{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_18267/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_18267","id":"gutenberg_18267","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18267","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Teaching & Education","Classical philology","Education"],"text":"Produced by Thierry Alberto, Martin Pettit and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE COMPLETE WORKS OF FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE\n\n_First Complete and Authorised English translation in Eighteen Volumes_\n\nEDITED BY\n\nDR OSCAR LEVY\n\n[Illustration: Nietzsche.]\n\nVOLUME EIGHT\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nTHIRD EDITION\n\n\nWE PHILOLOGISTS\n\nTRANSLATED BY\n\nJ. M. KENNEDY\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nT. N. FOULIS\n\n13 & 15 FREDERICK STREET\n\nEDINBURGH . AND LONDON\n\n1911\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO \"WE PHILOLOGISTS\"      105\n\nWE PHILOLOGISTS                                109\n\n\n\n\n\nWE PHILOLOGISTS\n\n\nAUTUMN 1874\n\n(PUBLISHED POSTHUMOUSLY)\n\n\nTRANSLATED BY J. M. KENNEDY\n\nAUTHOR OF \"THE QUINTESSENCE OF NIETZSCHE,\" \"RELIGIONS AND PHILOSOPHIES\nOF THE EAST,\" &C.\n\n\n     The mussel is crooked inside and rough outside . it is only when we\n     hear its deep note after blowing into it that we can begin to\n     esteem it at its true value.--(Ind. Spruche, ed Bothlingk, 1 335)\n\n     An ugly-looking-wind instrument . but we must first blow into it.\n\n\nTRANSLATOR'S INTRODUCTION\n\nThe subject of education was one to which Nietzsche, especially during\nhis residence in Basel, paid considerable attention, and his insight\ninto it was very much deeper than that of, say, Herbert Spencer or even\nJohann Friedrich Herbart, the latter of whom has in late years exercised\nconsiderable influence in scholastic circles. Nietzsche clearly saw that\nthe \"philologists\" (using the word chiefly in reference to the teachers\nof the classics in German colleges and universities) were absolutely\nunfitted for their high task, since they were one and all incapable of\nentering into the spirit of antiquity. Although at the first reading,\ntherefore, this book may seem to be rather fragmentary, there are two\nmain lines of thought running through it: an incisive criticism of\nGerman professors, and a number of constructive ideas as to what\nclassical culture really should be.\n\nThese scattered aphorisms, indeed, are significant as showing how far\nNietzsche had travelled along the road over which humanity had been\ntravelling from remote ages, and how greatly he was imbued with the\npagan spirit which he recognised in Goethe and valued in Burckhardt.\nEven at this early period of his life Nietzsche was convinced that\nChristianity was the real danger to culture; and not merely modern\nChristianity, but also the Alexandrian culture, the last gasp of Greek\nantiquity, which had helped to bring Christianity about. When, in the\nlater aphorisms of \"We Philologists,\" Nietzsche appears to be throwing\nover the Greeks, it should be remembered that he does not refer to the\nGreeks of the era of Homer or AEschylus, or even of Aristotle, but to the\nmuch later Greeks of the era of Longinus.\n\nClassical antiquity, however, was conveyed to the public through\nuniversity professors and their intellectual offspring, and these\nprofessors, influenced (quite unconsciously, of course) by religious and\n\"liberal\" principles, presented to their scholars a kind of emasculated\nantiquity. It was only on these conditions that the State allowed the\npagan teaching to be propagated in the schools; and if, where classical\nscholars were concerned, it was more tolerant than the Church had been,\nit must be borne in mind that the Church had already done all the rough\nwork of emasculating its enemies, and had handed down to the State a\nbody of very innocuous and harmless investigators. A totally erroneous\nconception of what constituted classical culture was thus brought about.\nWhere any distinction was actually made, for example, later Greek\nthought was enormously over-rated, and early Greek thought equally\nundervalued. Aphorism 44, together with the first half-dozen or so in\nthe book, may be taken as typical specimens of Nietzsche's protest\nagainst this state of things.\n\nIt must be added, unfortunately, that Nietzsche's observations in this\nbook apply as much to England as to Germany. Classical teachers here may\nnot be rated so high as they are in Germany, but their influence would\nappear to be equally powerful, and their theories of education and of\nclassical antiquity equally chaotic. In England as in Germany they are\n\"theologians in disguise.\" The danger of modern \"values\" to true culture\nmay be readily gathered from a perusal of aphorisms that follow: and, if\nthese aphorisms enable even one scholar in a hundred to enter more\nthoroughly into the spirit of a great past they will not have been\npenned in vain.\n\n                                            J. M. KENNEDY.\n\nLONDON, _July 1911_.\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nTo what a great extent men are ruled by pure hazard, and how little\nreason itself enters into the question, is sufficiently shown by\nobserving how few people have any real capacity for their professions\nand callings, and how many square pegs there are in round holes: happy\nand well chosen instances are quite exceptional, like happy marriages,\nand even these latter are not brought about by reason. A man chooses his\ncalling before he is fitted to exercise his faculty of choice. He does\nnot know the number of different callings and professions that exist; he\ndoes not know himself; and then he wastes his years of activity in this\ncalling, applies all his mind to it, and becomes experienced and\npractical. When, afterwards, his understanding has become fully\ndeveloped, it is generally too late to start something new; for wisdom\non earth has almost always had something of the weakness of old age and\nlack of vigour about it.\n\nFor the most part the task is to make good, and to set to rights as well\nas possible, that which was bungled in the beginning. Many will come to\nrecognise that the latter part of their life shows a purpose or design\nwhich has sprung from a primary discord: it is hard to live through it.\nTowards the end of his life, however, the average man has become\naccustomed to it--then he may make a mistake in regard to the life he\nhas lived, and praise his own stupidity: _bene navigavi cum naufragium\nfeci_ . he may even compose a song of thanksgiving to \"Providence.\"\n\n\n2\n\nOn inquiring into the origin of the philologist I find:\n\n1. A young man cannot have the slightest conception of what the Greeks\nand Romans were.\n\n2. He does not know whether he is fitted to investigate into them;\n\n3. And, in particular, he does not know to what extent, in view of the\nknowledge he may actually possess, he is fitted to be a teacher. What\nthen enables him to decide is not the knowledge of himself or his\nscience; but\n\n     (_a_) Imitation.\n\n     (_b_) The convenience of carrying on the kind of work which he had\n     begun at school.\n\n     (_c_) His intention of earning a living.\n\nIn short, ninety-nine philologists out of a hundred _should_ not be\nphilologists at all.\n\n\n3\n\nThe more strict religions require that men shall look upon their\nactivity simply as one means of carrying out a metaphysical scheme: an\nunfortunate choice of calling may then be explained as a test of the\nindividual. Religions keep their eyes fixed only upon the salvation of\nthe individual . whether he is a slave or a free man, a merchant or a\nscholar, his aim in life has nothing to do with his calling, so that a\nwrong choice is not such a very great piece of unhappiness. Let this\nserve as a crumb of comfort for philologists in general; but true\nphilologists stand in need of a better understanding: what will result\nfrom a science which is \"gone in for\" by ninety-nine such people? The\nthoroughly unfitted majority draw up the rules of the science in\naccordance with their own capacities and inclinations; and in this way\nthey tyrannise over the hundredth, the only capable one among them. If\nthey have the training of others in their hands they will train them\nconsciously or unconsciously after their own image . what then becomes\nof the classicism of the Greeks and Romans?\n\nThe points to be proved are--\n\n(_a_) The disparity between philologists and the ancients.\n\n(_b_) The inability of the philologist to train his pupils, even with\nthe help of the ancients.\n\n(_c_) The falsifying of the science by the (incapacity of the) majority,\nthe wrong requirements held in view; the renunciation of the real aim of\nthis science.\n\n\n4\n\nAll this affects the sources of our present philology: a sceptical and\nmelancholy attitude. But how otherwise are philologists to be produced?\n\nThe imitation of antiquity: is not this a principle which has been\nrefuted by this time?\n\nThe flight from actuality to the ancients: does not this tend to falsify\nour conception of antiquity?\n\n\n5\n\nWe are still behindhand in one type of contemplation: to understand how\nthe greatest productions of the intellect have a dreadful and evil\nbackground . the sceptical type of contemplation. Greek antiquity is now\ninvestigated as the most beautiful example of life.\n\nAs man assumes a sceptical and melancholy attitude towards his life's\ncalling, so we must sceptically examine the highest life's calling of a\nnation: in order that we may understand what life is.\n\n\n6\n\nMy words of consolation apply particularly to the single tyrannised\nindividual out of a hundred: such exceptional ones should simply treat\nall the unenlightened majorities as their subordinates; and they should\nin the same way take advantage of the prejudice, which is still\nwidespread, in favour of classical instruction--they need many helpers.\nBut they must have a clear perception of what their actual goal is.\n\n\n7\n\nPhilology as the science of antiquity does not, of course, endure for\never; its elements are not inexhaustible. What cannot be exhausted,\nhowever, is the ever-new adaptation of one's age to antiquity; the\ncomparison of the two. If we make it our task to understand our own age\nbetter by means of antiquity, then our task will be an everlasting\none.--This is the antinomy of philology: people have always endeavoured\nto understand antiquity by means of the present--and shall the present\nnow be understood by means of antiquity? Better: people have explained\nantiquity to themselves out of their own experiences; and from the\namount of antiquity thus acquired they have assessed the value of their\nexperiences. Experience, therefore, is certainly an essential\nprerequisite for a philologist--that is, the philologist must first of\nall be a man; for then only can he be productive as a philologist. It\nfollows from this that old men are well suited to be philologists if\nthey were not such during that portion of their life which was richest\nin experiences.\n\nIt must be insisted, however, that it is only through a knowledge of the\npresent that one can acquire an inclination for the study of classical\nantiquity. Where indeed should the impulse come from if not from this\ninclination? When we observe how few philologists there actually are,\nexcept those that have taken up philology as a means of livelihood, we\ncan easily decide for ourselves what is the matter with this impulse for\nantiquity: it hardly exists at all, for there are no disinterested\nphilologists.\n\nOur task then is to secure for philology the universally educative\nresults which it should bring about. The means: the limitation of the\nnumber of those engaged in the philological profession (doubtful whether\nyoung men should be made acquainted with philology at all). Criticism of\nthe philologist. The value of antiquity: it sinks with you: how deeply\nyou must have sunk, since its value is now so little!\n\n\n8\n\nIt is a great advantage for the true philologist that a great deal of\npreliminary work has been done in his science, so that he may take\npossession of this inheritance if he is strong enough for it--I refer to\nthe valuation of the entire Hellenic mode of thinking. So long as\nphilologists worked simply at details, a misunderstanding of the Greeks\nwas the consequence. The stages of this undervaluation are . the\nsophists of the second century, the philologist-poets of the\nRenaissance, and the philologist as the teacher of the higher classes of\nsociety (Goethe, Schiller).\n\nValuing is the most difficult of all.\n\nIn what respect is one most fitted for this valuing?\n\n--Not, at all events, when one is trained for philology as one is now.\nIt should be ascertained to what extent our present means make this last\nobject impossible.\n\n--Thus the philologist himself is not the aim of philology.