them, as we see, have a prophetic faculty with regard to the weather, for example, apes[Pg 246] (as one can observe very well even in Europe,—and not only in menageries, but at Gibraltar). But it never occurs to us that it is their sufferings—that are their prophets! When strong positive electricity, under the influence of an approaching cloud not at all visible, is suddenly converted into negative electricity, and an alteration of the weather is imminent, these animals then behave as if an enemy were approaching them, and prepare for defence, or flight: they generally hide themselves,—they do not think of the bad weather as weather, but as an enemy whose hand they already feel!
Prophetic Men.—You cannot imagine how deeply prophetic people suffer: you think they’ve been given a wonderful “gift” and you wish you had it too,—but let me explain with a comparison. Consider how much animals might endure from changes in the atmosphere and clouds! Some of them, like apes[Pg 246] (which you can observe even in Europe,—not just in zoos, but at Gibraltar), seem to have a sixth sense about the weather. Yet we never realize that their sufferings are what makes them prophetic! When strong positive electricity suddenly turns into negative electricity ahead of an unseen storm, and bad weather is on the way, these animals act as if they sense a threat, preparing to defend themselves or flee. They typically hide themselves,—they don’t see the storm as just weather but as an enemy whose presence they can already feel!
317.
317.
Retrospect.—We seldom become conscious of the real pathos of any period of life as such, as long as we continue in it, but always think it is the only possible and reasonable thing for us henceforth, and that it is altogether ethos and not pathos[1]—to speak and distinguish like the Greeks. A few notes of music to-day recalled a winter and a house, and a life of utter solitude to my mind, and at the same time the sentiments in which I then lived: I thought I should be able to live in such a state always. But now I understand that it was entirely pathos and passion, something comparable to this painfully bold and truly comforting music,—it is not one's lot to have these[Pg 247] sensations for years, still less for eternities: otherwise one would become too "ethereal" for this planet.
Retrospect.—We rarely realize the true sadness of any stage of life while we're living it; we tend to think it's the only logical and sensible option for the future, and that it’s fully ethos and not pathos[1]—to communicate and distinguish like the Greeks. A few musical notes today reminded me of a winter, a house, and a life of complete solitude, along with the emotions I experienced then: I believed I could exist in that state forever. But now I realize it was all about pathos and passion, something like this painfully intense yet genuinely comforting music; one isn’t meant to feel these sensations for years, let alone for eternity: otherwise, one would become too "ethereal" for this planet.
318.
318.
Wisdom in Pain.—In pain there is as much wisdom as in pleasure: like the latter it is one of the best self-preservatives of a species. Were it not so, pain would long ago have been done away with; that it is hurtful is no argument against it, for to be hurtful is its very essence. In pain I hear the commanding call of the ship's captain: "Take in sail!" "Man," the bold seafarer, must have learned to set his sails in a thousand different ways, otherwise he could not have sailed long, for the ocean would soon have swallowed him up. We must also know how to live with reduced energy: as soon as pain gives its precautionary signal, it is time to reduce the speed—some great danger, some storm, is approaching, and we do well to "catch" as little wind as possible—It is true that there are men who, on the approach of severe pain, hear the very opposite call of command, and never appear more proud, more martial, or more happy than when the storm is brewing; indeed, pain itself provides them with their supreme moments! These are the heroic men, the great pain-bringers of mankind: those few and rare ones who need just the same apology as pain generally,—and verily, it should not be denied them! They are forces of the greatest importance for preserving and advancing the species, be it only because they are opposed to smug ease, and do not conceal their disgust at this kind of happiness.
Wisdom in Pain.—In pain there is as much wisdom as in pleasure: like the latter, it's one of the best ways a species can protect itself. If it weren't true, pain would have been eliminated a long time ago; the fact that it is harmful doesn't argue against it, because being harmful is its very nature. In pain, I hear the commanding voice of the ship's captain: "Take in sail!" The bold seafarer must have learned to adjust his sails in countless ways; otherwise, he wouldn't survive at sea, as the ocean would quickly overwhelm him. We also need to learn to live with less energy: as soon as pain sends out its warning signal, it's time to slow down— some great danger, some storm, is on the way, and we should "catch" as little wind as possible. It's true that some men, when faced with severe pain, respond by rallying in the opposite direction, appearing prouder, braver, or happier when a storm brews; indeed, pain itself gives them their greatest moments! These are the heroic individuals, the great pain-bringers of humanity: those few and rare souls who deserve the same justification as pain itself—and indeed, it should not be denied to them! They are crucial forces for the preservation and advancement of the species, if only because they oppose complacent comfort and openly express their disdain for this type of happiness.
319.
319.
As Interpreters of our Experiences.—One form of honesty has always been lacking among founders of religions and their kin:—they have never made their experiences a matter of the intellectual conscience. "What did I really experience? What then took place in me and around me? Was my understanding clear enough? Was my will directly opposed to all deception of the senses, and courageous in its defence against fantastic notions?"—None of them ever asked these questions, nor to this day do any of the good religious people ask them. They have rather a thirst for things which are contrary to reason, and they don't want to have too much difficulty in satisfying this thirst,—so they experience "miracles" and "regenerations," and hear the voices of angels! But we who are different, who are thirsty for reason, want to look as carefully into our experiences as in the case of a scientific experiment, hour by hour, day by day! We ourselves want to be our own experiments, and our own subjects of experiment.
As Interpreters of our Experiences.—One form of honesty has always been missing among the founders of religions and those associated with them: they have never made their experiences a matter of intellectual integrity. "What did I actually experience? What happened within me and around me? Was my understanding clear enough? Was my will genuinely opposed to all deception of the senses, and brave in defending against unrealistic ideas?"—None of them ever asked these questions, nor do any good religious people ask them to this day. They tend to seek things that are contrary to reason, and they prefer not to face too many challenges in satisfying this desire—so they experience "miracles" and "rebirths," and hear the voices of angels! But we, who are different and seek reason, want to examine our experiences as thoroughly as in a scientific experiment, hour by hour, day by day! We want to be our own experiments and our own subjects of study.
320.
320.
On Meeting Again.—A: Do I quite understand you? You are in search of something? Where, in the midst of the present, actual world, is your niche and star? Where can you lay yourself in the sun, so that you also may have a surplus of well-being, that your existence may justify itself? Let everyone do that for himself—you seem to say,[Pg 249] —and let him put talk about generalities, concern for others and society, out of his mind!—B: I want more; I am no seeker. I want to create my own sun for myself.
On Meeting Again.—A: Do I understand you correctly? You're looking for something? Where in today's real world is your place and light? Where can you enjoy the sun, so that you can also find a sense of abundance and feel your life is worthwhile? It sounds like you're saying that everyone should do that for themselves,[Pg 249] and just forget about talking about general issues or caring about others or society! —B: I want more; I’m not just searching. I want to create my own sunshine.
321.
321.
A New Precaution.—Let us no longer think so much about punishing, blaming, and improving! We shall seldom be able to alter an individual, and if we should succeed in doing so, something else may also succeed, perhaps unawares: we may have been altered by him! Let us rather see to it that our own influence on all that is to come outweighs and overweighs his influence! Let us not struggle in direct conflict!—all blaming, punishing, and desire to improve comes under this category. But let us elevate ourselves all the higher! Let us ever give to our pattern more shining colours! Let us obscure, the other by our light! No! We do not mean to become darker ourselves on his account, like those who punish and are discontented! Let us rather go aside! Let us look away!
A New Precaution.—Let’s stop focusing so much on punishment, blame, and trying to change people! We rarely manage to change someone, and even if we do, we might end up being changed by them without realizing it! Instead, let’s ensure that our impact on everything that comes next is greater than his impact! Let’s avoid direct conflict!—all blame, punishment, and the desire to change people fall into this category. Instead, let’s lift ourselves even higher! Let’s always add brighter colors to our own pattern! Let’s overshadow the other with our light! No! We don’t want to become darker ourselves because of him, like those who punish and feel dissatisfied! Let’s step aside! Let’s look away!
322.
322.
A Simile.—Those thinkers in whom all the stars move in cyclic orbits, are not the most profound. He who looks into himself, as into an immense universe, and carries Milky Ways in himself, knows also how irregular all Milky Ways are; they lead into the very chaos and labyrinth of existence.
A Simile.—Those thinkers who see all the stars moving in predictable orbits aren’t necessarily the deepest. The one who looks within themselves, as if exploring a vast universe, and carries galaxies inside them, also understands how chaotic and tangled all those galaxies can be; they lead into the very chaos and maze of existence.
323.
323.
Happiness in Destiny.—Destiny confers its greatest distinction upon us when it has made us fight[Pg 250] for a time on the side of our adversaries. We are thereby predestined to a great victory.
Happiness in Destiny.—Destiny gives us its greatest honor when it forces us to spend some time fighting alongside our opponents. This is our way of being predestined for a significant victory.
324.
324.
In Media Vita.—No! Life has not deceived me! On the contrary, from year to year I find it richer, more desirable and more mysterious—from the day on which the great liberator broke my fetters, the thought that life may be an experiment of the thinker—and not a duty, not a fatality, not a deceit!—And knowledge itself may be for others something different; for example, a bed of ease, or the path to a bed of ease, or an entertainment, or a course of idling,—for me it is a world of dangers and victories, in which even the heroic sentiments have their arena and dancing-floor. "Life as a means to knowledge"—with this principle in one's heart, one can not only be brave, but can even live joyfully and laugh joyfully! And who could know how to laugh well and live well, who did not first understand the full significance of war and victory?
In Media Vita.—No! Life hasn’t tricked me! On the contrary, year after year, I find it richer, more desirable, and more mysterious—from the day the great liberator freed me, the idea that life can be an experiment of the thinker—and not a duty, not a fate, not a deception!—And knowledge itself might mean something different for others; for instance, a comfy lifestyle, or a way to that lifestyle, or entertainment, or a way to do nothing—but for me, it’s a world of dangers and victories, where even heroic feelings have their arena and dance floor. "Life as a means to knowledge"—with this principle in one’s heart, you can not only be brave but can also live happily and laugh joyfully! And who could truly know how to laugh and live well, if they didn’t first grasp the full meaning of war and victory?
325.
325.
What Belongs to Greatness.—Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it—that is great, that belongs to greatness.
What Belongs to Greatness.—Who can achieve anything great if they do not feel within themselves the strength and determination to inflict great pain? The capacity to endure is minor; in that regard, weak women and even slaves often achieve mastery. But not succumbing to internal distress and doubt when one causes great suffering and hears its cries—that is greatness; that is what belongs to greatness.
326.
326.
Physicians of the Soul and Pain.—All preachers of morality, as also all theologians, have a bad habit in common: all of them try to persuade man that he is very ill, and that a severe, final, radical cure is necessary. And because mankind as a whole has for centuries listened too eagerly to those teachers, something of the superstition that the human race is in a very bad way has actually come over men: so that they are now far too ready to sigh; they find nothing more in life and make melancholy faces at each other, as if life were indeed very hard to endure. In truth, they are inordinately assured of their life and in love with it, and full of untold intrigues and subtleties for suppressing everything disagreeable, and for extracting the thorn from pain and misfortune. It seems to me that people always speak with exaggeration about pain and misfortune, as if it were a matter of good behaviour to exaggerate here: on the other hand people are intentionally silent in regard to the number of expedients for alleviating pain; as for instance, the deadening of it, feverish flurry of thought, a peaceful position, or good and bad reminiscences, intentions, and hopes,—also many kinds of pride and fellow-feeling, which have almost the effect of anæsthetics: while in the greatest degree of pain fainting takes place of itself. We understand very well how to pour sweetness on our bitterness, especially on the bitterness of our soul; we find a remedy in our bravery and sublimity, as well as in the nobler delirium of[Pg 252] submission and resignation. A loss scarcely remains a loss for an hour: in some way or other a gift from heaven has always fallen into our lap at the same moment—a new form of strength, for example: be it but a new opportunity for the exercise of strength! What have the preachers of morality not dreamt concerning the inner "misery" of evil men! What lies have they not told us about the misfortunes of impassioned men! Yes, lying is here the right word: they were only too well aware of the overflowing happiness of this kind of man, but they kept silent as death about it; because it was a refutation of their theory, according to which happiness only originates through the annihilation of the passions and the silencing of the will! And finally, as regards the recipe of all those physicians of the soul and their recommendation of a severe radical cure, we may be allowed to ask: Is our life really painful and burdensome enough for us to exchange it with advantage for a Stoical mode of living, and Stoical petrification? We do not feel sufficiently miserable to have to feel ill in the Stoical fashion!
Doctors of the Soul and Pain.—All moral teachers and theologians share a common flaw: they all try to convince people that they are very unwell and in need of a harsh, final, and complete cure. Because humanity has listened too eagerly to these leaders for centuries, a sort of superstition has taken hold, making people believe that they are in a terrible state. As a result, they tend to sigh too easily; they see little value in life and exchange gloomy looks, as if life is truly hard to bear. In reality, they are excessively confident about their lives, they love it, and they employ countless strategies to suppress anything unpleasant and to alleviate pain and misfortune. It seems that people always talk exaggeratedly about pain and hardship, as if it's expected to do so; meanwhile, they deliberately remain quiet about the many ways to ease pain, such as numbing it, fervent thought, relaxation, or good and bad memories, intentions, and hopes—along with various forms of pride and empathy, which can act almost like anesthetics. In extreme pain, fainting can occur naturally. We know very well how to sweeten our bitterness, especially the bitterness of our souls; we find solace in our courage and greatness, as well as in the nobler chaos of[Pg 252] submission and acceptance. A loss rarely feels like a loss for more than an hour: somehow, a gift from above usually appears at the same time—a new source of strength, for instance; even if it’s just a new chance to demonstrate that strength! What have the moral teachers not imagined about the inner "misery" of bad people! What lies have they not told us about the hardships of passionate individuals! Yes, lying is the right term here: they were all too aware of the overflowing joy of such individuals, but they remained silent about it; because it contradicted their theory that happiness can only come from the destruction of passions and the suppression of the will! Finally, regarding the advice of these doctors of the soul and their insistence on a harsh, complete cure, we might ask: Is our life really painful and heavy enough that we should trade it for a Stoic way of living and complete stoicism? We do not feel sufficiently miserable to need to feel ill in the Stoic way!
327.
327.
Taking Things Seriously.—The intellect is with most people an awkward, obscure and creaking machine, which is difficult to set in motion: they call it "taking a thing seriously" when they work with this machine and want to think well—oh, how burdensome must good thinking be to them! That delightful animal, man, seems to lose his good-humour whenever he thinks well; he becomes "serious"! And "where there is laughing and[Pg 253] gaiety, thinking cannot be worth anything: "—so speaks the prejudice of this serious animal against all "Joyful Wisdom."—Well, then! Let us show that it is prejudice!
Taking Things Seriously.—For most people, the intellect is an awkward, unclear, and creaky machine that's hard to get going: they call it "taking things seriously" when they try to utilize this machine and want to think properly—oh, how heavy the burden of good thinking must be for them! That wonderful creature, humans, seems to lose their sense of humor whenever they think deeply; they become "serious"! And "where there is laughter and[Pg 253] joy, thinking can't be valuable:" —this is how the prejudice of this serious creature speaks against all "Joyful Wisdom."—Well, then! Let's prove that it's just prejudice!
328.
328.
Doing Harm to Stupidity.—It is certain that the belief in the reprehensibility of egoism, preached with such stubbornness and conviction, has on the whole done harm to egoism (in favour of the herd-instinct, as I shall repeat a hundred times!), especially by depriving it of a good conscience, and by bidding us seek in it the source of all misfortune. "Thy selfishness is the bane of thy life"—so rang the preaching for millenniums: it did harm, as we have said, to selfishness, and deprived it of much spirit, much cheerfulness, much ingenuity, and much beauty; it stultified and deformed and poisoned selfishness!—Philosophical antiquity, on the other hand, taught that there was another principal source of evil: from Socrates downwards, the thinkers were never weary of preaching that "your thoughtlessness and stupidity, your unthinking way of living according to rule, and your subjection to the opinion of your neighbour, are the reasons why you so seldom attain to happiness,—we thinkers are, as thinkers, the happiest of mortals." Let us not decide here whether this preaching against stupidity was more sound than the preaching against selfishness; it is certain, however, that stupidity was thereby deprived of its good conscience:—those philosophers did harm to stupidity.
Doing Harm to Stupidity.—It's clear that the belief in the wrongness of selfishness, taught with such persistence and conviction, has overall harmed selfishness (in favor of the herd instinct, as I will repeat many times!), particularly by taking away its sense of rightness and encouraging us to see it as the root of all problems. "Your selfishness is the curse of your life"—this has been preached for thousands of years: it harmed, as we mentioned, selfishness, robbing it of much spirit, joy, creativity, and beauty; it stunted and twisted and poisoned selfishness!—In contrast, philosophical thinkers of the past taught that there was another major source of evil: from Socrates onward, they never tired of saying that "your thoughtlessness and stupidity, your unreflective way of living by rules, and your dependence on others' opinions are why you rarely find happiness—us thinkers are, as thinkers, the happiest people." We won't decide here whether this teaching against stupidity was more valid than the teaching against selfishness; it's certain, however, that stupidity was stripped of its good conscience:—those philosophers did harm to stupidity.
329.
329.
Leisure and Idleness.—There is an Indian savagery, a savagery peculiar to the Indian blood, in the manner in which the Americans strive after gold: and the breathless hurry of their work—the characteristic vice of the new world—already begins to infect old Europe, and makes it savage also, spreading over it a strange lack of intellectuality. One is now ashamed of repose: even long reflection almost causes remorse of conscience. Thinking is done with a stop-watch, as dining is done with the eyes fixed on the financial newspaper; we live like men who are continually "afraid of letting opportunities slip." "Better do anything whatever, than nothing"—this principle also is a noose with which all culture and all higher taste may be strangled. And just as all form obviously disappears in this hurry of workers, so the sense for form itself, the ear and the eye for the melody of movement, also disappear. The proof of this is the clumsy perspicuity which is now everywhere demanded in all positions where a person would like to be sincere with his fellows, in intercourse with friends, women, relatives, children, teachers, pupils, leaders and princes,—one has no longer either time or energy for ceremonies, for roundabout courtesies, for any esprit in conversation, or for any otium whatever. For life in the hunt for gain continually compels a person to consume his intellect, even to exhaustion, in constant dissimulation, overreaching, or forestalling: the real virtue nowadays is to do something in a[Pg 255] shorter time than another person. And so there are only rare hours of sincere intercourse permitted: in them, however, people are tired, and would not only like "to let themselves go," but to stretch their legs out wide in awkward style. The way people write their letters nowadays is quite in keeping with the age; their style and spirit will always be the true "sign of the times." If there be still enjoyment in society and in art, it is enjoyment such as over-worked slaves provide for themselves. Oh, this moderation in "joy" of our cultured and uncultured classes! Oh, this increasing suspiciousness of all enjoyment! Work is winning over more and more the good conscience to its side: the desire for enjoyment already calls itself "need of recreation," and even begins to be ashamed of itself. "One owes it to one's health," people say, when they are caught at a picnic. Indeed, it might soon go so far that one could not yield to the desire for the vita contemplativa (that is to say, excursions with thoughts and friends), without self-contempt and a bad conscience.—Well! Formerly it was the very reverse: it was "action" that suffered from a bad conscience. A man of good family concealed his work when need compelled him to labour. The slave laboured under the weight of the feeling that he did something contemptible:—the "doing" itself was something contemptible. "Only in otium and bellum is there nobility and honour:" so rang the voice of ancient prejudice!
Leisure and Idleness.—There’s a kind of primitive greed, unique to the Indian spirit, in how Americans chase after wealth: the frantic pace of their work—the defining flaw of the new world—is starting to infect old Europe, leading it to become equally primitive and creating a bizarre lack of intellectual engagement. People now feel ashamed to relax; even deep contemplation can provoke feelings of guilt. Thinking is timed like a race, just as meals are consumed while glued to financial updates; we live like those who are always “worried about missing opportunities.” “Better to do anything than nothing”—this mindset is a trap that can suffocate all culture and cultivated taste. As form itself vanishes in this whirlwind of labor, so too does the sense of form, the ability to appreciate the grace of movement. Evidence of this is the clumsy perspicuity now demanded in all interactions where someone hopes to be genuine—with friends, women, family, children, teachers, students, leaders, and nobles—there’s no longer time or energy for rituals, for elaborate niceties, for any esprit in conversation, or for any otium at all. Life’s relentless pursuit of gain forces people to exhaust their minds in constant deceit, manipulation, or preemption: real virtue today lies in accomplishing tasks more quickly than others. Consequently, there are rarely moments of genuine connection permitted: when they occur, people are tired and just want to "let loose," even to stretch their legs out awkwardly. The way people write their letters today reflects the times; their tone and style will always reveal the true "sign of the times." If there’s any enjoyment left in society and art, it’s akin to what overworked individuals provide for themselves. Oh, this restraint in "joy" among both the educated and uneducated! Oh, this growing distrust of all pleasure! Work is gaining more and more moral support: the desire for enjoyment now calls itself the "need for recreation" and even starts to feel embarrassed about it. “It’s for your health,” people say when they’re caught having a picnic. In fact, it may soon reach a point where indulging in the vita contemplativa (that is, time spent in thought or with friends) could provoke self-loathing and a guilty conscience.—Well! In the past, it was the opposite: it was “action” that bore the guilt. A man of good standing hid his labor when necessity forced him to work. The laborer felt the shame that came with the idea of doing something degrading: the act itself was seen as disgraceful. “Only in otium and bellum is there nobility and honor:” such was the prevailing belief of olden times!
330.
330.
Applause.—The thinker does not need applause or the clapping of hands, provided he be sure of the clapping of his own hands: the latter, however, he cannot do without. Are there men who could also do without this, and in general without any kind of applause? I doubt it: and even as regards the wisest, Tacitus, who is no calumniator of the wise, says: quando etiam sapientibus gloriæ cupido novissima exuitur—that means with him: never.
Applause.—A thinker doesn't need applause or clapping from others as long as they can count on their own approval. But that self-approval is essential. Are there people who can truly do without any form of applause? I doubt it. Even when it comes to the wisest among us, Tacitus, who doesn't slander the wise, says: quando etiam sapientibus gloriæ cupido novissima exuitur—which means to him: never.
331.
331.
Better Deaf than Deafened.—Formerly a person wanted to have his calling, but that no longer suffices to-day, for the market has become too large,—there has now to be bawling. The consequence is that even good throats outcry each other, and the best wares are offered for sale with hoarse voices; without market-place bawling and hoarseness there is now no longer any genius.—It is, sure enough, an evil age for the thinker: he has to learn to find his stillness betwixt two noises, and has to pretend to be deaf until he finally becomes so. As long as he has not learned this, he is in danger of perishing from impatience and headaches.
Better Deaf than Deafened.—In the past, people wanted to have their calling, but that’s no longer enough today, as the market has become too big—now it’s all about bawling. The result is that even strong voices drown each other out, and the best products are sold with hoarse voices; without the market’s shouting and hoarseness, there’s no longer any genius. —It truly is a tough time for thinkers: they have to learn to find their quiet between two loud sounds and have to pretend to be deaf until they actually become so. As long as they haven’t figured this out, they risk suffering from impatience and headaches.
332.
332.
The Evil Hour.—There has perhaps been an evil hour for every philosopher, in which he thought: What do I matter, if people should not believe my poor arguments!—And then some malicious bird has flown past him and twittered: "What do you matter? What do you matter?"
The Evil Hour.—Every philosopher has probably faced an evil hour when they wondered: What do I even matter if people don't believe my weak arguments?—And then some sneaky bird has swooped by and chirped: "What do you matter? What do you matter?"
333.
333.
What does Knowing Mean?—Non ridere, non lugere, neque detestari, sed intelligere! says Spinoza, so simply and sublimely, as is his wont. Nevertheless, what else is this intelligere ultimately, but just the form in which the three other things become perceptible to us all at once? A result of the diverging and opposite impulses of desiring to deride, lament and execrate? Before knowledge is possible each of these impulses must first have brought forward its one-sided view of the object or event. The struggle of these one-sided views occurs afterwards, and out of it there occasionally arises a compromise, a pacification, a recognition of rights on all three sides, a sort of justice and agreement: for in virtue of the justice and agreement all those impulses can maintain themselves in existence and retain their mutual rights. We, to whose consciousness only the closing reconciliation scenes and final settling of accounts of these long processes manifest themselves, think on that account that intelligere is something conciliating, just and good, something essentially antithetical to the impulses; whereas it is only a certain relation of the impulses to one another. For a very long time conscious thinking was regarded as the only thinking: it is now only that the truth dawns upon us that the greater part of our intellectual activity goes on unconsciously and unfelt by us; I believe, however, that the impulses which are here in mutual conflict understand rightly how to make themselves felt by one[Pg 258] another, and how to cause pain:—the violent sudden exhaustion which overtakes all thinkers, may have its origin here (it is the exhaustion of the battle-field). Aye, perhaps in our struggling interior there is much concealed heroism, but certainly nothing divine, or eternally-reposing-in-itself, as Spinoza supposed. Conscious thinking, and especially that of the philosopher, is the weakest, and on that account also the relatively mildest and quietest mode of thinking: and thus it is precisely the philosopher who is most easily misled concerning the nature of knowledge.
What does Knowing Mean?—Not to mock, not to grieve, nor to curse, but to understand! says Spinoza, so simply and profoundly, as is his style. Yet, what is this understanding really, but the way the three other feelings become clear to us all at once? Is it not just a result of the conflicting and opposing urges to mock, lament, and condemn? Before knowledge can exist, each of these feelings must first present its one-sided view of the object or event. The clash of these one-sided views happens later, and from it sometimes comes a compromise, a resolution, an acknowledgment of rights on all sides, a kind of fairness and agreement: because of this fairness and agreement, all those urges can persist and keep their mutual rights. We, who only perceive the final resolution and settling of accounts from these long processes, tend to think that understanding is something conciliatory, just, and good, something completely opposite to the urges; while in reality, it is just a certain relationship of the urges to one another. For a long time, conscious thinking was seen as the only form of thinking: it has only recently become clear to us that most of our intellectual activity occurs unconsciously and without us being aware of it; however, I believe that the urges in conflict here know how to make themselves felt by one[Pg 258] another, and how to cause pain:—the sudden and intense exhaustion that overtakes all thinkers may originate here (it is the exhaustion of the battlefield). Indeed, perhaps within our internal struggles, much hidden heroism exists, but certainly nothing divine, or eternally at rest, as Spinoza thought. Conscious thinking, especially that of philosophers, is the weakest, and for that reason also the relatively gentlest and quietest mode of thinking: and thus, it is precisely philosophers who are most easily misled regarding the nature of knowledge.
334.
334.
One must Learn to Love.—This is our experience in music: we must first learn in general to hear, to hear fully, and to distinguish a theme or a melody, we have to isolate and limit it as a life by itself; then we need to exercise effort and good-will in order to endure it in spite of its strangeness we need patience towards its aspect and expression and indulgence towards what is odd in it:—in the end there comes a moment when we are accustomed to it, when we expect it, when it dawns upon us that we should miss it if it were lacking; and then it goes on to exercise its spell and charm more and more, and does not cease until we have become its humble and enraptured lovers, who want it, and want it again, and ask for nothing better from the world.—It is thus with us, however, not only in music: it is precisely thus that we have learned to love everything that we love. We are always finally recompensed for our good-will, our patience[Pg 259] reasonableness and gentleness towards what is unfamiliar, by the unfamiliar slowly throwing off its veil and presenting itself to us as a new, ineffable beauty:—that is its thanks for our hospitality. He also who loves himself must have learned it in this way: there is no other way. Love also has to be learned.
One must Learn to Love.—This is our experience in music: we must first learn in general to hear, to hear fully, and to distinguish a theme or a melody, we have to isolate and limit it as if it were a life of its own; then we need to put in effort and good-will in order to endure it despite its strangeness, we need to show patience towards its aspects and expressions and be understanding towards what is unusual in it:—in the end, there comes a moment when we are accustomed to it, when we expect it, when it becomes clear to us that we would miss it if it were gone; and then it continues to cast its spell and charm more and more, and doesn't stop until we have become its humble and captivated lovers, who desire it, and desire it again, and ask for nothing better from the world.—It is the same with us, however, not only in music: it is exactly how we have learned to love everything that we love. We are always ultimately rewarded for our good-will, our patience[Pg 259], reasonableness, and gentleness towards what is unfamiliar, by the unfamiliar gradually revealing itself as a new, indescribable beauty:—that is its thanks for our hospitality. Even those who love themselves must have learned it this way: there is no other way. Love also has to be learned.
335.
335.
Cheers for Physics!—How many men are there who know how to observe? And among the few who do know,—how many observe themselves? "Everyone is furthest from himself"—all the "triers of the reins" know that to their discomfort; and the saying, "Know thyself," in the mouth of a God and spoken to man, is almost a mockery. But that the case of self-observation is so desperate, is attested best of all by the manner in which almost everybody talks of the nature of a moral action, that prompt, willing, convinced, loquacious manner, with its look, its smile, and its pleasing eagerness! Everyone seems inclined to say to you: "Why, my dear Sir, that is precisely my affair! You address yourself with your question to him who is authorised to answer, for I happen to be wiser with regard to this matter than in anything else. Therefore, when a man decides that 'this is right,' when he accordingly concludes that 'it must therefore be done, and thereupon does what he has thus recognised as right and designated as necessary—then the nature of his action is moral!" But, my friend, you are talking to me about three actions instead of one: your deciding, for instance, that "this is right," is also an action,—could one not[Pg 260] judge either morally or immorally? Why do you regard this, and just this, as right?—"Because my conscience tells me so; conscience never speaks immorally, indeed it determines in the first place what shall be moral!"—But why do you listen to the voice of your conscience? And in how far are you justified in regarding such a judgment as true and infallible? This belief—is there no further conscience for it? Do you know nothing of an intellectual conscience? A conscience behind your "conscience"? Your decision, "this is right," has a previous history in your impulses, your likes and dislikes, your experiences and non-experiences; "how has it originated?" you must ask, and afterwards the further question: "what really impels me to give ear to it?" You can listen to its command like a brave soldier who hears the command of his officer. Or like a woman who loves him who commands. Or like a flatterer and coward, afraid of the commander. Or like a blockhead who follows because he has nothing to say to the contrary. In short, you can give ear to your conscience in a hundred different ways. But that you hear this or that judgment as the voice of conscience, consequently, that you feel a thing to be right—may have its cause in the fact that you have never thought about your nature, and have blindly accepted from your childhood what has been designated to you as right: or in the fact that hitherto bread and honours have fallen to your share with that which you call your duty,—it is "right" to you, because it seems to be your "condition of existence" (that you, however, have a right to existence seems to[Pg 261] you irrefutable!). The persistency of your moral judgment might still be just a proof of personal wretchedness or impersonality; your "moral force" might have its source in your obstinacy—or in your incapacity to perceive new ideals! And to be brief: if you had thought more acutely, observed more accurately, and had learned more, you would no longer under all circumstances call this and that your "duty" and your "conscience": the knowledge how moral judgments have in general always originated would make you tired of these pathetic words,—as you have already grown tired of other pathetic words, for instance "sin," "salvation," and "redemption."—And now, my friend, do not talk to me about the categorical imperative! That word tickles my ear, and I must laugh in spite of your presence and your seriousness. In this connection I recollect old Kant, who, as a punishment for having gained possession surreptitiously of the "thing in itself"—also a very ludicrous affair!—was imposed upon by the categorical imperative, and with that in his heart strayed back again to "God," the "soul," "freedom," and "immortality," like a fox which strays back into its cage: and it had been his strength and shrewdness which had broken open this cage!—What? You admire the categorical imperative in you? This "persistency" of your so-called moral judgment? This absoluteness of the feeling that "as I think on this matter, so must everyone think"? Admire rather your selfishness therein! And the blindness, paltriness, and modesty of your selfishness! For it is selfishness in a person to regard his judgment as universal law, and a blind, paltry[Pg 262] and modest selfishness besides, because it betrays that you have not yet discovered yourself, that you have not yet created for yourself any personal, quite personal ideal:—for this could never be the ideal of another, to say nothing of all, of every one!—He who still thinks that "each would have to act in this manner in this case," has not yet advanced half a dozen paces in self-knowledge: otherwise he would know that there neither are, nor can be, similar actions,—that every action that has been done, has been done in an entirely unique and inimitable manner, and that it will be the same with regard to all future actions; that all precepts of conduct (and even the most esoteric and subtle precepts of all moralities up to the present), apply only to the coarse exterior,—that by means of them, indeed, a semblance of equality can be attained, but only a semblance,—that in outlook and retrospect, every action is, and remains, an impenetrable affair, —that our opinions of the "good," "noble" and "great" can never be proved by our actions, because no action is cognisable,—that our opinions, estimates, and tables of values are certainly among the most powerful levers in the mechanism of our actions, that in every single case, nevertheless, the law of their mechanism is untraceable. Let us confine ourselves, therefore, to the purification of our opinions and appreciations, and to the construction of new tables of value of our own:—we will, however, brood no longer over the "moral worth of our actions"! Yes, my friends! As regards the whole moral twaddle of people about one another, it is time to be disgusted with it! To sit in judgment[Pg 263] morally ought to be opposed to our taste! Let us leave this nonsense and this bad taste to those who have nothing else to do, save to drag the past a little distance further through time, and who are never themselves the present,—consequently to the many, to the majority! We, however, would seek to become what we are,—the new, the unique, the incomparable, making laws for ourselves and creating ourselves! And for this purpose we must become the best students and discoverers of all the laws and necessities in the world. We must be physicists in order to be creators in that sense—whereas hitherto all appreciations and ideals have been based on ignorance of physics, or in contradiction thereto. And therefore, three cheers for physics! And still louder cheers for that which impels us thereto—our honesty.