\n\n\n9\n\nMost men show clearly enough that they do not regard themselves as\nindividuals: their lives indicate this. The Christian command that\neveryone shall steadfastly keep his eyes fixed upon his salvation, and\nhis alone, has as its counterpart the general life of mankind, where\nevery man lives merely as a point among other points--living not only as\nthe result of earlier generations, but living also only with an eye to\nthe future. There are only three forms of existence in which a man\nremains an individual as a philosopher, as a Saviour, and as an artist.\nBut just let us consider how a scientific man bungles his life: what\nhas the teaching of Greek particles to do with the sense of life?--Thus\nwe can also observe how innumerable men merely live, as it were, a\npreparation for a man, the philologist, for example, as a preparation\nfor the philosopher, who in his turn knows how to utilise his ant-like\nwork to pronounce some opinion upon the value of life. When such\nant-like work is not carried out under any special direction the greater\npart of it is simply nonsense, and quite superfluous.\n\n\n10\n\nBesides the large number of unqualified philologists there is, on the\nother hand, a number of what may be called born philologists, who from\nsome reason or other are prevented from becoming such. The greatest\nobstacle, however, which stands in the way of these born philologists is\nthe bad representation of philology by the unqualified philologists.\n\nLeopardi is the modern ideal of a philologist: The German philologists\ncan do nothing. (As a proof of this Voss should be studied!)\n\n\n11\n\nLet it be considered how differently a science is propagated from the\nway in which any special talent in a family is transmitted. The bodily\ntransmission of an individual science is something very rare. Do the\nsons of philologists easily become philologists? _Dubito_. Thus there is\nno such accumulation of philological capacity as there was, let us say,\nin Beethoven's family of musical capacity. Most philologists begin from\nthe beginning, and even then they learn from books, and not through\ntravels, &c. They get some training, of course.\n\n\n12\n\nMost men are obviously in the world accidentally; no necessity of a\nhigher kind is seen in them. They work at this and that, their talents\nare average. How strange! The manner in which they live shows that they\nthink very little of themselves: they merely esteem themselves in so far\nas they waste their energy on trifles (whether these be mean or\nfrivolous desires, or the trashy concerns of their everyday calling). In\nthe so-called life's calling, which everyone must choose, we may\nperceive a touching modesty on the part of mankind. They practically\nadmit in choosing thus. \"We are called upon to serve and to be of\nadvantage to our equals--the same remark applies to our neighbour and to\nhis neighbour, so everyone serves somebody else; no one is carrying out\nthe duties of his calling for his own sake, but always for the sake of\nothers and thus we are like geese which support one another by the one\nleaning against the other. _When the aim of each one of us is centred in\nanother, then we have all no object in existing;_ and this 'existing for\nothers' is the most comical of comedies.\"\n\n\n13\n\nVanity is the involuntary inclination to set one's self up for an\nindividual while not really being one; that is to say, trying to appear\nindependent when one is dependent. The case of wisdom is the exact\ncontrary: it appears to be dependent while in reality it is independent.\n\n\n14\n\nThe Hades of Homer--From what type of existence is it really copied? I\nthink it is the description of the philologist: it is better to be a\nday-labourer than to have such an anaemic recollection of the past.--[1]\n\n\n15\n\nThe attitude of the philologist towards antiquity is apologetic, or else\ndictated by the view that what our own age values can likewise be found\nin antiquity. The right attitude to take up, however, is the reverse\none, viz., to start with an insight into our modern topsyturviness, and\nto look back from antiquity to it--and many things about antiquity which\nhave hitherto displeased us will then be seen to have been most profound\nnecessities.\n\nWe must make it clear to ourselves that we are acting in an absurd\nmanner when we try to defend or to beautify antiquity: _who_ are we!\n\n\n16\n\nWe are under a false impression when we say that there is always some\ncaste which governs a nation's culture, and that therefore savants are\nnecessary; for savants only possess knowledge concerning culture (and\neven this only in exceptional cases). Among learned men themselves there\nmight be a few, certainly not a caste, but even these would indeed be\nrare.\n\n\n17\n\nOne very great value of antiquity consists in the fact that its writings\nare the only ones which modern men still read carefully.\n\nOverstraining of the memory--very common among philologists, together\nwith a poor development of the judgment.\n\n\n18\n\nBusying ourselves with the culture-epochs of the past: is this\ngratitude? We should look backwards in order to explain to ourselves the\npresent conditions of culture: we do not become too laudatory in regard\nto our own circumstances, but perhaps we should do so in order that we\nmay not be too severe on ourselves.\n\n\n19\n\nHe who has no sense for the symbolical has none for antiquity: let\npedantic philologists bear this in mind.\n\n\n20\n\nMy aim is to bring about a state of complete enmity between our present\n\"culture\" and antiquity. Whoever wishes to serve the former must hate\nthe latter.\n\n\n21\n\nCareful meditation upon the past leads to the impression that we are a\nmultiplication of many pasts . so how can we be a final aim? But why\nnot? In most instances, however, we do not wish to be this. We take up\nour positions again in the ranks, work in our own little corner, and\nhope that what we do may be of some small profit to our successors. But\nthat is exactly the case of the cask of the Danae . and this is useless,\nwe must again set about doing everything for ourselves, and only for\nourselves--measuring science by ourselves, for example with the question\n. What is science to us? not . what are we to science? People really\nmake life too easy for themselves when they look upon themselves from\nsuch a simple historical point of view, and make humble servants of\nthemselves. \"Your own salvation above everything\"--that is what you\nshould say; and there are no institutions which you should prize more\nhighly than your own soul.--Now, however, man learns to know himself: he\nfinds himself miserable, despises himself, and is pleased to find\nsomething worthy of respect outside himself. Therefore he gets rid of\nhimself, so to speak, makes himself subservient to a cause, does his\nduty strictly, and atones for his existence. He knows that he does not\nwork for himself alone; he wishes to help those who are daring enough to\nexist on account of themselves, like Socrates. The majority of men are\nas it were suspended in the air like toy balloons; every breath of wind\nmoves them.--As a consequence the savant must be such out of\nself-knowledge, that is to say, out of contempt for himself--in other\nwords he must recognise himself to be merely the servant of some higher\nbeing who comes after him. Otherwise he is simply a sheep.\n\n\n22\n\nIt is the duty of the free man to live for his own sake, and not for\nothers. It was on this account that the Greeks looked upon handicrafts\nas unseemly.\n\nAs a complete entity Greek antiquity has not yet been fully valued . I\nam convinced that if it had not been surrounded by its traditional\nglorification, the men of the present day would shrink from it horror\nstricken. This glorification, then, is spurious; gold-paper.\n\n\n23\n\nThe false enthusiasm for antiquity in which many philologists live. When\nantiquity suddenly comes upon us in our youth, it appears to us to be\ncomposed of innumerable trivialities; in particular we believe ourselves\nto be above its ethics. And Homer and Walter Scott--who carries off the\npalm? Let us be honest! If this enthusiasm were really felt, people\ncould scarcely seek their life's calling in it. I mean that what we can\nobtain from the Greeks only begins to dawn upon us in later years: only\nafter we have undergone many experiences, and thought a great deal.\n\n\n24\n\nPeople in general think that philology is at an end--while I believe\nthat it has not yet begun.\n\nThe greatest events in philology are the appearance of Goethe,\nSchopenhauer, and Wagner; standing on their shoulders we look far into\nthe distance. The fifth and sixth centuries have still to be discovered.\n\n\n25\n\nWhere do we see the effect of antiquity? Not in language, not in the\nimitation of something or other, and not in perversity and waywardness,\nto which uses the French have turned it. Our museums are gradually\nbecoming filled up: I always experience a sensation of disgust when I\nsee naked statues in the Greek style in the presence of this thoughtless\nphilistinism which would fain devour everything.\n\n\nPLANS AND THOUGHTS RELATING TO A WORK ON PHILOLOGY\n\n(1875)\n\n\n26\n\nOf all sciences philology at present is the most favoured . its progress\nhaving been furthered for centuries by the greatest number of scholars\nin every nation who have had charge of the noblest pupils. Philology has\nthus had one of the best of all opportunities to be propagated from\ngeneration to generation, and to make itself respected. How has it\nacquired this power?\n\nCalculations of the different prejudices in its favour.\n\nHow then if these were to be frankly recognised as prejudices? Would not\nphilology be superfluous if we reckoned up the interests of a position\nin life or the earning of a livelihood? What if the truth were told\nabout antiquity, and its qualifications for training people to live in\nthe present?\n\nIn order that the questions set forth above may be answered let us\nconsider the training of the philologist, his genesis: he no longer\ncomes into being where these interests are lacking.\n\nIf the world in general came to know what an unseasonable thing for us\nantiquity really is, philologists would no longer be called in as the\neducators of our youth.\n\nEffect of antiquity on the non-philologist likewise nothing. If they\nshowed themselves to be imperative and contradictory, oh, with what\nhatred would they be pursued! But they always humble themselves.\n\nPhilology now derives its power only from the union between the\nphilologists who will not, or cannot, understand antiquity and public\nopinion, which is misled by prejudices in regard to it.\n\nThe real Greeks, and their \"watering down\" through the philologists.\n\nThe future commanding philologist sceptical in regard to our entire\nculture, and therefore also the destroyer of philology as a profession.\n\n\nTHE PREFERENCE FOR ANTIQUITY\n\n\n27\n\nIf a man approves of the investigation of the past he will also approve\nand even praise the fact--and will above all easily understand it--that\nthere are scholars who are exclusively occupied with the investigation\nof Greek and Roman antiquity: but that these scholars are at the same\ntime the teachers of the children of the nobility and gentry is not\nequally easy of comprehension--here lies a problem.\n\nWhy philologists precisely? This is not altogether such a matter of\ncourse as the case of a professor of medicine, who is also a practical\nphysician and surgeon. For, if the cases were identical, preoccupation\nwith Greek and Roman antiquity would be identical with the \"science of\neducation.\" In short, the relationship between theory and practice in\nthe philologist cannot be so quickly conceived. Whence comes his\npretension to be a teacher in the higher sense, not only of all\nscientific men, but more especially of all cultured men? This\neducational power must be taken by the philologist from antiquity; and\nin such a case people will ask with astonishment: how does it come that\nwe attach such value to a far-off past that we can only become cultured\nmen with the aid of its knowledge?\n\nThese questions, however, are not asked as a rule: The sway of philology\nover our means of instruction remains practically unquestioned; and\nantiquity _has_ the importance assigned to it. To this extent the\nposition of the philologist is more favourable than that of any other\nfollower of science. True, he has not at his disposal that great mass of\nmen who stand in need of him--the doctor, for example, has far more than\nthe philologist. But he can influence picked men, or youths, to be more\naccurate, at a time when all their mental faculties are beginning to\nblossom forth--people who can afford to devote both time and money to\ntheir higher development. In all those places where European culture has\nfound its way, people have accepted secondary schools based upon a\nfoundation of Latin and Greek as the first and highest means of\ninstruction. In this way philology has found its best opportunity of\ntransmitting itself, and commanding respect: no other science has been\nso well favoured. As a general rule all those who have passed through\nsuch institutions have afterwards borne testimony to the excellence of\ntheir organisation and curriculum, and such people are, of course,\nunconscious witnesses in favour of philology. If any who have not passed\nthrough these institutions should happen to utter a word in\ndisparagement of this education, an unanimous and yet calm repudiation\nof the statement at once follows, as if classical education were a kind\nof witchcraft, blessing its followers, and demonstrating itself to them\nby this blessing. There is no attempt at polemics . \"We have been\nthrough it all.\" \"We know it has done us good.\"\n\nNow there are so many things to which men have become so accustomed that\nthey look upon them as quite appropriate and suitable, for habit\nintermixes all things with sweetness; and men as a rule judge the value\nof a thing in accordance with their own desires. The desire for\nclassical antiquity as it is now felt should be tested, and, as it were,\ntaken to pieces and analysed with a view to seeing how much of this\ndesire is due to habit, and how much to mere love of adventure--I refer\nto that inward and active desire, new and strange, which gives rise to a\nproductive conviction from day to day, the desire for a higher goal, and\nalso the means thereto . as the result of which people advance step by\nstep from one unfamiliar thing to another, like an Alpine climber.\n\nWhat is the foundation on which the high value attached to antiquity at\nthe present time is based, to such an extent indeed that our whole\nmodern culture is founded on it? Where must we look for the origin of\nthis delight in antiquity, and the preference shown for it?\n\nI think I have recognised in my examination of the question that all our\nphilology--that is, all its present existence and power--is based on the\nsame foundation as that on which our view of antiquity as the most\nimportant of all means of training is based. Philology as a means of\ninstruction is the clear expression of a predominating conception\nregarding the value of antiquity, and the best methods of education. Two\npropositions are contained in this statement. In the first place all\nhigher education must be a historical one, and secondly, Greek and Roman\nhistory differs from all others in that it is classical. Thus the\nscholar who knows this history becomes a teacher. We are not here going\ninto the question as to whether higher education ought to be historical\nor not; but we may examine the second and ask: in how far is it classic?\n\nOn this point there are many widespread prejudices. In the first place\nthere is the prejudice expressed in the synonymous concept, \"The study\nof the humanities\": antiquity is classic because it is the school of the\nhumane.\n\nSecondly: \"Antiquity is classic because it is enlightened----\"\n\n\n28\n\nIt is the task of all education to change certain conscious actions and\nhabits into more or less unconscious ones; and the history of mankind is\nin this sense its education. The philologist now practises unconsciously\na number of such occupations and habits. It is my object to ascertain\nhow his power, that is, his instinctive methods of work, is the result\nof activities which were formerly conscious, but which he has gradually\ncome to feel as such no longer: _but that consciousness consisted of\nprejudices_. The present power of philologists is based upon these\nprejudices, for example the value attached to the _ratio_ as in the\ncases of Bentley and Hermann. Prejudices are, as Lichtenberg says, the\nart impulses of men.\n\n\n29\n\nIt is difficult to justify the preference for antiquity since it has\narisen from prejudices:\n\n1. From ignorance of all non-classical antiquity.\n\n2. From a false idealisation of humanitarianism, whilst Hindoos and\nChinese are at all events more humane.\n\n3. From the pretensions of school-teachers.\n\n4. From the traditional admiration which emanated from antiquity itself.\n\n5. From opposition to the Christian church; or as a support for this\nchurch.\n\n6. From the impression created by the century-long work of the\nphilologists, and the nature of this work. It must be a gold mine,\nthinks the spectator.\n\n7. The acquirement of knowledge attained as the result of the study. The\npreparatory school of science.\n\nIn short, partly from ignorance, wrong impressions, and misleading\nconclusions; and also from the interest which philologists have in\nraising their science to a high level in the estimation of laymen.\n\nAlso the preference for antiquity on the part of the artists, who\ninvoluntarily assume proportion and moderation to be the property of all\nantiquity. Purity of form. Authors likewise.\n\nThe preference for antiquity as an abbreviation of the history of the\nhuman race, as if there were an autochthonous creation here by which all\nbecoming might be studied.\n\nThe fact actually is that the foundations of this preference are being\nremoved one by one, and if this is not remarked by philologists\nthemselves, it is certainly being remarked as much as it can possibly be\nby people outside their circle. First of all history had its effect, and\nthen linguistics brought about the greatest diversion among philologists\nthemselves, and even the desertion of many of them. They have still the\nschools in their hands: but for how long! In the form in which it has\nexisted up to the present philology is dying out; the ground has been\nswept from under its feet. Whether philologists may still hope to\nmaintain their status is doubtful; in any case they are a dying race.\n\n\n30\n\nThe peculiarly significant situation of philologists: a class of people\nto whom we entrust our youth, and who have to investigate quite a\nspecial antiquity. The highest value is obviously attached to this\nantiquity. But if this antiquity has been wrongly valued, then the whole\nfoundation upon which the high position of the philologist is based\nsuddenly collapses. In any case this antiquity has been very\ndifferently valued, and our appreciation of the philologists has\nconstantly been guided by it. These people have borrowed their power\nfrom the strong prejudices in favour of antiquity,--this must be made\nclear.\n\nPhilologists now feel that when these prejudices are at last refuted,\nand antiquity depicted in its true colours, the favourable prejudices\ntowards them will diminish considerably. _It is thus to the interest of\ntheir profession not to let a clear impression of antiquity come to\nlight; in particular the impression that antiquity in its highest sense\nrenders one \"out of season?\"_ i.e., _an enemy to one's own time._\n\nIt is also to the interest of philologists as a class not to let their\ncalling as teachers be regarded from a higher standpoint than that to\nwhich they themselves can correspond.\n\n\n31\n\nIt is to be hoped that there are a few people who look upon it as a\nproblem why philologists should be the teachers of our noblest youths.\nPerhaps the case will not be always so--It would be much more natural\n_per se_ if our children were instructed in the elements of geography,\nnatural science, political economy, and sociology, if they were\ngradually led to a consideration of life itself, and if finally, but\nmuch later, the most noteworthy events of the past were brought to their\nknowledge. A knowledge of antiquity should be among the last subjects\nwhich a student would take up; and would not this position of antiquity\nin the curriculum of a school be more honourable for it than the present\none?--Antiquity is now used merely as a propaedeutic for thinking,\nspeaking, and writing; but there was a time when it was the essence of\nearthly knowledge, and people at that time wished to acquire by means of\npractical learning what they now seek to acquire merely by means of a\ndetailed plan of study--a plan which, corresponding to the more advanced\nknowledge of the age, has entirely changed.\n\nThus the inner purpose of philological teaching has been entirely\naltered; it was at one time material teaching, a teaching that taught\nhow to live, but now it is merely formal.[2]\n\n\n32\n\nIf it were the task of the philologist to impart formal education, it\nwould be necessary for him to teach walking, dancing, speaking, singing,\nacting, or arguing . and the so-called formal teachers did impart their\ninstruction this way in the second and third centuries. But only the\ntraining of a scientific man is taken into account, which results in\n\"formal\" thinking and writing, and hardly any speaking at all.\n\n\n33\n\nIf the gymnasium is to train young men for science, people now say there\ncan be no more preliminary preparation for any particular science, so\ncomprehensive have all the sciences become. As a consequence teachers\nhave to train their students generally, that is to say for all the\nsciences--for scientificality in other words; and for that classical\nstudies are necessary! What a wonderful jump! a most despairing\njustification! Whatever is, is right,[3] even when it is clearly seen\nthat the \"right\" on which it has been based has turned to wrong.\n\n\n34\n\nIt is accomplishments which are expected from us after a study of the\nancients: formerly, for example, the ability to write and speak. But\nwhat is expected now! Thinking and deduction . but these things are not\nlearnt _from_ the ancients, but at best _through_ the ancients, by means\nof science. Moreover, all historical deduction is very limited and\nunsafe, natural science should be preferred.\n\n\n35\n\nIt is the same with the simplicity of antiquity as it is with the\nsimplicity of style: it is the highest thing which we recognise and must\nimitate; but it is also the last. Let it be remembered that the classic\nprose of the Greeks is also a late result.\n\n\n36\n\nWhat a mockery of the study of the \"humanities\" lies in the fact that\nthey were also called \"belles lettres\" (bellas litteras)!\n\n\n37\n\nWolf's[4] reasons why the Egyptians, Hebrews, Persians, and other\nOriental nations were not to be set on the same plane with the Greeks\nand Romans: \"The former have either not raised themselves, or have\nraised themselves only to a slight extent, above that type of culture\nwhich should be called a mere civilisation and bourgeois acquirement, as\nopposed to the higher and true culture of the mind.\" He then explains\nthat this culture is spiritual and literary: \"In a well-organised nation\nthis may be begun earlier than order and peacefulness in the outward\nlife of the people (enlightenment).\"\n\nHe then contrasts the inhabitants of easternmost Asia (\"like such\nindividuals, who are not wanting in clean, decent, and comfortable\ndwellings, clothing, and surroundings; but who never feel the necessity\nfor a higher enlightenment\") with the Greeks (\"in the case of the\nGreeks, even among the most educated inhabitants of Attica, the contrary\noften happens to an astonishing degree; and the people neglect as\ninsignificant factors that which we, thanks to our love of order, are in\nthe habit of looking upon as the foundations of mental culture itself\").\n\n\n38\n\nOur terminology already shows how prone we are to judge the ancients\nwrongly: the exaggerated sense of literature, for example, or, as Wolf,\nwhen speaking of the \"inner history of ancient erudition,\" calls it,\n\"the history of learned enlightenment.\"\n\n\n39\n\nAccording to Goethe, the ancients are \"the despair of the emulator.\"\nVoltaire said. \"If the admirers of Homer were honest, they would\nacknowledge the boredom which their favourite often causes them.\"\n\n\n40\n\nThe position we have taken up towards classical antiquity is at bottom\nthe profound cause of the sterility of modern culture; for we have taken\nall this modern conception of culture from the Hellenised Romans. We\nmust distinguish within the domain of antiquity itself: when we come to\nappreciate its purely productive period, we condemn at the same time the\nentire Romano-Alexandrian culture. But at the same time also we condemn\nour own attitude towards antiquity, and likewise our philology.\n\n\n41\n\nThere has been an age-long battle between the Germans and antiquity,\n_i.e._, a battle against the old culture. It is certain that precisely\nwhat is best and deepest in the German resists it. The main point,\nhowever, is that such resistance is only justifiable in the case of the\nRomanised culture; for this culture, even at that time, was a\nfalling-off from something more profound and noble. It is this latter\nthat the Germans are wrong in resisting.\n\n\n42\n\nEverything classic was thoroughly cultivated by Charles the Great,\nwhilst he combated everything heathen with the severest possible\nmeasures of coercion. Ancient mythology was developed, but German\nmythology was treated as a crime. The feeling underlying all this, in my\nopinion, was that Christianity had already overcome the old religion .\npeople no longer feared it, but availed themselves of the culture that\nrested upon it. But the old German gods were feared.