Cheers for Physics!—How many people actually know how to observe? And among the few who do, how many take the time to observe themselves? "Everyone is furthest from himself"—all the "controllers" know this all too well, and the saying, "Know thyself," coming from a God and directed at man, feels almost like a joke. The desperate situation of self-observation is best illustrated by how almost everyone talks about moral actions, with such eagerness, confidence, and verbosity, displaying their looks and smiles! Everyone seems to want to tell you: "Why, my dear Sir, that's exactly my business! You should ask someone who is qualified to answer, because I happen to know more about this than anything else. So when someone decides that 'this is right,' concludes that 'it must be done,' and then does what they've recognized as right and necessary—then the nature of their action is moral!" But, my friend, you're talking about three actions instead of one: your decision that "this is right" is also an action—can one not[Pg 260] judge either morally or immorally? Why do you see this, and just this, as right?—"Because my conscience tells me so; conscience never speaks immorally, it first determines what should be moral!"—But why do you listen to your conscience? And how can you be sure that such a judgment is true and infallible? This belief—is there no further conscience for it? Do you have no concept of an intellectual conscience? A conscience behind your "conscience"? Your decision that "this is right" has a prior history in your impulses, your preferences and aversions, your experiences and non-experiences; "how did it originate?" you must ask, and then the further question: "what really drives me to listen to it?" You can pay attention to its command like a brave soldier who hears his officer's orders. Or like a woman who loves him, who issues the commands. Or like a flatterer and coward, afraid of the commander. Or like a fool who follows because he has nothing contrary to say. In short, you can heed your conscience in a hundred different ways. But that you hear this or that judgment as the voice of conscience, thus that you feel something to be right—may stem from the fact that you have never thought about your nature and have blindly accepted from childhood what has been labeled as right: or from the fact that up until now bread and honors have come to you along with what you call your duty,—it is "right" for you because it seems to be your "condition of existence" (that you, however, have a right to exist seems to[Pg 261] you indisputable!). The stubbornness of your moral judgment might just be proof of personal misery or impersonality; your "moral strength" might come from your refusal to see new ideals! And to sum it up: if you had thought more critically, observed more closely, and learned more, you would no longer indiscriminately label this and that your "duty" and "conscience": the knowledge of how moral judgments have generally originated would make you weary of these sentimental words,—as you have grown tired of other sentimental expressions, such as "sin," "salvation," and "redemption."—And now, my friend, please don't talk to me about the categorical imperative! That term makes my ears perk up, and I can't help but laugh despite your seriousness. This reminds me of old Kant, who, as punishment for having covertly seized the "thing in itself"—a rather amusing matter—was stuck with the categorical imperative, and with that in his heart wandered back to "God," the "soul," "freedom," and "immortality," like a fox returning to its cage: and it was his strength and cunning that had broken open this cage!—What? You admire the categorical imperative within yourself? This so-called "stubbornness" of your moral judgment? This belief that "as I think about this matter, everyone else must think the same way"? Instead of admiring that, admire your selfishness in it! And the blindness, pettiness, and modesty of your selfishness! For it's selfish for a person to see his judgment as universal law, and it’s a blind, petty, and modest selfishness because it reveals that you have not yet discovered yourself, that you have not yet created any personal, uniquely personal ideal:—for this could never be the ideal of another, much less everyone!—He who still thinks that "each would have to act this way in this case," has not made much progress in self-knowledge: otherwise, he would know that there are no such things as similar actions—that every action that has ever been done has occurred in an entirely unique and inimitable way, and that the same will apply to all future actions; that all conduct rules (even the most subtle and esoteric ones of all moral systems to date) apply only to the coarse exterior,—that through them, indeed, an appearance of equality can be achieved, but only an appearance,—that from an outlook and retrospect view, every action remains an impenetrable mystery, —that our opinions on the "good," "noble," and "great" can never be validated by our actions, because no action is recognizable,—that our opinions, evaluations, and value systems are among the most powerful forces in our actions, but in every individual case, the law governing their mechanics is untraceable. Therefore, let us focus on purifying our opinions and evaluations, and on building new value systems of our own:—yet, we will no longer dwell on the "moral worth of our actions"! Yes, my friends! As for the endless moral chatter of people about each other, it’s time to be fed up with it! Judging[Pg 263] morally should be distasteful to us! Let’s leave this nonsense and poor taste to those who have nothing else to do but to drag the past a little further into time, and who are never truly present themselves,—which means to the many, to the majority! We, however, want to become what we are,—the new, the unique, the incomparable, creating laws for ourselves and shaping ourselves! And for that, we must be the best students and discoverers of all the laws and necessities in the world. We must be physicists to be creators in that way—while up to now all assessments and ideals have been based on ignorance of physics, or in contradiction to it. So, here’s to physics! And even louder cheers for what drives us toward it—our honesty.
336.
336.
Avarice of Nature—Why has nature been so niggardly towards humanity that she has not let human beings shine, this man more and that man less, according to their inner abundance of light? Why have not great men such a fine visibility in their rising and setting as the sun? How much less equivocal would life among men then be!
Avarice of Nature—Why has nature been so stingy with humanity that she hasn't allowed people to shine, some more than others, based on their inner glow? Why don't great individuals have the same kind of visibility in their rising and setting as the sun? Life among people would be so much clearer then!
337.
337.
Future "Humanity."—When I look at this age with the eye of a distant future, I find nothing so remarkable in the man of the present day as his peculiar virtue and sickness called "the historical sense." It is a tendency to something quite new[Pg 264] and foreign in history: if this embryo were given several centuries and more, there might finally evolve out of it a marvellous plant, with a smell equally marvellous, on account of which our old earth might be more pleasant to live in than it has been hitherto. We moderns are just beginning to form the chain of a very powerful, future sentiment, link by link,—we hardly know what we are doing. It almost seems to us as if it were not the question of a new sentiment, but of the decline of all old sentiments:—the historical sense is still something so poor and cold, and many are attacked by it as by a frost, and are made poorer and colder by it. To others it appears as the indication of stealthily approaching age, and our planet is regarded by them as a melancholy invalid, who, in order to forget his present condition, writes the history of his youth. In fact, this is one aspect of the new sentiment. He who knows how to regard the history of man in its entirety as his own history, feels in the immense generalisation all the grief of the invalid who thinks of health, of the old man who thinks of the dream of his youth, of the lover who is robbed of his beloved, of the martyr whose ideal is destroyed, of the hero on the evening of the indecisive battle which has brought him wounds and the loss of a friend. But to bear this immense sum of grief of all kinds, to be able to bear it, and yet still be the hero who at the commencement of a second day of battle greets the dawn and his happiness, as one who has an horizon of centuries before and behind him, as the heir of all nobility, of all[Pg 265] past intellect, and the obligatory heir (as the noblest) of all the old nobles; while at the same time the first of a new nobility, the equal of which has never been seen nor even dreamt of: to take all this upon his soul, the oldest, the newest, the losses, hopes, conquests, and victories of mankind: to have all this at last in one soul, and to comprise it in one feeling:—this would necessarily furnish a happiness which man has not hitherto known,—a God's happiness, full of power and love, full of tears and laughter, a happiness which, like the sun in the evening, continually gives of its inexhaustible riches and empties into the sea,—and like the sun, too, feels itself richest when even the poorest fisherman rows with golden oars! This divine feeling might then be called—humanity!
Future "Humanity."—When I look at this time from the perspective of a distant future, nothing stands out as much in today's person as their unique virtue and illness known as "the historical sense." It represents a tendency towards something entirely new[Pg 264] and foreign in history: if this embryo had a few centuries to develop, it could eventually grow into a remarkable entity, with an equally remarkable essence, making our old earth more enjoyable to live on than it has been. We moderns are just starting to build the foundation of a powerful emotion for the future, piece by piece,—we hardly realize what we’re creating. It almost feels like it’s not just about developing a new emotion, but about the decline of all old emotions:—the historical sense is still so poor and cold, and many are affected by it as if caught in a frost, becoming poorer and colder because of it. To others, it seems like a sign of aging creeping in, and they view our planet as a sad invalid, who, to escape his present state, writes the story of his youth. In fact, this is one facet of the new emotion. Those who can consider the entire history of humanity as their own history, experience in that vast generalization all the sorrow of the invalid longing for health, the elderly recalling the dreams of youth, the lover who has lost their love, the martyr whose ideal is shattered, the hero at the end of an undecided battle that has left them wounded and grieving the loss of a friend. But to bear this immense weight of all kinds of grief, to withstand it, and still embody the hero who, at the dawn of another day of battle, welcomes the morning and his happiness—as one who has centuries of horizons before and behind him, as the heir to all nobility, all[Pg 265] past wisdom, and the rightful heir (as the most noble) of all the old elites; while at the same time being the first of a new nobility, unlike anything ever seen or even imagined: to carry all this in one heart, the old and the new, the losses, hopes, triumphs, and victories of humanity: to finally hold all of this within a single soul and encapsulate it in one feeling:—this would create a happiness that humanity has not yet experienced,—a divine happiness, full of strength and love, overflowing with tears and laughter, a happiness that, like the evening sun, endlessly distributes its boundless riches and spills into the sea,—and like the sun, feels richest when even the humblest fisherman rows with golden oars! This divine feeling could then be termed—humanity!
338.
338.
The Will to Suffering and the Compassionate.—Is it to your advantage to be above all compassionate? And is it to the advantage of the sufferers when you are so? But let us leave the first question for a moment without an answer.—That from which we suffer most profoundly and personally is almost incomprehensible and inaccessible to every one else: in this matter we are hidden from our neighbour even when he eats at the same table with us. Everywhere, however, where we are noticed as sufferers, our suffering is interpreted in a shallow way; it belongs to the nature of the emotion of pity to divest unfamiliar suffering of its properly personal character:—our "benefactors" lower our value and volition more than our enemies. In[Pg 266] most benefits which are conferred on the unfortunate there is something shocking in the intellectual levity with which the compassionate person plays the rôle of fate: he knows nothing of all the inner consequences and complications which are called misfortune for me or for you! The entire economy of my soul and its adjustment by "misfortune," the uprising of new sources and needs, the closing up of old wounds, the repudiation of whole periods of the past—none of these things which may be connected with misfortune preoccupy the dear sympathiser. He wishes to succour, and does not reflect that there is a personal necessity for misfortune; that terror, want, impoverishment, midnight watches, adventures, hazards and mistakes are as necessary to me and to you as their opposites, yea, that, to speak mystically, the path to one's own heaven always leads through the voluptuousness of one's own hell. No, he knows nothing thereof. The "religion of compassion" (or "the heart") bids him help, and he thinks he has helped best when he has helped most speedily! If you adherents of this religion actually have the same sentiments towards yourselves which you have towards your fellows, if you are unwilling to endure your own suffering even for an hour, and continually forestall all possible misfortune, if you regard suffering and pain generally as evil, as detestable, as deserving of annihilation, and as blots on existence, well, you have then, besides your religion of compassion, yet another religion in your heart (and this is perhaps the mother of the former)—the religion of smug ease. Ah, how little you know of the happiness of[Pg 267] man, you comfortable and good-natured ones!—for happiness and misfortune are brother and sister, and twins, who grow tall together, or, as with you, remain small together! But now let us return to the first question.—How is it at all possible for a person to keep to his path! Some cry or other is continually calling one aside: our eye then rarely lights on anything without it becoming necessary for us to leave for a moment our own affairs and rush to give assistance. I know there are hundreds of respectable and laudable methods of making me stray from my course, and in truth the most "moral" of methods! Indeed, the opinion of the present-day preachers of the morality of compassion goes so far as to imply that just this, and this alone is moral:—to stray from our course to that extent and to run to the assistance of our neighbour. I am equally certain that I need only give myself over to the sight of one case of actual distress, and I, too, am lost! And if a suffering friend said to me, "See, I shall soon die, only promise to die with me"—I might promise it, just as—to select for once bad examples for good reasons—the sight of a small, mountain people struggling for freedom,. would bring me to the point of offering them my hand and my life. Indeed, there is even a secret seduction in all this awakening of compassion, and calling for help: our "own way" is a thing too hard and insistent, and too far removed from the love and gratitude of others,—we escape from it and from our most personal conscience, not at all unwillingly, and, seeking security in the conscience[Pg 268] of others, we take refuge in the lovely temple of the "religion of pity." As soon now as any war breaks out, there always breaks out at the same time a certain secret delight precisely in the noblest class of the people: they rush with rapture to meet the new danger of death, because they believe that in the sacrifice for their country they have finally that long-sought-for permission—the permission to shirk their aim:—war is for them a detour to suicide, a detour, however, with a good conscience. And although silent here about some things, I will not, however, be silent about my morality, which says to me: Live in concealment in order that thou mayest live to thyself. Live ignorant of that which seems to thy age to be most important! Put at least the skin of three centuries betwixt thyself, and the present day! And the clamour of the present day, the noise of wars and revolutions, ought to be a murmur to thee! Thou wilt also want to help, but only those whose distress thou entirely understandest, because they have one sorrow and one hope in common with thee—thy friends: and only in the way that thou helpest thyself:—I want to make them more courageous, more enduring, more simple, more joyful! I want to teach them that which at present so few understand, and the preachers of fellowship in sorrow least of all:—namely, fellowship in joy!
The Will to Suffering and the Compassionate.—Is it really better to be all about compassion? And does it actually benefit those who suffer when you are? Let’s put the first question on hold for a moment. What we suffer most deeply and personally is often beyond the understanding of anyone else; even when we sit at the same table, we remain hidden from our neighbor. Yet everywhere we are noticed as sufferers, our pain is seen in a superficial way; pity seems to strip unfamiliar suffering of its deeply personal nature: our “helpers” often diminish our worth and will more than our enemies do. In[Pg 266] most acts of kindness toward the less fortunate, there’s something disturbing in the lightness with which the compassionate person assumes the role of fate: they are completely unaware of the internal repercussions and complexities that define misfortune for me or for you! The entire balance of my soul and how it adjusts to "misfortune," the emergence of new needs and desires, the healing of old wounds, the denial of entire periods of the past—none of these things that may relate to misfortune occupy the dear sympathizer. They simply want to help, without considering that there’s a personal necessity for misfortune; that fear, poverty, hardships, sleepless nights, adventures, risks, and mistakes are as essential to me and you as their opposites. To speak mystically, the path to one’s own heaven often goes through the indulgence of experiencing one’s personal hell. No, they know nothing about that. The "religion of compassion" (or "the heart") urges them to assist, and they think they’ve done the best job when they’ve helped the quickest! If you followers of this religion truly have the same feelings towards yourselves as you do towards others, if you can’t stand your own suffering even for an hour, and continuously try to prevent any possible misfortune, if you view suffering and pain as evil, detestable, and something that deserves to be obliterated, and as stains on existence, then you have, alongside your religion of compassion, another religion tucked away in your heart (and this may well be the mother of the former)—the religion of comfortable ease. Ah, how little you understand about the happiness of[Pg 267] man, you cozy and good-hearted folks!—for happiness and misfortune are like siblings, twin siblings who grow tall together, or, as in your case, stay small together! Now, let’s return to the first question.—How is it possible for a person to stay on his path? There’s always someone calling us away: our eyes rarely land on anything without feeling the pull to set aside our own matters and rush to help. I know there are countless respectable and commendable ways to veer off course, and often the most "moral" ways too! Indeed, today’s advocates of the morality of compassion imply that straying from our path to assist our neighbor is the only moral act. I'm equally certain that if I allowed myself to focus on just one case of real suffering, I, too, am lost! And if a suffering friend said to me, "Look, I’m about to die; promise you’ll die with me"—I might agree, just as, to pick an extreme case for a good reason, witnessing a small mountain community fighting for freedom would inspire me to offer them my hand and my life. There’s even a hidden allure in all this stirring up of compassion and calls for help: our "own way" seems too hard, demanding, and distant from the love and gratitude of others—we escape from it and our most personal conscience, often unwillingly, and, in search of security in the conscience[Pg 268] of others, we find refuge in the appealing haven of the "religion of pity." Whenever war breaks out, there’s a certain secret joy that arises precisely among the noblest class of people: they rush joyfully to meet the new danger of death, because they think that in sacrificing for their country, they finally have that long-sought permission—the permission to avoid their true aim:—war becomes for them a detour to suicide, albeit a detour taken with a clear conscience. And although I remain silent about some matters here, I cannot remain silent about my morality, which tells me: Live in concealment so that you may live for yourself. Live ignorant of what seems to be most important to your era! Place at least the skin of three centuries between yourself and today! And the uproar of today—the clamor of wars and revolutions—should sound like a whisper to you! You’ll also want to help, but only those whose suffering you truly understand, because they share one sorrow and one hope with you—your friends: helping them in only the way that you help yourself:—I want to make them braver, more resilient, simpler, and happier! I want to teach them what so few grasp today, and the preachers of shared sorrow understand the least:—namely, shared joy!
339.
339.
Vita femina.—To see the ultimate beauties in a work—all knowledge and good-will is not enough;[Pg 269] it requires the rarest, good chance for the veil of clouds to move for once from the summits, and for the sun to shine on them. We must not only stand at precisely the right place to see this, our very soul itself must have pulled away the veil from its heights, and must be in need of an external expression and simile, so as to have a hold and remain master of itself. All these, however, are so rarely united at the same time that I am inclined to believe that the highest summit of all that is good, be it work, deed, man, or nature, has hitherto remained for most people, and even for the best, as something concealed and shrouded:—that, however, which unveils itself to us, unveils itself to us but once. The Greeks indeed prayed: "Twice and thrice, everything beautiful!" Ah, they had their good reason to call on the Gods, for ungodly actuality does not furnish us with the beautiful at all, or only does so once! I mean to say that the world is overfull of beautiful things, but it is nevertheless poor, very poor, in beautiful moments, and in the unveiling of those beautiful things. But perhaps this is the greatest charm of life: it puts a gold-embroidered veil of lovely potentialities over itself, promising, resisting, modest, mocking, sympathetic, seductive. Yes, life is a woman!
Vita femina.—To truly appreciate the ultimate beauties in a work, knowledge and goodwill alone aren’t enough; it takes a rare stroke of luck for the clouds to part and let the sun shine on them. We must not only be in the exact right spot to witness this, but our very soul must have also lifted the veil from its heights, needing an outer expression and likeness to grasp and maintain control over itself. All these elements, however, rarely come together at once, leading me to believe that the highest peak of all that is good—whether in work, deeds, people, or nature—remains concealed and hidden for most, and even for the best among us:—that which reveals itself to us, reveals itself to us but once. The Greeks indeed prayed: "Twice and thrice, everything beautiful!" Ah, they had good reason to call on the Gods, for the harsh reality does not often provide us with beauty, or it only does so a single time! What I mean is that the world is overflowing with beautiful things, yet it is still lacking, very much lacking, in beautiful moments and in the revelation of those beautiful things. But perhaps this is the greatest allure of life: it drapes itself in a gold-embroidered veil of lovely potential, promising, resisting, modest, mocking, sympathetic, and seductive. Yes, life is a woman!
340.
340.
The Dying Socrates.—-I admire the courage and wisdom of Socrates in all that he did, said—and did not say. This mocking and amorous demon and rat-catcher of Athens, who made the most insolent youths tremble and sob, was not only the[Pg 270] wisest babbler that has ever lived, but was just as great in his silence. I would that he had also been silent in the last moment of his life,—perhaps he might then have belonged to a still higher order of intellects. Whether it was death, or the poison, or piety, or wickedness—something or other loosened his tongue at that moment, and he said: "O Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepios." For him who has ears, this ludicrous and terrible "last word" implies: "O Crito, life is a long sickness!" Is it possible! A man like him, who had lived cheerfully and to all appearance as a soldier,—was a pessimist! He had merely put on a good demeanour towards life, and had all along concealed his ultimate judgment, his profoundest sentiment! Socrates, Socrates had suffered from life! And he also took his revenge for it—with that veiled, fearful, pious, and blasphemous phrase! Had even a Socrates to revenge himself? Was there a grain too little of magnanimity in his superabundant virtue? Ah, my friends! We must surpass even the Greeks!
The Dying Socrates.—-I admire the courage and wisdom of Socrates in everything he did and said—and didn't say. This mocking and charming figure of Athens, who made even the most arrogant youths tremble and cry, was not only the[Pg 270] wisest chatterer to ever exist, but he was just as remarkable in his silence. I wish he had also remained silent in the final moments of his life—perhaps then he would have belonged to an even higher level of intellect. Whether it was death, the poison, devotion, or evil—something made him speak at that moment, and he said: "O Crito, I owe a cock to Asclepios." For those who can hear, this absurd and terrible "last word" suggests: "O Crito, life is a long sickness!" Can you believe it? A man like him, who lived happily and seemingly like a soldier—was a pessimist! He only put on a good face towards life, while all along hiding his true judgment, his deepest feelings! Socrates, Socrates had suffered from life! And he took his revenge for it—with that veiled, fearful, pious, and blasphemous phrase! Could even a Socrates seek revenge? Was there even a hint of lack of generosity in his overflowing virtue? Ah, my friends! We must go beyond even the Greeks!
341.
341.
The Heaviest Burden.—What if a demon crept after thee into thy loneliest loneliness some day or night, and said to thee: "This life, as thou livest it at present, and hast lived it, thou must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in thy life must come to thee again, and all in the same series and sequence—and similarly[Pg 271] this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and I myself. The eternal sand-glass of existence will ever be turned once more, and thou with it, thou speck of dust!"—Wouldst thou not throw thyself down and gnash thy teeth, and curse the demon that so spake? Or hast thou once experienced a tremendous moment in which thou wouldst answer him: "Thou art a God, and never did I hear anything so divine!" If that thought acquired power over thee as thou art, it would transform thee, and perhaps crush thee; the question with regard to all and everything: "Dost thou want this once more, and also for innumerable times?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon thy activity! Or, how wouldst thou have to become favourably inclined to thyself and to life, so as to long for nothing more ardently than for this last eternal sanctioning and sealing?—
The Heaviest Burden.—What if a demon followed you into your deepest solitude one day or night and said to you: "This life, as you’re living it now and have lived it, you must live it once more, and countless times after that; and there will be nothing new in it, just every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unimaginably small and great moments in your life will come to you again, in the exact same order—and similarly[Pg 271] this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and me. The eternal hourglass of existence will keep being turned again and again, and you along with it, you little speck of dust!"—Wouldn't you throw yourself down, clench your teeth, and curse the demon who said such a thing? Or have you ever had an incredible moment where you would respond: "You’re a God, and I’ve never heard anything so divine!"? If that idea took hold of you as you are, it would change you, and perhaps crush you; the question about everything would hang over your actions: "Do you want this again, and for countless times?" would weigh as the heaviest burden on you! Or, how would you need to change your feelings towards yourself and life to long for nothing more than this final eternal approval and sealing?—
342.
342.
Incipit Tragœdia.—When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the Lake of Urmi, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and his solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it. But at last his heart changed,—and rising one morning with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun and spake thus to it: "Thou great star! What would be thy happiness if thou hadst not those for whom thou shinest! For ten years hast thou climbed hither unto my cave: thou wouldst have wearied of thy light and of the journey, had it not been for me, mine eagle, and my serpent. But we awaited thee every morning, took[Pg 272] from thee thine overflow, and blessed thee for it. Lo! I am weary of my wisdom, like the bee that hath gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it. I would fain bestow and distribute, until the wise have once more become joyous in their folly, and the poor happy in their riches. Therefore must I descend into the deep, as thou doest in the evening, when thou goest behind the sea and givest light also to the nether-world, thou most rich star! Like thee must I go down, as men say, to whom I shall descend. Bless me then, thou tranquil eye, that canst behold even the greatest happiness without envy! Bless the cup that is about to overflow, that the water may flow golden out of it, and carry everywhere the reflection of thy bliss! Lo! This cup is again going to empty itself, and Zarathustra is again going to be a man."—Thus began Zarathustra's down-going.
Incipit Tragœdia.—When Zarathustra turned thirty, he left his home by the Lake of Urmi and went up into the mountains. There, he reveled in his spirit and solitude, not growing tired of it for ten years. But eventually, his heart changed. One morning, rising with the rosy dawn, he went before the sun and spoke to it: "You great star! What would your happiness be if you didn’t have those for whom you shine? For ten years you've climbed up to my cave: you would have grown tired of your light and the journey if it weren't for me, my eagle, and my serpent. But we waited for you every morning, took[Pg 272] your overflow, and blessed you for it. Look! I am tired of my wisdom, like a bee that has gathered too much honey; I need hands outstretched to take it. I want to give and share until the wise once again become joyful in their folly, and the poor find happiness in their riches. Therefore, I must descend into the depths, just as you do in the evening when you go behind the sea and also bring light to the underworld, you most generous star! Like you, I must go down, as people say, to whom I will descend. Bless me, then, you tranquil eye, that can see even the greatest happiness without envy! Bless the cup that is about to overflow, so the water may flow golden from it and carry everywhere the reflection of your bliss! Look! This cup is about to empty again, and Zarathustra is going to be a man once more."—Thus began Zarathustra's descent.
BOOK FIFTH
FEARLESS ONES
"Carcasse, tu trembles? Tu tremblerais bien davantage, tu savais, où je te mène." Turenne.
"Carcasse, are you shaking? You’d be shaking a lot more if you knew where I’m taking you." Turenne.
343.
343.
What our Cheerfulness Signifies.—The most important of more recent events—that "God is dead," that the belief in the Christian God has become unworthy of belief—already begins to cast its first shadows over Europe. To the few at least whose eye, whose suspecting glance, is strong enough and subtle enough for this drama, some sun seems to have set, some old, profound confidence seems to have changed into doubt: our old world must seem to them daily more darksome, distrustful, strange and "old." In the main, however, one may say that the event itself is far too great, too remote, too much beyond most people's power of apprehension, for one to suppose that so much as the report of it could have reached them; not to speak of many who already knew what had taken place, and what must all collapse now that this belief had been undermined,—because so much was built upon it, so much rested on it, and had become one with it: for example, our entire European morality. This lengthy, vast and uninterrupted process of crumbling, destruction, ruin and overthrow which is now imminent: who has realised it sufficiently to-day to have to stand up as the teacher and herald of such a tremendous logic of terror, as the prophet of a period of gloom and eclipse, the like of which has[Pg 276] probably never taken place on earth before?... Even we, the born riddle-readers, who wait as it were on the mountains posted 'twixt to-day and to-morrow, and engirt by their contradiction, we, the firstlings and premature children of the coming century, into whose sight especially the shadows which must forthwith envelop Europe should already have come—how is it that even we, without genuine sympathy for this period of gloom, contemplate its advent without any personal solicitude or fear? Are we still, perhaps, too much under the immediate effects of the event—and are these effects, especially as regards ourselves, perhaps the reverse of what was to be expected—not at all sad and depressing, but rather like a new and indescribable variety of light, happiness, relief, enlivenment, encouragement, and dawning day?... In fact, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel ourselves irradiated as by a new dawn by the report that the "old God is dead"; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, presentiment and expectation. At last the horizon seems open once more, granting even that it is not bright; our ships can at last put out to sea in face of every danger; every hazard is again permitted to the discerner; the sea, our sea, again lies open before us; perhaps never before did such an "open sea" exist.—
What our Cheerfulness Signifies.—The most significant recent event—that "God is dead," that belief in the Christian God has become unworthy of faith—begins to cast its first shadows across Europe. For the few whose insight, whose suspicious gaze, is keen and subtle enough to grasp this unfolding drama, it seems like a sun has set, an old, profound confidence has morphed into doubt: our familiar world must appear to them increasingly dark, distrustful, strange, and "old." However, it’s fair to say that the event itself is far too monumental, too distant, too beyond most people's capacity to comprehend for anyone to assume that even a mention of it could have reached them; not to mention many who already understood what had happened and what would inevitably collapse now that this belief had been shaken—so much was built upon it, so much relied on it, and had become intertwined with it: for instance, our entire European morality. This lengthy, vast, and ongoing process of decay, destruction, ruin, and upheaval that now looms: how many have truly grasped it today to stand up as teachers and heralds of such a tremendous logic of terror, as prophets of a period of gloom and eclipse like[Pg 276] which has probably never occurred on earth before? Even we, the natural decipherers, who are almost like mountain dwellers caught 'twixt today and tomorrow, surrounded by contradiction, we, the precocious offspring of the coming century, into whose view especially the shadows that will soon envelop Europe should have already arrived—how is it that even we, without true sympathy for this dark period, observe its approach without any personal concern or fear? Are we still too affected by the immediate results of the event—and are these results, especially concerning ourselves, perhaps the opposite of what we expected—not at all sad or depressing, but rather like a new, indescribable variety of light, happiness, relief, revitalization, encouragement, and a dawning day? In fact, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel illuminated like by a new dawn by the news that the "old God is dead"; our hearts overflow with gratitude, astonishment, anticipation, and expectation. At last the horizon seems open again, even if not brightly; our ships can now finally set sail in the face of any danger; every risk is once again allowed for the perceptive; the sea, our sea, lies open before us again; perhaps never before has such an "open sea" existed.
344.
344.