\n\nA great superficiality in the conception of antiquity--little else than\nan appreciation of its formal accomplishments and its knowledge--must\nthereby have been brought about. We must find out the forces that stood\nin the way of increasing our insight into antiquity. First of all, the\nculture of antiquity is utilised as an incitement towards the acceptance\nof Christianity . it became, as it were, the premium for conversion, the\ngilt with which the poisonous pill was coated before being swallowed.\nSecondly, the help of ancient culture was found to be necessary as a\nweapon for the intellectual protection of Christianity. Even the\nReformation could not dispense with classical studies for this purpose.\n\nThe Renaissance, on the other hand, now begins, with a clearer sense of\nclassical studies, which, however, are likewise looked upon from an\nanti-Christian standpoint: the Renaissance shows an awakening of honesty\nin the south, like the Reformation in the north. They could not but\nclash; for a sincere leaning towards antiquity renders one unchristian.\n\nOn the whole, however, the Church succeeded in turning classical studies\ninto a harmless direction . the philologist was invented, representing a\ntype of learned man who was at the same time a priest or something\nsimilar. Even in the period of the Reformation people succeeded in\nemasculating scholarship. It is on this account that Friedrich August\nWolf is noteworthy he freed his profession from the bonds of theology.\nThis action of his, however, was not fully understood; for an\naggressive, active element, such as was manifested by the\npoet-philologists of the Renaissance, was not developed. The freedom\nobtained benefited science, but not man.\n\n\n43\n\nIt is true that both humanism and rationalism have brought antiquity\ninto the field as an ally; and it is therefore quite comprehensible that\nthe opponents of humanism should direct their attacks against antiquity\nalso. Antiquity, however, has been misunderstood and falsified by\nhumanism . it must rather be considered as a testimony against humanism,\nagainst the benign nature of man, &c. The opponents of humanism are\nwrong to combat antiquity as well; for in antiquity they have a strong\nally.\n\n\n44\n\nIt is so difficult to understand the ancients. We must wait patiently\nuntil the spirit moves us. The human element which antiquity shows us\nmust not be confused with humanitarianism. This contrast must be\nstrongly emphasised: philology suffers by endeavouring to substitute the\nhumanitarian, young men are brought forward as students of philology in\norder that they may thereby become humanitarians. A good deal of\nhistory, in my opinion, is quite sufficient for that purpose. The brutal\nand self-conscious man will be humbled when he sees things and values\nchanging to such an extent.\n\nThe human element among the Greeks lies within a certain _naivete_,\nthrough which man himself is to be seen--state, art, society, military\nand civil law, sexual relations, education, party. It is precisely the\nhuman element which may be seen everywhere and among all peoples, but\namong the Greeks it is seen in a state of nakedness and inhumanity which\ncannot be dispensed with for purposes of instruction. In addition to\nthis, the Greeks have created the greatest number of individuals, and\nthus they give us so much insight into men,--a Greek cook is more of a\ncook than any other.\n\n\n45\n\nI deplore a system of education which does not enable people to\nunderstand Wagner, and as the result of which Schopenhauer sounds harsh\nand discordant in our ears . such a system of education has missed its\naim.\n\n\n46\n\n(THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE FIRST CHAPTER.)\n\n\n     Il faut dire la verite et s'immoler--VOLTAIRE.\n\n\nLet us suppose that there were freer and more superior spirits who were\ndissatisfied with the education now in vogue, and that they summoned it\nto their tribunal, what would the defendant say to them? In all\nprobability something like this: \"Whether you have a right to summon\nanyone here or not, I am at all events not the proper person to be\ncalled. It is my educators to whom you should apply. It is their duty to\ndefend me, and I have a right to keep silent. I am merely what they have\nmade me.\"\n\nThese educators would now be hauled before the tribunal, and among them\nan entire profession would be observed . the philologists. This\nprofession consists in the first place of those men who make use of\ntheir knowledge of Greek and Roman antiquity to bring up youths of\nthirteen to twenty years of age, and secondly of those men whose task it\nis to train specially-gifted pupils to act as future teachers--_i.e._,\nas the educators of educators. Philologists of the first type are\nteachers at the public schools, those of the second are professors at\nthe universities.\n\nThe first-named philologists are entrusted with the care of certain\nspecially-chosen youths, those who, early in life, show signs of talent\nand a sense of what is noble, and whose parents are prepared to allow\nplenty of time and money for their education. If other boys, who do not\nfulfil these three conditions, are presented to the teachers, the\nteachers have the right to refuse them. Those forming the second class,\nthe university professors, receive the young men who feel themselves\nfitted for the highest and most responsible of callings, that of\nteachers and moulders of mankind; and these professors, too, may refuse\nto have anything to do with young men who are not adequately equipped or\ngifted for the task.\n\nIf, then, the educational system of a period is condemned, a heavy\ncensure on philologists is thereby implied: either, as the consequence\nof their wrong-headed view, they insist on giving bad education in the\nbelief that it is good; or they do not wish to give this bad education,\nbut are unable to carry the day in favour of education which they\nrecognise to be better. In other words, their fault is either due to\ntheir lack of insight or to their lack of will. In answer to the first\ncharge they would say that they knew no better, and in answer to the\nsecond that they could do no better. As, however, these philologists\nbring up their pupils chiefly with the aid of Greek and Roman antiquity,\ntheir want of insight in the first case may be attributed to the fact\nthat they do not understand antiquity, and again to the fact that they\nbring forward antiquity into the present age as if it were the most\nimportant of all aids to instruction, while antiquity, generally\nspeaking, does not assist in training, or at all events no longer does\nso.\n\nOn the other hand, if we reproach our professors with their lack of\nwill, they would be quite right in attributing educational significance\nand power to antiquity; but they themselves could not be said to be the\nproper instruments by means of which antiquity could exhibit such power.\nIn other words, the professors would not be real teachers and would be\nliving under false colours, but how, then, could they have reached such\nan irregular position? Through a misunderstanding of themselves and\ntheir qualifications. In order, then, that we may ascribe to\nphilologists their share in this bad educational system of the present\ntime, we may sum up the different factors of their innocence and guilt\nin the following sentence: the philologist, if he wishes for a verdict\nof acquittal, must understand three things antiquity, the present time,\nand himself . his fault lies in the fact that he either does not\nunderstand antiquity, or the present time, or himself.\n\n\n47\n\nIt is not true to say that we can attain culture through antiquity\nalone. We may learn something from it, certainly; but not culture as the\nword is now understood. Our present culture is based on an emasculated\nand mendacious study of antiquity. In order to understand how\nineffectual this study is, just look at our philologists . they, trained\nupon antiquity, should be the most cultured men. Are they?\n\n\n48\n\nOrigin of the philologist. When a great work of art is exhibited there\nis always some one who not only feels its influence but wishes to\nperpetuate it. The same remark applies to a great state--to everything,\nin short, that man produces. Philologists wish to perpetuate the\ninfluence of antiquity and they can set about it only as imitative\nartists. Why not as men who form their lives after antiquity?\n\n\n49\n\nThe decline of the poet-scholars is due in great part to their own\ncorruption: their type is continually arising again; Goethe and\nLeopardi, for example, belong to it. Behind them plod the\nphilologist-savants. This type has its origin in the sophisticism of the\nsecond century.\n\n\n50\n\nAh, it is a sad story, the story of philology! The disgusting erudition,\nthe lazy, inactive passivity, the timid submission.--Who was ever free?\n\n\n51\n\nWhen we examine the history of philology it is borne in upon us how few\nreally talented men have taken part in it. Among the most celebrated\nphilologists are a few who ruined their intellect by acquiring a\nsmattering of many subjects, and among the most enlightened of them were\nseveral who could use their intellect only for childish tasks. It is a\nsad story . no science, I think, has ever been so poor in talented\nfollowers. Those whom we might call the intellectually crippled found a\nsuitable hobby in all this hair-splitting.\n\n\n52\n\nThe teacher of reading and writing, and the reviser, were the first\ntypes of the philologist.\n\n\n53\n\nFriedrich August Wolf reminds us how apprehensive and feeble were the\nfirst steps taken by our ancestors in moulding scholarship--how even the\nLatin classics, for example, had to be smuggled into the university\nmarket under all sorts of pretexts, as if they had been contraband\ngoods. In the \"Gottingen Lexicon\" of 1737, J. M. Gesner tells us of the\nOdes of Horace: \"ut imprimis, quid prodesse _in severioribus studiis_\npossint, ostendat.\"\n\n\n54\n\nI was pleased to read of Bentley \"non tam grande pretium emendatiunculis\nmeis statuere soleo, ut singularem aliquam gratiam inde sperem aut\nexigam.\"\n\nNewton was surprised that men like Bentley and Hare should quarrel about\na book of ancient comedies, since they were both theological\ndignitaries.\n\n\n55\n\nHorace was summoned by Bentley as before a judgment seat, the authority\nof which he would have been the first to repudiate. The admiration which\na discriminating man acquires as a philologist is in proportion to the\nrarity of the discrimination to be found in philologists. Bentley's\ntreatment of Horace has something of the schoolmaster about it It would\nappear at first sight as if Horace himself were not the object of\ndiscussion, but rather the various scribes and commentators who have\nhanded down the text: in reality, however, it is actually Horace who is\nbeing dealt with. It is my firm conviction that to have written a single\nline which is deemed worthy of being commented upon by scholars of a\nlater time, far outweighs the merits of the greatest critic. There is a\nprofound modesty about philologists. The improving of texts is an\nentertaining piece of work for scholars, it is a kind of riddle-solving;\nbut it should not be looked upon as a very important task. It would be\nan argument against antiquity if it should speak less clearly to us\nbecause a million words stood in the way!\n\n\n56\n\nA school-teacher said to Bentley, \"Sir, I will make your grandchild as\ngreat a scholar as you are yourself.\" \"How can you do that,\" replied\nBentley, \"when I have forgotten more than you ever knew?\"\n\n\n57\n\nBentley's clever daughter Joanna once lamented to her father that he had\ndevoted his time and talents to the criticism of the works of others\ninstead of writing something original. Bentley remained silent for some\ntime as if he were turning the matter over in his mind. At last he said\nthat her remark was quite right; he himself felt that he might have\ndirected his gifts in some other channel. Earlier in life, nevertheless,\nhe had done something for the glory of God and the improvement of his\nfellow-men (referring to his \"Confutation of Atheism\"), but afterwards\nthe genius of the pagans had attracted him, and, _despairing of\nattaining their level in any other way_, he had mounted upon their\nshoulders so that he might thus be able to look over their heads.\n\n\n58\n\nBentley, says Wolf, both as man of letters and individual, was\nmisunderstood and persecuted during the greater part of his life, or\nelse praised maliciously.\n\nMarkland, towards the end of his life--as was the case with so many\nothers like him--became imbued with a repugnance for all scholarly\nreputation, to such an extent, indeed, that he partly tore up and\npartly burnt several works which he had long had in hand.\n\nWolf says: \"The amount of intellectual food that can be got from\nwell-digested scholarship is a very insignificant item.\"\n\nIn Winckelmann's youth there were no philological studies apart from the\nordinary bread-winning branches of the science--people read and\nexplained the ancients in order to prepare themselves for the better\ninterpretation of the Bible and the Corpus Juris.