To what Extent even We are still Pious.—It is said with good reason that convictions have no civic rights in the domain of science: it is only when a[Pg 277] conviction voluntarily condescends to the modesty of an hypothesis, a preliminary standpoint for experiment, or a regulative fiction, that its access to the realm of knowledge, and a certain value therein, can be conceded,—always, however, with the restriction that it must remain under police supervision, under the police of our distrust.—Regarded more accurately, however, does not this imply that only when a conviction ceases to be a conviction can it obtain admission into science? Does not the discipline of the scientific spirit just commence when one no longer harbours any conviction?... It is probably so: only, it remains to be asked whether, in order that this discipline may commence, it is not necessary that there should already be a conviction, and in fact one so imperative and absolute, that it makes a sacrifice of all other convictions. One sees that science also rests on a belief: there is no science at all "without premises." The question whether truth is necessary, must not merely be affirmed beforehand, but must be affirmed to such an extent that the principle, belief, or conviction finds expression, that "there is nothing more necessary than truth, and in comparison with it everything else has only secondary value."—This absolute will to truth: what is it? Is it the will not to allow ourselves to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? For the will to truth could also be interpreted in this fashion, provided one included under the generalisation, "I will not deceive," the special case, "I will not deceive myself." But why not deceive? Why not allow oneself to be[Pg 278] deceived?—Let it be noted that the reasons for the former eventuality belong to a category quite different from those for the latter: one does not want to be deceived oneself, under the supposition that it is injurious, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived,—in this sense science would be a prolonged process of caution, foresight and utility; against which, however, one might reasonably make objections. What? is not-wishing-to-be-deceived really less injurious, less dangerous, less fatal? What do you know of the character of existence in all its phases to be able to decide whether the greater advantage is on the side of absolute distrust, or of absolute trustfulness? In case, however, of both being necessary, much trusting and much distrusting, whence then should science derive the absolute belief, the conviction on which it rests, that truth is more important than anything else, even than every other conviction? This conviction could not have arisen if truth and untruth had both continually proved themselves to be useful: as is the case. Thus—the belief in science, which now undeniably exists, cannot have had its origin in such a utilitarian calculation, but rather in spite of the fact of the inutility and dangerousness of the "Will to truth," of "truth at all costs," being continually demonstrated. "At all costs": alas, we understand that sufficiently well, after having sacrificed and slaughtered one belief after another at this altar!—Consequently, "Will to truth" does not imply, "I will not allow myself to be deceived," but—there is no other alternative—"I will not deceive, not even myself":[Pg 279] and thus we have reached the realm of morality. For, let one just ask oneself fairly: "Why wilt thou not deceive?" especially if it should seem—and it does seem—as if life were laid out with a view to appearance, I mean, with a view to error deceit, dissimulation, delusion, self-delusion; and when on the other hand it is a matter of fact that the great type of life has always manifested itself on the side of the most unscrupulous πολύτροποι. Such an intention might perhaps, to express it mildly, be a piece of Quixotism, a little enthusiastic craziness; it might also, however, be something worse, namely, a destructive principle, hostile to life.... "Will to Truth,"—that might be a concealed Will to Death.—Thus the question Why is there science? leads back to the moral problem: What in general is the purpose of morality, if life, nature, and history are "non-moral"? There is no doubt that the conscientious man in the daring and extreme sense in which he is presupposed by the belief in science, affirms thereby a world other than that of life, nature, and history; and in so far as he affirms this "other world," what? must he not just thereby—deny its counterpart, this world, our world?... But what I have in view will now be understood, namely, that it is always a metaphysical belief on which our belief in science rests,—and that even we knowing ones of to-day, landless and anti-metaphysical, still take our fire from the conflagration kindled by a belief a millennium old, the Christian belief, which was also the belief of Plato, that God is truth, that the truth is divine.... But what if[Pg 280] this itself always becomes more untrustworthy, what if nothing any longer proves itself divine, except it be error, blindness, and falsehood;—what if God himself turns out to be our most persistent lie?—
To what extent are we still pious?—It’s said with good reason that beliefs have no civic rights in the realm of science: it’s only when a[Pg 277] belief willingly lowers itself to the status of a hypothesis, a starting point for experimentation, or a guiding fiction, that it’s allowed into the domain of knowledge and given some value—although, it must always remain under scrutiny, under the oversight of our skepticism.—Looking more closely, doesn’t this suggest that only when a belief stops being a belief can it gain entry into science? Doesn’t the discipline of scientific thinking begin only when one sheds all beliefs?... This seems likely: but it raises the question of whether, for this discipline to begin, there must not already be a belief—one that is so compelling and absolute that it sacrifices all other beliefs. It shows that science rests on a certain belief: there is no science "without assumptions." The question of whether truth is necessary must not merely be taken for granted, but must be asserted to the point where the principle, belief, or conviction expresses that "there is nothing more necessary than truth, and everything else in comparison only has secondary value."—This absolute will to truth: what does that mean? Is it the will not to be deceived? Is it the will not to deceive? Because the will to truth can also be interpreted this way, provided that we include under the general idea of "I will not deceive" the specific case of "I will not deceive myself." But why not deceive? Why not allow ourselves to be[Pg 278] deceived?—It’s important to note that the reasons for the former are in a completely different category than those for the latter: we don’t want to be deceived ourselves, assuming it’s harmful, dangerous, or fatal to be deceived—in this sense, science could be seen as an ongoing process of caution, foresight, and utility; yet, one could reasonably argue against this. What? Is not wanting to be deceived really less harmful, less dangerous, less fatal? What do you know about the nature of existence in all its forms to be able to judge whether the greater benefit lies in absolute distrust or in absolute trust? If both trusting and doubting are necessary, from where should science derive the absolute belief, the conviction that it’s more important than anything else, even other beliefs? This conviction couldn’t have emerged if both truth and falsehood had continually proven useful: as they often do. Thus—the faith in science that undeniably exists today cannot have originated from such practical calculations but rather despite the fact that the unusefulness and dangers of the "Will to truth," of "truth at any cost," have been consistently demonstrated. "At all costs": oh, we understand that all too well since we have sacrificed and destroyed one belief after another at this altar!—Thus, the "Will to truth" does not mean "I will not allow myself to be deceived," but—there’s no other option—"I will not deceive, not even myself":[Pg 279] and this brings us to the realm of morality. For, let’s honestly ask ourselves: "Why will you not deceive?" especially if it seems—and it does seem—as if life is designed with a focus on appearance, I mean, on error, deception, dissimulation, delusion, self-deception; and when, on the other hand, it's a fact that the great model of life has always shown up on the side of the most unscrupulous πολλοίτροποι. Such a stance might essentially, to put it lightly, be a bit Quixotic, a little enthusiastic craziness; it might also, however, be something worse, namely, a destructive principle, hostile to life.... "Will to Truth,"—that might be a hidden Will to Death.—Therefore, the question, Why is there science? leads back to the moral problem: What is the true purpose of morality, if life, nature, and history are "non-moral"? There’s no doubt that the conscientious person, in the bold and extreme sense assumed by the belief in science, affirms a reality different from that of life, nature, and history; and in affirming this "other world," doesn’t he—by that very act—deny its counterpart, this world, our world?... But what I’m getting at will now be clearer, namely, that our belief in science rests on a metaphysical belief—and that even we, the informed ones of today, without land and anti-metaphysical, still draw our fire from the blaze kindled by a belief a millennium old, the Christian belief, which was also Plato's belief, that God is truth, that truth is divine.... But what if[Pg 280] this belief itself has become ever more unreliable, what if nothing anymore proves to be divine except for error, blindness, and falsehood;—what if God himself turns out to be our most enduring lie?—
345.
345.
Morality as a Problem.—A defect in personality revenges itself everywhere: an enfeebled, lank, obliterated, self-disavowing and disowning personality is no longer fit for anything good—it is least of all fit for philosophy. "Selflessness" has no value either in heaven or on earth; the great problems all demand great love, and it is only the strong, well-rounded, secure spirits, those who have a solid basis, that are qualified for them. It makes the most material difference whether a thinker stands personally related to his problems, having his fate, his need, and even his highest happiness therein; or merely impersonally, that is to say, if he can only feel and grasp them with the tentacles of cold, prying thought. In the latter case I warrant that nothing comes of it: for the great problems, granting that they let themselves be grasped at all, do not let themselves be held by toads and weaklings: that has ever been their taste—a taste also which they share with all high-spirited women.—How is it that I have not yet met with any one, not even in books, who seems to have stood to morality in this position, as one who knew morality as a problem, and this problem as his own personal need, affliction, pleasure and passion? It is obvious that up to the present morality has not been a problem at all; it has rather been the very ground on[Pg 281] which people have met after all distrust, dissension and contradiction, the hallowed place of peace, where thinkers could obtain rest even from themselves, could recover breath and revive. I see no one who has ventured to criticise the estimates of moral worth. I miss in this connection even the attempts of scientific curiosity, and the fastidious, groping imagination of psychologists and historians, which easily anticipates a problem and catches it on the wing, without rightly knowing what it catches. With difficulty I have discovered some scanty data for the purpose of furnishing a history of the origin of these feelings and estimates of value (which is something different from a criticism of them, and also something different from a history of ethical systems). In an individual case I have done everything to encourage the inclination and talent for this kind of history—in vain, as it would seem to me at present. There is little to be learned from those historians of morality (especially Englishmen): they themselves are usually, quite unsuspiciously, under the influence of a definite morality, and act unwittingly as its armour-bearers and followers—perhaps still repeating sincerely the popular superstition of Christian Europe, that the characteristic of moral action consists in abnegation, self-denial, self-sacrifice, or in fellow-feeling and fellow-suffering. The usual error in their premises is their insistence on a certain consensus among human beings, at least among civilised human beings, with regard to certain propositions of morality, from thence they conclude that these propositions are[Pg 282] absolutely binding even upon you and me; or reversely, they come to the conclusion that no morality is binding, after the truth has dawned upon them that among different peoples moral valuations are necessarily different: both of which conclusions are equally childish follies. The error of the more subtle amongst them is that they discover and criticise the probably foolish opinions of a people about its own morality, or the opinions of mankind about human morality generally (they treat accordingly of its origin, its religious sanctions, the superstition of free will, and such matters), and they think that just by so doing they have criticised the morality itself. But the worth of a precept, "Thou shalt," is fundamentally different from and independent of such opinions about it, and must be distinguished from the weeds of error with which it has perhaps been overgrown: just as the worth of a medicine to a sick person is altogether independent of the question whether he has a scientific opinion about medicine, or merely thinks about it as an old wife would do. A morality could even have grown out of an error: but with this knowledge the problem of its worth would not even be touched.—Thus, no one hitherto has tested the value of that most celebrated of all medicines, called morality: for which purpose it is first of all necessary for one—to call it in question. Well, that is just our work.—
Morality as a Problem.—A flaw in personality expresses itself everywhere: a weakened, thin, erased, self-denying and disowning personality is no longer suitable for anything good—it is least suitable for philosophy. "Selflessness" has no value in heaven or on earth; the big problems all require great love, and it is only strong, well-rounded, secure individuals, those with a solid foundation, who are qualified to tackle them. It makes a significant difference whether a thinker is personally connected to his problems, having his fate, his needs, and even his greatest happiness tied to them; or whether he is only impersonally engaged, meaning he can only perceive and understand them through the cold, probing tentacles of thought. In the latter scenario, I guarantee that nothing comes of it: for the big problems, assuming they can even be grasped at all, do not allow themselves to be held by weaklings and failures: that has always been their preference—a preference they share with all spirited women. —How is it that I have not yet encountered anyone, not even in books, who seems to approach morality from the perspective of someone who knows it as a problem, and this problem as his own personal need, struggle, joy, and passion? It is evident that until now, morality has not really been a problem at all; it has instead been the very foundation on which people have come together after all distrust, disagreement, and contradiction, the sacred space of peace, where thinkers could find rest even from themselves, could catch their breath and rejuvenate. I see no one who has dared to critique the assessments of moral worth. I also miss, in this regard, even the attempts of scientific curiosity, and the fastidious, exploratory imagination of psychologists and historians, which easily anticipates a problem and captures it in passing, without accurately understanding what it is catching. With great difficulty, I have found some scant data to create a history of the origin of these feelings and assessments of value (which is different from critiquing them, and also distinct from a history of ethical systems). In a specific case, I have done everything to foster the inclination and talent for this kind of history—in vain, as it seems to me now. There is little to learn from those historians of morality (especially English ones): they themselves are often, quite unwittingly, influenced by a specific morality and act unknowingly as its supporters and followers—perhaps still sincerely repeating the popular superstition of Christian Europe, that the essence of moral action lies in self-denial, self-sacrifice, or in compassion and empathy. The usual mistake in their reasoning is their insistence on a supposed consensus among humans, at least among civilized humans, regarding certain propositions of morality, from which they conclude that these propositions are[Pg 282] absolutely binding even on you and me; or conversely, they deduce that no morality is binding, once they realize that among different peoples, moral judgments are necessarily different: both conclusions are equally childish errors. The more nuanced among them mistakenly believe they are judging and critiquing the possibly misguided views of a people regarding its own morality, or humanity's views on human morality in general (they address its origins, its religious justifications, the superstition of free will, and similar topics), and think that just by doing this, they have critiqued the morality itself. However, the value of a command, "Thou shalt," is fundamentally different and independent from such views about it and must be separated from the weeds of misunderstanding with which it may have become entangled: just like the value of a medicine to a sick person is entirely independent of whether he has a scientific understanding of medicine or only thinks about it as an old wife might. A morality could even have emerged from an error: but knowing this would not even touch the issue of its value.—Thus, no one up to now has evaluated the value of that most famous of all medicines, called morality: for this purpose, it is first necessary to—question it. Well, that is just our task.—
346.
346.
Our Note of Interrogation.—But you don't understand it? As a matter of fact, an effort will be[Pg 283] necessary in order to understand us. We seek for words; we seek perhaps also for ears. Who are we after all? If we wanted simply to call ourselves in older phraseology, atheists, unbelievers, or even immoralists, we should still be far from thinking ourselves designated thereby: we are all three in too late a phase for people generally to conceive, for you, my inquisitive friends, to be able to conceive, what is our state of mind under the circumstances. No! we have no longer the bitterness and passion of him who has broken loose, who has to make for himself a belief, a goal, and even a martyrdom out of his unbelief! We have become saturated with the conviction (and have grown cold and hard in it) that things are not at all divinely ordered in this world, nor even according to human standards do they go on rationally, mercifully, or justly: we know the fact that the world in which we live is ungodly, immoral, and "inhuman,"—we have far too long interpreted it to ourselves falsely and mendaciously, according to the wish and will of our veneration, that is to say, according to our need. For man is a venerating animal! But he is also a distrustful animal: and that the world is not worth what we believed it to be worth is about the surest thing our distrust has at last managed to grasp. So much distrust, so much philosophy! We take good care not to say that the world is of less value: it seems to us at present absolutely ridiculous when man claims to devise values to surpass the values of the actual world,—it is precisely from that point that we have retraced our steps;[Pg 284] as from an extravagant error of human conceit and irrationality, which for a long period has not been recognised as such. This error had its last expression in modern Pessimism; an older and stronger manifestation in the teaching of Buddha; but Christianity also contains it, more dubiously, to be sure, and more ambiguously, but none the less seductive on that account. The whole attitude of "man versus the world," man as world-denying principle, man as the standard of the value of things, as judge of the world, who in the end puts existence itself on his scales and finds it too light—the monstrous impertinence of this attitude has dawned upon us as such, and has disgusted us,—we now laugh when we find, "Man and World" placed beside one another, separated by the sublime presumption of the little word "and"! But how is it? Have we not in our very laughing just made a further step in despising mankind? And consequently also in Pessimism, in despising the existence cognisable by us? Have we not just thereby awakened suspicion that there is an opposition between the world in which we have hitherto been at home with our venerations—for the sake of which we perhaps endure life—and another world which we ourselves are: an inexorable, radical, most profound suspicion concerning ourselves, which is continually getting us Europeans more annoyingly into its power, and could easily face the coming generation with the terrible alternative: Either do away with your venerations, or—with yourselves!" The latter would be Nihilism—but would not the former[Pg 285] also be Nihilism? This is our note of interrogation.
Our Note of Interrogation.—But you don't get it? Actually, you'll have to make an effort to understand us. We search for words; maybe we’re also looking for someone to listen. Who are we, after all? If we simply wanted to label ourselves using outdated terms like atheists, nonbelievers, or even immoralists, we still wouldn’t think that captures what we are: we’re all three in a phase that’s too late for most people to grasp, for you, my curious friends, to truly understand our state of mind in these circumstances. No! We no longer carry the bitterness and passion of someone who has broken free and has to create a belief, a purpose, and even a martyrdom out of their disbelief! We’ve become completely convinced (and hardened in that belief) that things are not divinely arranged in this world, nor do they even unfold in a rational, merciful, or just manner according to human standards: we know for a fact that the world we live in is ungodly, immoral, and “inhuman”—we’ve long been interpreting it to ourselves in a false and deceptive way, according to our veneration, which means according to our need. Because man is a reverent creature! But he’s also a skeptical one: and the strongest realization our skepticism has finally come to is that the world is not worth what we once thought it was. So much doubt, so much philosophy! We are careful not to claim that the world is less valuable: it currently seems utterly absurd to us when anyone tries to create values that surpass the actual values of the world—it’s precisely from that point that we've reversed our thinking;[Pg 284] like stepping back from an extravagant error of human arrogance and irrationality, which has long gone unrecognized. This mistake had its last expression in modern pessimism; an earlier and stronger reflection in Buddha's teachings; but Christianity contains it as well, more ambiguously—and still alluring. The whole idea of "man versus the world,” man as a principle that denies the world, man as the measurement of value, as the judge of the world, who ultimately weighs existence itself and finds it wanting—the outrageous arrogance of this stance has dawned on us, and it disgusts us—we now laugh when we see “Man and World” presented side by side, separated by the audacious little word “and”! But hold on: haven't we, in our laughter, just taken another step in looking down on humanity? And consequently also in pessimism, in scorn of the existence we can perceive? Haven't we just sparked a suspicion that there's a conflict between the world where we've previously felt at home with our veneration—for which we perhaps endure life—and another world that we ourselves are: a relentless, deep, and profound suspicion regarding ourselves, which is increasingly occupying us Europeans and could easily confront the next generation with a terrible choice: Either abandon your veneration, or—abandon yourselves!" The latter would be nihilism—but wouldn’t the former[Pg 285] also be nihilism? This is our note of interrogation.
347.
347.
Believers and their Need of Belief.—How much faith a person requires in order to flourish, how much "fixed opinion" he requires which he does not wish to have shaken, because he holds himself thereby—is a measure of his power (or more plainly speaking, of his weakness). Most people in old Europe, as it seems to me, still need Christianity at present, and on that account it still finds belief. For such is man: a theological dogma might be refuted to him a thousand times,—provided, however, that he had need of it, he would again and again accept it as "true,"—according to the famous "proof of power" of which the Bible speaks. Some have still need of metaphysics; but also the impatient longing for certainty which at present discharges itself in scientific, positivist fashion among large numbers of the people, the longing by all means to get at something stable (while on account of the warmth of the longing the establishing of the certainty is more leisurely and negligently undertaken):—even this is still the longing for a hold, a support; in short, the instinct of weakness, which, while not actually creating religions, metaphysics, and convictions of all kinds, nevertheless—preserves them. In fact, around all these positivist systems there fume the vapours of a certain pessimistic gloom, something of weariness, fatalism, disillusionment, and fear of new disillusionment—or else manifest animosity, ill-humour, anarchic exasperation, and whatever there[Pg 286] is of symptom or masquerade of the feeling of weakness. Even the readiness with which our cleverest contemporaries get lost in wretched corners and alleys, for example, in Vaterländerei (so I designate Jingoism, called chauvinisme in France, and "deutsch" in Germany), or in petty æsthetic creeds in the manner of Parisian naturalisme (which only brings into prominence and uncovers—that aspect of nature which excites simultaneously disgust and astonishment—they like at present to call this aspect la vérité vraie), or in Nihilism in the St Petersburg style (that is to say, in the belief in unbelief, even to martyrdom for it):—this shows always and above all the need of belief, support, backbone, and buttress.... Belief is always most desired, most pressingly needed, where there is a lack of will: for the will, as emotion of command, is the distinguishing characteristic of sovereignty and power. That is to say, the less a person knows how to command, the more urgent is his desire for that; which commands, and commands sternly,—a God, a prince, a caste, a physician, a confessor, a dogma, a party conscience. From whence perhaps it could be inferred that the two world-religions, Buddhism and Christianity, might well have had the cause of their rise, and especially of their rapid extension, in an extraordinary malady of the will And in truth it has been so: both religions lighted upon a longing, monstrously exaggerated by malady of the will, for an imperative, a "Thou-shalt," a longing going the length of despair; both religions were teachers of fanaticism in times of slackness[Pg 287] of will-power, and thereby offered to innumerable persons a support, a new possibility of exercising will, an enjoyment in willing. For in fact fanaticism is the sole "volitional strength" to which the weak and irresolute can be excited, as a sort of hypnotising of the entire sensory-intellectual system, in favour of the over-abundant nutrition (hypertrophy) of a particular point of view and a particular sentiment, which then dominates—the Christian calls it his faith. When a man arrives at the fundamental conviction that he requires to be commanded, he becomes "a believer." Reversely, one could imagine a delight and a power of self-determining, and a freedom of will, whereby a spirit could bid farewell to every belief, to every wish for certainty, accustomed as it would be to support itself on slender cords and possibilities, and to dance even on the verge of abysses. Such a spirit would be the free spirit par excellence.
Believers and their Need of Belief.—How much faith someone needs to thrive, how much "fixed opinion" they require that they don’t want shaken, because they hold themselves that way—is a measure of their strength (or, more plainly, their weakness). Most people in old Europe, it seems to me, still need Christianity today, and that's why it still finds believers. Such is human nature: a theological dogma could be disproven a thousand times, but if someone needs it, they will repeatedly accept it as "true,"—according to the well-known "proof of power" that the Bible mentions. Some still need metaphysics; however, there’s also the impatient longing for certainty that currently shows itself in a scientific, positivist manner among many people—a desire to find something stable (though due to the intensity of this longing, establishing certainty takes place more slowly and carelessly):—this too is a longing for support, a foundation; in short, the instinct of weakness, which, while not actually creating religions, metaphysics, and beliefs of all kinds, still—preserves them. In fact, around all these positivist systems, there waft the fumes of a certain pessimistic gloom, something of weariness, fatalism, disillusionment, and fear of further disillusionment—or else show open animosity, bad mood, anarchic frustration, and whatever else there[Pg 286] is symptomatic or a disguise of the feeling of weakness. Even the eagerness with which our smartest contemporaries get lost in wretched corners and alleys, for example, in nationalism (which I call Jingoism, referred to as chauvinisme in France, and "deutsch" in Germany), or in petty aesthetic beliefs like Parisian naturalisme (which only highlights and reveals—that aspect of nature that simultaneously provokes disgust and astonishment—they currently like to call this aspect la vérité vraie), or in Nihilism in the St. Petersburg style (meaning, the belief in unbelief, even to the point of martyring oneself for it):—this always and above all demonstrates the need for belief, support, backbone, and reinforcement.... Belief is always most desired and urgently needed where there is a lack of will: for will, as the emotion of command, is the defining characteristic of sovereignty and power. This means that the less someone knows how to command, the stronger their desire is for something that commands, and commands sternly,—a God, a ruler, a class, a doctor, a confessor, a dogma, a party conscience. From this, it could perhaps be inferred that the two world-religions, Buddhism and Christianity, might well have arisen, and especially spread rapidly, due to an extraordinary malady of the will. And indeed, it has been so: both religions tapped into a longing, enormously exaggerated by the will's sickness, for an imperative, a "Thou-shalt," a longing that reaches the point of despair; both religions became teachers of fanaticism in times of a decline[Pg 287] in willpower, thereby offering countless people a support, a new way to exercise their will, and an enjoyment in willing. In fact, fanaticism is the only "volitional strength" that can excite the weak and indecisive, like a form of hypnotism of the entire sensory-intellectual system, favoring the excessive growth (hypertrophy) of a specific viewpoint and sentiment, which then dominates—the Christian calls it their faith. When someone comes to the core conviction that they need to be commanded, they become "a believer." Conversely, one could imagine a joy and a power of self-determination, and a freedom of will, in which a spirit could bid farewell to every belief, to every wish for certainty, accustomed as it would be to support itself on fragile threads and possibilities, and to dance even on the edge of abysses. Such a spirit would be the free spirit par excellence.
348.
348.
The Origin of the Learned.—The learned man in Europe grows out of all the different ranks and social conditions, like a plant requiring no specific soil: on that account he belongs essentially and involuntarily to the partisans of democratic thought. But this origin betrays itself. If one has trained one's glance to some extent to recognise in a learned book or scientific treatise the intellectual idiosyncrasy of the learned man—all of them have such idiosyncrasy,—and if we take it by surprise, we shall almost always get a glimpse behind it of the "antecedent history" of the[Pg 288] learned man and his family, especially of the nature of their callings and occupations. Where the feeling finds expression, "That is at last proved, I am now done with it," it is commonly the ancestor in the blood and instincts of the learned man that approves of the "accomplished work" in the nook from which he sees things;—the belief in the proof is only an indication of what has been looked upon for ages by a laborious family as "good work." Take an example: the sons of registrars and office-clerks of every kind, whose main task has always been to arrange a variety of material, distribute it in drawers, and systematise it generally, evince, when they become learned men, an inclination to regard a problem as almost solved when they have systematised it There are philosophers who are at bottom nothing but systematising brains—the formal part of the paternal occupation has become its essence to them. The talent for classifications, for tables of categories, betrays something; it is not for nothing that a person is the child of his parents. The son of an advocate will also have to be an advocate as investigator: he seeks as a first consideration, to carry the point in his case, as a second consideration, he perhaps seeks to be in the right. One recognises the sons of Protestant clergymen and schoolmasters by the naïve assurance with which as learned men they already assume their case to be proved, when it has but been presented by them staunchly and warmly: they are thoroughly accustomed to people believing in them,—it belonged to their fathers' "trade"![Pg 289] A Jew, contrariwise, in accordance with his business surroundings and the past of his race, is least of all accustomed—to people believing him. Observe Jewish scholars with regard to this matter,—they all lay great stress on logic, that is to say, on compelling assent by means of reasons; they know that they must conquer thereby, even when race and class antipathy is against them, even where people are unwilling to believe them. For in fact, nothing is more democratic than logic: it knows no respect of persons, and takes even the crooked nose as straight. (In passing we may remark that in respect to logical thinking, in respect to cleaner intellectual habits, Europe is not a little indebted to the Jews; above all the Germans, as being a lamentably déraisonnable race, who, even at the present day, must always have their "heads washed"[1] in the first place. Wherever the Jews have attained to influence, they have taught to analyse more subtly, to argue more acutely, to write more clearly and purely: it has always been their problem to bring a people "to raison.")
The Origin of the Learned.—The learned person in Europe emerges from various ranks and social backgrounds, like a plant that doesn’t need specific soil: because of this, they are inherently and unconsciously aligned with democratic thought. However, this origin makes itself known. If you have trained your eye to some degree to recognize the intellectual idiosyncrasy of a learned person in a scholarly book or scientific paper—everyone has such idiosyncrasy—and if we catch it off guard, we will almost always see the "antecedent history" of the[Pg 288] learned individual and their family, particularly the nature of their jobs and professions. When someone expresses, "Finally, that's proven; I'm done with it," it’s often their ancestral instincts that endorse the "accomplished work" from which they view the world;—the belief in proof is merely a reflection of what has been regarded as "good work" by a diligent family for generations. For instance, the children of registrars and clerks, who have always primarily arranged various materials, organized them into drawers, and systematized them, tend to see a problem as nearly solved once they’ve systematized it. There are philosophers who, at their core, are just systematic thinkers—the formal aspect of their parents' jobs has become their essence. The talent for classification and organizing categories reveals much; a person doesn’t just happen to be the child of their parents. The son of a lawyer will also take on the role of a lawyer as a researcher: his main aim is to win his case, and as a secondary consideration, he may seek to be right. One can recognize the sons of Protestant ministers and teachers by the naive confidence with which they, as learned individuals, assume their case is already proven when they've just presented it firmly and passionately: they are completely accustomed to people believing in them—it was part of their fathers' "trade"![Pg 289] In contrast, a Jew, shaped by his business environment and his people's history, is least accustomed to people believing him. Notice Jewish scholars regarding this issue—they emphasize logic, aiming to compel agreement through reasoning; they understand they must win over even when faced with race and class bias, even when people are hesitant to trust them. In truth, nothing is more democratic than logic: it knows no favoritism and treats even a crooked nose as straight. (By the way, in terms of logical reasoning and cleaner intellectual habits, Europe owes a lot to the Jews; especially the Germans, who are unfortunately a rather déraisonnable people, and even today, often need their "heads washed"[1] first. Wherever the Jews have gained influence, they have taught people to analyze more deeply, argue more sharply, and write more clearly and precisely: their ongoing challenge has always been to bring society "to raison.")
349.
349.
The Origin of the Learned once more.—To seek self-preservation merely, is the expression of a state of distress, or of limitation of the true, fundamental instinct of life, which aims at the extension of power, and with this in view often enough calls in question self-preservation and sacrifices it. It should be[Pg 290] taken as symptomatic when individual philosophers, as for example, the consumptive Spinoza, have seen and have been obliged to see the principal feature of life precisely in the so-called self-preservative instinct:—they have just been men in states of distress. That our modern natural sciences have entangled themselves so much with Spinoza's dogma (finally and most grossly in Darwinism, with its inconceivably one-sided doctrine of the "struggle for existence"—), is probably owing to the origin of most of the inquirers into nature: they belong in this respect to the people, their forefathers have been poor and humble persons, who knew too well by immediate experience the difficulty of making a living. Over the whole of English Darwinism there hovers something of the suffocating air of over-crowded England, something of the odour of humble people in need and in straits. But as an investigator of nature, a person ought to emerge from his paltry human nook: and in nature the state of distress does not prevail, but superfluity, even prodigality to the extent of folly. The struggle for existence is only an exception, a temporary restriction of the will to live; the struggle, be it great or small, turns everywhere on predominance, on increase and expansion, on power, in conformity to the will to power, which is just the will to live.
The Origin of the Learned once more.—Seeking just self-preservation is a sign of distress, or a limitation of life's true, fundamental instinct, which aims at the growth of power. With this goal in mind, it often questions self-preservation and sacrifices it. It should be[Pg 290] seen as a symptom when individual philosophers, like the ailing Spinoza, have recognized the main characteristic of life in the so-called self-preservation instinct: they have been individuals in distress. The fact that our modern natural sciences have become so entangled with Spinoza's views—most blatantly in Darwinism, with its incredibly one-sided notion of the "struggle for existence"—likely stems from the background of many nature researchers: they come from communities where their ancestors were poor and humble, who understood all too well the challenges of making a living. The entirety of English Darwinism carries the weight of crowded England and the scent of humble people in need. However, as a nature investigator, one should rise above their limited human circumstances: in nature, the state of distress does not dominate, but rather excess, even extravagance to the point of absurdity. The struggle for existence is just an exception, a temporary limitation of the will to live; the struggle, whether large or small, always revolves around dominance, growth, and expansion, aligned with the will to power, which is essentially the will to live.
350.
350.
In Honour of Homines Religiosi.—The struggle against the church is certainly (among other things—for it has a manifold significance) the[Pg 291] struggle of the more ordinary, cheerful, confiding, superficial natures against the rule of the graver, profounder, more contemplative natures, that is to say, the more malign and suspicious men, who with long continued distrust in the worth of life, brood also over their own worth:—the ordinary instinct of the people, its sensual gaiety, its "good heart," revolts against them. The entire Roman Church rests on a Southern suspicion of the nature of man (always misunderstood in the North), a suspicion whereby the European South has succeeded, to the inheritance of the profound Orient—the mysterious, venerable Asia—and its contemplative spirit. Protestantism was a popular insurrection in favour of the simple, the respectable, the superficial (the North has always been more good-natured and more shallow than the South), but it was the French Revolution that first gave the sceptre wholly and solemnly into the hands of the "good man" (the sheep, the ass, the goose, and everything incurably shallow, bawling, and fit for the Bedlam of "modern ideas").
In Honour of Homines Religiosi.—The struggle against the church is definitely (among other things—since it has many meanings) the[Pg 291] struggle of the more ordinary, cheerful, trusting, and superficial people against the dominance of the more serious, deeper, and contemplative individuals, meaning those who are more malevolent and distrustful, who, through their long-standing skepticism about the value of life, also reflect on their own worth:—the natural instinct of the people, its joyful, sensual nature, its "good heart," rises up against them. The entire Roman Church is built on a Southern distrust of human nature (which is often misinterpreted in the North), a suspicion that the European South inherited from the profound Orient—the mysterious, ancient Asia—and its contemplative spirit. Protestantism was a popular uprising in favor of the simple, the respectable, the superficial (the North has always been more good-natured and less profound than the South), but it was the French Revolution that first placed the scepter completely and solemnly in the hands of the "good man" (the sheep, the donkey, the goose, and everything irredeemably superficial, noisy, and suited for the chaos of "modern ideas").
351.
351.
In Honour of Priestly Natures.—I think that philosophers have always felt themselves very remote from that which the people (in all classes of society nowadays) take for wisdom: the prudent, bovine placidity, piety, and country-parson meekness, which lies in the meadow and gazes at life seriously and ruminatingly:—this is probably because philosophers have not had sufficiently the taste of the "people," or of the country-parson,[Pg 292] for that kind of wisdom. Philosophers will also perhaps be the last to acknowledge that the people should understand something of that which lies furthest from them, something of the great passion of the thinker, who lives and must live continually in the storm-cloud of the highest problems and the heaviest responsibilities (consequently, not gazing at all, to say nothing of doing so indifferently, securely, objectively). The people venerate an entirely different type of men when on their part they form the ideal of a "sage," and they are a thousand times justified in rendering homage with the highest eulogies and honours to precisely that type of men—namely, the gentle, serious, simple, chaste, priestly natures and those related to them,—it is to them that the praise falls due in the popular veneration of wisdom. And to whom should the multitude have more reason to be grateful than to these men who pertain to its class and rise from its ranks, but are persons consecrated, chosen, and sacrificed for its good—they themselves believe themselves sacrificed to God,—before whom every one can pour forth his heart with impunity, by whom he can get rid of his secrets, cares, and worse things (for the man who "communicates himself" gets rid of himself, and he who has "confessed" forgets). Here there exists a great need: for sewers and pure cleansing waters are required also for spiritual filth, and rapid currents of love are needed, and strong, lowly, pure hearts, who qualify and sacrifice themselves for such service of the non-public health-department—for it is a sacrificing, the priest is, and continues to[Pg 293] be, a human sacrifice.... The people regard such sacrificed, silent, serious men of "faith" as "wise," that is to say, as men who have become sages, as "reliable" in relation to their own unreliability. Who would desire to deprive the people of that expression and that veneration?—But as is fair on the other side, among philosophers the priest also is still held to belong to the "people," and is not regarded as a sage, because, above all, they themselves do not believe in "sages," and they already scent "the people" in this very belief and superstition. It was modesty which invented in Greece the word "philosopher," and left to the play-actors of the spirit the superb arrogance of assuming the name "wise"—the modesty of such monsters of pride and self-glorification as Pythagoras and Plato.—
In Honor of Priestly Natures.—I think philosophers have always felt quite disconnected from what people (in all social classes today) consider wisdom: the cautious, passive calmness, piety, and the humble demeanor of a country priest, who lies in the meadow and contemplates life seriously and thoughtfully:—this is likely because philosophers haven't fully experienced the "people," or the country priest,[Pg 292] for that type of wisdom. Philosophers might also be the last to admit that the people should grasp something about that which is most distant from them, something about the great passion of the thinker, who lives and must continually live in the whirlwind of the most crucial issues and heavy responsibilities (thus, not observing at all, let alone doing so indifferently or comfortably). The people honor an entirely different kind of man when they envision the ideal of a "sage," and they are fully justified in giving their highest praise and honors to exactly that type of man—namely, the gentle, serious, simple, pure, priestly figures and those connected to them,—to whom the appreciation in popular reverence for wisdom rightfully belongs. And to whom should the masses be more thankful than to those who emerge from their ranks and have dedicated, chosen, and sacrificed themselves for their benefit—they themselves see it as a sacrifice to God,—before whom anyone can express their heart freely, where they can release their secrets, worries, and darker thoughts (for the person who "opens up" sheds a part of themselves, and he who has "confessed" forgets). There exists a significant need here: just as sewers and clean waters are needed for physical waste, so too are swift currents of love and strong, humble, pure hearts that dedicate and sacrifice themselves for the service of the non-public health department—for it is a sacrifice, the priest is, and continues to[Pg 293] be, a human sacrifice.... The people view such quiet, serious men of "faith" as "wise," meaning as men who have achieved wisdom, as "trustworthy" despite their own uncertainties. Who would want to take that expression and veneration away from the people?—But it’s only fair to note that philosophers still consider the priest part of the "people," and do not see him as a sage, primarily because they themselves do not believe in "sages," and they recognize "the people" in this very belief and superstition. It was modesty that coined the term "philosopher" in Greece, leaving the theatrical figures of the spirit with the audacious title of "wise"—the modesty of such proud and self-glorifying figures like Pythagoras and Plato.—
352.
352.
Why we can hardly Dispense with Morality.—The naked man is generally an ignominious spectacle—I speak of us European males (and by no means of European females!). If the most joyous company at table suddenly found themselves stripped and divested of their garments through the trick of an enchanter, I believe that not only would the joyousness be gone and the strongest appetite lost;—it seems that we Europeans cannot at all dispense with the masquerade that is called clothing. But should not the disguise of "moral men," the screening under moral formulæ and notions of decency, the whole kindly concealment of our conduct under conceptions of duty, virtue, public sentiment, honourableness, and disinterestedness,[Pg 294] have just as good reasons in support of it? Not that I mean hereby that human wickedness and baseness, in short, the evil wild beast in us, should be disguised; on the contrary, my idea is that it is precisely as tame animals that we are an ignominious spectacle and require moral disguising,—that the "inner man" in Europe is far from having enough of intrinsic evil "to let himself be seen" with it (to be beautiful with it). The European disguises himself in morality because he has become a sick, sickly, crippled animal, who has good reasons for being "tame," because he is almost an abortion, an imperfect, weak and clumsy thing.... It is not the fierceness of the beast of prey that finds moral disguise necessary, but the gregarious animal, with its profound mediocrity, anxiety and ennui. Morality dresses up the European—let us acknowledge it!—in more distinguished, more important, more conspicuous guise—in "divine" guise—
Why we can hardly do without Morality.— The naked man is usually an embarrassing sight—I’m talking about us European males (and certainly not European females!). If a group of joyful people at a table suddenly found themselves stripped of their clothes due to some magical trick, I believe that not only would the joy disappear and their strong appetites vanish; it seems that we Europeans simply cannot do without the disguise that clothing provides. But shouldn’t the disguise of “moral men,” the cover provided by moral principles and notions of decency, the entire kind concealment of our behavior under ideas of duty, virtue, public opinion, honor, and selflessness, [Pg 294] have just as valid reasons to support it? I don’t mean to say that human wickedness and baseness, in short, the evil side of us, should be hidden; on the contrary, my point is that it is precisely as tame animals that we present an embarrassing sight and require moral disguises— that the “inner man” in Europe doesn’t have enough intrinsic evil “to show himself” with it (to be beautiful with it). The European masks himself in morality because he has become a sick, frail, crippled animal, who has good reasons to be “tame,” as he is almost an abortion, an imperfect, weak, and clumsy thing.... It’s not the ferocity of the predator that finds moral disguise necessary, but the social animal, with its deep mediocrity, anxiety, and boredom. Morality dresses up the European—let’s admit it!—in a more sophisticated, more significant, more noticeable appearance—in a “divine” appearance—
353.
353.
The Origin of Religions.—The real inventions of founders of religions are, on the one hand, to establish a definite mode of life and everyday custom, which operates as disciplina voluntatis, and at the same time does away with ennui; and on the other hand, to give to that very mode of life an interpretation, by virtue of which it appears illumined with the highest value; so that it henceforth becomes a good for which people struggle, and under certain circumstances lay down their lives. In truth, the[Pg 295] second of these inventions is the more essential: the first, the mode of life, has usually been there already, side by side, however, with other modes of life, and still unconscious of the value which it embodies. The import, the originality of the founder of a religion, discloses itself usually in the fact that he sees the mode of life, selects it, and divines for the first time the purpose for which it can be used, how it can be interpreted. Jesus (or Paul) for example, found around him the life of the common people in the Roman province, a modest, virtuous, oppressed life: he interpreted it, he put the highest significance and value into it—and thereby the courage to despise every other mode of life, the calm fanaticism of the Moravians, the secret, subterranean self-confidence which goes on increasing, and is at last ready "to overcome the world" (that is to say, Rome, and the upper classes throughout the empire). Buddha, in like manner, found the same type of man,—he found it in fact dispersed among all the classes and social ranks of a people who were good and kind (and above all inoffensive), owing to indolence, and who likewise owing to indolence, lived abstemiously, almost without requirements. He understood that such a type of man, with all its vis inertiæ, had inevitably to glide into a belief which promises to avoid the return of earthly ill (that is to say, labour and activity generally),—this "understanding" was his genius. The founder of a religion possesses psychological infallibility in the knowledge of a definite, average type of souls, who have not yet recognised themselves as akin. It is he who brings[Pg 296] them together: the founding of a religion, therefore, always becomes a long ceremony of recognition.—
The Origin of Religions.—The true breakthroughs made by founders of religions are, on one hand, establishing a clear way of life and daily customs that act as discipline of the will, while also eliminating boredom; and on the other hand, providing that very way of life with an interpretation, making it shine with the highest value; so it becomes something people strive for, and under certain conditions, are willing to sacrifice their lives for. In reality, the[Pg 295] second of these breakthroughs is the more crucial: the first, the way of life, has typically existed already, existing alongside other ways of life, and often unaware of the value it holds. The significance, the originality of a religious founder usually reveals itself in the fact that they see the way of life, select it, and intuit for the first time the purpose it can serve, and how it can be interpreted. Jesus (or Paul) for instance, observed the lives of ordinary people in the Roman province, a simple, virtuous, oppressed existence: he interpreted it, infusing it with the highest significance and value—and thus inspired the courage to reject any other way of life, the calm fanaticism of the Moravians, and the secret, growing self-confidence that ultimately becomes ready "to overcome the world" (that is, Rome and the upper classes across the empire). Similarly, Buddha encountered the same kind of people—he found them actually spread across all classes and social ranks of a community that was good-hearted and kind (and especially harmless), due to their laziness, and who also lived simply with almost no demands because of this laziness. He understood that this kind of person, with all its vis inertiæ, would inevitably fall into a belief that promises to escape the return of earthly suffering (that is, work and activity in general)—this "understanding" was his genius. A religious founder possesses a kind of psychological infallibility in recognizing a specific, average type of soul that has not yet recognized itself as connected. It is they who bring[Pg 296] them together: therefore, the founding of a religion becomes a prolonged ceremony of recognition.—
354.
354.
The "Genius of the Species."—The problem of consciousness (or more correctly: of becoming conscious of oneself) meets us only when we begin to perceive in what measure we could dispense with it: and it is at the beginning of this perception that we are now placed by physiology and zoology (which have thus required two centuries to overtake the hint thrown out in advance by Leibnitz). For we could in fact think, feel, will, and recollect, we could likewise "act" in every sense of the term, and nevertheless nothing of it all need necessarily "come into consciousness" (as one says metaphorically). The whole of life would be possible without its seeing itself as it were in a mirror: as in fact even at present the far greater part of our life still goes on without this mirroring,—and even our thinking, feeling, volitional life as well, however painful this statement may sound to an older philosopher. What then is the purpose of consciousness generally, when it is in the main superfluous?—Now it seems to me, if you will hear my answer and its perhaps extravagant supposition, that the subtlety and strength of consciousness are always in proportion to the capacity for communication of a man (or an animal), the capacity for communication in its turn being in proportion to the necessity for communication: the latter not to be understood as if precisely the individual himself who is master in the art of communicating and making known his[Pg 297] necessities would at the same time have to be most dependent upon others for his necessities. It seems to me, however, to be so in relation to whole races and successions of generations: where necessity and need have long compelled men to communicate with their fellows and understand one another rapidly and subtly, a surplus of the power and art of communication is at last acquired as if it were a fortune which had gradually accumulated, and now waited for an heir to squander it prodigally (the so-called artists are these heirs, in like manner the orators, preachers, and authors: all of them men who come at the end of a long succession, "late-born" always, in the best sense of the word, and as has been said, squanderers by their very nature). Granted that this observation is correct, I may proceed further to the conjecture that consciousness generally has only been developed under the pressure of the necessity for communication,—that from the first it has been necessary and useful only between man and man (especially between those commanding and those obeying) and has only developed in proportion to its utility Consciousness is properly only a connecting network between man and man,—it is only as such that it has had to develop; the recluse and wild-beast species of men would not have needed it The very fact that our actions, thoughts, feelings and motions come within the range of our consciousness—at least a part of them—is the result of a terrible, prolonged "must" ruling man's destiny: as the most endangered animal he needed help and protection; he needed[Pg 298] his fellows, he was obliged to express his distress, he had to know how to make himself understood—and for all this he needed "consciousness" first of all: he had to "know" himself what he lacked, to "know" how he felt, and to "know" what he thought. For, to repeat it once more, man, like every living creature, thinks unceasingly, but does not know it; the thinking which is becoming conscious of itself is only the smallest part thereof, we may say, the most superficial part, the worst part:—for this conscious thinking alone is done in words, that is to say, in the symbols for communication, by means of which the origin of consciousness is revealed. In short, the development of speech and the development of consciousness (not of reason, but of reason becoming self-conscious) go hand in hand. Let it be further accepted that it is not only speech that serves as a bridge between man and man, but also the looks, the pressure and the gestures; our becoming conscious of our sense impressions, our power of being able to fix them, and as it were to locate them outside of ourselves, has increased in proportion as the necessity has increased for communicating them to others by means of signs. The sign-inventing man is at the same time the man who is always more acutely self-conscious; it is only as a social animal that man has learned to become conscious of himself,—he is doing so still, and doing so more and more.—As is obvious, my idea is that consciousness does not properly belong to the individual existence of man, but rather to the social and gregarious nature in him; that, as follows therefrom, it is only in relation[Pg 299] to communal and gregarious utility that it is finely developed; and that consequently each of us, in spite of the best intention of understanding himself as individually as possible, and of "knowing himself," will always just call into consciousness the non-individual in him, namely, his "averageness"; —that our thought itself is continuously as it were outvoted by the character of consciousness—by the imperious "genius of the species" therein—and is translated back into the perspective of the herd. Fundamentally our actions are in an incomparable manner altogether personal, unique and absolutely individual—there is no doubt about it; but as soon as we translate them into consciousness, they do not appear so any longer .... This is the proper phenomenalism and perspectivism as I understand it: the nature of animal consciousness involves the notion that the world of which we can become conscious is only a superficial and symbolic world, a generalised and vulgarised world;—that everything which becomes conscious becomes just thereby shallow, meagre, relatively stupid,—a generalisation, a symbol, a characteristic of the herd; that with the evolving of consciousness there is always combined a great, radical perversion, falsification, superficialisation, and generalisation. Finally, the growing consciousness is a danger, and whoever lives among the most conscious Europeans knows even that it is a disease. As may be conjectured, it is not the antithesis of subject and object with which I am here concerned: I leave that distinction to the epistemologists who have remained entangled in the[Pg 300] toils of grammar (popular metaphysics). It is still less the antithesis of "thing in itself" and phenomenon, for we do not "know" enough to be entitled even to make such a distinction. Indeed, we have not any organ at all for knowing, or for "truth": we "know" (or believe, or fancy) just as much as may be of use in the interest of the human herd, the species; and even what is here called "usefulness" is ultimately only a belief, a fancy, and perhaps precisely the most fatal stupidity by which we shall one day be ruined.
The "Genius of the Species."—The issue of consciousness (or more accurately: of becoming aware of oneself) arises only when we start to recognize how much we could live without it. Physiology and zoology have now brought us to the beginning of this realization (having taken two centuries to catch up to the insights suggested early on by Leibnitz). In fact, we could think, feel, will, and remember; we could also "act" in every way and yet none of this necessarily needs to "enter consciousness" (as people say metaphorically). Life could exist without reflecting on itself, much like a significant portion of our lives still unfolds without this reflection—even our thinking, feeling, and willing, regardless of how painful this might sound to an older philosopher. What then is the purpose of consciousness in general, when it is mainly unnecessary?—It seems to me, if you’re open to my answer and its perhaps bold assumption, that the depth and power of consciousness are always proportional to a person’s (or an animal's) ability to communicate; and this ability, in turn, relates to the necessity for communication: this necessity doesn’t imply that those who are skilled in communicating and expressing their[Pg 297] needs also need to rely heavily on others for their necessities. It appears to me that this holds true for entire races and generations: where necessity and need have long pushed humans to communicate and understand each other quickly and subtly, an abundance of communication skills has been accumulated, as if it were a treasure awaiting an heir to spend it lavishly (the so-called artists are these heirs, along with orators, preachers, and writers: all of them individuals who follow a long lineage, "late-born" in the best sense, and as has been noted, spenders by their very nature). If this observation is correct, I can further suggest that consciousness has mainly developed under the pressure of the need for communication,—that from the start, it has been necessary and beneficial solely between individuals (especially between those in authority and those obeying) and has grown in proportion to its usefulness. Consciousness is essentially a network connecting one person to another—it has had to evolve as such; the hermit and feral types of humans wouldn’t have found it necessary. The simple fact that our actions, thoughts, feelings, and movements fall within our consciousness—at least some of them—results from a long-lasting, mandatory "must" that governs human fate: as the most vulnerable animal, he needed help and safety; he needed[Pg 298] his peers, he was compelled to express his distress, and he had to learn how to make himself understood—and for all of this, he first needed "consciousness": he had to "know" what he lacked, to "know" how he felt, and to "know" what he thought. To reiterate, humans, like all living beings, are constantly thinking, yet rarely aware of it; the thinking that becomes conscious of itself is just the tiniest fraction of it, we might say, the most superficial part, the least valuable part:—since this conscious thought alone is expressed in words, which are the symbols for communication, through which the essence of consciousness is revealed. In short, the evolution of language and the evolution of consciousness (not of reason, but of reason becoming self-aware) advance together. Moreover, let’s accept that it’s not only language that bridges the gap between individuals, but also looks, gestures, and touch; our awareness of sensory experiences, our ability to capture them, and to somewhat place them outside ourselves, has increased as the need to communicate them to others through signs has heightened. The sign-creating individual is simultaneously the one who grows more acutely self-aware; it is only as a social creature that humans have learned to become conscious of themselves—and they are still doing so, increasingly. My point is that consciousness does not truly belong to the individual existence of a person but rather to their social and communal nature; and thus, it is only in relation[Pg 299] to social and communal utility that it develops finely. Consequently, despite our best intentions to understand ourselves as distinctly as possible and to "know ourselves," we will always bring forth into consciousness the non-individual aspects of ourselves, namely, our "averageness";—that our thoughts are constantly as if outvoted by the character of consciousness—by the compelling "genius of the species" contained within it—and are translated back into the perspective of the group. Fundamentally, our actions are incredibly personal, unique, and completely individual—there is no doubt about it; but as soon as we express them in consciousness, they no longer seem that way .... This is the true phenomenalism and perspectivism as I see it: the essence of animal consciousness includes the idea that the world of which we can become aware is merely a superficial and symbolic one, a generalized and simplified world;—that everything that becomes conscious becomes shallow, sparse, relatively dull,—a generalization, a symbol, a characteristic of the crowd; that with the maturation of consciousness there is consistently a significant, radical distortion, falsification, superficiality, and generalization. Ultimately, growing consciousness is a risk, and anyone living among the most conscious Europeans recognizes that it is even a disease. As one can infer, I am not focused on the opposition of subject and object here: I leave that distinction to the epistemologists who remain caught in the[Pg 300] traps of grammar (popular metaphysics). It is even less about the contrast of "thing in itself" and phenomenon, for we do not "know" enough to be warranted even to make such a distinction. Indeed, we don't possess any organ for knowing, or for "truth": we "know" (or believe, or imagine) just as much as may be useful for the benefit of the human group, the species; and even what is termed "usefulness" ultimately rests on belief, imagination, and perhaps what is precisely the most dangerous folly that will one day lead to our downfall.
355.
355.
The Origin of our Conception of "Knowledge"—I take this explanation from the street. I heard one of the people saying that "he knew me," so I asked myself: What do the people really understand by knowledge? what do they want when they seek "knowledge"? Nothing more than that what is strange is to be traced back to something known. And we philosophers—have we really understood anything more by knowledge? The known, that is to say, what we are accustomed to so that we no longer marvel at it, the commonplace, any kind of rule to which we are habituated, all and everything in which we know ourselves to be at home:—what? is our need of knowing not just this need of the known? the will to discover in everything strange, unusual, or questionable, something which no longer disquiets us? Is it not possible that it should be the instinct of fear which enjoins upon us to know? Is it not possible that the rejoicing of the discerner should be just his[Pg 301] rejoicing in the regained feeling of security?... One philosopher imagined the world "known" when he had traced it back to the "idea": alas, was it not because the idea was so known, so familiar to him? because he had so much less fear of the "idea"—Oh, this moderation of the discerners! let us but look at their principles, and at their solutions of the riddle of the world in this connection! When they again find aught in things, among things, or behind things that is unfortunately very well known to us, for example, our multiplication table, or our logic, or our willing and desiring, how happy they immediately are! For "what is known is understood": they are unanimous as to that. Even the most circumspect among them think that the known is at least more easily understood than the strange; that for example, it is methodically ordered to proceed outward from the "inner world," from "the facts of consciousness," because it is the world which is better known to us! Error of errors! The known is the accustomed, and the accustomed is the most difficult of all to "understand," that is to say, to perceive as a problem, to perceive as strange, distant, "outside of us."... The great certainty of the natural sciences in comparison with psychology and the criticism of the elements of consciousness—unnatural sciences, as one might almost be entitled to call them—rests precisely on the fact that they take what is strange as their object: while it is almost like something contradictory and absurd to wish to take generally what is not strange as an object....
The Origin of our Conception of "Knowledge"—I got this idea from a conversation on the street. I heard someone say, "he knew me," and it made me wonder: What do people really mean when they talk about knowledge? What are they looking for when they seek "knowledge"? Strangely enough, it all seems to lead back to something known. And what about us philosophers—have we really grasped anything more through this concept of knowledge? The known, meaning what we’re so used to that it no longer surprises us, the everyday stuff, any rule we’ve gotten used to, everything where we feel safe and at home: is our urge to know not just an urge for the known? The desire to find something familiar even in the strange, unusual, or questionable — something that doesn't unsettle us? Could it be that it's the instinct of fear pushing us to seek knowledge? Is it possible that the joy of discovery is simply a return to a sense of safety? One philosopher thought the world was "known" once he traced it back to the "idea": but wasn't it just because the idea was so familiar to him? He had much less fear of the "idea." Oh, the restraint of those who seek understanding! If we look at their principles and how they solve the world's mysteries, we see how delighted they are when they discover something in the world or behind it that is, sadly, very well-known to us, like the multiplication table, logic, or our wants and desires! Because "what is known is understood": they all agree on that. Even the most cautious ones believe that the known is at least easier to understand than the strange; they think it's methodical to start with the "inner world," from "the facts of consciousness," since that’s the world we know better! What a huge mistake! The known is what we are used to, and the accustomed is the hardest to "understand," meaning to see as a problem, to see as strange, distant, "outside of us."... The strong confidence in natural sciences compared to psychology and the analysis of conscious experiences—unnatural sciences, you could almost say—comes from the fact that they focus on what is strange: while it seems contradictory and absurd to try to focus on what is generally not strange as an object....
356.
356.
In what Manner Europe will always become "more Artistic."—Providing a living still enforces even in the present day (in our transition period when so much ceases to enforce) a definite rôle on almost all male Europeans, their so-called callings; some have the liberty, an apparent liberty, to choose this rôle themselves, but most have it chosen for them. The result is strange enough. Almost all Europeans confound themselves with their rôle when they advance in age; they themselves are the victims of their "good acting," they have forgotten how much chance, whim and arbitrariness swayed them when their "calling" was decided—and how many other rôles they could perhaps have played: for it is now too late! Looked at more closely, we see that their characters have actually evolved out of their rôle, nature out of art. There were ages in which people believed with unshaken confidence, yea, with piety, in their predestination for this very business, for that very mode of livelihood, and would not at all acknowledge chance, or the fortuitous rôle, or arbitrariness therein. Ranks, guilds, and hereditary trade privileges succeeded] with the help of this belief, in rearing those extraordinary broad towers of society which distinguished the Middle Ages, and of which at all events one thing remains to their credit: capacity for duration (and duration is a thing of the first rank on earth!). But there are ages entirely the reverse, the properly democratic ages, in which people tend to become more and more oblivious of this belief, and a sort[Pg 303] of impudent conviction and quite contrary mode of viewing things comes to the front, the Athenian conviction which is first observed in the epoch of Pericles, the American conviction of the present day, which wants also more and more to become a European conviction: whereby the individual is convinced that he can do almost anything, that he can play almost any rôle, whereby everyone makes experiments with himself, improvises, tries anew, tries with delight, whereby all nature ceases and becomes art.... The Greeks, having adopted this rôle-creed——an artist creed, if you will—underwent step by step, as is well known, a curious transformation, not in every respect worthy of imitation: they became actual stage-players; and as such they enchanted, they conquered all the world, and at last even the conqueror of the world, (for the Græculus histrio conquered Rome, and not Greek culture, as the naïve are accustomed to say...). What I fear, however, and what is at present obvious, if we desire to perceive it, is that we modern men are quite on the same road already; and whenever a man begins to discover in what respect he plays a rôle, and to what extent he can be a stage-player, he becomes a stage-player.... A new flora and fauna of men thereupon springs up, which cannot grow in more stable, more restricted eras—or is left "at the bottom," under the ban and suspicion of infamy; thereupon the most interesting and insane periods of history always make their appearance, in which "stage-players," all kinds of stage-players, are the real masters. Precisely thereby another species of man is always more and more injured, and in[Pg 304] the end made impossible: above all the great "architects"; the building power is now being paralysed; the courage that makes plans for the distant future is disheartened; there begins to be a lack of organising geniuses. Who is there who would now venture to undertake works for the completion of which millenniums would have to be reckoned upon? The fundamental belief is dying out, on the basis of which one could calculate, promise and anticipate the future in one's plan, and offer it as a sacrifice thereto, that in fact man has only value and significance in so far as he is a stone in a great building; for which purpose he has first of all to be solid, he has to be a "stone."... Above all, not a—stage-player! In short—alas! this fact will be hushed up for some considerable time to come!—that which from henceforth will no longer be built, and can no longer be built, is—a society in the old sense of the term; to build that structure everything is lacking, above all, the material. None of us are any longer material for a society: that is a truth which is seasonable at present! It seems to me a matter of indifference that meanwhile the most short-sighted, perhaps the most honest, and at any rate the noisiest species of men of the present day, our friends the Socialists, believe, hope, dream, and above all scream and scribble almost the opposite; in fact one already reads their watchword of the future-: "free society," on all tables and walls. Free society? Indeed! Indeed! But you know, gentlemen, sure enough whereof one builds it? Out of wooden iron! Out of the famous wooden iron! And not even out of wooden....
How Europe will always become "more Artistic."—Having a job still imposes a certain role on nearly all European men today, in this transitional period when so much no longer seems to apply; some can choose this role for themselves, but most have it chosen for them. The outcome is quite strange. Almost all Europeans get so wrapped up in their roles as they get older that they become the victims of their own "good acting," forgetting how much chance, whim, and randomness influenced their "calling" and how many other roles they could have played because now it's too late! Looking more closely, we can see that their characters have really developed from their roles, nature evolving from art. There were times when people believed wholeheartedly, even with devotion, in their destiny for this specific job or that particular way of making a living, entirely dismissing chance, randomness, or arbitrariness involved. Ranks, guilds, and inherited trade privileges succeeded—thanks to this belief—in building those incredible broad structures of society that defined the Middle Ages. One thing is certain: they demonstrated remarkable longevity (and longevity is of utmost importance on earth!). But there are also times that run completely counter to this, the truly democratic times, when people become increasingly oblivious to this belief, and a kind of bold conviction and entirely different perspective comes to the forefront: the Athenian belief first noted in the era of Pericles, and the current American belief, which increasingly aims to become a European belief as well. This perspective convinces individuals that they can do just about anything, that they can play almost any role, leading everyone to experiment with themselves, improvise, try new things with enthusiasm, such that all nature fades away and transforms into art.... The Greeks, having adopted this role-belief—an artist's creed, if you will—underwent a fascinating transformation step by step, one not entirely worthy of emulation: they became actual actors; and as such they captivated and conquered the entire world, even the world’s conqueror itself (for the Græculus histrio conquered Rome, not Greek culture, as the naive tend to believe...). What I fear, and what is becoming clear if we are willing to see it, is that we modern individuals are already on the same path; and whenever someone begins to realize how they play a role and to what extent they can be an actor, they become an actor.... A new type of person then emerges, one that can’t thrive in more stable, conventional times—or remains "at the bottom," under a shadow of disgrace and suspicion; thus, the most fascinating and chaotic periods of history arise, where "actors," all kinds of actors, become the true masters. In doing so, another type of person suffers more and more, and in[Pg 304] the end becomes impossible: especially the great "architects"; the ability to build is now being stifled; the courage to make plans for the distant future is discouraged; there’s a growing lack of organizing visionaries. Who would dare take on projects that would require millennia to complete? The foundational belief that once allowed one to calculate, promise, and anticipate the future with a plan is fading, and that idea offered as sacrifice to this belief—that a person's value and significance come primarily from being a stone in a great building; for which one must first be solid, to be a "stone."... Above all, not a—actor! In short—alas! this truth will remain hidden for quite some time to come!—what can no longer be built, and cannot be built going forward, is—a society in the traditional sense; to build that structure, everything is lacking, especially the material. None of us are no longer material for a society: that is a truth that feels quite relevant today! It seems indifferent to me that meanwhile, the most shortsighted, perhaps the most sincere, and definitely the loudest groups of people today, our friends the Socialists, believe, hope, dream, and above all cry out and write almost the opposite; in fact, you can already find their slogan for the future—"free society"—on all surfaces and walls. Free society? Indeed! Indeed! But you know, gentlemen, what is it built with? Out of wooden iron! Out of the infamous wooden iron! And not even out of wooden....
357.
357.
The old Problem: "What is German?"—Let us count up apart the real acquisitions of philosophical thought for which we have to thank German intellects: are they in any allowable sense to be counted also to the credit of the whole race? Can we say that they are at the same time the work of the "German soul," or at least a symptom of it, in the sense in which we are accustomed to think, for example, of Plato's ideomania, his almost religious madness for form, as an event and an evidence of the "Greek soul"? Or would the reverse perhaps be true? Were they individually as much exceptions to the spirit of the race, as was, for example, Goethe's Paganism with a good conscience? Or as Bismarck's Macchiavelism was with a good conscience, his so-called "practical politics" in Germany? Did our philosophers perhaps even go counter to the need of the "German soul"? In short, were the German philosophers really philosophical Germans?—I call to mind three cases. Firstly, Leibnitz's incomparable insight—with which he obtained the advantage not only over Descartes, but over all who had philosophised up to his time,—that consciousness is only an accident of mental representation, and not its necessary and essential attribute; that consequently what we call consciousness only constitutes a state of our spiritual and psychical world (perhaps a morbid state), and is far from being that world itself:—is there anything German in this thought, the profundity of which has not as yet been exhausted? Is there reason[Pg 306] to think that a person of the Latin race would not readily have stumbled on this reversal of the apparent?—for it is a reversal. Let us call to mind secondly, the immense note of interrogation which Kant wrote after the notion of causality. Not that he at all doubted its legitimacy, like Hume: on the contrary, he began cautiously to define the domain within which this notion has significance generally (we have not even yet got finished with the marking out of these limits). Let us take thirdly, the astonishing hit of Hegel, who stuck at no logical usage or fastidiousness when he ventured to teach that the conceptions of kinds develop out of one another: with which theory the thinkers in Europe were prepared for the last great scientific movement, for Darwinism—for without Hegel there would have been no Darwin. Is there anything German in this Hegelian innovation which first introduced the decisive conception of evolution into science?—Yes, without doubt we feel that there is something of ourselves "discovered" and divined in all three cases; we are thankful for it, and at the same time surprised; each of these three principles is a thoughtful piece of German self-confession, self-understanding, and self-knowledge. We feel with Leibnitz that "our inner world is far richer, ampler, and more concealed"; as Germans we are doubtful, like Kant, about the ultimate validity of scientific knowledge of nature, and in general about whatever can be known causaliter: the knowable as such now appears to us of less worth. We Germans should still have been Hegelians, even though there had never been a[Pg 307] Hegel, inasmuch as we (in contradistinction to all Latin peoples) instinctively attribute to becoming, to evolution, a profounder significance and higher value than to that which "is"—we hardly believe at all in the validity of the concept "being." This is all the more the case because we are not inclined to concede to our human logic that it is logic in itself, that it is the only kind of logic (we should rather like, on the contrary, to convince ourselves that it is only a special case, and perhaps one of the strangest and most stupid).—A fourth question would be whether also Schopenhauer with his Pessimism, that is to say, the problem of the worth of existence, had to be a German. I think not. The event after which this problem was to be expected with certainty, so that an astronomer of the soul could have calculated the day and the hour for it—namely, the decay of the belief in the Christian God, the victory of scientific atheism,—is a universal European event, in which all races are to have their share of service and honour. On the contrary, it has to be ascribed precisely to the Germans—those with whom Schopenhauer was contemporary,—that they delayed this victory of atheism longest, and endangered it most. Hegel especially was its retarder par excellence, in virtue of the grandiose attempt which he made to persuade us at the very last of the divinity of existence, with the help of our sixth sense, "the historical sense." As philosopher, Schopenhauer was the first avowed and inflexible atheist we Germans have had: his hostility to Hegel had here its motive. The non-divinity[Pg 308] of existence was regarded by him as something understood, palpable, indisputable; he always lost his philosophical composure and got into a passion when he saw anyone hesitate and beat about the bush here. It is at this point that his thorough uprightness of character comes in: unconditional, honest atheism is precisely the preliminary condition for his raising the problem, as a final and hardwon victory of the European conscience, as the most prolific act of two thousand years' discipline to truth, which in the end no longer tolerates the lie of the belief in a God.... One sees what has really gained the victory over the Christian God—, Christian morality itself, the conception of veracity, taken ever more strictly, the confessional subtlety of the Christian conscience, translated and sublimated to the scientific conscience, to intellectual purity at any price. To look upon nature as if it were a proof of the goodness and care of a God; to interpret history in honour of a divine reason, as a constant testimony to a moral order in the world and a moral final purpose; to explain personal experiences as pious men have long enough explained them, as if everything were a dispensation or intimation of Providence, something planned and sent on behalf of the salvation of the soul: all that is now past, it has conscience against it, it is regarded by all the more acute consciences as disreputable and dishonourable, as mendaciousness, femininism, weakness, and cowardice,—by virtue of this severity, if by anything, we are good Europeans, the heirs of Europe's longest and bravest self-conquest. When we thus[Pg 309] reject the Christian interpretation, and condemn its "significance" as a forgery, we are immediately confronted in a striking manner with the Schopenhauerian question: Has existence then a significance at all?—the question which will require a couple of centuries even to be completely heard in all its profundity. Schopenhauer's own answer to this question was—if I may be forgiven for saying so—a premature, juvenile reply, a mere compromise, a stoppage and sticking in the very same Christian-ascetic, moral perspectives, the belief in which had got notice to quit along with the belief in God.... But he raised the question—as a good European, as we have said, and not as a German.—Or did the Germans prove at least by the way in which they seized on the Schopenhauerian question, their inner connection and relationship to him, their preparation for his problem, and their need of it? That there has been thinking and printing even in Germany since Schopenhauer's time on the problem raised by him,—it was late enough!—does not at all suffice to enable us to decide in favour of this closer relationship; one could, on the contrary, lay great stress on the peculiar awkwardness of this post-Schopenhauerian Pessimism—Germans evidently do not behave themselves here as in their element. I do not at all allude here to Eduard von Hartmann; on the contrary, my old suspicion is not vanished even at present that he is too clever for us; I mean to say that as arrant rogue from the very first, he did not perhaps make merry solely over German Pessimism—and that in the end he might probably "bequeathe"[Pg 310] to them the truth as to how far a person could bamboozle the Germans themselves in the age of bubble companies. But further, are we perhaps to reckon to the honour of Germans, the old humming-top, Bahnsen, who all his life spun about with the greatest pleasure around his realistically dialectic misery and "personal ill-luck,"—was that German? (In passing I recommend his writings for the purpose for which I myself have used them, as anti-pessimistic fare, especially on account of his elegantia psychologica, which, it seems to me, could alleviate even the most constipated body and soul). Or would it be proper to count such dilettanti and old maids as the mawkish apostle of virginity, Mainländer, among the genuine Germans? After all he was probably a Jew (all Jews become mawkish when they moralise). Neither Bahnsen, nor Mainländer, nor even Eduard von Hartmann, give us a reliable grasp of the question whether the pessimism of Schopenhauer (his frightened glance into an undeified world, which has become stupid, blind, deranged and problematic, his honourable fright) was not only an exceptional case among Germans, but a German event: while everything else which stands in the foreground, like our valiant politics and our joyful Jingoism (which decidedly enough regards everything with reference to a principle sufficiently unphilosophical: "Deutschland, Deutschland, über Alles"[2] consequently sub specie speciei, namely, the German species), testifies very plainly to the contrary. No![Pg 311] The Germans of to-day are not pessimists! And Schopenhauer was a pessimist, I repeat it once more, as a good European, and not as a German.