\n\n\n59\n\nIn Wolf's estimation, a man has reached the highest point of historical\nresearch when he is able to take a wide and general view of the whole\nand of the profoundly conceived distinctions in the developments in art\nand the different styles of art. Wolf acknowledges, however, that\nWinckelmann was lacking in the more common talent of philological\ncriticism, or else he could not use it properly: \"A rare mixture of a\ncool head and a minute and restless solicitude for hundreds of things\nwhich, insignificant in themselves, were combined in his case with a\nfire that swallowed up those little things, and with a gift of\ndivination which is a vexation and an annoyance to the uninitiated.\"\n\n\n60\n\nWolf draws our attention to the fact that antiquity was acquainted only\nwith theories of oratory and poetry which facilitated production,\n[Greek: technai] and _artes_ that formed real orators and poets, \"while\nat the present day we shall soon have theories upon which it would be\nas impossible to build up a speech or a poem as it would be to form a\nthunderstorm upon a brontological treatise.\"\n\n\n61\n\nWolf's judgment on the amateurs of philological knowledge is noteworthy:\n\"If they found themselves provided by nature with a mind corresponding\nto that of the ancients, or if they were capable of adapting themselves\nto other points of view and other circumstances of life, then, with even\na nodding acquaintance with the best writers, they certainly acquired\nmore from those vigorous natures, those splendid examples of thinking\nand acting, than most of those did who during their whole life merely\noffered themselves to them as interpreters.\"\n\n\n62\n\nSays Wolf again . \"In the end, only those few ought to attain really\ncomplete knowledge who are born with artistic talent and furnished with\nscholarship, and who make use of the best opportunities of securing,\nboth theoretically and practically, the necessary technical knowledge\"\nTrue!\n\n\n63\n\nInstead of forming our students on the Latin models I recommend the\nGreek, especially Demosthenes . simplicity! This may be seen by a\nreference to Leopardi, who is perhaps the greatest stylist of the\ncentury.\n\n\n64\n\n\"Classical education\" . what do people see in it? Something that is\nuseless beyond rendering a period of military service unnecessary and\nsecuring a degree![5]\n\n\n65\n\nWhen I observe how all countries are now promoting the advancement of\nclassical literature I say to myself, \"How harmless it must be!\" and\nthen, \"How useful it must be!\" It brings these countries the reputation\nof promoting \"free culture.\" In order that this \"freedom\" may be rightly\nestimated, just look at the philologists!\n\n\n66\n\nClassical education! Yea, if there were only as much paganism as Goethe\nfound and glorified in Winckelmann, even that would not be much. Now,\nhowever, that the lying Christendom of our time has taken hold of it,\nthe thing becomes overpowering, and I cannot help expressing my disgust\non the point--People firmly believe in witchcraft where this \"classical\neducation\" is concerned. They, however, who possess the greatest\nknowledge of antiquity should likewise possess the greatest amount of\nculture, viz., our philologists; but what is classical about them?\n\n\n67\n\nClassical philology is the basis of the most shallow rationalism always\nhaving been dishonestly applied, it has gradually become quite\nineffective. Its effect is one more illusion of the modern man.\nPhilologists are nothing but a guild of sky-pilots who are not known as\nsuch . this is why the State takes an interest in them. The utility of\nclassical education is completely used up, whilst, for example, the\nhistory of Christianity still shows its power.\n\n\n68\n\nPhilologists, when discussing their science, never get down to the root\nof the subject . they never set forth philology itself as a problem. Bad\nconscience? or merely thoughtlessness?\n\n\n69\n\nWe learn nothing from what philologists say about philology: it is all\nmere tittle-tattle--for example, Jahn's[6] \"The Meaning and Place of the\nStudy of Antiquity in Germany.\" There is no feeling for what should be\nprotected and defended: thus speak people who have not even thought of\nthe possibility that any one could attack them.\n\n\n70\n\nPhilologists are people who exploit the vaguely-felt dissatisfaction of\nmodern man, and his desire for \"something better,\" in order that they\nmay earn their bread and butter.\n\nI know them--I myself am one of them.\n\n\n71\n\nOur philologists stand in the same relation to true educators as the\nmedicine-men of the wild Indians do to true physicians What astonishment\nwill be felt by a later age!\n\n\n72\n\nWhat they lack is a real taste for the strong and powerful\ncharacteristics of the ancients. They turn into mere panegyrists, and\nthus become ridiculous.\n\n\n73\n\nThey have forgotten how to address other men; and, as they cannot speak\nto the older people, they cannot do so to the young.\n\n\n74\n\nWhen we bring the Greeks to the knowledge of our young students, we are\ntreating the latter as if they were well-informed and matured men. What,\nindeed, is there about the Greeks and their ways which is suitable for\nthe young? In the end we shall find that we can do nothing for them\nbeyond giving them isolated details. Are these observations for young\npeople? What we actually do, however, is to introduce our young scholars\nto the collective wisdom of antiquity. Or do we not? The reading of the\nancients is emphasised in this way.\n\nMy belief is that we are forced to concern ourselves with antiquity at a\nwrong period of our lives. At the end of the twenties its meaning begins\nto dawn on one.\n\n\n75\n\nThere is something disrespectful about the way in which we make our\nyoung students known to the ancients: what is worse, it is\nunpedagogical; or what can result from a mere acquaintance with things\nwhich a youth cannot consciously esteem! Perhaps he must learn to\n\"_believe_\" and this is why I object to it.\n\n\n76\n\nThere are matters regarding which antiquity instructs us, and about\nwhich I should hardly care to express myself publicly.\n\n\n77\n\nAll the difficulties of historical study to be elucidated by great\nexamples.\n\nWhy our young students are not suited to the Greeks.\n\nThe consequences of philology.\n     Arrogant expectation.\n     Culture-philistinism.\n     Superficiality.\n     Too high an esteem for reading and writing.\n     Estrangement from the nation and its needs.\n\nThe philologists themselves, the historians, philosophers, and jurists\nall end in smoke.\n\nOur young students should be brought into contact with real sciences.\n\nLikewise with real art.\n\nIn consequence, when they grew older, a desire for _real_ history would\nbe shown.\n\n\n78\n\nInhumanity: even in the \"Antigone,\" even in Goethe's \"Iphigenia.\"\n\nThe want of \"rationalism\" in the Greeks.\n\nYoung people cannot understand the political affairs of antiquity.\n\nThe poetic element: a bad expectation.\n\n\n79\n\nDo the philologists know the present time? Their judgments on it as\nPericlean, their mistaken judgments when they speak of Freytag's[7]\ngenius as resembling that of Homer, and so on; their following in the\nlead of the litterateurs, their abandonment of the pagan sense, which\nwas exactly the classical element that Goethe discovered in Winckelmann.\n\n\n80\n\nThe condition of the philologists may be seen by their indifference at\nthe appearance of Wagner. They should have learnt even more through him\nthan through Goethe, and they did not even glance in his direction. That\nshows that they are not actuated by any strong need, or else they would\nhave an instinct to tell them where their food was to be found.\n\n\n81\n\nWagner prizes his art too highly to go and sit in a corner with it, like\nSchumann. He either surrenders himself to the public (\"Rienzi\") or he\nmakes the public surrender itself to him. He educates it up to his\nmusic. Minor artists, too, want their public, but they try to get it by\ninartistic means, such as through the Press, Hanslick,[8] &c.\n\n\n82\n\nWagner perfected the inner fancy of man . later generations will see a\nrenaissance in sculpture. Poetry must precede the plastic art.\n\n\n83\n\nI observe in philologists .\n\n1. Want of respect for antiquity.\n\n2. Tenderness and flowery oratory; even an apologetic tone.\n\n3. Simplicity in their historical comments.\n\n4. Self-conceit.\n\n5. Under-estimation of the talented philologists.\n\n\n84\n\nPhilologists appear to me to be a secret society who wish to train our\nyouth by means of the culture of antiquity . I could well understand\nthis society and their views being criticised from all sides. A great\ndeal would depend upon knowing what these philologists understood by the\nterm \"culture of antiquity\"--If I saw, for example, that they were\ntraining their pupils against German philosophy and German music, I\nshould either set about combating them or combating the culture of\nantiquity, perhaps the former, by showing that these philologists had\nnot understood the culture of antiquity. Now I observe:\n\n1. A great indecision in the valuation of the culture of antiquity on\nthe part of philologists.\n\n2. Something very non-ancient in themselves; something non-free.\n\n3. Want of clearness in regard to the particular type of ancient culture\nthey mean.\n\n4. Want of judgment in their methods of instruction, _e.g._,\nscholarship.\n\n5. Classical education is served out mixed up with Christianity.\n\n\n85\n\nIt is now no longer a matter of surprise to me that, with such teachers,\nthe education of our time should be worthless. I can never avoid\ndepicting this want of education in its true colours, especially in\nregard to those things which ought to be learnt from antiquity if\npossible, for example, writing, speaking, and so on.\n\n\n86\n\nThe transmission of the emotions is hereditary: let that be recollected\nwhen we observe the effect of the Greeks upon philologists.\n\n\n87\n\nEven in the best of cases, philologists seek for no more than mere\n\"rationalism\" and Alexandrian culture--not Hellenism.\n\n\n88\n\nVery little can be gained by mere diligence, if the head is dull.\nPhilologist after philologist has swooped down on Homer in the mistaken\nbelief that something of him can be obtained by force. Antiquity speaks\nto us when it feels a desire to do so, not when we do.\n\n\n89\n\nThe inherited characteristic of our present-day philologists . a certain\nsterility of insight has resulted, for they promote the science, but not\nthe philologist.\n\n\n90\n\nThe following is one way of carrying on classical studies, and a\nfrequent one: a man throws himself thoughtlessly, or is thrown, into\nsome special branch or other, whence he looks to the right and left and\nsees a great deal that is good and new. Then, in some unguarded moment,\nhe asks himself: \"But what the devil has all this to do with me?\" In the\nmeantime he has grown old and has become accustomed to it all; and\ntherefore he continues in his rut--just as in the case of marriage.\n\n\n91\n\nIn connection with the training of the modern philologist the influence\nof the science of linguistics should be mentioned and judged; a\nphilologist should rather turn aside from it . the question of the early\nbeginnings of the Greeks and Romans should be nothing to him . how can\nthey spoil their own subject in such a way?\n\n\n92\n\nA morbid passion often makes its appearance from time to time in\nconnection with the oppressive uncertainty of divination, a passion for\nbelieving and feeling sure at all costs: for example, when dealing with\nAristotle, or in the discovery of magic numbers, which, in Lachmann's\ncase, is almost an illness.\n\n\n93\n\nThe consistency which is prized in a savant is pedantry if applied to\nthe Greeks.\n\n\n94\n\n                (THE GREEKS AND THE PHILOLOGISTS.)\n\n\n            THE GREEKS.              THE PHILOLOGISTS are .\n\n     render homage to beauty,        babblers and triflers,\n     develop the body,               ugly-looking creatures,\n     speak clearly,                  stammerers,\n     are religious transfigurers     filthy pedants,\n       of everyday occurrences,\n     are listeners and observers,    quibblers and scarecrows,\n     have an aptitude for the        unfitted for the symbolical,\n       symbolical,\n     are in full possession of       ardent slaves of the State,\n       their freedom as men,\n     can look innocently out         Christians in disguise,\n       into the world,\n     are the pessimists of           philistines.\n       thought.\n\n\n95\n\nBergk's \"History of Literature\": Not a spark of Greek fire or Greek\nsense.\n\n\n96\n\nPeople really do compare our own age with that of Pericles, and\ncongratulate themselves on the reawakening of the feeling of patriotism:\nI remember a parody on the funeral oration of Pericles by G. Freytag,[9]\nin which this prim and strait-laced \"poet\" depicted the happiness now\nexperienced by sixty-year-old men.