The old Problem: "What is German?"—Let's take a moment to consider the genuine contributions of philosophical thought that we owe to German thinkers: can these be credited to the entire race? Can we claim they're representative of the "German soul," or at least indicative of it, in the same way we think of Plato's obsession with forms as a sign of the "Greek soul"? Or could the opposite be true? Were these thinkers simply exceptions to the spirit of their people, much like Goethe's paganism or Bismarck's political pragmatism in Germany? Did our philosophers perhaps even oppose the essence of the "German soul"? In summary, were the German philosophers truly philosophical Germans?—I can think of three examples. First, Leibnitz's amazing realization—which put him ahead not just of Descartes, but of all prior philosophers—that consciousness is merely an accident of mental representation, and not its essential quality; thus, what we call consciousness represents only a state of our mental and psychological world (possibly a troubling state), and is far from being that world itself:—is there anything particularly German in this profound insight that we have yet to fully explore? Is there cause[Pg 306] to believe that someone from the Latin tradition wouldn’t have easily arrived at this different viewpoint?—for it is indeed a shift. Secondly, let’s recall the huge question mark that Kant placed next to the concept of causality. He wasn't doubting its validity like Hume did; rather, he cautiously defined the parameters within which this notion holds significance (and we're still working on clarifying these boundaries). Now let’s consider the incredible contribution of Hegel, who disregarded logical conventions and boldly claimed that concepts develop from one another: this theory prepared European thinkers for the monumental scientific movement of Darwinism—without Hegel, Darwin wouldn’t have existed. Is there something intrinsically German about this groundbreaking Hegelian concept that first introduced the idea of evolution into science?—Yes, undoubtedly, we can sense something of ourselves has been "discovered" and understood in all three cases; we appreciate it, and it surprises us. Each of these principles reveals a thoughtful canvas of German self-reflection, self-awareness, and self-discovery. We resonate with Leibnitz's feeling that "our inner world is far richer, broader, and more hidden"; we Germans share Kant's skepticism about the ultimate validity of scientific understanding of nature and what can be known causally: the knowable now holds less value for us. We Germans would still have aligned with Hegelian thought even if Hegel had never existed since we (unlike all Latin people) instinctively give deeper significance and greater worth to becoming, to evolution, over what merely "is"—we barely trust the concept of "being" at all. This is especially true because we’re not inclined to accept that our human logic is logic in itself or the only kind of logic; instead, we’d prefer to believe it is just a special instance, perhaps one of the oddest and most foolish. A fourth question arises: must Schopenhauer and his Pessimism, that is, the inquiry into the worth of existence, be inherently German? I don’t think so. The event following which this question was certainly bound to arise—namely, the decline of faith in the Christian God and the triumph of scientific atheism—is a universal European phenomenon where every race shares some contribution and honor. Ironically, it's the Germans—those contemporaneous with Schopenhauer—who delayed this victory of atheism the longest and jeopardized it the most. Hegel notably delayed it par excellence, through his grandiose attempt to convince us at the very last moment of the divinity of existence with our sixth sense, "the historical sense." As a philosopher, Schopenhauer was the first openly declared and unwavering atheist among us Germans: his opposition to Hegel was rooted precisely in this. The non-divinity[Pg 308] of existence was obvious, tangible, and indisputable to him; he would lose his philosophical composure and become passionate when he saw anyone hesitate or waffle on this issue. This is where his absolute integrity comes into play: unyielding, honest atheism is fundamentally the prerequisite for raising this question, marking a final and hard-won victory of the European conscience after two thousand years of striving for truth, which ultimately refuses to tolerate the lie of belief in a God.... It becomes clear what has truly triumphed over the Christian God—Christian morality itself, a growing insistence on veracity, the nuanced self-scrutiny associated with the Christian conscience, transformed and elevated into the scientific conscience, striving for intellectual purity at any cost. Viewing nature as evidence of a benevolent and caring God; interpreting history in service of a divine reason as consistent proof of a moral order in the world and a moral end-goal; explaining personal experiences as pious individuals have traditionally done—as if everything were a divine design or message for the salvation of the soul: all of that is now past, rejected by conscience against it, regarded by the most discerning minds as disreputable and dishonorable, as falsehood, femininity, weakness, and cowardice—by virtue of this severity, if by anything, we are good Europeans, the heirs of Europe's longest and bravest struggle for self-mastery. When we reject the Christian interpretation and denounce its "significance" as a forgery, we’re immediately met with the Schopenhauerian question: Does existence have any significance at all?—a question that will take centuries to fully explore in all its depth. Schopenhauer’s own answer to this question was—if I may say this without offense—a premature, juvenile response, a mere compromise, a halt back in the same Christian-ascetic, moral views, which had already been called to question along with the belief in God.... But he raised the question—like a good European, as we've noted, not as a German.—Or did the Germans at least show through their engagement with the Schopenhauerian question their intrinsic connection and relationship to him, their readiness for his problem, and their need for it? That there has been thinking and writing in Germany on the issue he raised since Schopenhauer's time—which came quite late!—does not necessarily confirm a closer relationship; one could argue instead that the awkwardness surrounding this post-Schopenhauerian Pessimism suggests that Germans clearly do not behave as if they are in their realm of expertise. I’m not even referring to Eduard von Hartmann; I still harbor the suspicion that he is too clever for us; I suggest that as a blatant trickster from the very beginning, he may have reveled not only in German Pessimism—but might ultimately "bequeath"[Pg 310] to them the truth about just how much one could deceive Germans during the era of fraudulent companies. Moreover, should we credit Gomes to the Germans for the old whirling top, Bahnsen, who spent his life delighting in his realistically dialectic misery and "personal misfortune,"—was that German? (For the record, I recommend his writings for the purposes I’ve used them, as an antidote to pessimism, particularly because of his elegantia psychologica, which, it seems to me, could soothe even the most constipated mind and spirit). Or would it be fair to include such dilettantes and pedants as the emotional apostle of virginity, Mainländer, among the genuine Germans? After all, he was likely Jewish (all Jews become sentimental when they start moralizing). Neither Bahnsen, Mainländer, nor even Eduard von Hartmann provide us with a solid understanding of whether Schopenhauer's pessimism (his terrified view of an undeified world, which has grown foolish, blind, disordered, and uncertain, his noble terror) was merely an exception among Germans or a German occurrence: while everything else that stands out, like our brave politics and jubilant nationalism (which confidently interprets everything in terms of principles that are decidedly unphilosophical: "Germany, Germany, above all"[2] is seen sub specie speciei, namely, through the lens of the German species), clearly suggests otherwise. No![Pg 311] Today's Germans are not pessimists! And Schopenhauer was a pessimist, and I reiterate, as a good European, and not as a German.
358.
358.
The Peasant Revolt of the Spirit.—We Europeans find ourselves in view of an immense world of ruins, where some things still tower aloft, while other objects stand mouldering and dismal, where most things however already lie on the ground, picturesque enough—where were there ever finer ruins?—overgrown with weeds, large and small. It is the Church which is this city of decay: we see the religious organisation of Christianity shaken to its deepest foundations. The belief in God is overthrown, the belief in the Christian ascetic ideal is now fighting its last fight. Such a long and solidly built work as Christianity—it was the last construction of the Romans!—could not of course be demolished..all at once; every sort of earthquake had to shake it, every sort of spirit which perforates, digs, gnaws and moulders had to assist in the work of destruction. But that which is strangest is that those who have exerted themselves most to retain and preserve Christianity, have been precisely those who did most to destroy it,—the Germans. It seems that the Germans do not understand the essence of a Church. Are they not spiritual enough, or not distrustful enough to do so? In any case the structure of the Church rests on a southern freedom and liberality of spirit, and similarly on a southern suspicion of nature, man, and spirit,—it rests on a knowledge of man[Pg 312] an experience of man, entirely different from what the north has had. The Lutheran Reformation in all its length and breadth was the indignation of the simple against something "complicated." To speak cautiously, it was a coarse, honest misunderstanding, in which much is to be forgiven,—people did not understand the mode of expression of a victorious Church, and only saw corruption; they misunderstood the noble scepticism, the luxury of scepticism and toleration which every victorious, self-confident power permits.... One overlooks the fact readily enough at present that as regards all cardinal questions concerning power Luther was badly endowed; he was fatally short-sighted, superficial and imprudent—and above all, as a man sprung from the people, he lacked all the hereditary qualities of a ruling caste, and all the instincts for power; so that his work, his intention to restore the work of the Romans, merely became involuntarily and unconsciously the commencement of a work of destruction. He unravelled, he tore asunder with honest rage, where the old spider had woven longest and most carefully. He gave the sacred books into the hands of everyone,—they thereby got at last into the hands of the philologists, that is to say, the annihilators of every belief based upon books. He demolished the conception of "the Church" in that he repudiated the belief in the inspiration of the Councils: for only under the supposition that the inspiring spirit which had founded the Church still lives in it, still builds it, still goes on building its house, does the conception of "the Church" retain its power. He gave back[Pg 313] to the priest sexual intercourse: but three-fourths of the reverence of which the people (and above all the women of the people) are capable, rests on the belief that an exceptional man in this respect will also be an exceptional man in other respects. It is precisely here that the popular belief in something superhuman in man, in a miracle, in the saving God in man, has its most subtle and insidious advocate. After Luther had given a wife to the priest, he had to take from him auricular confession; that was psychologically right: but thereby he practically did away with the Christian priest himself, whose profoundest utility has ever consisted I in his being a sacred ear, a silent well, and a grave for secrets. "Every man his own priest"—behind such formulæ and their bucolic slyness, there was concealed in Luther the profoundest hatred of "higher men," and of the rule of "higher men," as the Church had conceived them. Luther disowned an ideal which he did not know how to attain, while he seemed to combat and detest the degeneration thereof. As a matter of fact, he, the impossible monk, repudiated the rule of the homines religiosi; he consequently brought about precisely the same thing within the ecclesiastical social order that he combated so impatiently in the civic order,—namely a "peasant insurrection."—As to all that grew out of his Reformation afterwards, good and bad, which can at present be almost counted up—who would be naïve enough to praise or blame Luther simply on account of these results? He is innocent of all; he knew not what he did. The art of making the European spirit shallower[Pg 314] especially in the north, or more good-natured, if people would rather hear it designated by a moral expression, undoubtedly took a clever step in advance in the Lutheran Reformation; and similarly there grew out of it the mobility and disquietude of the spirit, its thirst for independence, its belief in the right to freedom, and its "naturalness." If people wish to ascribe to the Reformation in the last instance the merit of having prepared and favoured that which we at present honour as "modern science," they must of course add that it is also accessory to bringing about the degeneration of the modern scholar, with his lack of reverence, of shame and of profundity; and that it is also responsible for all naïve candour and plain-dealing in matters of knowledge, in short for the plebeianism of the spirit which is peculiar to the last two centuries, and from which even pessimism hitherto, has not in any way delivered us. "Modern ideas" also belong to this peasant insurrection of the north against the colder, more ambiguous, more suspicious spirit of the south, which has built itself its greatest monument in the Christian Church. Let us not forget in the end what a Church is, and especially in contrast to every "State": a Church is above all an authoritative organisation which secures to the most spiritual men the highest rank, and believes in the power of spirituality so far as to forbid all grosser appliances of authority. Through this alone the Church is under all circumstances a nobler institution than the State.—
The Peasant Revolt of the Spirit.—We Europeans are faced with a vast world of ruins, where some structures still stand tall while others seem to decay and rot, many already lying on the ground, which is quite picturesque—where else have there been such beautiful ruins?—overrun with weeds, both large and small. The Church represents this city of decay: we observe the religious structure of Christianity shaken to its core. Faith in God has collapsed, and the belief in the Christian ascetic ideal is now fighting its last battle. Such a long-standing and robust system as Christianity—it was the last great achievement of the Romans!—couldn’t simply be destroyed all at once; it needed to be shaken by every form of earthquake and every kind of spirit that digs, gnaws, and erodes to assist in the process of destruction. Yet, what’s most surprising is that those who tried the hardest to uphold Christianity have been precisely the ones who contributed the most to its downfall—the Germans. It seems like the Germans don’t grasp the essence of a Church. Are they not spiritual enough, or not skeptical enough to understand? Regardless, the foundation of the Church is built on a southern freedom and generosity of spirit, as well as a southern suspicion toward nature, humanity, and spirit—it is based on a knowledge of humanity[Pg 312] and a human experience completely different from that of the north. The Lutheran Reformation, in all its breadth and depth, was the frustration of simple people against something “complicated.” To put it gently, it was a blunt, honest misunderstanding, granting much forgiveness—people didn’t comprehend the expressions of a victorious Church and only saw corruption; they misinterpreted the noble skepticism, the luxury of skepticism and tolerance that every confident, powerful entity allows... It’s easy to overlook today that concerning all key questions of power, Luther was poorly equipped; he was tragically short-sighted, shallow, and reckless—and above all, as a man from the common folk, he lacked all the hereditary traits of a ruling class and all the instincts for power; thus, his efforts, his intention to restore the Romans' achievements, inadvertently and unconsciously initiated a process of destruction. He unspooled, he tore apart with honest anger where the old spider had woven most intricately. He handed the sacred books to everyone—leading them eventually into the hands of philologists, meaning the destroyers of every belief based on texts. He dismantled the idea of “the Church” by rejecting the belief in the inspiration of the Councils: only under the assumption that the inspiring spirit which founded the Church is still alive within it, still constructing it, does the idea of “the Church” retain its power. He returned[Pg 313] to priests the ability to engage in sexual relationships: but three-fourths of the respect that people (especially the women of the community) have rests on the belief that an exceptional person in this matter will also be exceptional in other areas. This is precisely where the public's faith in something superhuman in humans, in miracles, in a saving God within humanity gets its most subtle and insidious support. After Luther gave priests wives, he had to take from them confidential confession; that was psychologically sound: but in doing so, he effectively eliminated the Christian priest himself, whose greatest utility has always been in being a sacred listener, a silent reservoir, and a grave for secrets. “Every man his own priest”—behind such phrases and their rustic cleverness, Luther harbored the deepest resentment toward “higher men” and the rule of “higher men,” as the Church had understood them. Luther rejected an ideal he didn't know how to achieve, while appearing to combat and loathe its degeneration. In reality, he, the impossible monk, rejected the rule of the homines religiosi; he consequently initiated within the church's social structure precisely what he fought so restlessly against in civic society—namely, a “peasant revolt.” As for everything that followed from his Reformation, both good and bad, which can now almost be counted—who would be naive enough to praise or blame Luther simply based on these outcomes? He is free from all blame; he didn’t know what he was doing. The ability to make the European spirit shallower[Pg 314] especially in the north, or more good-natured, if people prefer to label it morally, undoubtedly took a clever leap forward in the Lutheran Reformation; from it also emerged the agility and restlessness of the spirit, its yearning for independence, its conviction in the right to freedom, and its “naturalness.” If people choose to attribute to the Reformation the credit for preparing and encouraging what we now regard as “modern science,” they must also acknowledge that it contributed to the decline of the modern scholar, with his lack of respect, shame, and depth; and it is also responsible for all naive candor and straightforwardness in knowledge, essentially for the plebeianism of the spirit that has been characteristic of the last two centuries, from which even pessimism so far has not delivered us. “Modern ideas” are also part of this peasant revolt of the north against the colder, more ambiguous, more suspicious spirit of the south, which has built its greatest monument in the Christian Church. Let us not forget in the end what a Church is, especially in contrast to any “State”: a Church is foremost an authoritative organization that secures the most spiritual individuals the highest position, and believes in the power of spirituality to the extent that it forbids all coarser applications of authority. Through this only, the Church is in all cases a nobler institution than the State.—
359.
359.
Vengeance on Intellect, and other Backgrounds of Morality.—Morality—where do you think it has its most dangerous and rancorous advocates?—There, for example, is an ill-constituted man, who does not possess enough of intellect to be able to take pleasure in it, and just enough of culture to be aware of the fact; bored, satiated, and a self-despiser; besides being cheated unfortunately by some hereditary property out of the last consolation, the "blessing of labour," the self-forgetfulness in the "day's work "; one who is thoroughly ashamed of his existence—perhaps also harbouring some vices,—and who on the other hand (by means of books to which he has no right, or more intellectual society than he can digest), cannot help vitiating himself more and more, and making himself vain and irritable: such a thoroughly poisoned man—for intellect becomes poison, culture becomes poison, possession becomes poison, solitude becomes poison, to such ill-constituted beings—gets at last into a habitual state of vengeance and inclination for vengeance.... What do you think he finds necessary, absolutely necessary in order to give himself the appearance in his own eyes of superiority over more intellectual men, so as to give himself the delight of perfect revenge, at least in imagination? It is always morality that he requires, one may wager on it; always the big moral words, always the high-sounding words: justice, wisdom, holiness, virtue; always the Stoicism of gestures (how well Stoicism hides what one does not[Pg 316] possess!); always the mantle of wise silence, of affability, of gentleness, and whatever else the idealist-mantle is called, in which the incurable self-despisers and also the incurably conceited walk about. Let me not be misunderstood: out of such born enemies of the spirit there arises now and then the rare specimen of humanity who is honoured by the people under the name of saint or sage: it is out of such men that there arise those prodigies of morality that make a noise, and make history,—St Augustine was one of these men. Fear of the intellect, vengeance on the intellect—Oh! how often have these powerfully impelling vices become the root of virtues! Yea, virtue itself!—And asking the question among ourselves, even the philosopher's pretension to wisdom, which has occasionally been made here and there on the earth, the maddest and most immodest of all pretensions,—has it not always been above all in India as well as in Greece, a means of concealment? Sometimes, perhaps, from the point of view of education which hallows so many lies, it is a tender regard for growing and evolving persons, for disciples who have often to be guarded against themselves by means of the belief in a person (by means of an error). In most cases, however, it is a means of concealment for a philosopher, behind which he seeks protection, owing to exhaustion, age, chilliness, or hardening; as a feeling of the approaching end, as the sagacity of the instinct which animals have before their death,—they go apart, remain at rest, choose solitude, creep into caves, become wise.... What? Wisdom a means of concealment of the philosopher from—intellect?—
Vengeance on Intellect, and other Backgrounds of Morality.—Morality—where do you think it has its most dangerous and bitter advocates?—Take, for instance, a poorly adjusted person who lacks the intellect to appreciate it and has just enough culture to realize this; they are bored, jaded, and full of self-loathing; besides being unfortunate enough to have been deprived of the last consolation, the "blessing of labor," the self-forgetfulness found in a "day's work." This person is thoroughly ashamed of their existence—perhaps also grappling with some vices,—and on the other hand (through books they shouldn't be reading or intellectual company that overwhelms them), they can't help but corrupt themselves further, making themselves vain and irritable: such a thoroughly tainted individual—where intellect becomes toxic, culture becomes toxic, possession becomes toxic, solitude becomes toxic—for beings like these eventually settle into a state of habitual vengeance and a desire for revenge... What do you think they find absolutely necessary to convince themselves of superiority over more intellectual people, to enjoy the delight of perfect revenge, at least in their imagination? It's always morality that they seek, you can bet on it; always the grand moral terms, always the lofty words: justice, wisdom, holiness, virtue; always the Stoicism of gestures (how well Stoicism conceals what one does not[Pg 316] possess!); always enveloped in the mantle of wise silence, of affability, of gentleness, and whatever else the idealist-mantle is called, in which the incurable self-loathers and also the incurably arrogant parade around. Let me be clear: from such born enemies of the spirit arises, now and then, the rare human being who is revered by the masses as a saint or sage: it is from these individuals that the remarkable examples of morality emerge that create a stir and make history,—Saint Augustine was one of these individuals. Fear of intellect, vengeance on intellect—Oh! how often have these potent driving vices become the source of virtues! Yes, even virtue itself!—And considering the question among ourselves, even the philosopher's claim to wisdom, which has occasionally been asserted here and there on Earth, the most absurd and shameless of all claims,—has it not always been above all in India as well as in Greece, a means of concealment? Sometimes, perhaps, from the perspective of education which sanctifies so many lies, it's a gentle consideration for developing and evolving individuals, for disciples who often need to be protected from themselves through belief in another (through an error). In most cases, though, it's a means of concealment for a philosopher, behind which they seek refuge due to exhaustion, age, coldness, or toughening; like a sense of the impending end, like the instinctual wisdom animals exhibit before their death—they withdraw, become still, seek solitude, retreat into caves, become wise... What? Wisdom a means of concealment for the philosopher from—intellect?
360.
360.
Two Kinds of Causes which are Confounded.—It seems to me one of my most essential steps and advances that I have learned to distinguish the cause of an action generally from the cause of an action in a particular manner, say, in this direction, with this aim. The first kind of cause is a quantum of stored-up force, which waits to be used in some manner, for some purpose; the second kind of cause, on the contrary, is something quite unimportant in comparison with the first, an insignificant hazard for the most part, in conformity with which the quantum of force in question "discharges" itself in some unique and definite manner: the lucifer-match in relation to the barrel of gunpowder. Among those insignificant hazards and lucifer-matches I count all the so-called "aims," and similarly the still more so-called "occupations" of people: they are relatively optional, arbitrary, and almost indifferent in relation to the immense quantum of force which presses on, as we have said, to be used up in any way whatever. One generally looks at the matter in a different manner: one is accustomed to see the impelling force precisely in the aim (object, calling, &c.), according to a primeval error,—but it is only the directing force; the steersman and the steam have thereby been confounded. And yet it is not even always a steersman, the directing force.... Is the "aim" the "purpose," not often enough only an extenuating pretext, an additional self-blinding of conceit, which does not wish it to be said that the[Pg 318] ship follows the stream into which it has accidentally run? That it "wishes" to go that way, because it must go that way? That it has a direction, sure enough, but—not a steersman? We still require a criticism of the conception of "purpose."
Two Kinds of Causes which are Confounded.—I think one of the most important things I’ve learned is to differentiate between the general cause of an action and the specific cause of an action in a particular way, like in this direction or with this goal. The first type of cause is a measure of stored-up energy, waiting to be used for some purpose; the second type of cause, on the other hand, is relatively insignificant compared to the first—mostly a minor chance that causes that stored energy to "discharge" in a specific and unique way, like a match in relation to a barrel of gunpowder. I consider all those minor chances and matches as representing the so-called "goals," and even more so the so-called "activities" of people—they are mostly optional, arbitrary, and nearly indifferent compared to the vast amount of energy that is ready to be utilized in any possible way. Generally, people view the situation differently: they tend to associate the driving force directly with the goal (objective, vocation, etc.), according to an ancient misconception—but that’s really just the directing force; the steersman has been confused with the steam. And sometimes, it’s not even a steersman—the directing force... Is the "goal" really the "purpose," or is it often just a convenient excuse, a form of self-deception, that doesn’t want to acknowledge that the[Pg 318] ship is simply being swept along by the current it has inadvertently entered? That it "wants" to go that way, because it has to go that way? That it has a direction, sure, but—not a steersman? We still need a critique of the idea of "purpose."
361.
361.
The Problem of the Actor—The problem of the actor has disquieted me the longest; I was uncertain (and am sometimes so still) whether one could not get at the dangerous conception of "artist"—a conception hitherto treated with unpardonable leniency—from this point of view. Falsity with a good conscience; delight in dissimulation breaking forth as power, pushing aside, overflowing, and sometimes extinguishing the so-called "character"; the inner longing to play a rôle, to assume a mask, to put on an appearance; a surplus of capacity for adaptations of every kind, which can no longer gratify themselves in the service of the nearest and narrowest utility: all that perhaps does not pertain solely to the actor in himself?... Such an instinct would develop most readily in families of the lower class of the people, who have had to pass their lives in absolute dependence, under shifting pressure and constraint, who (to accommodate themselves to their conditions, to adapt themselves always to new circumstances) had again and again to pass themselves off and represent themselves as different persons,—thus having gradually qualified themselves to adjust the mantle to every wind, thereby almost becoming the mantle itself, as[Pg 319] masters of the embodied and incarnated art of eternally playing the game of hide and seek, which one calls mimicry among the animals:—until at last this ability, stored up from generation to generation, has become domineering, irrational and intractable, till as instinct it begins to command the other instincts, and begets the actor and "artist" (the buffoon, the pantaloon, the Jack-Pudding, the fool, and the clown in the first place, also the classical type of servant, Gil Blas: for in such types one has the precursors of the artist, and often enough even of the "genius"). Also under higher social conditions there grows under similar pressure a similar species of men: only the histrionic instinct is there for the most part held strictly in check by another instinct, for example, among "diplomatists";—for the rest, I should think that it would always be open to a good diplomatist to become a good actor on the stage, provided his dignity "allowed" it. As regards the Jews, however, the adaptable people par excellence, we should, in conformity to this line of thought, expect to see among them a world-wide historical institution at the very first, for the rearing of actors, a proper breeding-place for actors; and in fact the question is very pertinent just now: what good actor at present is not—a Jew? The Jew also, as a born literary man, as the actual ruler of the European press, exercises this power on the basis of his histrionic capacity: for the literary man is essentially an actor,—he plays the part of "expert," of "specialist."—Finally women. If we consider the whole history of[Pg 320] women, are they not obliged first of all, and above all to be actresses? If we listen to doctors who have hypnotised women, or, finally, if we love them—and let ourselves be "hypnotised" by them—what is always divulged thereby? That they "give themselves airs," even when they—"give themselves." ... Woman is so artistic ...
The Problem of the Actor—The issue of the actor has troubled me the longest; I have often wondered (and still do at times) whether we could challenge the risky idea of "artist"—an idea that has been treated with shocking leniency from this perspective. There's a falsehood that comes with a clear conscience; a joy in pretending that emerges as power, pushing aside, overflowing, and occasionally completely overpowering the so-called "character"; a deep desire to play a role, to wear a mask, to create an image; an excess of ability to adapt in ways that can no longer satisfy the need for immediate, practical use: doesn’t all of this perhaps apply not only to the actor themselves?... Such an instinct might develop most readily in families from the lower classes, who live in complete dependence, under changing pressures and constraints, who (to fit their circumstances, to constantly adapt to new situations) repeatedly had to present themselves and act as different people—thus gradually becoming skilled at adjusting to every breeze, almost becoming the breeze itself, like[Pg 319] experts in the art of playing the game of hide and seek, which is referred to as mimicry in the animal world:—until finally this ability, passed down through generations, becomes forceful, irrational, and stubborn, such that as an instinct it starts to control other instincts, giving rise to the actor and "artist" (the jester, the fool, the clown, and notably the classic servant type, Gil Blas: in such characters, we find the precursors of the artist, and often even of the "genius"). Furthermore, in higher social classes, a similar type of individual arises under similar pressures: primarily, the acting instinct there is usually restrained by another instinct, for example, among "diplomats";—for the rest, I would assume that a skilled diplomat could easily become a good actor on stage, if their status permitted it. Regarding the Jews, the most adaptable people par excellence, we would, in line with this thought, expect to see among them a widespread historical institution for training actors, a true breeding ground for actors; and indeed, it's quite relevant to ask: what great actor today is not—a Jew? The Jew, as a natural literary figure and the actual leader of the European press, wields this influence grounded in their acting talent: for the literary figure is essentially an actor—they play the role of "expert," of "specialist."—Lastly, women. If we consider the entire history of[Pg 320] women, are they not required first and foremost to be actresses? If we listen to doctors who have hypnotized women or, ultimately, if we love them—and allow ourselves to be "hypnotized" by them—what is always revealed? That they "put on airs," even when they—"give themselves." ... Women are inherently artistic ...
362.
362.
My Belief in the Virilising of Europe.—We owe it to Napoleon (and not at all to the French Revolution, which had in view the "fraternity" of the nations, and the florid interchange of good graces among people generally) that several warlike centuries, which have not had their like in past history, may now follow one another—in short, that we have entered upon the classical age of war, war at the same time scientific and popular, on the grandest scale (as regards means, talents and discipline), to which all coming millenniums will look back with envy and awe as a work of perfection:—for the national movement out of which this martial glory springs, is only the counter-choc against Napoleon, and would not have existed without him. To him, consequently, one will one day be able to attribute the fact that man in Europe has again got the upper hand of the merchant and the Philistine; perhaps even of "woman" also, who has become pampered owing to Christianity and the extravagant spirit of the eighteenth century, and still more owing to "modern ideas." Napoleon, who saw in modern ideas, and accordingly in civilisation, something like a personal[Pg 321] enemy, has by this hostility proved himself one of the greatest continuators of the Renaissance: he has brought to the surface a whole block of the ancient character, the decisive block perhaps, the block of granite. And who knows but that this block of ancient character will in the end get the upper hand of the national movement, and will have to make itself in a positive sense the heir and continuator of Napoleon:—who, as one knows, wanted one Europe, which was to be mistress of the world.—
My Belief in the Virilising of Europe.—We owe it to Napoleon (and not at all to the French Revolution, which aimed for the "brotherhood" of nations and the excessive exchange of niceties among people in general) that several warlike centuries, unparalleled in past history, may now follow one another—in short, that we have entered into the classical age of war, a war that is both scientific and popular, on the grandest scale (in terms of resources, talent, and discipline), which future generations will look back on with envy and awe as a perfect work:—for the national movement from which this martial glory arises is merely the reaction against Napoleon and would not have existed without him. To him, one day, we will be able to credit the fact that man in Europe has once again gained the upper hand over the merchant and the Philistine; perhaps even over "woman" as well, who has become indulgent due to Christianity and the excesses of the eighteenth century, and even more so because of "modern ideas." Napoleon, who viewed modern ideas, and thus civilization, as something like a personal[Pg 321] enemy, has through this opposition proven himself one of the greatest continuators of the Renaissance: he has uncovered a significant part of the ancient character, perhaps the decisive part, the block of granite. And who knows, perhaps this block of ancient character will ultimately prevail over the national movement and will have to become in a positive sense the heir and continuation of Napoleon:—who, as is known, wanted one Europe, destined to be the mistress of the world.—
363.
363.
How each Sex has its Prejudice about Love.—Notwithstanding all the concessions which I am inclined to make to the monogamie prejudice, I will never admit that we should speak of equal rights in the love of man and woman: there are no such equal rights. The reason is that man and woman understand something different by the term love,—and it belongs to the conditions of love in both sexes that the one sex does not presuppose the same feeling, the same conception of "love," in the other sex. What woman understands by love is clear enough: complete surrender (not merely devotion) of soul and body, without any motive, without any reservation, rather with shame and terror at the thought of a devotion restricted by clauses or associated with conditions. In this absence of conditions her love is precisely a faith: woman has no other.—Man, when he loves a woman, wants precisely this love from her; he is consequently, as regards himself, furthest removed from the prerequisites of feminine love;[Pg 322] granted, however, that there should also be men to whom on their side the demand for complete devotion is not unfamiliar,—well, they are really—not men. A man who loves like a woman becomes thereby a slave; a woman, however, who loves like a woman becomes thereby a more perfect woman. ... The passion of woman in its unconditional renunciation of its own rights presupposes in fact that there does not exist on the other side an equal pathos, an equal desire for renunciation: for if both renounced themselves out of love, there would result—well, I don't know what, perhaps a horror vacui? Woman wants to be taken and accepted as a possession, she wishes to be merged in the conceptions of "possession" and "possessed"; consequently she wants one who takes, who does not offer and give himself away, but who reversely is rather to be made richer in "himself"—by the increase of power, happiness and faith which the woman herself gives to him. Woman gives herself, man takes her.—I do not think one will get over this natural contrast by any social contract, or with the very best will to do justice, however desirable it may be to avoid bringing the severe, frightful, enigmatical, and unmoral elements of this antagonism constantly before our eyes. For love, regarded as complete, great, and full, is nature, and as nature, is to all eternity something "unmoral."—Fidelity is accordingly included in woman's love, it follows from the definition thereof; with man fidelity may readily result in consequence of his love, perhaps as gratitude or idiosyncrasy of taste, and so-called elective affinity, but it does not[Pg 323] belong to the essence of his love—and indeed so little, that one might almost be entitled to speak of a natural opposition between love and fidelity in man, whose love is just a desire to possess, and not a renunciation and giving away; the desire to possess, however, comes to an end every time with the possession.... As a matter of fact it is the more subtle and jealous thirst for possession in a man (who is rarely and tardily convinced of having this "possession"), which makes his love continue; in that case it is even possible that his love may increase after the surrender,—he does not readily own that a woman has nothing more to "surrender" to him.—
How each Sex has its Prejudice about Love.—Even with all the concessions I’m willing to make to the monogamy bias, I will never agree that we should talk about equal rights in the love between men and women: those rights don’t exist. The reason is that men and women have a different understanding of the term love—and part of love for both genders is that one sex does not assume the same feelings, the same idea of "love," from the other. What women think of as love is pretty clear: it's total surrender (not just devotion) of heart and body, without any motives, without any reservations; in fact, there’s an element of shame and fear about any devotion that comes with conditions or limitations. In her unconditional love, she has a kind of faith: that’s all she has. A man, when he loves a woman, wants that same kind of love in return; consequently, he is, in terms of his own desires, the furthest away from what feminine love requires. Sure, there are men who also seek complete devotion—but they truly are not men. A man who loves like a woman effectively becomes a slave; however, a woman who loves like a woman becomes a more perfect woman. ... The passion of a woman, with its complete renunciation of her own rights, actually relies on the idea that the man doesn’t have an equal pathos, an equal willingness to give up: because if both were to renounce themselves out of love, the outcome would be—well, I can't say what that would look like, maybe a horror vacui? A woman wants to be taken and accepted as someone’s possession; she wants to blend into the concepts of "possession" and "possessed"; as a result, she seeks someone who takes, who doesn't just give himself away, but who instead should become richer in "himself"—through the added power, happiness, and faith she provides him. A woman gives herself, a man takes her.—I don’t think any social contract will bridge this natural contrast, or with even the best intentions to deliver fairness, no matter how desirable it may be to avoid constantly confronting the harsh, frightening, mysterious, and amoral aspects of this conflict. Because love, when viewed as complete, great, and full, is nature, and as nature, it is something "amoral" for all time.—Fidelity is therefore a part of a woman's love; it follows from its definition. With men, fidelity may easily arise as a result of their love, perhaps as gratitude or a personal preference, and so-called elective affinity, but it doesn’t[Pg 323] define the essence of their love—and it’s so far removed, that one could almost say there’s a natural opposition between love and fidelity in men, whose love is simply a desire to possess, and not about renunciation or giving. The desire to possess ends each time with the actual possession.... In fact, it’s the more subtle and jealous thirst for possession in a man (who is seldom convinced that he has this "possession") that keeps his love alive; in that case, it’s even possible that his love may grow after she surrenders—he doesn’t readily admit that a woman has nothing more to "surrender" to him.—
364.
364.
The Anchorite Speaks.—The art of associating with men rests essentially on one's skilfulness (which presupposes long exercise) in accepting a repast, in taking a repast, in the cuisine of which one has no confidence. Provided one comes to the table with the hunger of a wolf everything is easy "the worst society gives thee experience"— Mephistopheles says; but one has not always this wolf's-hunger when one needs it! Alas! how difficult are our fellow-men to digest! First principle: to stake one's courage as in a misfortune, to seize boldly, to admire oneself at the same time, to take one's repugnance between one's teeth, to cram down one's disgust. Second principle: to "improve" one's fellow-man, by praise for example, so that he may begin to sweat out his self-complacency; or to seize a tuft of his good or "interesting" qualities, and pull at it till one gets his whole virtue out, and can[Pg 324] put him under the folds of it. Third principle: self-hypnotism. To fix one's eye on the object of one's intercourse as on a glass knob, until, ceasing to feel pleasure or pain thereat, one falls asleep unobserved, becomes rigid, and acquires a fixed pose: a household recipe used in married life and in friendship, well tested and prized as indispensable, but not yet scientifically formulated. Its proper name is—patience.—
The Anchorite Speaks.—The skill of interacting with people mainly relies on how good you are (which takes a lot of practice) at accepting a meal, enjoying food that you don't trust. As long as you come to the table with the appetite of a wolf, everything is simple—"the worst company gives you experience"—Mephistopheles says; but you don't always have that wolf's hunger when you need it! Unfortunately, our fellow humans can be hard to digest! First principle: muster your courage like you would in a tough situation, grab boldly, admire yourself at the same time, take your aversion in your teeth, and swallow your disgust. Second principle: "improve" your fellow man, maybe with compliments, so he starts to sweat out his self-satisfaction; or grab a piece of his good or "interesting" traits and pull at it until you can take out all of his virtue and can[Pg 324] put him under its influence. Third principle: self-hypnosis. Focus your gaze on the person you’re interacting with like you're staring at a glass knob, until you stop feeling pleasure or pain about it, fall asleep unnoticed, become rigid, and get a fixed pose: a household trick used in marriage and friendship, well-tested and valued as essential, but not yet scientifically defined. Its real name is—patience.—
365.
365 days.
The Anchorite Speaks once more.—We also have intercourse with "men," we also modestly put on the clothes in which people know us (as such,) respect us and seek us; and we thereby mingle in society, that is to say, among the disguised who do not wish to be so called; we also do like a prudent masqueraders, and courteously dismiss all curiosity which has not reference merely to our "clothes" There are however other modes and artifices for "going about" among men and associating with them: for example, as a ghost,-which is very advisable when one wants to scare them, and get rid of them easily. An example: a person grasps at us, and is unable to seize us. That frightens him. Or we enter by a closed door. Or when the lights are extinguished. Or after we are dead The latter is the artifice of posthumous men par excellence. ("What?" said such a one once impatiently, "do you think we should delight in enduring this strangeness, coldness, death-stillness about us, all this subterranean, hidden, dim, undiscovered solitude, which is called life with us, and[Pg 325] might just as well be called death, if we were not conscious of what will arise out of us,—and that only after our death shall we attain to our life and become living, ah! very living! we posthumous men!"—)
The Anchorite Speaks once more.—We also interact with "people," we also modestly wear the clothes that others recognize us in (as such,) respect us, and seek us out; and in doing so, we blend into society, meaning, among those who disguise themselves and prefer not to be labeled; we also act like careful masqueraders, and politely brush off any curiosity that isn't just about our "clothes." However, there are other ways and tricks for "getting around" among people and socializing with them: for instance, like a ghost—which is quite effective when you want to scare them and make a quick exit. Take this example: someone reaches out to us and can't grab hold; that frightens them. Or we come in through a closed door, or when the lights go out, or after we've passed away. The latter is the ultimate trick of posthumous beings par excellence. ("What?" said one of them once, impatiently, "Do you think we enjoy enduring this strangeness, coldness, deathly stillness around us, all this hidden, dim, undiscovered solitude, which is called life for us, and[Pg 325] could just as easily be called death, if we weren't aware of what will arise from us,—and that only after our death will we achieve our life and become truly alive, oh! very much alive! We posthumous beings!"—)
366.
366.
At the Sight of a Learned Book.—We do not belong to those who only get their thoughts from books, or at the prompting of books,—it is our custom to think in the open air, walking, leaping, climbing, or dancing on lonesome mountains by preference, or close to the sea, where even the paths become thoughtful. Our first question concerning the value of a book, a man, or a piece of music is: Can it walk? or still better: Can it dance?... We seldom read; we do not read the worse for that—oh, how quickly we divine how a person has arrived at his thoughts:—if it is by sitting before an ink-bottle with compressed belly and head bent over the paper: oh, how quickly we are then done with his book! The constipated bowels betray themselves, one may wager on it, just as the atmosphere of the room, the ceiling of the room, the smallness of the room, betray themselves.—These were my feelings when closing a straightforward, learned book, thankful, very thankful, but also relieved.... In the book of a learned man there is almost always something oppressive and oppressed: the "specialist" comes to light somewhere, his ardour, his seriousness, his wrath, his over-estimation of the nook in which he sits and spins, his hump—every specialist has his hump. A learned book also always mirrors a distorted soul: every trade[Pg 326] distorts. Look at our friends again with whom we have spent our youth, after they have taken possession of their science: alas! how the reverse has always taken place! Alas! how they themselves are now for ever occupied and possessed by their science! Grown into their nook, crumpled into unrecognisability, constrained, deprived of their equilibrium, emaciated and angular everywhere, perfectly round only in one place,—we are moved and silent when we find them so. Every handicraft, granting even that it has a golden floor,[3] has also a leaden ceiling above it, which presses and presses on the soul, till it is pressed into a strange and distorted shape. There is nothing to alter here. We need not think that it is at all possible to obviate this disfigurement by any educational artifice whatever. Every kind of perfection is purchased at a high price on earth, where everything is perhaps purchased too dear; one is an expert in one's department at the price of being also a victim of one's department. But you want to have it otherwise—"more reasonable," above all more convenient—is it not so, my dear contemporaries? Very well! But then you will also immediately get something different: instead of the craftsman and expert, you will get the literary man, the versatile, "many-sided "littérateur, who to be sure lacks the hump—not taking account of the hump or bow which he makes before you as the shopman of the intellect and the "porter" of culture—, the littérateur, who is really nothing, but "represents"[Pg 327] almost everything: he plays and "represents" the expert, he also takes it upon himself in all modesty to see that he is paid, honoured and celebrated in this position.—No, my learned friends! I bless you even on account of your humps! And also because like me you despise the littérateurs and parasites of culture! And because you do not know how to make merchandise of your intellect! And have so many opinions which cannot be expressed in money value! And because you do not represent anything which you are not! Because your sole desire is to become masters of your craft; because you reverence every kind of mastership and ability, and repudiate with the most relentless scorn everything of a make-believe, half-genuine, dressed-up, virtuoso, demagogic, histrionic nature in litteris et artibus—all that which does not convince you by its absolute genuineness of discipline and preparatory training, or cannot stand your test! (Even genius does not help a person to get over such a defect, however well it may be able to deceive with regard to it: one understands this if one has once looked closely at our most gifted painters and musicians,—who almost without exception, can artificially and supplementarily appropriate to themselves (by means of artful inventions of style, make-shifts, and even principles), the appearance of that genuineness, that solidity of training and culture; to be sure, without thereby deceiving themselves, without thereby imposing perpetual silence on their bad consciences. For you know of course that all great modern artists suffer from bad consciences?...)
At the Sight of a Learned Book.—We’re not the type who only get our ideas from books or because of books—we prefer to think outside, walking, jumping, climbing, or dancing on quiet mountains or near the sea, where even the paths invite contemplation. Our first question about the value of a book, a person, or a piece of music is: Can it walk? Or even better: Can it dance?... We rarely read; and we don’t miss out on much because of it—oh, how quickly we can tell how someone has formed their thoughts: if it involves sitting in front of an ink bottle, with a hunched body and head bowed over paper, oh, how fast we’re done with their book! The discomfort is evident, just as the atmosphere, the ceiling, and the smallness of the room reveal themselves.—These were my feelings when I closed a straightforward, scholarly book, thankful, very thankful, but also relieved.... In a learned man’s book, there’s almost always something heavy and burdened: the "specialist" reveals himself somewhere, with his passion, seriousness, anger, and overestimation of the little corner where he sits and spins, his hump—every specialist has their hump. A learned book also always reflects a twisted soul: every trade[Pg 326] distorts. Look at our friends with whom we spent our youth after they became consumed by their science: alas! how the opposite has always happened! Alas! how they are now forever occupied and possessed by their science! Shaped into their little niche, crumpled beyond recognition, constrained, off-balance, emaciated and sharp everywhere, perfectly round only in one spot,—we are moved and quiet when we see them like this. Every craft, even if it has a golden foundation,[3] has a heavy ceiling above it that presses down on the soul, molding it into a strange and distorted form. There’s no changing this. We shouldn’t think it’s possible to avoid this distortion through any educational tricks. Every type of perfection comes at a heavy price on earth, where everything might be overpaid; one becomes an expert in one’s field at the cost of being a victim of it as well. But you want it to be different—"more reasonable,” and above all, more convenient—right, my dear contemporaries? Very well! But then you’ll immediately get something else: instead of the craftsman and expert, you’ll get the literary figure, the versatile, "many-sided" writer, who, granted, lacks the hump—unless you count the bow he makes before you as the salesperson of knowledge and the "porter" of culture—the writer, who is essentially nothing, but "represents"[Pg 327] almost everything: he performs and "represents" the expert, also taking it upon himself with all modesty to ensure that he is paid, honored, and celebrated in this role.—No, my learned friends! I bless you even for your humps! And also because, like me, you disdain the writers and cultural parasites! And because you can’t turn your intellect into merchandise! And you have so many views that can’t be valued in money! And because you don’t represent anything that you are not! Because your only wish is to master your craft; because you respect all kinds of mastery and skill, and reject with the utmost disdain anything artificial, half-authentic, dressed-up, virtuoso, demagogic, theatrical in litteris et artibus—all that which doesn’t convince you by its absolute genuineness of discipline and training, or cannot pass your test! (Even genius doesn’t help someone overcome such a flaw, no matter well it can camouflage it: one understands this if one has closely examined our most talented painters and musicians,—who almost without exception, can artificially and supplementarily appropriate for themselves (through crafty stylistic inventions, make-shifts, and even principles) the appearance of that genuineness, that strength of training and culture; of course, without deceiving themselves, without silencing their troubled consciences. For you know, of course, that all great modern artists struggle with guilty consciences?...)
367.
367.
How one has to Distinguish first of all in Works of Art—Everything that is thought, versified, painted and composed, yea, even built and moulded, belongs either to monologic art, or to art before witnesses. Under the latter there is also to be included the apparently monologic art which involves the belief in God, the whole lyric of prayer; because for a pious man there is no solitude,—we, the godless, have been the first to devise this invention. I know of no profounder distinction in all the perspective of the artist than this: Whether he looks at his growing work of art (at "himself—") with the eye of the witness; or whether he "has forgotten the world," as is the essential thing in all monologic art,—it rests on forgetting, it is the music of forgetting.
How one has to Distinguish first of all in Works of Art—Everything that is thought, written, painted, and composed, even built and shaped, belongs either to a one-sided art or to art created for an audience. The latter category also includes what seems to be one-sided art but involves a belief in God, the entire expression of prayer; because for a faithful person, there is no such thing as solitude—we, the non-believers, are the ones who invented that concept. I know of no deeper distinction in the artist's perspective than this: Whether he observes his evolving artwork (at "himself—") with the eye of a witness; or whether he "has forgotten the world," which is the essence of all one-sided art—it hinges on forgetting, it is the music of forgetting.
368.
368.
The Cynic Speaks.—My objections to Wagner's music are physiological objections. Why should I therefore begin by disguising them Under æsthetic formulæ? My "point" is that I can no longer breathe freely when this music begins to operate on me; my foot immediately becomes indignant at it and rebels: for what it needs is time, dance and march; it demands first of all from music the ecstasies which are in good walking, striding, leaping and dancing. But do not my stomach, my heart, my blood and my bowels also protest? Do I not become hoarse unawares under its influence? And then I ask myself what my body really wants from music generally. I[Pg 329] believe it wants to have relief: so that all animal functions should be accelerated by means of light, bold, unfettered, self-assured rhythms; so that brazen, leaden life should be gilded by means of golden, good, tender harmonies. My melancholy would fain rest its head in the hiding-places and abysses of perfection: for this reason I need music. What do I care for the drama! What do I care for the spasms of its moral ecstasies, in which the "people" have their satisfaction! What do I care for the whole pantomimic hocus-pocus of the actor!... It will now be divined that I am essentially anti-theatrical at heart,—but Wagner on the contrary, was essentially a man of the stage and an actor, the most enthusiastic mummer-worshipper that has ever existed, even among musicians!... And let it be said in passing that if Wagner's theory was that "drama is the object, and music is only the means to it,"—his practice on the contrary from beginning to end has been to the effect that "attitude is the object, drama and even music can never be anything else but means to this." Music as a means of elucidating, strengthening and intensifying dramatic poses and the actor's appeal to the senses, and Wagnerian drama only an opportunity for a number of dramatic attitudes! Wagner possessed, along with all other instincts, the dictatorial instinct of a great actor in all and everything, and as has been said, also as a musician.—I once made this clear with some trouble to a thorough-going Wagnerian, and I had reasons for adding:—"Do be a little more honest with yourself: we are not now in the theatre. In the theatre we are only[Pg 330] honest in the mass; as individuals we lie, we belie even ourselves. We leave ourselves at home when we go to the theatre; we there renounce the right to our own tongue and choice, to our taste, and even to our courage as we possess it and practise it within our own four walls in relation to God and man. No one takes his finest taste in art into the theatre with him, not even the artist who works for the theatre: there one is people, public, herd, woman, Pharisee, voting animal, democrat, neighbour, and fellow-creature; there even the most personal conscience succumbs to the levelling charm of the 'great multitude'; there stupidity operates as wantonness and contagion; there the neighbour rules, there one becomes a neighbour...." (I have forgotten to mention what my enlightened Wagnerian answered to my physiological objections: "So the fact is that you are really not healthy enough for our music?"—)
The Cynic Speaks.—My issues with Wagner's music are physiological. Why should I disguise them under artistic terms? My main point is that I can't breathe freely when this music starts affecting me; my foot quickly becomes annoyed and puts up a fight: what it craves is time, dance, and rhythm; it demands, above all else, the ecstasy that's found in good walking, striding, leaping, and dancing. But don’t my stomach, my heart, my blood, and my intestines protest too? Don’t I suddenly go hoarse under its influence? Then I find myself wondering what my body really wants from music in general. I[Pg 329] believe it seeks relief: so that all bodily functions can be invigorated through lively, bold, free-spirited, confident rhythms; so that dull, heavy life can be brightened through beautiful, gentle harmonies. My melancholy is eager to rest in the quiet spots and depths of perfection: that’s why I need music. What do I care about the drama! What do I care about the convulsions of its moral highs, in which the "people" find their satisfaction! What do I care about the whole theatrical charade of the actor!... It should now be clear that I am fundamentally anti-theatrical at heart,—but Wagner, in contrast, was deeply stage-oriented and an actor, the most passionate admirer of performance that has ever existed, even among musicians!... And just to note, if Wagner's theory was that "drama is the goal, and music is merely the means,"—his practice, however, from start to finish, suggests that "the appearance is the goal, while drama and even music can only serve as means to that." Music as a tool to clarify, enhance, and amplify dramatic expressions and the actor's sensory appeal, with Wagnerian drama being merely a chance for dramatic moments! Wagner had, along with all his other instincts, the authoritarian instinct of a great actor in all things, and it has been noted, also as a musician.—I once took some effort to explain this to a dedicated Wagnerian, and I felt compelled to add:—"Please be a bit more honest with yourself: we’re not in the theater now. In the theater, we are only[Pg 330] honest in the crowd; as individuals, we lie, even betraying ourselves. We leave our true selves at home when we go to the theater; there, we give up our right to our own voice and choices, to our taste, and even to the courage we practice within our own four walls in relation to God and others. No one brings their finest artistic taste into the theater, not even the artist who works for it: in that space, we become just a group, audience, mob, individual, Pharisee, voting machine, democrat, neighbor, and fellow human; even the most personal conscience falls prey to the unifying charm of the 'great crowd'; there, ignorance acts recklessly and spreads rapidly; there, the neighbor takes charge, and one becomes a neighbor...." (I forgot to mention what my enlightened Wagnerian replied to my physiological objections: "So the truth is that you're just not healthy enough for our music?"—)
369.
369.
Juxtapositions in us.—Must we not acknowledge to ourselves, we artists, that there is a strange discrepancy in us; that on the one hand our taste, and on the other hand our creative power, keep apart in an extraordinary manner, continue apart, and have a separate growth;—I mean to say that they have entirely different gradations and tempi of age, youth, maturity, mellowness and rottenness? So that, for example, a musician could all his life create things which contradicted all that his ear and heart, spoilt for listening, prized, relished and preferred:—he would not even[Pg 331] require to be aware of the contradiction! As an almost painfully regular experience shows, a person's taste can easily outgrow the taste of his power, even without the latter being thereby paralysed or checked in its productivity. The reverse, however, can also to some extent take place,—and it is to this especially that I should like to direct the attention of artists. A constant producer, a man who is a "mother" in the grand sense of the term, one who no longer knows or hears of anything except pregnancies and child-beds of his spirit, who has no time at all to reflect and make comparisons with regard to himself and his work, who is also no longer inclined to exercise his taste, but simply forgets it, letting it take its chance of standing, lying or falling,—perhaps such a man at last produces works on which he is then quite unfit to pass a judgment: so that he speaks and thinks foolishly about them and about himself. This seems to me almost the normal condition with fruitful artists,—nobody knows a child worse than its parents—and the rule applies even (to take an immense example) to the entire Greek world of poetry and art, which was never "conscious" of what it had done....
Contradictions within us.—Don’t we have to admit to ourselves, we artists, that there’s a strange disconnect in us? On one hand, our taste and on the other hand, our creative ability, are unusually separate—they continue apart and develop independently. I mean that they have completely different levels and rates of age, youth, maturity, richness, and decay. For instance, a musician can create works throughout his life that completely contradict everything his ear and heart, which are dulled from listening, value, enjoy, and prefer. He might not even[Pg 331] realize the contradiction! As a commonly painful experience reveals, a person’s taste can easily outstrip their creative ability, even without the latter being hindered in its output. However, the opposite can also happen to some degree, and I want to highlight this for artists. A constant creator, someone who embodies "mother" in the broadest sense, who no longer knows or hears anything except for the births and labors of their spirit, who has no time to reflect or compare their work with themselves, who also forgets to exercise their taste and just lets it stand, lie, or fall as it will—perhaps such a person ultimately produces works that they are then completely unqualified to judge: leading them to speak and think foolishly about both the works and themselves. This seems to me to be almost a normal state for productive artists—nobody knows a child worse than its parents—and this principle even applies (to take an enormous example) to the entire Greek world of poetry and art, which was never "aware" of what it had created....
370.
370.
What is Romanticism?—It will be remembered perhaps, at least among my friends, that at first I assailed the modern world with some gross errors and exaggerations, but at any rate with hope in my heart. I recognised—who knows from what personal experiences?—the philosophical pessimism[Pg 332] of the nineteenth century as the symptom of a higher power of thought, a more daring courage and a more triumphant plenitude of life than had been characteristic of the eighteenth century, the age of Hume, Kant, Condillac, and the sensualists: so that the tragic view of things seemed to me the peculiar luxury of our culture, its most precious, noble, and dangerous mode of prodigality; but nevertheless, in view of its overflowing wealth, a justifiable luxury. In the same way I interpreted for myself German music as the expression of a Dionysian power in the German soul: I thought I heard in it the earthquake by means of which a primeval force that had been imprisoned for ages was finally finding vent—indifferent as to whether all that usually calls itself culture was thereby made to totter. It is obvious that I then misunderstood what constitutes the veritable character both of philosophical pessimism and of German music,—namely, their Romanticism. What is Romanticism? Every art and every philosophy may be regarded as a healing and helping appliance in the service of growing, struggling life: they always presuppose suffering and sufferers. But there are two kinds of sufferers: on the one hand those that suffer from overflowing vitality, who need Dionysian art, and require a tragic view and insight into life; and on the other hand those who suffer from reduced vitality, who seek repose, quietness, calm seas, and deliverance from themselves through art or knowledge, or else intoxication, spasm, bewilderment and madness. All Romanticism in art and knowledge responds to the twofold[Pg 333] craving of the latter; to them Schopenhauer as well as Wagner responded (and responds),—to name those most celebrated and decided romanticists, who were then misunderstood by me (not however to their disadvantage, as may be reasonably conceded to me). The being richest in overflowing vitality, the Dionysian God and man, may not only allow himself the spectacle of the horrible and questionable, but even the fearful deed itself, and all the luxury of destruction, disorganisation and negation. With him evil, senselessness and ugliness seem as it were licensed, in consequence of the overflowing plenitude of procreative, fructifying power, which can convert every desert into a luxuriant orchard. Conversely, the greatest sufferer, the man poorest in vitality, would have most need of mildness, peace and kindliness in thought and action: he would need, if possible, a God who is specially the God of the sick, a "Saviour"; similarly he would have need of logic, the abstract intelligibility of existence—for logic soothes and gives confidence;—in short he would need a certain warm, fear-dispelling narrowness and imprisonment within optimistic horizons. In this manner I gradually began to understand Epicurus, the opposite of a Dionysian pessimist;—in a similar manner also the "Christian," who in fact is only a type of Epicurean, and like him essentially a romanticist:—and my vision has always become keener in tracing that most difficult and insidious of all forms of retrospective inference, in which, most mistakes have been made—the inference from the work to its author from the deed to its doer, from the ideal to him who[Pg 334] needs it, from every mode of thinking and valuing to the imperative want behind it.—In regard to all æsthetic values I now avail myself of this radical distinction: I ask in every single case, "Has hunger or superfluity become creative here?" At the outset another distinction might seem to recommend itself more—it is far more conspicuous,—namely, to have in view whether the desire for rigidity, for perpetuation, for being is the cause of the creating, or the desire for destruction, for change, for the new, for the future—for becoming. But when looked at more carefully, both these kinds of desire prove themselves ambiguous, and are explicable precisely according to the before-mentioned, and, as it seems to me, rightly preferred scheme. The desire for destruction, change and becoming, may be the expression of overflowing power, pregnant with futurity (my terminus for this is of course the word "Dionysian"); but it may also be the hatred of the ill-constituted, destitute and unfortunate, which destroys, and must destroy, because the enduring, yea, all that endures, in fact all being, excites and provokes it. To understand this emotion we have but to look closely at our anarchists. The will to perpetuation requires equally a double interpretation. It may on the one hand proceed from gratitude and love:—art of this origin will always be an art of apotheosis, perhaps dithyrambic, as with Rubens, mocking divinely, as with Hafiz, or clear and kind-hearted as with Goethe, and spreading a Homeric brightness and glory over everything (in this case I speak of Apollonian art). It may also, however, be the tyrannical will of a[Pg 335] sorely-suffering, struggling or tortured being, who would like to stamp his most personal, individual and narrow characteristics, the very idiosyncrasy of his suffering, as an obligatory law and constraint on others; who, as it were, takes revenge on all things, in that he imprints, enforces and brands his image, the image of his torture, upon them. The latter is romantic pessimism in its most extreme form, whether it be as Schopenhauerian will-philosophy, or as Wagnerian music:—romantic pessimism, the last great event in the destiny of our civilisation. (That there may be quite a different kind of pessimism, a classical pessimism—this presentiment and vision belongs to me, as something inseparable from me, as my proprium and ipsissimum; only that the word "classical" is repugnant to my ears, it has become far too worn, too indefinite and indistinguishable. I call that pessimism of the future,—for it is coming! I see it coming!—Dionysian pessimism.)
What is Romanticism?—It might be remembered, at least by my friends, that initially I criticized the modern world with some serious mistakes and exaggerations, but I always held hope in my heart. I recognized—who knows from what personal experiences?—the philosophical pessimism[Pg 332] of the nineteenth century as a sign of a deeper level of thought, greater courage, and a fuller plenitude of life than what was typical of the eighteenth century, the time of Hume, Kant, Condillac, and the sensualists: thus, the tragic view of life appeared to me as a unique luxury of our culture, its most valuable, noble, and dangerous form of extravagance; yet, considering its abundant richness, it seemed a justifiable luxury. Similarly, I came to see German music as the expression of a Dionysian force within the German soul: I thought I could hear in it the tremor through which an ancient energy that had been trapped for ages was finally breaking free—regardless of whether all that is typically called culture was left shaken. Clearly, I misunderstood the true nature of both philosophical pessimism and German music,—that is, their Romanticism. What is Romanticism? Every form of art and every philosophy can be viewed as tools for healing and supporting the growth of life: they always imply suffering and those who suffer. But there are two types of sufferers: on one hand, there are those who suffer from overflowing vitality, who need Dionysian art and seek a tragic perspective and understanding of life; on the other hand, there are those who suffer from reduced vitality, who look for peace, calmness, tranquility, and escape from themselves through art or knowledge, or instead seek intoxication, turmoil, confusion, and madness. All Romanticism in art and knowledge addresses the dual[Pg 333] need of the latter; Schopenhauer as well as Wagner responded (and respond) to this—naming them as the most renowned and definitive romanticists, who were then misunderstood by me (not however to their detriment, as can be reasonably conceded). The one rich in overflowing vitality, the Dionysian God and man, can not only indulge in the spectacle of the dreadful and questionable but also in the fearful act itself, enjoying all the luxury of destruction, disorganization, and negation. For him, evil, absurdity, and ugliness seem, in a sense, sanctioned, due to the abundant creative, life-giving power that can transform every desolate area into a vibrant orchard. In contrast, the greatest sufferer, the one with the least vitality, would need gentleness, peace, and kindness in thought and action: he would need, if possible, a God who is specifically the God of the sick, a "Savior"; likewise, he would require logic, the clear coherence of existence—since logic calms and instills confidence;—in essence, he would need a certain warm, fear-soothing confinement within optimistic boundaries. In this way, I gradually began to comprehend Epicurus, the opposite of a Dionysian pessimist;—and likewise, the "Christian," who is essentially just a type of Epicurean, and fundamentally a romanticist:—my insight has consistently sharpened in tracing the most challenging and subtle form of retrospective inference, in which the most errors have occurred—the inference from the work to its creator, from the deed to its actor, from the ideal to the one who[Pg 334] needs it, from every way of thinking and valuing to the fundamental want behind it.—Regarding all aesthetic values, I now utilize this fundamental distinction: I always ask in every situation, "Has hunger or surplus driven creativity here?" At first, another distinction might seem more appealing—it is far more obvious,—namely, whether the desire for stability, for permanence, for being is what drives creation, or the desire for destruction, for change, for the new, for the future—for becoming. However, upon closer examination, both types of desire prove to be ambiguous and can be explained according to the above-mentioned, and, as I believe, rightly preferred framework. The desire for destruction, change, and becoming may express an overflow of power, filled with future potential (my terminus for this would be, of course, the term "Dionysian"); however, it may also stem from a disdain for the poorly constructed, impoverished, and unfortunate, which destroys and must destroy because the lasting, yes, all that persists, in fact all being, provokes it. To understand this feeling, we need only examine our anarchists closely. The will to perpetuate requires a similar double interpretation. It may, on one hand, arise from gratitude and love:—art from this source will always be art of exaltation, perhaps dithyrambic, as with Rubens, divinely mocking, like Hafiz, or clear and kind-hearted as Goethe, casting a Homeric glow and splendor over everything (in this instance, I refer to Apollonian art). However, it may also represent the tyrannical will of a[Pg 335]his image, the image of his torment, onto them. The latter is romantic pessimism in its most extreme form, whether it appears as Schopenhauerian will-philosophy or as Wagnerian music:—romantic pessimism, the final great event in the fate of our civilization. (That there may be a different kind of pessimism, a classical pessimism—this anticipation and vision belongs to me, as something inseparable from my being, as my proprium and ipsissimum; only the term "classical" sounds distasteful to me; it has become far too worn, too vague and indistinct. I refer to that pessimism of the future,—for it is on the way! I see it coming!—Dionysian pessimism.)
371.
371.
We Unintelligible Ones.—Have we ever complained among ourselves of being misunderstood, misjudged, and confounded with others; of being calumniated, misheard, and not heard? That is just our lot—alas, for a long time yet! say, to be modest, until 1901—, it is also our distinction; we should not have sufficient respect for ourselves if we wished it otherwise. People confound us with others—the reason of it is that we ourselves grow, we change continually, we cast off old bark, we still slough every spring, we always become younger,[Pg 336] higher, stronger, as men of the future, we thrust our roots always more powerfully into the deep—into evil—, while at the same time we embrace the heavens ever more lovingly, more extensively, and suck in their light ever more eagerly with all our branches and leaves. We grow like trees—that is difficult to understand, like all life!—not in one place, but everywhere, not in one direction only, but upwards and outwards, as well as inwards and downwards. At the same time our force shoots forth in stem, branches, and roots; we are really no longer free to do anything separately, or to be anything separately.... Such is our lot, as we have said: we grow in height; and even should it be our calamity—for we dwell ever closer to the lightning!—well, we honour it none the less on that account; it is that which we do not wish to share with others, which we do not wish to bestow upon others, the fate of all elevation, our fate....