--All pure and simple caricature! So\nthis is the result! And sorrow and irony and seclusion are all that\nremain for him who has seen more of antiquity than this.\n\n\n97\n\nIf we change a single word of Lord Bacon's we may say . infimarum\nGraecorum virtutum apud philologos laus est, mediarum admiratio,\nsupremarum sensus nullus.\n\n\n98\n\nHow can anyone glorify and venerate a whole people! It is the\nindividuals that count, even in the case of the Greeks.\n\n\n99\n\nThere is a great deal of caricature even about the Greeks . for example,\nthe careful attention devoted by the Cynics to their own happiness.\n\n\n100\n\nThe only thing that interests me is the relationship of the people\nconsidered as a whole to the training of the single individuals . and in\nthe case of the Greeks there are some factors which are very favourable\nto the development of the individual. They do not, however, arise from\nthe goodwill of the people, but from the struggle between the evil\ninstincts.\n\nBy means of happy inventions and discoveries, we can train the\nindividual differently and more highly than has yet been done by mere\nchance and accident. There are still hopes . the breeding of superior\nmen.\n\n\n101\n\nThe Greeks are interesting and quite disproportionately important\nbecause they had such a host of great individuals. How was that\npossible? This point must be studied.\n\n\n102\n\nThe history of Greece has hitherto always been written optimistically.\n\n\n103\n\nSelected points from antiquity: the power, fire, and swing of the\nfeeling the ancients had for music (through the first Pythian Ode),\npurity in their historical sense, gratitude for the blessings of\nculture, the fire and corn feasts.\n\nThe ennoblement of jealousy: the Greeks the most jealous nation.\n\nSuicide, hatred of old age, of penury. Empedocles on sexual love.\n\n\n104\n\nNimble and healthy bodies, a clear and deep sense for the observation of\neveryday matters, manly freedom, belief in good racial descent and good\nupbringing, warlike virtues, jealousy in the [Greek: aristeyein],\ndelight in the arts, respect for leisure, a sense for free\nindividuality, for the symbolical.\n\n\n105\n\nThe spiritual culture of Greece an aberration of the amazing political\nimpulse towards [Greek: aristeyein]. The [Greek: polis] utterly opposed\nto new education; culture nevertheless existed.\n\n\n106\n\nWhen I say that, all things considered, the Greeks were more moral than\nmodern men what do I mean by that? From what we can perceive of the\nactivities of their soul, it is clear that they had no shame, they had\nno bad conscience. They were more sincere, open-hearted, and passionate,\nas artists are; they exhibited a kind of child-like _naivete_. It thus\ncame about that even in all their evil actions they had a dash of purity\nabout them, something approaching the holy. A remarkable number of\nindividualities: might there not have been a higher morality in that?\nWhen we recollect that character develops slowly, what can it be that,\nin the long run, breeds individuality? Perhaps vanity, emulation?\nPossibly. Little inclination for conventional things.\n\n\n107\n\nThe Greeks as the geniuses among the nations.\n\nTheir childlike nature, credulousness.\n\nPassionate. Quite unconsciously they lived in such a way as to procreate\ngenius. Enemies of shyness and dulness. Pain. Injudicious actions. The\nnature of their intuitive insight into misery, despite their bright and\ngenial temperament. Profoundness in their apprehension and glorifying of\neveryday things (fire, agriculture). Mendacious, unhistorical. The\nsignificance of the [Greek: polis] in culture instinctively recognised,\nfavourable as a centre and periphery for great men (the facility of\nsurveying a community, and also the possibility of addressing it as a\nwhole). Individuality raised to the highest power through the [Greek:\npolis]. Envy, jealousy, as among gifted people.\n\n\n108\n\nThe Greeks were lacking in sobriety and caution. Over-sensibility,\nabnormally active condition of the brain and the nerves; impetuosity and\nfervour of the will.\n\n\n109\n\n\"Invariably to see the general in the particular is the distinguishing\ncharacteristic of genius,\" says Schopenhauer. Think of Pindar,\n&c.--\"[Greek: Sophrosynae],\" according to Schopenhauer, has its roots in\nthe clearness with which the Greeks saw into themselves and into the\nworld at large, and thence became conscious of themselves.\n\nThe \"wide separation of will and intellect\" indicates the genius, and is\nseen in the Greeks.\n\n\"The melancholy associated with genius is due to the fact that the will\nto live, the more clearly it is illuminated by the contemplating\nintellect, appreciates all the more clearly the misery of its\ncondition,\" says Schopenhauer. _Cf._ the Greeks.\n\n\n110\n\nThe moderation of the Greeks in their sensual luxury, eating, and\ndrinking, and their pleasure therein; the Olympic plays and their\nworship . that shows what they were.\n\nIn the case of the genius, \"the intellect will point out the faults\nwhich are seldom absent in an instrument that is put to a use for which\nit was not intended.\"\n\n\"The will is often left in the lurch at an awkward moment: hence genius,\nwhere real life is concerned, is more or less unpractical--its\nbehaviour often reminds us of madness.\"\n\n\n111\n\nWe contrast the Romans, with their matter-of-fact earnestness, with the\ngenial Greeks! Schopenhauer: \"The stern, practical, earnest mode of life\nwhich the Romans called _gravitas_ presupposes that the intellect does\nnot forsake the service of the will in order to roam far off among\nthings that have no connection with the will.\"\n\n\n112\n\nIt would have been much better if the Greeks had been conquered by the\nPersians instead of by the Romans.\n\n\n113\n\nThe characteristics of the gifted man who is lacking in genius are to be\nfound in the average Hellene--all the dangerous characteristics of such\na disposition and character.\n\n\n114\n\nGenius makes tributaries of all partly-talented people: hence the\nPersians themselves sent their ambassadors to the Greek oracles.\n\n\n115\n\nThe happiest lot that can fall to the genius is to exchange doing and\nacting for leisure; and this was something the Greeks knew how to value.\nThe blessings of labour! _Nugari_ was the Roman name for all the\nexertions and aspirations of the Greeks.\n\nNo happy course of life is open to the genius, he stands in\ncontradiction to his age and must perforce struggle with it. Thus the\nGreeks . they instinctively made the utmost exertions to secure a safe\nrefuge for themselves (in the _polis_). Finally, everything went to\npieces in politics. They were compelled to take up a stand against their\nenemies . this became ever more and more difficult, and at last\nimpossible.\n\n\n116\n\nGreek culture is based on the lordship of a small class over four to\nnine times their number of slaves. Judged by mere numbers, Greece was a\ncountry inhabited by barbarians. How can the ancients be thought to be\nhumane? There was a great contrast between the genius and the\nbreadwinner, the half-beast of burden. The Greeks believed in a racial\ndistinction. Schopenhauer wonders why Nature did not take it into her\nhead to invent two entirely separate species of men.\n\nThe Greeks bear the same relation to the barbarians \"as free-moving or\nwinged animals do to the barnacles which cling tightly to the rocks and\nmust await what fate chooses to send them\"--Schopenhauer's simile.\n\n\n117\n\nThe Greeks as the only people of genius in the history of the world.\nSuch they are even when considered as learners; for they understand this\nbest of all, and can do more than merely trim and adorn themselves with\nwhat they have borrowed, as did the Romans.\n\nThe constitution of the _polis_ is a Phoenician invention, even this\nhas been imitated by the Hellenes. For a long time they dabbled in\neverything, like joyful dilettanti. Aphrodite is likewise Phoenician.\nNeither do they disavow what has come to them through immigration and\ndoes not originally belong to their own country.\n\n\n118\n\nThe happy and comfortable constitution of the politico-social position\nmust not be sought among the Greeks . that is a goal which dazzles the\neyes of our dreamers of the future! It was, on the contrary, dreadful;\nfor this is a matter that must be judged according to the following\nstandard: the more spirit, the more suffering (as the Greeks themselves\nprove). Whence it follows, the more stupidity, the more comfort. The\nphilistine of culture is the most comfortable creature the sun has ever\nshone upon: and he is doubtless also in possession of the corresponding\nstupidity.\n\n\n119\n\nThe Greek _polis_ and the [Greek: aien aristeyein] grew up out of mutual\nenmity. Hellenic and philanthropic are contrary adjectives, although the\nancients flattered themselves sufficiently.\n\nHomer is, in the world of the Hellenic discord, the pan-Hellenic Greek.\nThe [Greek: \"agon\"] of the Greeks is also manifested in the Symposium in\nthe shape of witty conversation.\n\n\n120\n\nWanton, mutual annihilation inevitable: so long as a single _polis_\nwished to exist--its envy for everything superior to itself, its\ncupidity, the disorder of its customs, the enslavement of the women,\nlack of conscience in the keeping of oaths, in murder, and in cases of\nviolent death.\n\nTremendous power of self-control: for example in a man like Socrates,\nwho was capable of everything evil.\n\n\n121\n\nIts noble sense of order and systematic arrangement had rendered the\nAthenian state immortal--The ten strategists in Athens! Foolish! Too big\na sacrifice on the altar of jealousy.\n\n\n122\n\nThe recreations of the Spartans consisted of feasting, hunting, and\nmaking war . their every-day life was too hard. On the whole, however,\ntheir state is merely a caricature of the polls, a corruption of Hellas.\nThe breeding of the complete Spartan--but what was there great about him\nthat his breeding should have required such a brutal state!\n\n\n123\n\nThe political defeat of Greece is the greatest failure of culture; for\nit has given rise to the atrocious theory that culture cannot be pursued\nunless one is at the same time armed to the teeth. The rise of\nChristianity was the second greatest failure: brute force on the one\nhand, and a dull intellect on the other, won a complete victory over the\naristocratic genius among the nations. To be a Philhellenist now means\nto be a foe of brute force and stupid intellects. Sparta was the ruin of\nAthens in so far as she compelled Athens to turn her entire attention\nto politics and to act as a federal combination.\n\n\n124\n\nThere are domains of thought where the _ratio_ will only give rise to\ndisorder, and the philologist, who possesses nothing more, is lost\nthrough it and is unable to see the truth . _e.g._ in the consideration\nof Greek mythology. A merely fantastic person, of course, has no claim\neither . one must possess Greek imagination and also a certain amount of\nGreek piety. Even the poet does not require to be too consistent, and\nconsistency is the last thing Greeks would understand.\n\n\n125\n\nAlmost all the Greek divinities are accumulations of divinities . we\nfind one layer over another, soon to be hidden and smoothed down by yet\na third, and so on. It scarcely seems to me to be possible to pick these\nvarious divinities to pieces in a scientific manner, for no good method\nof doing so can be recommended: even the poor conclusion by analogy is\nin this instance a very good conclusion.\n\n\n126\n\nAt what a distance must one be from the Greeks to ascribe to them such a\nstupidly narrow autochthony as does Ottfried Muller![10] How Christian\nit is to assume, with Welcker,[11] that the Greeks were originally\nmonotheistic! How philologists torment themselves by investigating the\nquestion whether Homer actually wrote, without being able to grasp the\nfar higher tenet that Greek art long exhibited an inward enmity against\nwriting, and did not wish to be read at all.\n\n\n127\n\nIn the religious cultus an earlier degree of culture comes to light a\nremnant of former times. The ages that celebrate it are not those which\ninvent it, the contrary is often the case. There are many contrasts to\nbe found here. The Greek cultus takes us back to a pre-Homeric\ndisposition and culture. It is almost the oldest that we know of the\nGreeks--older than their mythology, which their poets have considerably\nremoulded, so far as we know it--Can this cult really be called Greek? I\ndoubt it: they are finishers, not inventors. They _preserve_ by means of\nthis beautiful completion and adornment.\n\n\n128\n\nIt is exceedingly doubtful whether we should draw any conclusion in\nregard to nationality and relationship with other nations from\nlanguages. A victorious language is nothing but a frequent (and not\nalways regular) indication of a successful campaign. Where could there\nhave been autochthonous peoples! It shows a very hazy conception of\nthings to talk about Greeks who never lived in Greece. That which is\nreally Greek is much less the result of natural aptitude than of adapted\ninstitutions, and also of an acquired language.