We Unintelligible Ones.—Have we ever complained to each other about being misunderstood, misjudged, and confused with others; about being slandered, not heard, and not listened to? That is just our fate—sadly, for a long time still! Let’s be modest and say until 1901—it’s also our distinction; we wouldn’t have enough respect for ourselves if we wanted it to be any different. People mix us up with others—the reason for this is that we grow, we change constantly, we shed our old selves, we still renew ourselves every spring, we always become younger, [Pg 336] taller, stronger, as people of the future. We push our roots deeper into the ground—into darkness—while at the same time we reach towards the heavens more lovingly, more broadly, and absorb their light ever more eagerly with all our branches and leaves. We grow like trees—that’s difficult to understand, like all living things!—not in one spot, but everywhere, not just in one direction, but upward and outward, as well as inward and downward. At the same time, our energy spreads through the stem, branches, and roots; we are truly no longer free to act separately or to be anything separately.... Such is our fate, as we’ve said: we grow in height; and even if it may bring us misfortune—for we move ever closer to the lightning!—well, we honor it nonetheless; it’s what we refuse to share with others, what we do not want to give to others, the fate of all who rise, our fate....
372.
372.
Why we are not Idealists.—Formerly philosophers were afraid of the senses: have we, perhaps, been far too forgetful of this fear? We are at present all of us sensualists, we representatives of the present and of the future in philosophy,—not according to theory, however, but in praxis, in practice.... Those former philosophers, on the contrary, thought that the senses lured them out of their world, the cold realm of "ideas," to a dangerous southern island, where they were afraid that their philosopher-virtues would melt away like snow in the sun. "Wax in the ears," was then almost a[Pg 337] condition of philosophising; a genuine philosopher no longer listened to life, in so far as life is music, he denied the music of life—it is an old philosophical superstition that all music is Sirens' music.—Now we should be inclined at the present day to judge precisely in the opposite manner (which in itself might be just as false), and to regard ideas, with their cold, anæmic appearance, and not even in spite of this appearance, as worse seducers than the senses. They have always lived on the "blood" of the philosopher, they always consumed his senses, and indeed, if you will believe me, his "heart" as well. Those old philosophers were heartless: philosophising was always a species of vampirism. At the sight of such figures even as Spinoza, do you not feel a profoundly enigmatical and disquieting sort of impression? Do you not see the drama which is here performed, the constantly increasing pallor—, the spiritualisation always more ideally displayed? Do you not imagine some long-concealed blood-sucker in the background, which makes its beginning with the senses, and in the end retains or leaves behind nothing but bones and their rattling?—I mean categories, formulæ, and words(for you will pardon me in saying that what remains of Spinoza, amor intellectualis dei, is rattling and nothing more! What is amor, what is deus, when they have lost every drop of blood?...) In summa: all philosophical idealism has hitherto been something like a disease, where it has not been, as in the case of Plato, the prudence of superabundant and dangerous healthfulness, the fear of overpowerful senses,[Pg 338] and the wisdom of a wise Socratic.—Perhaps, is it the case that we moderns are merely not sufficiently sound to require Plato's idealism? And we do not fear the senses because——
Why we are not Idealists.—In the past, philosophers were wary of the senses; have we perhaps forgotten this fear? Today, we are all sensualists, we representatives of the present and future in philosophy—not in theory, but in practice. Those old philosophers, on the other hand, believed that the senses distracted them from their world, the cold realm of "ideas," to a risky southern island, where they feared their philosophical virtues would dissolve like snow in the sun. "Wax in the ears" was nearly a[Pg 337] requirement for philosophizing; a true philosopher no longer engaged with life, as life is music, they denied the music of life—it is an old philosophical superstition that all music is Sirens' music.—Nowadays, we might be tempted to judge the opposite (which might also be incorrect) and see ideas, with their cold, anemic appearance, as worse seducers than the senses. They have always fed on the "blood" of the philosopher, consuming his senses and, believe me, even his "heart." Those old philosophers were heartless: philosophizing was always a kind of vampirism. When you look at figures like Spinoza, don't you feel a deeply enigmatic and unsettling impression? Can you not see the drama unfolding here, the ever-increasing pallor—the spirit becoming more ideally displayed? Can you not imagine some long-concealed bloodsucker in the background, starting with the senses and ultimately leaving behind nothing but bones and their rattling?—I mean categories, formulas, and words (for you will forgive me for saying that what remains of Spinoza's amor intellectualis dei is merely rattling and nothing more! What is amor, what is deus, when they have lost every drop of blood?...) In summary: all philosophical idealism has so far been something like a disease, unless it was, as in the case of Plato, the caution of excessive and dangerous health, the fear of overpowerful senses,[Pg 338] and the wisdom of a wise Socratic.—Perhaps, is it that we moderns are just not sound enough to require Plato's idealism? And we do not fear the senses because——
373.
373.
"Science" as Prejudice.—It follows from the laws of class distinction that the learned, in so far as they belong to the intellectual middle-class, are debarred from getting even a sight of the really great problems and notes of interrogation. Besides, their courage, and similarly their outlook, does not reach so far,—and above all, their need, which makes them investigators, their innate anticipation and desire that things should be constituted in such and such a way, their fears and hopes are too soon quieted and set at rest. For example, that which makes the pedantic Englishman, Herbert Spencer, so enthusiastic in his way, and impels him to draw a line of hope, a horizon of desirability, the final reconciliation of "egoism and altruism" of which he dreams,—that almost causes nausea to people like us:—a humanity with such Spencerian perspectives as ultimate perspectives would seem to us deserving of contempt, of extermination! But the fact that something has to be taken by him as his highest hope, which is regarded, and may well be regarded, by others merely as a distasteful possibility, is a note of interrogation which Spencer could not have foreseen.... It is just the same with the belief with which at present so many materialistic natural-scientists are content, the belief in a world which is supposed to have its[Pg 339] equivalent and measure in human thinking and human valuations, a "world of truth" at which we might be able ultimately to arrive with the help of our insignificant, four-cornered human reason! What? do we actually wish to have existence debased in that fashion to a ready-reckoner exercise and calculation for stay-at-home mathematicians? We should not, above all, seek to divest existence of its ambiguous character: good taste forbids it, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that goes beyond your horizon! That a world-interpretation is alone right by which you maintain your position, by which investigation and work can go on scientifically in your sense (you really mean mechanically?), an interpretation which acknowledges numbering, calculating, weighing, seeing and handling, and nothing more—such an idea is a piece of grossness and naïvety, provided it is not lunacy and idiocy. Would the reverse not be quite probable, that the most superficial and external characters of existence—its most apparent quality, its outside, its embodiment—should let themselves be apprehended first? perhaps alone allow themselves to be apprehended? A "scientific" interpretation of the world as you understand it might consequently still be one of the stupidest, that is to say, the most destitute of significance, of all possible world-interpretations—I say this in confidence to my friends the Mechanicians, who to-day like to hobnob with philosophers, and absolutely believe that mechanics is the teaching of the first and last laws upon which, as upon a ground-floor, all existence must be[Pg 340] built. But an essentially mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world! Supposing we valued the worth of a music with reference to how much it could be counted, calculated, or formulated —how absurd such a "scientific" estimate of music would be! What would one have apprehended, understood, or discerned in it! Nothing, absolutely nothing of what is really "music" in it!...
"Science" as Prejudice.—It follows from the laws of class distinction that educated people, insofar as they belong to the intellectual middle class, are prevented from even seeing the truly great questions and mysteries. Moreover, their courage, and their outlook, doesn’t extend that far,—and most importantly, their needs, which drive them to explore, their inherent expectations and desires for things to be this way or that, and their fears and hopes are too quickly settled and calmed. For instance, what makes the pedantic Englishman Herbert Spencer so enthusiastic—and leads him to draw a line of hope, a horizon of desirability, and the final reconciliation of "egoism and altruism" that he dreams of—would almost make people like us feel sick: a humanity with such Spencerian viewpoints as ultimate perspectives would seem deserving of disdain, of extermination! But the fact that something must be taken by him as his highest hope, which is seen, and may well be seen, by others merely as an unpleasant possibility, is a question that Spencer could not have anticipated.... The same goes for the belief that currently satisfies many materialistic natural scientists, the belief in a world that is thought to have its [Pg 339] equivalent and measure in human thought and values, a "world of truth" that we might ultimately reach through our insignificant, rigid, human reasoning! What? Do we actually want existence to be reduced to a simple math exercise for homebound mathematicians? We should especially not try to strip existence of its ambiguous nature: good taste demands it, gentlemen, the taste of reverence for everything that lies beyond your horizon! That a worldview is only valid if it supports your position, allowing investigation and work to proceed scientifically in your sense (you really mean mechanically?), an interpretation that recognizes only numbers, calculations, measurements, sights, and touch, and nothing more—such an idea is crude and naive, unless it borders on lunacy and idiocy. Wouldn’t it be more likely that the most superficial and external aspects of existence—its most obvious qualities, its surface, its manifestation—are the first to be understood? Perhaps they might only allow themselves to be understood? A "scientific" interpretation of the world as you see it could still be one of the stupidest, that is to say, the most devoid of meaning, of all possible worldviews—I say this sincerely to my friends the Mechanicians, who today enjoy mingling with philosophers, and firmly believe that mechanics is the teaching of the primary and ultimate laws on which, as a foundation, all existence must be[Pg 340] built. But a fundamentally mechanical world would be an essentially meaningless world! If we were to evaluate the worth of music based on how much it could be counted, calculated, or articulated—how absurd such a "scientific" assessment of music would be! What would anyone have grasped, understood, or recognized in it? Nothing, absolutely nothing of what is genuinely "music" in it!...
374.
374.
Our new "Infinite"—How far the perspective character of existence extends, or whether it have any other character at all, whether an existence without explanation, without "sense" does not just become "nonsense," whether, on the other hand, all existence is not essentially an explaining existence—these questions, as is right and proper, cannot be determined even by the most diligent and severely conscientious analysis and self-examination of the intellect, because in this analysis the human intellect cannot avoid seeing itself in its perspective forms, and only in them. We cannot see round our corner: it is hopeless curiosity to want to know what other modes of intellect and perspective there might be: for example, whether any kind of being could perceive time backwards, or alternately forwards and backwards (by which another direction of life and another conception of cause and effect would be given). But I think that we are to-day at least far from the ludicrous immodesty of decreeing from our nook that there can only be legitimate perspectives from that nook. The world, on the contrary, has[Pg 341] once more become "infinite" to us: in so far we cannot dismiss the possibility that it contains infinite interpretations. Once more the great horror seizes us—but who would desire forthwith to deify once more this monster of an unknown world in the old fashion? And perhaps worship the unknown thing as the "unknown person" in future? Ah! there are too many ungodly possibilities of interpretation comprised in this unknown, too much devilment, stupidity and folly of interpretation,—our own human, all too human interpretation itself, which we know....
Our new "Infinite"—How far the perspective of existence goes, or if it has any other quality at all, whether existence without explanation and without "meaning" just turns into "nonsense," or on the flip side, whether all existence is fundamentally an explaining existence—these questions, as they should, can't be resolved even by the most careful and thoroughly committed analysis and self-reflection of the mind, because in this analysis the human mind cannot help but see itself through its own perspectives, and only through them. We can't see around our corner: it’s a futile curiosity to want to know what other types of minds and perspectives there might be; for instance, whether any being could perceive time backwards, or both forwards and backwards (which would offer a different direction to life and a new understanding of cause and effect). But I think today we are at least far from the ridiculous arrogance of assuming from our little corner that there can only be valid perspectives from that point of view. The world, on the other hand, has[Pg 341] once again become "infinite" to us: in that sense, we cannot ignore the possibility that it holds infinite interpretations. Once more, the great fear grips us—but who would want to immediately turn this monster of an unknown world into a god in the old way? And perhaps worship the unknown as the unknown person in the future? Ah! there are too many ungodly possibilities of interpretation included in this unknown, too much devilry, ignorance, and foolishness of interpretation—our own human, far too human interpretation itself, which we know....
375.
375.
Why we Seem to be Epicureans.—We are cautious, we modern men, with regard to final convictions, our distrust lies in wait for the enchantments and tricks of conscience involved in every strong belief, in every absolute Yea and Nay: how is this explained? Perhaps one may see in it a good deal of the caution of the "burnt child," of the disillusioned idealist; but one may also see in it another and better element, the joyful curiosity of a former lingerer in a corner, who has been brought to despair by his nook, and now luxuriates and revels in its antithesis, in the unbounded, in the "open air in itself." Thus there is developed an almost Epicurean inclination for knowledge, which does not readily lose sight of the questionable character of things; likewise also a repugnance to pompous moral phrases and attitudes, a taste that repudiates all coarse, square contrasts, and is proudly conscious of its habitual[Pg 342] reserve. For this too constitutes our pride, this easy tightening of the reins in our headlong impulse after certainty, this self-control of the rider in his most furious riding: for now, as of old, we have mad, fiery steeds under us, and if we delay, it is certainly least of all the danger which causes us to delay....
Why we Seem to be Epicureans.—We, modern people, are careful about making absolute convictions. We’re skeptical about the allure and tricks our conscience plays when it comes to strong beliefs and absolute Yes or No answers: how can we explain this? Maybe it’s partly due to the wariness of someone who has been burned, or a disillusioned idealist; but we can also see a better aspect in this, the joyful curiosity of someone who once lingered in a corner, was driven to despair by that corner, and now indulges and revels in its opposite, in the limitless, in the "open air itself." This leads to an almost Epicurean desire for knowledge, which doesn’t easily overlook the questionable nature of things; it also creates a dislike for grand moral declarations and attitudes, a preference that rejects all crude, black-and-white contrasts, and is proudly aware of its usual[Pg 342] restraint. For this too is our pride, this effortless control of our impulses toward certainty, this self-discipline of the rider amidst the wildest ride: for now, just like before, we have wild, passionate steeds beneath us, and if we hesitate, it’s certainly not primarily out of fear that we hold back....
376.
376.
Our Slow Periods.—It is thus that artists feel, and all men of "works," the maternal species of men: they always believe at every chapter of their life—a work always makes a chapter—that they have now reached the goal itself; they would always patiently accept death with the feeling: "we are ripe for it." This is not the expression of exhaustion,—but rather that of a certain autumnal sunniness and mildness, which the work itself, the maturing of the work, always leaves behind in its originator. Then the tempo of life slows down—turns thick and flows with honey—into long pauses, into the belief in the long pause....
Our Slow Periods.—This is how artists and all those who create feel: they always believe at every stage of their life—a work always marks a stage—that they have finally reached their destination; they would gladly accept death with the thought: "we're ready for it." This isn't an expression of being worn out, but rather a sense of a gentle, autumn-like warmth and calmness that the work itself, and the process of creating it, always leaves within the creator. Then the tempo of life slows down—becomes thick and flows like honey—into long pauses, into the belief in the long pause....
377.
377.
We Homeless Ones.—Among the Europeans of to-day there are not lacking those who may call themselves homeless ones in a way which is at once a distinction and an honour; it is by them that my secret wisdom and gaya scienza is especially to be laid to heart! For their lot is hard, their hope uncertain; it is a clever feat to devise consolation for them. But what good does it do! We children of the future, how could we be at home in the present?[Pg 343] We are unfavourable to all ideals which could make us feel at home in this frail, broken-down, transition period; and as regards the "realities" thereof, we do not believe in their endurance. The ice which still carries has become very thin: the thawing wind blows; we ourselves, the homeless ones, are an agency that breaks the ice, and the other too thin "realities."... We "preserve" nothing, nor would we return to any past age; we are not at all "liberal," we do not labour for "progress," we do not need first to stop our ears to the song of the market-place and the sirens of the future—their song of "equal rights," "free society," "no longer either lords or slaves," does not allure us! We do not by any means think it desirable that the kingdom of righteousness and peace should be established on earth (because under any circumstances it would be the kingdom of the profoundest mediocrity and Chinaism); we rejoice in all men, who like ourselves love danger, war and adventure, who do not make compromises, nor let themselves be captured, conciliated and stunted; we count ourselves among the conquerors; we ponder over the need of a new order of things, even of a new slavery—for every strengthening and elevation of the type "man" also involves a new form of slavery. Is it not obvious that with all this we must feel ill at ease in an age which claims the honour of being the most humane, gentle and just that the sun has ever seen? What a pity that at the mere mention of these fine words, the thoughts at the bottom of our hearts are all the more unpleasant, that we[Pg 344] see therein only the expression—or the masquerade—of profound weakening, exhaustion, age, and declining power! What can it matter to us with what kind of tinsel an invalid decks out his weakness? He may parade it as his virtue; there is no doubt whatever that weakness makes people gentle, alas, so gentle, so just, so inoffensive, so "humane"!—The "religion of pity," to which people would like to persuade us—yes, we know sufficiently well the hysterical little men and women who need this religion at present as a cloak and adornment! We are no humanitarians; we should not dare to speak of our "love of mankind"; for that, a person of our stamp is not enough of an actor! Or not sufficiently Saint-Simonist, not sufficiently French. A person must have been affected with a Gallic excess of erotic susceptibility and amorous impatience even to approach mankind honourably with his lewdness.... Mankind! Was there ever a more hideous old woman among all old women (unless perhaps it were "the Truth": a question for philosophers)? No, we do not love Mankind! On the other hand, however, we are not nearly "German" enough (in the sense in which the word "German" is current at present) to advocate nationalism and race-hatred, or take delight in the national heart-itch and blood-poisoning, on account of which the nations of Europe are at present bounded off and secluded from one another as if by quarantines. We are too unprejudiced for that, too perverse, too fastidious; also too well-informed, and too much "travelled." We prefer much rather to live on mountains, apart and "out of season," in[Pg 345] past or coming centuries, in order merely to spare ourselves the silent rage to which we know we should be condemned as witnesses of a system of politics which makes the German nation barren by making it vain, and which is a petty system besides:—will it not be necessary for this system to plant itself between two mortal hatreds, lest its own creation should immediately collapse? Will it not be obliged to desire the perpetuation of the petty-state system of Europe?... We homeless ones are too diverse and mixed in race and descent for "modern men," and are consequently little tempted to participate in the falsified racial self-admiration and lewdness which at present display themselves in Germany, as signs of German sentiment, and which strike one as doubly false and unbecoming in the people with the "historical sense." We are, in a word—and it shall be our word of honour!—good Europeans, the heirs of Europe, the rich, over-wealthy heirs, but too deeply obligated heirs of millenniums of European thought. As such, we have also outgrown Christianity, and are disinclined to it—and just because we have grown out of it, because our forefathers were Christians uncompromising in their Christian integrity, who willingly sacrificed possessions and positions, blood and country, for the sake of their belief. We—do the same. For what, then? For our unbelief? For all sorts of unbelief? Nay, you know better than that, my friends! The hidden Yea in you is stronger than all the Nays and Perhapses, of which you and your age are sick;[Pg 346] and when you are obliged to put out to sea, you emigrants, it is—once more a faith which urges you thereto!...
We Homeless Ones.—Among today's Europeans, there are many who might consider themselves "homeless" in a way that is both a distinction and an honor; it's these individuals who should especially pay attention to my secret wisdom and gaya scienza! Their situation is tough, and their hope is uncertain; coming up with consolation for them is a clever challenge. But what good does it do! We children of the future, how could we feel at home in the present?[Pg 343] We're against any ideals that might make us feel at home in this fragile, crumbling, transitional period; as for the "realities" of it, we don't believe in their endurance. The ice that still holds has become very thin: the thawing wind is blowing; we, the homeless ones, are a force that breaks the ice, along with the other too-thin "realities."... We "preserve" nothing, nor do we wish to return to any past era; we are not "liberal," we don't strive for "progress," and we don't need to block our ears from the marketplace's song and the sirens of the future—their tune of "equal rights," "free society," "no more lords or slaves," does not attract us! We certainly don't think it's desirable for the kingdom of righteousness and peace to be established on earth (because it would inevitably be the kingdom of profound mediocrity and conformity); we take joy in all people, like ourselves, who love danger, war, and adventure, who don’t compromise, who won’t be captured, appeased, or stifled; we count ourselves among the conquerors; we contemplate the need for a new order, even a new form of slavery—for every strengthening and elevation of the "human" type also entails a new kind of slavery. Isn’t it obvious that, with all this, we must feel uncomfortable in an age that prides itself on being the most humane, gentle, and just ever seen? What a shame that upon hearing these nice words, the thoughts in our hearts become all the more unpleasant, as we[Pg 344] view them as merely the expression—or masquerade—of deep weakness, exhaustion, age, and declining power! What does it matter to us what kind of shiny wrapping an invalid uses to cover up their weakness? They may flaunt it as their virtue; there's no doubt that weakness makes people gentle, alas, so gentle, so just, so harmless, so "humane"!—The "religion of pity," to which people want to persuade us—yes, we know well the hysterical little men and women who need this religion now as a disguise and adornment! We are not humanitarians; we wouldn’t dare to speak of our "love for humanity"; for someone like us isn't a good enough actor! Or not French enough. One must have a Gallic surplus of erotic sensitivity and romantic impatience even to approach humanity honorably with their corruption.... Humanity! Has there ever been a more hideous old woman among all old women (unless perhaps it's "the Truth": a question for philosophers)? No, we do not love Humanity! On the other hand, however, we are not nearly "German" enough (in the way "German" is currently understood) to support nationalism and race hatred, or delight in the national itch and blood poisoning that currently keeps the nations of Europe isolated from each other as if by quarantines. We're too open-minded for that, too difficult, too discerning; also too well-informed, and too well-traveled. We prefer to live on mountains, apart and "out of season," in[Pg 345] past or future centuries, just to avoid the silent fury we know we would endure as witnesses to a political system that makes the German nation barren by making it vain, which is a petty system to boot:—might it not need to position itself between two mortal hatreds to avoid collapsing? Must it not be forced to wish for the continuation of Europe's petty-state system?... We homeless ones are too diverse and mixed in race and ancestry for "modern men," and therefore feel little tempted to join in the falsified racial self-admiration and debauchery currently on display in Germany, which seem doubly false and unbecoming in a people with a so-called "historical sense." We are, in short—and this shall be our word of honor!—good Europeans, the heirs of Europe, the wealthy, overly rich heirs, but deeply obligated heirs of millennia of European thought. As such, we have also outgrown Christianity and are disinclined toward it—and precisely because we have grown out of it, because our ancestors were Christians who stood firmly in their faith, willing to sacrifice possessions and status, blood and homeland, for what they believed. We—do the same. For what, then? For our disbelief? For all sorts of disbelief? No, you know better than that, my friends! The hidden Yes inside you is more powerful than all the Nays and Maybes that you and your age are sick of;[Pg 346] and when you’re forced to set sail, you emigrants, it is—once again a faith that drives you onward!...
378.
378.
"And once more Grow Clear."—We, the generous and rich in spirit, who stand at the sides of the streets like open fountains and would hinder no one from drinking from us: we do not know, alas! how to defend ourselves when we should like to do so; we have no means of preventing ourselves being made turbid and dark,—we have no means of preventing the age in which we live casting its "up-to-date rubbish" into us, or of hindering filthy birds throwing their excrement, the boys their trash, and fatigued resting travellers their misery, great and small, into us. But we do as we have always done: we take whatever is cast into us down into our depths—for we are deep, we do not forget—and once more grow clear...
"And once again, we grow clear."—We, the generous and open-hearted, who stand by the roadsides like open fountains and want to prevent no one from taking from us: we don’t know, sadly, how to defend ourselves when we want to; we have no way to stop ourselves from becoming murky and dark—we can’t stop the current times from dumping their "modern trash" into us, or stop filthy birds from leaving their droppings, boys from littering, and tired travelers from emptying their burdens, big and small, into us. But we do what we’ve always done: we take whatever is thrown into us deep down—because we are deep, we don’t forget—and once again, we grow clear...
379.
379.
The Fool's Interruption.—It is not a misanthrope who has written this book: the hatred of men costs too dear to-day. To hate as they formerly hated man, in the fashion of Timon, completely, without qualification, with all the heart, from the pure love of hatred—for that purpose one would have to renounce contempt:—and how much refined pleasure, how much patience, how much benevolence even, do we owe to contempt! Moreover we are thereby the "elect of God": refined contempt is our taste and privilege, our art, our virtue[Pg 347] perhaps, we, the most modern amongst the moderns!... Hatred, on the contrary, makes equal, it puts men face to face, in hatred there is honour; finally, in hatred there is fear, quite a large amount of fear. We fearless ones, however, we, the most intellectual men of the period, know our advantage well enough to live without fear as the most intellectual persons of this age. People will not easily behead us, shut us up, or banish us; they will not even ban or burn our books. The age loves intellect, it loves us, and needs us, even when we have to give it to understand that we are artists in despising; that all intercourse with men is something of a horror to us; that with all our gentleness, patience, humanity and courteousness, we cannot persuade our nose to abandon its prejudice against the proximity of man; that we love nature the more, the less humanly things are done by her, and that we love art when it is the flight of the artist from man, or the raillery of the artist at man, or the raillery of the artist at himself....
The Fool's Interruption.—This book wasn’t written by a misanthrope: it’s too costly to hate people today. To hate people like Timon did—completely and without reservation, with all one’s heart, purely out of a love for hatred—would require giving up contempt. And how much refined pleasure, patience, and even kindness do we owe to contempt! Furthermore, it makes us the “elect of God”: refined contempt is our taste, privilege, art, and perhaps our virtue, we who are the most modern among the moderns!... Hatred,
380.
380.
"The Wanderer" Speaks.—In order for once to get a glimpse of our European morality from a distance, in order to compare it with other earlier or future moralities, one must do as the traveller who wants to know the height of the towers of a city: for that purpose he leaves the city. "Thoughts concerning moral prejudices," if they are not to be prejudices concerning prejudices, presuppose a position outside of morality, some[Pg 348] sort of world beyond good and evil, to which one must ascend, climb, or fly—and in the given case at any rate, a position beyond our good and evil, an emancipation from all "Europe," understood as a sum of inviolable valuations which have become part and parcel of our flesh and blood. That one does want to get outside, or aloft, is perhaps a sort of madness, a peculiar, unreasonable "thou must"—for even we thinkers have our idiosyncrasies of "unfree will"—: the question is whether one can really get there. That may depend on manifold conditions: in the main it is a question of how light or how heavy we are, the problem of our "specific gravity." One must be very light in order to impel one's will to knowledge to such a distance, and as it were beyond one's age, in order to create eyes for oneself for the survey of millenniums, and a pure heaven in these eyes besides! One must have freed oneself from many things by which we Europeans of to-day are oppressed, hindered, held down, and made heavy. The man of such a "Beyond," who wants to get even in sight of the highest standards of worth of his age, must first of all "surmount" this age in himself—it is the test of his power—and consequently not only his age, but also his past aversion and opposition to his age, his suffering caused by his age, his unseasonableness, his Romanticism....
The Wanderer" Speaks.—To gain a different perspective on our European morality, and to compare it with other past or future moralities, one must do what a traveler does when he wants to see the height of a city's towers: he leaves the city. "Thoughts about moral prejudices," if they aren't just prejudices about prejudices, require a position outside of morality, some[Pg 348] kind of realm beyond good and evil, which one must ascend, climb, or fly to—and in this case, a position beyond our good and evil, a break from all "Europe," seen as a collection of inviolable values that have become part of our identity. Wanting to step outside or rise above is maybe a kind of madness, a strange, unreasonable "you must"—because even we thinkers have our quirks of "unfree will": the real question is whether one can actually reach that place. That might depend on various factors: mainly, it’s about how light or heavy we are, the issue of our "specific gravity." One needs to be very light to drive one's will to knowledge so far, to reach beyond one’s own time, to create a vision capable of surveying millennia, and to have a clear perspective in that vision! One must have liberated oneself from many burdens that we Europeans today carry, that restrict, weigh down, and hold us back. A person capable of such a "Beyond," aiming to glimpse the highest standards of worth of their time, must first "overcome" this time within themselves—it is a measure of their strength—and thus not only their current time, but also their past resentments towards it, their suffering caused by their time, their out-of-placeness, their Romantic tendencies....
381.
381.
The Question of Intelligibility.—One not only wants to be understood when one writes, but also—quite as certainly—not to be understood. It is[Pg 349] by no means an objection to a book when someone finds it unintelligible: perhaps this might just have been the intention of its author,—perhaps he did not want to be understood by "anyone." A distinguished intellect and taste, when it wants to communicate its thoughts, always selects its hearers; by selecting them, it at the same time closes its barriers against "the others." It is there that all the more refined laws of style have their origin: they at the same time keep off, they create distance, they prevent "access" (intelligibility, as we have said,)—while they open the ears of those who are acoustically related to them. And to say it between ourselves and with reference to my own case,—I do not desire that either my ignorance, or the vivacity of my temperament, should prevent me being understood by you, my friends: I certainly do not desire that my vivacity should have that effect, however much it may impel me to arrive quickly at an object, in order to arrive at it at all. For I think it is best to do with profound problems as with a cold bath—quickly in, quickly out. That one does not thereby get into the depths, that one does not get deep enough down—is a superstition of the hydrophobic, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. Oh! the great cold makes one quick!—And let me ask by the way: Is it a fact that a thing has been misunderstood and unrecognised when it has only been touched upon in passing, glanced at, flashed at? Must one absolutely sit upon it in the first place? Must one have brooded on it as on an egg? Diu noctuque incubando, as Newton said of himself? At[Pg 350] least there are truths of a peculiar shyness and ticklishness which one can only get hold of suddenly, and in no other way,—which one must either take by surprise, or leave alone.... Finally, my brevity has still another value: on those questions which pre-occupy me, I must say a great deal briefly, in order that it may be heard yet more briefly. For as immoralist, one has to take care lest one ruins innocence, I mean the asses and old maids of both sexes, who get nothing from life but their innocence; moreover my writings are meant to fill them with enthusiasm, to elevate them, to encourage them in virtue. I should be at a loss to know of anything more amusing than to see enthusiastic old asses and maids moved by the sweet feelings of virtue: and "that have I seen"—spake Zarathustra. So much with respect to brevity; the matter stands worse as regards my ignorance, of which I make no secret to myself. There are hours in which I am ashamed of it; to be sure there are likewise hours in which I am ashamed of this shame. Perhaps we philosophers, all of us, are badly placed at present with regard to knowledge: science is growing, the most learned of us are on the point of discovering that we know too little. But it would be worse still if it were otherwise,—if we knew too much; our duty is and remains first of all, not to get into confusion about ourselves. We are different from the learned; although it cannot be denied that amongst other things we are also learned. We have different needs, a different growth, a different digestion: we need more, we need also less. There is no formula[Pg 351] as to how much an intellect needs for its nourishment; if, however, its taste be in the direction of independence, rapid coming and going, travelling, and perhaps adventure for which only the swiftest are qualified, it prefers rather to live free on poor fare, than to be unfree and plethoric. Not fat, but the greatest suppleness and power is what a good dancer wishes from his nourishment,—and I know not what the spirit of a philosopher would like better than to be a good dancer. For the dance is his ideal, and also his art, in the end likewise his sole piety, his "divine service."...
The Question of Intelligibility.—When writing, it's important not just to be understood, but also—just as certainly—not to be understood. It’s[Pg 349] not necessarily a flaw in a book if someone finds it hard to understand: perhaps that was exactly the author's intention—maybe they didn’t want to be understood by "anyone." A person with exceptional intellect and taste, when trying to share their thoughts, always chooses their audience; in selecting them, they also create a barrier against "the others." This is where all the more refined rules of style originate: they repel others, create distance, and prevent "access" (intelligibility, as we mentioned)—while attracting those who resonate with them. And if I may be frank, with regard to my own situation—I don’t want my ignorance or the intensity of my nature to keep you, my friends, from understanding me: I certainly don’t want my intensity to have that effect, no matter how much it drives me to get to the point quickly, just to get there at all. I believe it’s best to approach deep issues like a cold bath—quickly in, quickly out. The idea that you won't delve deeply enough is a superstition of those who fear cold water; they speak without experience. Oh! the intense cold makes one quick!—And let me ask this: Is something really misunderstood or unrecognized just because it’s briefly mentioned, glanced at, or hinted at? Must one absolutely dwell on it first? Must one brood over it like an egg? Diu noctuque incubando, as Newton said about himself? At[Pg 350] least, there are certain truths that are shy and delicate, which you can only grasp suddenly and not any other way—you must either catch them by surprise, or leave them be.... In the end, my brevity has another purpose: on the subjects that occupy me, I need to express a lot in a short amount of time so that it can be heard even more briefly. As an immoralist, I must be cautious not to ruin innocence, meaning those naive people of both genders who get nothing from life but their innocence; moreover, my writings aim to inspire that innocence, uplift them, and encourage them in virtue. I can’t think of anything more amusing than seeing passionate old fools and maidens stirred by the sweet feelings of virtue: and "I have seen that"—spoke Zarathustra. So much for brevity; the situation is worse concerning my ignorance, of which I’m fully aware. There are times I’m ashamed of it; indeed, there are also times I feel ashamed of that shame. Maybe we philosophers, all of us, are struggling at present with knowledge: science is expanding, and the most knowledgeable among us are starting to realize we know too little. But it would be even worse if it were the other way around—if we knew too much; our primary responsibility remains to avoid getting confused about ourselves. We are different from scholars; although it can’t be denied we are also educated in some ways. We have different needs, a different development, a different digestion: we require more and, at times, less. There’s no formula[Pg 351] for how much an intellect needs for sustenance; however, if its preferences lean toward independence, quick movements, traveling, and perhaps adventures that only the nimblest can tackle, it tends to prefer living freely on meager rations rather than being trapped and overly full. Not fat, but the greatest agility and strength is what a good dancer seeks from their nourishment—and I can't imagine what the spirit of a philosopher would desire more than to be a good dancer. The dance is their ideal, their art, and in the end, their only piety, their "divine service."...