\n\n\n129\n\nTo live on mountains, to travel a great deal, and to move quickly from\none place to another . in these ways we can now begin to compare\nourselves with the Greek gods. We know the past, too, and we almost know\nthe future. What would a Greek say, if only he could see us!\n\n\n130\n\nThe gods make men still more evil; this is the nature of man. If we do\nnot like a man, we wish that he may become worse than he is, and then we\nare glad. This forms part of the obscure philosophy of hate--a\nphilosophy which has never yet been written, because it is everywhere\nthe _pudendum_ that every one feels.\n\n\n131\n\nThe pan-Hellenic Homer finds his delight in the frivolity of the gods;\nbut it is astounding how he can also give them dignity again. This\namazing ability to raise one's self again, however, is Greek.\n\n\n132\n\nWhat, then, is the origin of the envy of the gods? people did not\nbelieve in a calm, quiet happiness, but only in an exuberant one. This\nmust have caused some displeasure to the Greeks; for their soul was only\ntoo easily wounded: it embittered them to see a happy man. That is\nGreek. If a man of distinguished talent appeared, the flock of envious\npeople must have become astonishingly large. If any one met with a\nmisfortune, they would say of him: \"Ah! no wonder! he was too frivolous\nand too well off.\" And every one of them would have behaved exuberantly\nif he had possessed the requisite talent, and would willingly have\nplayed the role of the god who sent the unhappiness to men.\n\n\n133\n\nThe Greek gods did not demand any complete changes of character, and\nwere, generally speaking, by no means burdensome or importunate . it was\nthus possible to take them seriously and to believe in them. At the time\nof Homer, indeed, the nature of the Greek was formed . flippancy of\nimages and imagination was necessary to lighten the weight of its\npassionate disposition and to set it free.\n\n\n134\n\nEvery religion has for its highest images an analogon in the spiritual\ncondition of those who profess it. The God of Mohammed . the\nsolitariness of the desert, the distant roar of the lion, the vision of\na formidable warrior. The God of the Christians . everything that men\nand women think of when they hear the word \"love\". The God of the\nGreeks: a beautiful apparition in a dream.\n\n\n135\n\nA great deal of intelligence must have gone to the making up of a Greek\npolytheism . the expenditure of intelligence is much less lavish when\npeople have only _one_ God.\n\n\n136\n\nGreek morality is not based on religion, but on the _polis_.\n\nThere were only priests of the individual gods; not representatives of\nthe whole religion . _i.e._, no guild of priests. Likewise no Holy Writ.\n\n\n137\n\nThe \"lighthearted\" gods . this is the highest adornment which has ever\nbeen bestowed upon the world--with the feeling, How difficult it is to\nlive!\n\n\n138\n\nIf the Greeks let their \"reason\" speak, their life seems to them bitter\nand terrible. They are not deceived. But they play round life with lies:\nSimonides advises them to treat life as they would a play; earnestness\nwas only too well known to them in the form of pain. The misery of men\nis a pleasure to the gods when they hear the poets singing of it. Well\ndid the Greeks know that only through art could even misery itself\nbecome a source of pleasure, _vide tragoediam_.\n\n\n139\n\nIt is quite untrue to say that the Greeks only took _this_ life into\ntheir consideration--they suffered also from thoughts of death and Hell.\nBut no \"repentance\" or contrition.\n\n\n140\n\nThe incarnate appearance of gods, as in Sappho's invocation to\nAphrodite, must not be taken as poetic licence . they are frequently\nhallucinations. We conceive of a great many things, including the will\nto die, too superficially as rhetorical.\n\n\n141\n\nThe \"martyr\" is Hellenic: Prometheus, Hercules. The hero-myth became\npan-Hellenic: a poet must have had a hand in that!\n\n\n142\n\nHow _realistic_ the Greeks were even in the domain of pure inventions!\nThey poetised reality, not yearning to lift themselves out of it. The\nraising of the present into the colossal and eternal, _e.g._, by Pindar.\n\n\n143\n\nWhat condition do the Greeks premise as the model of their life in\nHades? Anaemic, dreamlike, weak . it is the continuous accentuation of\nold age, when the memory gradually becomes weaker and weaker, and the\nbody still more so. The senility of senility . this would be our state\nof life in the eyes of the Hellenes.\n\n\n144\n\nThe naive character of the Greeks observed by the Egyptians.\n\n\n145\n\nThe truly scientific people, the literary people, were the Egyptians and\nnot the Greeks. That which has the appearance of science among the\nGreeks, originated among the Egyptians and later on returned to them to\nmingle again with the old current. Alexandrian culture is an\namalgamation of Hellenic and Egyptian . and when our world again founds\nits culture upon the Alexandrian culture, then....[12]\n\n\n146\n\nThe Egyptians are far more of a literary people than the Greeks. I\nmaintain this against Wolf. The first grain in Eleusis, the first vine\nin Thebes, the first olive-tree and fig-tree. The Egyptians had lost a\ngreat part of their mythology.\n\n\n147\n\nThe unmathematical undulation of the column in Paestum is analogous to\nthe modification of the _tempo_: animation in place of a mechanical\nmovement.\n\n\n148\n\nThe desire to find something certain and fixed in aesthetic led to the\nworship of Aristotle: I think, however, that we may gradually come to\nsee from his works that he understood nothing about art, and that it is\nmerely the intellectual conversations of the Athenians, echoing in his\npages, which we admire.\n\n\n149\n\nIn Socrates we have as it were lying open before us a specimen of the\nconsciousness out of which, later on, the instincts of the theoretic man\noriginated: that one would rather die than grow old and weak in mind.\n\n\n150\n\nAt the twilight of antiquity there were still wholly unchristian\nfigures, which were more beautiful, harmonious, and pure than those of\nany Christians: _e.g._, Proclus. His mysticism and syncretism were\nthings that precisely Christianity cannot reproach him with. In any\ncase, it would be my desire to live together with such people. In\ncomparison with them Christianity looks like some crude brutalisation,\norganised for the benefit of the mob and the criminal classes.\n\nProclus, who solemnly invokes the rising moon.\n\n\n151\n\nWith the advent of Christianity a religion attained the mastery which\ncorresponded to a pre-Greek condition of mankind: belief in witchcraft\nin connection with all and everything, bloody sacrifices, superstitious\nfear of demoniacal punishments, despair in one's self, ecstatic brooding\nand hallucination, man's self become the arena of good and evil spirits\nand their struggles.\n\n\n152\n\nAll branches of history have experimented with antiquity . critical\nconsideration alone remains. By this term I do not mean conjectural and\nliterary-historical criticism.\n\n\n153\n\nAntiquity has been treated by all kinds of historians and their methods.\nWe have now had enough experience, however, to turn the history of\nantiquity to account without being shipwrecked on antiquity itself.\n\n\n154\n\nWe can now look back over a fairly long period of human existence . what\nwill the humanity be like which is able to look back at us from an\nequally long distance? which finds us lying intoxicated among the debris\nof old culture! which finds its only consolation in \"being good\" and in\nholding out the \"helping hand,\" and turns away from all other\nconsolations!--Does beauty, too, grow out of the ancient culture? I\nthink that our ugliness arises from our metaphysical remnants . our\nconfused morals, the worthlessness of our marriages, and so on, are the\ncause. The beautiful man, the healthy, moderate, and enterprising man,\nmoulds the objects around him into beautiful shapes after his own image.\n\n\n155\n\nUp to the present time all history has been written from the standpoint\nof success, and, indeed, with the assumption of a certain reason in this\nsuccess. This remark applies also to Greek history: so far we do not\npossess any. It is the same all round, however: where are the historians\nwho can survey things and events without being humbugged by stupid\ntheories? I know of only one, Burckhardt. Everywhere the widest possible\noptimism prevails in science. The question: \"What would have been the\nconsequence if so and so had not happened?\" is almost unanimously thrust\naside, and yet it is the cardinal question. Thus everything becomes\nironical. Let us only consider our own lives. If we examine history in\naccordance with a preconceived plan, let this plan be sought in the\npurposes of a great man, or perhaps in those of a sex, or of a party.\nEverything else is a chaos.--Even in natural science we find this\ndeification of the necessary.\n\nGermany has become the breeding-place of this historical optimism; Hegel\nis perhaps to blame for this. Nothing, however, is more responsible for\nthe fatal influence of German culture. Everything that has been kept\ndown by success gradually rears itself up: history as the scorn of the\nconqueror; a servile sentiment and a kneeling down before the actual\nfact--\"a sense for the State,\" they now call it, as if _that_ had still\nto be propagated! He who does not understand how brutal and\nunintelligent history is will never understand the stimulus to make it\nintelligent. Just think how rare it is to find a man with as great an\nintelligent knowledge of his own life as Goethe had . what amount of\nrationality can we expect to find arising out of these other veiled and\nblind existences as they work chaotically with and in opposition to each\nother?\n\nAnd it is especially naive when Hellwald, the author of a history of\nculture, warns us away from all \"ideals,\" simply because history has\nkilled them off one after the other.\n\n\n156\n\nTo bring to light without reserve the stupidity and the want of reason\nin human things . that is the aim of _our_ brethren and colleagues.\nPeople will then have to distinguish what is essential in them, what is\nincorrigible, and what is still susceptible of further improvement. But\n\"Providence\" must be kept out of the question, for it is a conception\nthat enables people to take things too easily. I wish to breathe the\nbreath of _this_ purpose into science. Let us advance our knowledge of\nmankind! The good and rational in man is accidental or apparent, or the\ncontrary of something very irrational. There will come a time when\n_training_ will be the only thought.\n\n\n157\n\nSurrender to necessity is exactly what I do not teach--for one must\nfirst know this necessity to be necessary. There may perhaps be many\nnecessities; but in general this inclination is simply a bed of\nidleness.\n\n\n158\n\nTo know history now means . to recognise how all those who believed in a\nProvidence took things too easily. There is no such thing. If human\naffairs are seen to go forward in a loose and disordered way, do not\nthink that a god has any purpose in view by letting them do so or that\nhe is neglecting them. We can now see in a general way that the history\nof Christianity on earth has been one of the most dreadful chapters in\nhistory, and that a stop _must_ be put to it. True, the influence of\nantiquity has been observed in Christianity even in our own time, and,\nas it diminishes, so will our knowledge of antiquity diminish also to an\neven greater extent. Now is the best time to recognise it: we are no\nlonger prejudiced in favour of Christianity, but we still understand it,\nand also the antiquity that forms part of it, so far as this antiquity\nstands in line with Christianity.\n\n\n159\n\nPhilosophic heads must occupy themselves one day with the collective\naccount of antiquity and make up its balance-sheet. If we have this,\nantiquity will be overcome. All the shortcomings which now vex us have\ntheir roots in antiquity, so that we cannot continue to treat this\naccount with the mildness which has been customary up to the present.\nThe atrocious crime of mankind which rendered Christianity possible, as\nit actually became possible, is the _guilt_ of antiquity. With\nChristianity antiquity will also be cleared away.--At the present time\nit is not so very far behind us, and it is certainly not possible to do\njustice to it. It has been availed of in the most dreadful fashion for\npurposes of repression, and has acted as a support for religious\noppression by disguising itself as \"culture.\" It was common to hear the\nsaying, \"Antiquity has been conquered by Christianity.