382.
382.
Great Healthiness.—We, the new, the nameless, the hard-to-understand, we firstlings of a yet untried future—we require for a new end also a new means, namely, a new healthiness, stronger, sharper, tougher, bolder and merrier than any healthiness hitherto. He whose soul longs to experience the whole range of hitherto recognised values and desirabilities, and to circumnavigate all the coasts of this ideal "Mediterranean Sea," who, from the adventures of his most personal experience, wants to know how it feels to be a conqueror and discoverer of the ideal—as likewise how it is with the artist, the saint, the legislator, the sage, the scholar, the devotee, the prophet, and the godly Nonconformist of the old style:—requires one thing above all for that purpose, great healthiness—such healthiness as one not only possesses, but also constantly acquires and must acquire, because one continually sacrifices it again, and must[Pg 352] sacrifice it!—And now, after having been long on the way in this fashion, we Argonauts of the ideal, who are more courageous perhaps than prudent, and often enough shipwrecked and brought to grief, nevertheless, as said above, healthier than people would like to admit, dangerously healthy, always healthy again,—it would seem, as if in recompense for it all, that we have a still undiscovered country before us, the boundaries of which no one has yet seen, a beyond to all countries and corners of the ideal known hitherto, a world so over-rich in the beautiful, the strange, the questionable, the frightful, and the divine, that our curiosity as well as our thirst for possession thereof, have got out of hand—alas! that nothing will now any longer satisfy us! How could we still be content with the man of the present day after such peeps, and with such a craving in our conscience and consciousness? What a pity; but it is unavoidable that we should look on the worthiest aims and hopes of the man of the present day with ill-concealed amusement, and perhaps should no longer look at them. Another ideal runs on before us, a strange, tempting ideal, full of danger, to which we should not like to persuade any one, because we do not so readily acknowledge any one's right thereto: the ideal of a spirit who plays naïvely (that is to say involuntarily and from overflowing abundance and power) with everything that has hitherto been called holy, good, inviolable, divine; to whom the loftiest conception which the people have reasonably made their measure of value, would already imply danger, ruin, abasement, or at least relaxation,[Pg 353] blindness, or temporary self-forgetfulness; the ideal of a humanly superhuman welfare and benevolence, which may often enough appear inhuman, for example, when put by the side of all past seriousness on earth, and in comparison with all past solemnities in bearing, word, tone, look, morality and pursuit, as their truest involuntary parody,—but with which, nevertheless, perhaps the great seriousness only commences, the proper interrogation mark is set up, the fate of the soul changes, the hour-hand moves, and tragedy begins....
Great Healthiness.—We, the new, the nameless, the hard-to-grasp, we are the firstlings of an untested future—we need not just new goals but also new means to achieve them, specifically a new healthiness that is stronger, sharper, tougher, bolder, and more joyful than any healthiness ever known. Those whose souls yearn to explore the full spectrum of recognized values and desires, and to navigate all the shores of this ideal "Mediterranean Sea," who, from their personal adventures, want to understand what it feels like to be a conqueror and discoverer of the ideal—just as they want to comprehend the experiences of the artist, the saint, the legislator, the philosopher, the academic, the devotee, the prophet, and the godly Nonconformist of the old ways—require one thing above all to accomplish that goal, great healthiness— a healthiness that one not only possesses but also continuously seeks out and must pursue, because it is something one constantly sacrifices again and must[Pg 352] sacrifice!—And now, after traveling this path for a long time, we Argonauts of the ideal, who may be more daring than cautious and often enough suffer shipwreck and heartbreak, still, as mentioned before, are healthier than people would like to admit, dangerously healthy, always bouncing back to health,—it seems that as a reward for it all, we have an undiscovered country ahead of us, the borders of which no one has yet seen, a realm beyond all the known corners and countries of ideals, a world so overflowing with beauty, strangeness, ambiguity, terror, and the divine, that our curiosity and desire to claim it have spiraled out of control—oh, how nothing can now ever satisfy us! How could we still find contentment in the person of today after such glimpses and with this craving pulling at our conscience and awareness? It’s unfortunate, but it’s inevitable that we look at the noblest aims and hopes of the modern individual with barely veiled amusement, and perhaps we shouldn’t even consider them anymore. Another ideal runs ahead of us, a strange and tempting one, full of danger, which we would not want to urge anyone towards, because we don’t so easily recognize anyone’s right to it: the ideal of a spirit who plays innocently (that is to say, involuntarily and out of overflowing abundance and power) with everything previously deemed sacred, good, untouchable, divine; for whom the highest ideals that people have reasonably taken as their values could suggest danger, ruin, degradation, or at least relaxation,[Pg 353] blindness, or momentary self-forgetfulness; the ideal of a humanly superhuman well-being and goodwill, which may often appear inhuman, especially when compared with all past seriousness on earth and in relation to all old solemnity in demeanor, speech, tone, expressions, morality, and ambition, as their most genuine involuntary parody—but with which, perhaps the great seriousness truly begins, the proper question mark is raised, the soul's fate shifts, the hour hand moves, and tragedy begins....
383.
383.
Epilogue.—-But while I slowly, slowly finish the painting of this sombre interrogation-mark, and am still inclined to remind my readers of the virtues of right reading—oh, what forgotten and unknown virtues—it comes to pass that the wickedest, merriest, gnome-like laughter resounds around me: the spirits of my book themselves pounce upon me, pull me by the ears, and call me to order. "We cannot endure it any longer," they shout to me, "away, away with this raven-black music. Is it not clear morning round about us? And green, soft ground and turf, the domain of the dance? Was there ever a better hour in which to be joyful? Who will sing us a song, a morning song, so sunny, so light and so fledged that it will not scare the tantrums,—but will rather invite them to take part in the singing and dancing. And better a simple rustic bagpipe than such weird sounds, such toad-croakings, grave-voices and marmot-pipings, with which you have hitherto regaled us in your wilderness,[Pg 354] Mr Anchorite and Musician of the Future! No! Not such tones! But let us strike up something more agreeable and more joyful!"—You would like to have it so, my impatient friends? Well! Who would not willingly accede to your wishes? My bagpipe is waiting, and my voice also—it may sound a little hoarse; take it as it is! don't forget we are in the mountains! But what you will hear is at least new; and if you do not understand it, if you misunderstand the minstrel, what does it matter! That—has always been "The Minstrel's Curse."[4] So much the more distinctly can you hear his music and melody, so much the better also can you—dance to his piping. Would you like to do that?...
Epilogue.—As I slowly finish painting this dark question mark and still feel the urge to remind my readers about the virtues of good reading—oh, those forgotten and unknown virtues—it turns out that the wicked, joyful, gnome-like laughter echoes around me: the spirits of my book leap at me, pull my ears, and tell me to get my act together. "We can’t take this anymore," they shout, "away, away with this gloomy music. Isn’t it clear and bright all around us? And look at the soft green ground, the territory for dancing? Is there ever a better time to be happy? Who will sing us a song, a morning song, so bright and light that it will not scare away the fun—but rather invite it to join in the singing and dancing? And better to have a simple rustic bagpipe than these weird sounds, these toad-croakings, serious voices, and marmot-pipings you’ve been playing for us in your wilderness,[Pg 354] Mr. Anchorite and Musician of the Future! No! Not those sounds! Let us play something more pleasant and joyful!"—You want it this way, my eager friends? Well! Who wouldn’t want to make you happy? My bagpipe is ready, and my voice too—it might be a bit raspy; just take it as it is! Don’t forget we’re in the mountains! But what you’ll hear is at least new; and if you don’t get it, if you misunderstand the minstrel, what does it matter? That’s always been "The Minstrel's Curse."[4] The clearer you can hear his music and melody, the better you can—dance to his tune. Would you like to do that?...
APPENDIX
SONGS OF PRINCE FREE-AS-A-BIRD
TO GOETHE.[1]
"The Undecaying"
Is but thy label,
God the betraying
Is poets' fable.
Our aims all are thwarted
By the World-wheel's blind roll:
"Doom," says the downhearted,
"Sport," says the fool.
The World-sport, all-ruling,
Mingles false with true:
The Eternally Fooling
Makes us play, too!
[Pg 358]
THE POET'S CALL.
As 'neath a shady tree I sat
After long toil to take my pleasure,
I heard a tapping "pit-a-pat"
Beat prettily in rhythmic measure.
Tho' first I scowled, my face set hard,
The sound at length my sense entrapping
Forced me to speak like any bard,
And keep true time unto the tapping.
As I made verses, never stopping,
Each syllable the bird went after,
Keeping in time with dainty hopping!
I burst into unmeasured laughter!
What, you a poet? You a poet?
Can your brains truly so addled be?
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
Chirped out the pecker, mocking me.
What doth me to these woods entice?
The chance to give some thief a trouncing?
A saw, an image? Ha, in a trice
My rhyme is on it, swiftly pouncing!
All things that creep or crawl the poet
Weaves in his word-loom cunningly.
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
Chirped out the pecker, mocking me.
Like to an arrow, methinks, a verse is,
See how it quivers, pricks and smarts
When shot full straight (no tender mercies!)
[Pg 359]Into the reptile's nobler parts!
Wretches, you die at the hand of the poet,
Or stagger like men that have drunk too free.
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
Chirped out the pecker, mocking me.
So they go hurrying, stanzas malign,
Drunken words—what a clattering, banging!—
Till the whole company, line on line,
All on the rhythmic chain are hanging.
Has he really a cruel heart, your poet?
Are there fiends who rejoice, the slaughter to see
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
Chirped out the pecker, mocking me.
So you jest at me, bird, with your scornful graces?
So sore indeed is the plight of my head?
And my heart, you say, in yet sorrier case is?
Beware! for my wrath is a thing to dread!
Yet e'en in the hour of his wrath the poet
Rhymes you and sings with the selfsame glee.
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
Chirped out the pecker, mocking me.
IN THE SOUTH.[2]
I swing on a bough, and rest
My tired limbs in a nest,
In the rocking home of a bird,
Wherein I perch as his guest,
[Pg 360]In the South!
I gaze on the ocean asleep,
On the purple sail of a boat;
On the harbour and tower steep,
On the rocks that stand out of the deep,
In the South!
For I could no longer stay,
To crawl in slow German way;
So I called to the birds, bade the wind
Lift me up and bear me away
To the South!
No reasons for me, if you please;
Their end is too dull and too plain;
But a pair of wings and a breeze,
With courage and health and ease,
And games that chase disease
From the South!
Wise thoughts can move without sound,
But I've songs that I can't sing alone;
So birdies, pray gather around,
And listen to what I have found
In the South!
. . . . .
. . . .
"You are merry lovers and false and gay,
"In frolics and sport you pass the day;
"Whilst in the North, I shudder to say,
"I worshipped a woman, hideous and gray,
"Her name was Truth, so I heard them say,
"But I left her there and I flew away
"To the South!"
[Pg 361]
BEPPA THE PIOUS.
While beauty in my face is,
Be piety my care,
For God, you know, loves lasses,
And, more than all, the fair.
And if yon hapless monkling
Is fain with me to live,
Like many another monkling,
God surely will forgive.
No grey old priestly devil,
But, young, with cheeks aflame—
Who e'en when sick with revel,
Can jealous be and blame.
To greybeards I'm a stranger,
And he, too, hates the old:
Of God, the world-arranger,
The wisdom here behold!
The Church has ken of living,
And tests by heart and face.
To me she'll be forgiving!
Who will not show me grace?
I lisp with pretty halting,
I curtsey, bid "good day,"
And with the fresh defaulting
I wash the old away!
Praise be this man-God's guerdon,
Who loves all maidens fair,
And his own heart can pardon
[Pg 362]The sin he planted there.
While beauty in my face is,
With piety I'll stand,
When age has killed my graces,
Let Satan claim my hand!
THE BOAT OF MYSTERY.
Yester-eve, when all things slept—
Scarce a breeze to stir the lane—
I a restless vigil kept,
Nor from pillows sleep could gain,
Nor from poppies nor—most sure
Of opiates—a conscience pure.
Thoughts of rest I 'gan forswear,
Rose and walked along the strand,
Found, in warm and moonlit air,
Man and boat upon the sand,
Drowsy both, and drowsily
Did the boat put out to sea.
Passed an hour or two perchance,
Or a year? then thought and sense
Vanished in the engulfing trance
Of a vast Indifference.
Fathomless, abysses dread
Opened—then the vision fled.
Morning came: becalmed, the boat
Rested on the purple flood:
"What had happened?" every throat
Shrieked the question: "was there—
Blood?"
Naught had happened! On the swell
[Pg 363]We had slumbered, oh, so well!
AN AVOWAL OF LOVE
(during which, however, the poet fell into a pit).
Oh marvel! there he flies
Cleaving the sky with wings unmoved—what force
Impels him, bids him rise,
What curb restrains him? Where's his goal, his course?
Like stars and time eterne
He liveth now in heights that life forswore,
Nor envy's self doth spurn:
A lofty flight were't, e'en to see him soar!
Oh albatross, great bird,
Speeding me upward ever through the blue!
I thought of her, was stirred
To tears unending—yea, I love her true!
SONG OF A THEOCRITEAN GOATHERD.
Here I lie, my bowels sore,
Hosts of bugs advancing,
Yonder lights and romp and roar!
What's that sound? They're dancing!
At this instant, so she prated,
Stealthily she'd meet me:
Like a faithful dog I've waited,
Not a sign to greet me!
She promised, made the cross-sign, too,
Could her vows be hollow?
Or runs she after all that woo,
[Pg 364]Like the goats I follow?
Whence your silken gown, my maid?
Ah, you'd fain be haughty,
Yet perchance you've proved a jade
With some satyr naughty!
Waiting long, the lovelorn wight
Is filled with rage and poison:
Even so on sultry night
Toadstools grow in foison.
Pinching sore, in devil's mood,
Love doth plague my crupper:
Truly I can eat no food:
Farewell, onion-supper!
Seaward sinks the moon away,
The stars are wan, and flare not:
Dawn approaches, gloomy, grey,
Let Death come! I care not!
"SOULS THAT LACK DETERMINATION."
Souls that lack determination
Rouse my wrath to white-hot flame!
All their glory's but vexation,
All their praise but self-contempt and shame!
Since I baffle their advances,
Will not clutch their leading-string,
They would wither me with glances
Bitter-sweet, with hopeless envy sting.
Let them with fell curses shiver,
Curl their lip the livelong day!
Seek me as they will, forever
[Pg 365]Helplessly their eyes shall go astray!
THE FOOL'S DILEMMA.
Ah, what I wrote on board and wall
With foolish heart, in foolish scrawl,
I meant but for their decoration!
Yet say you, "Fools' abomination!
Both board and wall require purgation,
And let no trace our eyes appal!"
Well, I will help you, as I can,
For sponge and broom are my vocation
As critic and as waterman.
But when the finished work I scan,
I'm glad to see each learned owl
With "wisdom" board and wall defoul.
RIMUS REMEDIUM
(or a Consolation to Sick Poets).
From thy moist lips,
O Time, thou witch, beslavering me,
Hour upon hour too slowly drips
In vain—I cry, in frenzy's fit,
"A curse upon that yawning pit,
A curse upon Eternity!"
The world's of brass,
A fiery bullock, deaf to wail:
Pain's dagger pierces my cuirass,
Wingéd, and writes upon my bone:
"Bowels and heart the world hath none,
[Pg 366]Why scourge her sins with anger's flail?"
Pour poppies now,
Pour venom, Fever, on my brain!
Too long you test my hand and brow:
What ask you? "What—reward is paid?"
A malediction on you, jade,
And your disdain!
No, I retract,
'Tis cold—I hear the rain importune—
Fever, I'll soften, show my tact:
Here's gold—a coin—see it gleam!
Shall I with blessings on you beam,
Call you "good fortune"?
The door opes wide,
And raindrops on my bed are scattered,
The light's blown out—woes multiplied!
He that hath not an hundred rhymes,
I'll wager, in these dolorous times
We'd see him shattered!
MY BLISS.
Once more, St Mark, thy pigeons meet my gaze,
The Square lies still, in slumbering morning mood:
In soft, cool air I fashion idle lays,
Speeding them skyward like a pigeon's brood:
And then recall my minions
To tie fresh rhymes upon their willing pinions.
My bliss! My bliss!
Calm heavenly roof of azure silkiness,
Guarding with shimmering haze yon house divine!
[Pg 367]Thee, house, I love, fear—envy, I'll confess,
And gladly would suck out that soul of thine!
"Should I give back the prize?"
Ask not, great pasture-ground for human eyes!
My bliss! My bliss!
Stern belfry, rising as with lion's leap
Sheer from the soil in easy victory,
That fill'st the Square with peal resounding, deep
Wert thou in French that Square's "accent aigu"?
Were I for ages set
In earth like thee, I know what silk-meshed net——
My bliss! My bliss!
Hence, music! First let darker shadows come,
And grow, and merge into brown, mellow night!
Tis early for your pealing, ere the dome
Sparkle in roseate glory, gold-bedight
While yet 'tis day, there's time
For strolling, lonely muttering, forging rhyme—
My bliss! My bliss!
COLUMBUS REDIVIVUS.
Thither I'll travel, that's my notion,
I'll trust myself, my grip,
Where opens wide and blue the ocean
I'll ply my Genoa ship.
New things on new the world unfolds me,
Time, space with noonday die:
Alone thy monstrous eye beholds me,
[Pg 368]Awful Infinity!
SILS-MARIA.
Here sat I waiting, waiting, but for naught!
Beyond all good and evil—now by light wrought
To joy, now by dark shadows—all was leisure,
All lake, all noon, all time sans aim, sans measure.
Then one, dear friend, was swiftly changed to twain,
And Zarathustra left my teeming brain....
A DANCING SONG TO THE MISTRAL WIND.[3]
Wildly rushing, clouds outleaping,
Care-destroying, Heaven sweeping,
Mistral wind, thou art my friend!
Surely 'twas one womb did bear us,
Surely 'twas one fate did pair us,
Fellows for a common end.
From the crags I gaily greet you,
Running fast I come to meet you,
Dancing while you pipe and sing.
How you bound across the ocean,
Unimpeded, free in motion,
[Pg 369]Swifter than with boat or wing!
Through my dreams your whistle sounded,
Down the rocky stairs I bounded
To the golden ocean wall;
Saw you hasten, swift and glorious,
Like a river, strong, victorious,
Tumbling in a waterfall.
Saw you rushing over Heaven,
With your steeds so wildly driven,
Saw the car in which you flew;
Saw the lash that wheeled and quivered,
While the hand that held it shivered,
Urging on the steeds anew.
Saw you from your chariot swinging,
So that swifter downward springing
Like an arrow you might go
Straight into the deep abysses,
As a sunbeam falls and kisses
Roses in the morning glow.
Dance, oh! dance on all the edges,
Wave-crests, cliffs and mountain ledges,
Ever finding dances new!
Let our knowledge be our gladness,
Let our art be sport and madness,
All that's joyful shall be true!
Let us snatch from every bower,
As we pass, the fairest flower,
With some leaves to make a crown;
Then, like minstrels gaily dancing,
Saint and witch together prancing,
[Pg 370]Let us foot it up and down.
Those who come must move as; quickly
As the wind—we'll have no sickly,
Crippled, withered, in our crew.;
Off with hypocrites and preachers,
Proper folk and prosy teachers,
Sweep them from our heaven blue.
Sweep away all sad grimaces,
Whirl the dust into the faces
Of the dismal sick and cold!
Hunt them from our breezy places,
Not for them the wind that braces,
But for men of visage bold.
Off with those who spoil earth's gladness,
Blow away all clouds of sadness,
Till our heaven clear we see;
Let me hold thy hand, best fellow,
Till my joy like tempest bellow!
Freest thou of spirits free!
When thou partest, take a token
Of the joy thou hast awoken,
Take our wreath and fling it far;
Toss it up and catch it never,
Whirl it on before thee ever,
Till it reach the farthest star.
TO GOETHE.[1]
"The Undecaying"
Is just your label,
God the deceiver
Is poets' fable.
Our goals are all blocked
By the world's blind wheel:
"Doom," says the downhearted,
"Fun," says the fool.
The world's game, all-controlling,
Mixes false with true:
The Eternally Fooling
Makes us play, too!
[Pg 358]
THE POET'S CALL.
As I sat beneath a shady tree
After a long day at work to enjoy myself,
I heard a gentle "pit-a-pat"
Beat sweetly in rhythmic time.
Though at first I frowned, my face set hard,
The sound eventually trapped my senses.
Forced me to speak like any bard,
And keep accurate time with the tapping.
As I crafted verses, never stopping,
Each syllable the bird echoed afterwards,
Keeping in time with its dainty hopping!
I burst into uncontrollable laughter!
What, you a poet? You a poet?
Can your mind really be that twisted?
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
The woodpecker mocked me.
What draws me to these woods?
The opportunity to take down a thief?
A saw, an image? Ha, in a trice
My rhyme is ready, jumping in!
All things that creep or crawl the poet
Weaves into his words cleverly.
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
The woodpecker chirped, mocking me.
Like an arrow, I think, a verse is,
See how it shakes, pokes, and hurts.
When shot straight (with no tender mercy!)
[Pg 359]Into the creature's better parts!
Wretches, you perish at the hands of the poet,
Or sway like those who have had a bit too much to drink.
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
The woodpecker chirped, mocking me.
So they hurry along, stanzas harmful,
Drunken words—what a racket!—
Till the whole group, line by line,
Everything depends on the rhythmic chain.
Does your poet really have a cruel heart?
Are there monsters who celebrate witnessing the killing?
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
The woodpecker chirped, mocking me.
So you mock me, bird, with your scornful ways?
Is my mind really in that bad of a condition?
And my heart, you say, is in an even worse place?
Beware! My anger is not to be taken lightly!
Yet even in his anger the poet
Rhymes and sings with the same joy.
"Yes, yes, good sir, you are a poet,"
The woodpecker chirped, mocking me.
IN THE SOUTH.[2]
I swing on a branch and rest
My tired limbs in a nest,
In the rocking home of a bird,
Where I perch as its guest,
[Pg 360]In the South!
I gaze at the ocean asleep,
At the purple sail of a boat;
At the harbor and steep tower,
At the rocks that stand out from the deep,
In the South!
For I could no longer stay,
To crawl in the slow German way;
So I called to the birds, asked the wind
To lift me up and carry me away
To the south!
No reasons for me, if you please;
Their end is too dull and plain;
But a pair of wings and a breeze,
With courage and health and ease,
And games that chase disease
From the South!
Wise thoughts can move without sound,
But I've songs I can't sing alone;
So birdies, please gather around,
And listen to what I have found
In the South!
. . . . .
. . . .
"You are merry lovers and false and gay,
"In fun and games you pass the day;
"While in the North, I shudder to say,
"I worshipped a woman, hideous and gray,
"Her name was Truth, so I heard them say,
"But I left her there and I flew away
"Go South!"
[Pg 361]
BEPPA THE PIOUS.
While beauty's in my face,
Let devotion be my focus,
For God, you know, loves girls,
And, above all, the attractive ones.
And if that hapless monk
Wants to live with me,
Like many another monk,
God will surely forgive.
No gray old priestly devil,
But young, with flushed cheeks—
Who even when sick with revel,
Can be envious and blame.
To old men I'm a stranger,
And he also hates the old:
Of God, the world-maker,
Check out the wisdom here!
The Church knows how to live,
And tests by heart and appearance.
To me she'll be forgiving!
Who won't give me grace?
I lisp with a pretty stutter,
I bow and say "hi,"
And with my fresh defaulting
I wash the past away!
Praise be this man-God's gift,
Who loves all fair maidens,
And his own heart can pardon
[Pg 362]The sin he planted there.
While beauty is on my face,
I’ll stand with piety,
When age has taken my charm,
Let Satan take my hand!
THE BOAT OF MYSTERY.
Last night, when everything was calm—
Barely a breeze stirred the lane—
I kept a restless vigil,
Unable to sleep on my pillows,
Nor from poppies nor—from the surest
Of opiates—a clear conscience.
I began to give up on rest,
I got up and walked along the shore,
Found, in the warm moonlit air,
A man and a boat on the sand,
Both sleepy, and drowsily
The boat drifted out to sea.
Perhaps an hour or two passed,
Or maybe a year? Then thought and awareness
Disappeared into the all-consuming trance
Of vast indifference.
So deep and fathomless
It opened—then the vision vanished.
Morning came: the boat
Rested on the purple sea:
"What happened?" every throat
Cried out the question: "was there—
Blood?"
Nothing had happened! On the swell
[Pg 363]We had slept so well!
AN AVOWAL OF LOVE
(during which, however, the poet fell into a pit).
Oh marvel! there he soars
Cutting through the sky with wings unruffled—what force
Lifts him, urges him higher,
What holds him back? Where's his destination?
Like stars and timeless infinity
He lives now in heights that life denied,
And even envy does not reject:
A lofty flight would be to see him soar!
Oh albatross, great bird,
Speeding me upward ever through the blue!
I thought of her, stirred
To endless tears—yes, I love her truly!
SONG OF A THEOCRITEAN GOATHERD.
Here I lie, my insides aching,
Swarmed by insects advancing,
Over there lights dance and roar!
What's that sound? They're dancing!
At this moment, she chatted,
Stealthily she’d come to meet me:
Like a loyal dog, I’ve waited,
Not a single sign to greet me!
She promised and gave me the sign,
Could her vows be empty?
Or is she off after all that woo,
[Pg 364]Like the goats I follow?
Where’s your satin dress, my girl?
Ah, you'd like to be haughty,
Yet maybe you've been a tease
With some naughty satyr!
Waiting long, the lovesick fool
Is filled with rage and poison:
Even so on a sultry night
Toadstools thrive aplenty.
Pinching hard, in devilish mood,
Love torments me,
Truly I cannot eat a thing:
Farewell, onion dinner!
Toward the sea the moon sinks away,
The stars are dim and shine not:
Dawn arrives, gloomy, grey,
Let Death come! I don't care!
"SOULS THAT LACK DETERMINATION."
Souls that lack determination
Ignite my anger to white-hot flame!
All their glory is just frustration,
All their praise just self-contempt and shame!
Since I resist their advances,
Refuse to grab their leading-string,
They would wither me with glances
Bitter-sweet, with hopeless envy sting.
Let them simply quiver with their curses,
Curl their lips each long day!
Seek me as they will, forever
[Pg 365]Helplessly their gaze shall stray!
THE FOOL'S DILEMMA.
Ah, what I wrote on board and wall
With foolish heart, in foolish scrawl,
I meant just for decoration!
But you say, "Fools' disgrace!
Both board and wall need cleaning,
And let no trace offend our eyes!"
Well, I will help you, as best I can,
For sponge and broom are my tools
As critic and as cleaner.
But when I look at the finished work,
I’m glad to see each learned owl
Defiling board and wall with "wisdom."
RIMUS REMEDIUM
(or a Consolation to Sick Poets).
From your moist lips,
Oh Time, you witch, drenching me,
Hour upon hour too slowly drips
In vain—I cry, in frenzy’s fit,
"A curse upon that yawning pit,
A curse upon Eternity!"
The world is brass,
A fiery bull, deaf to wail:
Pain's dagger pierces my armor,
Winged, it writes upon my bone:
"Bowels and heart the world has none,
[Pg 366]Why scourge her sins with anger's flail?"
Pour poppies now,
Pour poison, Fever, on my brain!
Too long you test my hand and brow:
What do you ask? "What—reward is paid?"
A curse on you, jade,
And your disdain!
No, I take it back,
It’s cold—I hear the rain plead—
Fever, I'll soften, show my skill:
Here's gold—a coin—see it shine!
Shall I shower you with blessings,
Call you "good luck"?
The door swings wide,
And raindrops fall on my bed,
The light's blown out—woes multiplied!
He who doesn't have a hundred rhymes,
I’ll bet you, in these sorrowful times
We'd see him shattered!
MY BLISS.
Once again, St. Mark, your pigeons meet my gaze,
The Square lies still, in a sleepy morning mood:
In soft, cool air, I craft idle verses,
Sending them skyward like a flock of pigeons:
And then I call my helpers
To fix fresh rhymes upon their willing wings.
My bliss! My bliss!
Calm heavenly roof of smooth blue,
Guarding with shimmering mist that divine house!
[Pg 367]To you, house, I love, fear—and I'll confess, envy,
And I'd gladly take that soul of yours!
"Should I return the prize?"
Don't ask, great pasture-ground for human eyes!
My bliss! My bliss!
Stern tower, rising like a lion's leap
Straight from the soil in easy victory,
That fills the Square with its peal, echoing deep
Would you be in French, that Square's "accent aigu"?
If I were set for ages
In earth like you, I know what silk-net—
My bliss! My bliss!
So, music! Let darker shadows come,
And grow, merging into mellow night!
It's too early for your ringing, before the dome
Sparkles in rosy glory, decked in gold
While it's still day, there’s time
For strolling, lonely murmuring, crafting rhyme—
My bliss! My bliss!
COLUMBUS REDIVIVUS.
There I’ll travel, that’s my thought,
I’ll trust myself, my grip,
Where opens wide and blue the ocean
I’ll sail my Genoa ship.
New things in the world unfold to me,
Time, space die in the midday light:
Only your monstrous eye sees me,
[Pg 368]Awful Infinity!
SILS-MARIA.
Here I sat waiting, waiting, but for nothing!
Beyond all good and evil—now by light made
To joy, now by dark shadows—all was leisure,
All lake, all noon, all time without aim or measure.
Then one, dear friend, swiftly turned into two,
And Zarathustra left my bustling mind....
A DANCING SONG TO THE MISTRAL WIND.[3]
Wildly rushing, clouds outleaping,
Care-destroying, Heaven sweeping,
Mistral wind, you are my friend!
Surely one womb birthed us,
Surely one fate joined us,
Partners for a common end.
From the cliffs I cheerfully greet you,
Running fast, I come to meet you,
Dancing while you play and sing.
How you rush across the ocean,
Unhindered, free in motion,
[Pg 369]Swifter than with boat or wing!
Through my dreams your whistle sounded,
Down the rocky stairs I bounded
To the golden ocean's edge;
Saw you rushing, swift and glorious,
Like a river, strong, victorious,
Tumbling like a waterfall.
Saw you racing over Heaven,
With your steeds so wildly driven,
Saw the car in which you flew;
Saw the whip that flicked and quivered,
While the hand that held it shivered,
Urging on the steeds anew.
Saw you swinging from your chariot,
So that you'd spring downward swifter,
Like an arrow you might go
Straight into the deep abysses,
As a sunbeam falls and kisses
Roses in the morning glow.
Dance, oh! dance on all the edges,
Wave-crests, cliffs, and mountain ledges,
Always finding new dances!
Let our knowledge be our joy,
Let our art be sport and madness,
All that’s joyful shall be true!
Let us snatch from every bower,
As we pass, the fairest flower,
With some leaves to make a crown;
Then, like cheerful minstrels dancing,
Saint and witch together prancing,
[Pg 370]Let us dance up and down.
Those who come must move as quickly
As the wind—we won’t have any weaklings,
Crippled, withered, in our crew.
Off with hypocrites and preachers,
Proper folks and boring teachers,
Sweep them from our heaven blue.
Sweep away all sad faces,
Whirl the dust into the faces
Of the dismal and cold!
Chase them from our breezy places,
Not for them is the wind that strengthens,
But for men of bold demeanor.
Off with those who spoil earth's happiness,
Blow away all clouds of sadness,
Until our heaven's clear!
Let me hold your hand, best friend,
Until my joy bellows like a tempest!
Freest you of spirits free!
When you leave, take a token
Of the joy you've awakened,
Take our wreath and throw it far;
Throw it up and never catch it,
Whirl it on ahead of you forever,
Until it reaches the farthest star.
[1] This poem is a parody of the "Chorus Mysticus" which concludes the second part of Goethe's "Faust." Bayard Taylor's translation of the passage in "Faust" runs as follows:—
[1] This poem makes fun of the "Chorus Mysticus" that wraps up the second part of Goethe's "Faust." Bayard Taylor's translation of that part in "Faust" goes like this:—
"All things transitory
But as symbols are sent,
Earth's insufficiency
Here grows to Event:
The Indescribable
Here it is done:
The Woman-Soul leadeth us
Upward and on!"
"Everything is temporary
But as symbols are sent,
Earth's limitations
Are transformed into Event:
The Indescribable
Here it is achieved:
The Woman-Soul guides us
Upward and onward!"
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!