\"\n\nThis was a historical fact, and it was thus thought that no harm could\ncome of any dealings with antiquity. Yes, it is so plausible to say that\nwe find Christian ethics \"deeper\" than Socrates! Plato was easier to\ncompete with! We are at the present time, so to speak, merely chewing\nthe cud of the very battle which was fought in the first centuries of\nthe Christian era--with the exception of the fact that now, instead of\nthe clearly perceptible antiquity which then existed, we have merely its\npale ghost; and, indeed, even Christianity itself has become rather\nghostlike. It is a battle fought _after_ the decisive battle, a\npost-vibration. In the end, all the forces of which antiquity consisted\nhave reappeared in Christianity in the crudest possible form: it is\nnothing new, only quantitatively extraordinary.\n\n\n160\n\nWhat severs us for ever from the culture of antiquity is the fact that\nits foundations have become too shaky for us. A criticism of the Greeks\nis at the same time a criticism of Christianity; for the bases of the\nspirit of belief, the religious cult, and witchcraft, are the same in\nboth--There are many rudimentary stages still remaining, but they are by\nthis time almost ready to collapse.\n\nThis would be a task . to characterise Greek antiquity as irretrievably\nlost, and with it Christianity also and the foundations upon which, up\nto the present time, our society and politics have been based.\n\n\n161\n\nChristianity has conquered antiquity--yes; that is easily said. In the\nfirst place, it is itself a piece of antiquity, in the second place, it\nhas preserved antiquity, in the third place, it has never been in combat\nwith the pure ages of antiquity. Or rather: in order that Christianity\nitself might remain, it had to let itself be overcome by the spirit of\nantiquity--for example, the idea of empire, the community, and so forth.\nWe are suffering from the uncommon want of clearness and uncleanliness\nof human things; from the ingenious mendacity which Christianity has\nbrought among men.\n\n\n162\n\nIt is almost laughable to see how nearly all the sciences and arts of\nmodern times grow from the scattered seeds which have been wafted\ntowards us from antiquity, and how Christianity seems to us here to be\nmerely the evil chill of a long night, a night during which one is\nalmost inclined to believe that all is over with reason and honesty\namong men. The battle waged against the natural man has given rise to\nthe unnatural man.\n\n\n163\n\nWith the dissolution of Christianity a great part of antiquity has\nbecome incomprehensible to us, for instance, the entire religious basis\nof life. On this account an imitation of antiquity is a false tendency .\nthe betrayers or the betrayed are the philologists who still think of\nsuch a thing. We live in a period when many different conceptions of\nlife are to be found: hence the present age is instructive to an unusual\ndegree; and hence also the reason why it is so ill, since it suffers\nfrom the evils of all its tendencies at once. The man of the future .\nthe European man.\n\n\n164\n\nThe German Reformation widened the gap between us and antiquity: was it\nnecessary for it to do so? It once again introduced the old contrast of\n\"Paganism\" and \"Christianity\"; and it was at the same time a protest\nagainst the decorative culture of the Renaissance--it was a victory\ngained over the same culture as had formerly been conquered by early\nChristianity.\n\nIn regard to \"worldly things,\" Christianity preserved the grosser views\nof the ancients. All the nobler elements in marriage, slavery, and the\nState are unchristian. It _required_ the distorting characteristics of\nworldliness to prove itself.\n\n\n165\n\nThe connection between humanism and religious rationalism was emphasised\nas a Saxonian trait by Kochly: the type of this philologist is Gottfried\nHermann.[13]\n\n\n166\n\nI understand religions as narcotics: but when they are given to such\nnations as the Germans, I think they are simply rank poison.\n\n\n167\n\nAll religions are, in the end, based upon certain physical assumptions,\nwhich are already in existence and adapt the religions to their needs .\nfor example, in Christianity, the contrast between body and soul, the\nunlimited importance of the earth as the \"world,\" the marvellous\noccurrences in nature. If once the opposite views gain the mastery--for\ninstance, a strict law of nature, the helplessness and superfluousness\nof all gods, the strict conception of the soul as a bodily process--all\nis over. But all Greek culture is based upon such views.\n\n\n168\n\nWhen we look from the character and culture of the Catholic Middle Ages\nback to the Greeks, we see them resplendent indeed in the rays of higher\nhumanity; for, if we have anything to reproach these Greeks with, we\nmust reproach the Middle Ages with it also to a much greater extent. The\nworship of the ancients at the time of the Renaissance was therefore\nquite honest and proper. We have carried matters further in one\nparticular point, precisely in connection with that dawning ray of\nlight. We have outstripped the Greeks in the clarifying of the world by\nour studies of nature and men. Our knowledge is much greater, and our\njudgments are more moderate and just.\n\nIn addition to this, a more gentle spirit has become widespread, thanks\nto the period of illumination which has weakened mankind--but this\nweakness, when turned into morality, leads to good results and honours\nus. Man has now a great deal of freedom: it is his own fault if he does\nnot make more use of it than he does; the fanaticism of opinions has\nbecome much milder. Finally, that we would much rather live in the\npresent age than in any other is due to science, and certainly no other\nrace in the history of mankind has had such a wide choice of noble\nenjoyments as ours--even if our race has not the palate and stomach to\nexperience a great deal of joy. But one can live comfortably amid all\nthis \"freedom\" only when one merely understands it and does not wish to\nparticipate in it--that is the modern crux. The participants appear to\nbe less attractive than ever . how stupid they must be!\n\nThus the danger arises that knowledge may avenge itself on us, just as\nignorance avenged itself on us during the Middle Ages. It is all over\nwith those religions which place their trust in gods, Providences,\nrational orders of the universe, miracles, and sacraments, as is also\nthe case with certain types of holy lives, such as ascetics; for we only\ntoo easily conclude that such people are the effects of sickness and an\naberrant brain. There is no doubt that the contrast between a pure,\nincorporeal soul and a body has been almost set aside. Who now believes\nin the immortality of the soul! Everything connected with blessedness or\ndamnation, which was based upon certain erroneous physiological\nassumptions, falls to the ground as soon as these assumptions are\nrecognised to be errors. Our scientific assumptions admit just as much\nof an interpretation and utilisation in favour of a besotting\nphilistinism--yea, in favour of bestiality--as also in favour of\n\"blessedness\" and soul-inspiration. As compared with all previous ages,\nwe are now standing on a new foundation, so that something may still be\nexpected from the human race.\n\nAs regards culture, we have hitherto been acquainted with only one\ncomplete form of it, _i.e._, the city-culture of the Greeks, based as it\nwas on their mythical and social foundations; and one incomplete form,\nthe Roman, which acted as an adornment of life, derived from the Greek.\nNow all these bases, the mythical and the politico-social, have changed;\nour alleged culture has no stability, because it has been erected upon\ninsecure conditions and opinions which are even now almost ready to\ncollapse.--When we thoroughly grasp Greek culture, then, we see that it\nis all over with it. The philologist is thus a great sceptic in the\npresent conditions of our culture and training . that is his mission.\nHappy is he if, like Wagner and Schopenhauer, he has a dim presentiment\nof those auspicious powers amid which a new culture is stirring.\n\n\n169\n\nThose who say: \"But antiquity nevertheless remains as a subject of\nconsideration for pure science, even though all its educational purposes\nmay be disowned,\" must be answered by the words, What is pure science\nhere! Actions and characteristics must be judged; and those who judge\nthem must stand above them: so you must first devote your attention to\novercoming antiquity. If you do not do that, your science is not pure,\nbut impure and limited . as may now be perceived.\n\n\n170\n\nTo overcome Greek antiquity through our own deeds: this would be the\nright task. But before we can do this we must first _know_ it!--There is\na thoroughness which is merely an excuse for inaction. Let it be\nrecollected how much Goethe knew of antiquity: certainly not so much as\na philologist, and yet sufficient to contend with it in such a way as to\nbring about fruitful results. One _should_ not even know more about a\nthing than one could create. Moreover, the only time when we can\nactually _recognise_ something is when we endeavour to _make_ it. Let\npeople but attempt to live after the manner of antiquity, and they will\nat once come hundreds of miles nearer to antiquity than they can do with\nall their erudition.--Our philologists never show that they strive to\nemulate antiquity in any way, and thus _their_ antiquity remains without\nany effect on the schools.\n\nThe study of the spirit of emulation (Renaissance, Goethe), and the\nstudy of despair.\n\nThe non-popular element in the new culture of the Renaissance: a\nfrightful fact!\n\n\n171\n\nThe worship of classical antiquity, as it was to be seen in Italy, may\nbe interpreted as the only earnest, disinterested, and fecund worship\nwhich has yet fallen to the lot of antiquity. It is a splendid example\nof Don Quixotism; and philology at best is such Don Quixotism. Already\nat the time of the Alexandrian savants, as with all the sophists of the\nfirst and second centuries, the Atticists, &c., the scholars are\nimitating something purely and simply chimerical and pursuing a world\nthat never existed. The same trait is seen throughout antiquity . the\nmanner in which the Homeric heroes were copied, and all the intercourse\nheld with the myths, show traces of it. Gradually all Greek antiquity\nhas become an object of Don Quixotism. It is impossible to understand\nour modern world if we do not take into account the enormous influence\nof the purely fantastic. This is now confronted by the principle . there\ncan be no imitation. Imitation, however, is merely an artistic\nphenomenon, _i.e._, it is based on appearance . we can accept manners,\nthoughts, and so on through imitation; but imitation can create nothing.\nTrue, the creator can borrow from all sides and nourish himself in that\nway. And it is only as creators that we shall be able to take anything\nfrom the Greeks. But in what respect can philologists be said to be\ncreators! There must be a few dirty jobs, such as knackers' men, and\nalso text-revisers: are the philologists to carry out tasks of this\nnature?\n\n\n172\n\nWhat, then, is antiquity _now_, in the face of modern art, science, and\nphilosophy? It is no longer the treasure-chamber of all knowledge; for\nin natural and historical science we have advanced greatly beyond it.\nOppression by the church has been stopped. A _pure_ knowledge of\nantiquity is now possible, but perhaps also a more ineffective and\nweaker knowledge.--This is right enough, if effect is known only as\neffect on the masses; but for the breeding of higher minds antiquity is\nmore powerful than ever.\n\nGoethe as a German poet-philologist; Wagner as a still higher stage: his\nclear glance for the only worthy position of art. No ancient work has\never had so powerful an effect as the \"Orestes\" had on Wagner. The\nobjective, emasculated philologist, who is but a philistine of culture\nand a worker in \"pure science,\" is, however, a sad spectacle.\n\n\n173\n\nBetween our highest art and philosophy and that which is recognised to\nbe truly the oldest antiquity, there is no contradiction: they support\nand harmonise with one another. It is in this that I place my hopes.\n\n\n174\n\nThe main standpoints from which to consider the importance of antiquity:\n\n1. There is nothing about it for young people, for it exhibits man with\nan entire freedom from shame.\n\n2. It is not for direct imitation, but it teaches by which means art has\nhitherto been perfected in the highest degree.\n\n3. It is accessible only to a few, and there should be a _police des\nmoeurs,_ in charge of it--as there should be also in charge of bad\npianists who play Beethoven.\n\n4. These few apply this antiquity to the judgment of our own time, as\ncritics of it; and they judge antiquity by their own ideals and are thus\ncritics of antiquity.\n\n5. The contract between the Hellenic and the Roman should be studied,\nand also the contrast between the early Hellenic and the late\nHellenic.--Explanation of the different types of culture.\n\n\n175\n\nThe advancement of science at the expense of man is one of the most\npernicious things in the world. The stunted man is a retrogression in\nthe human race: he throws a shadow over all succeeding generations The\ntendencies and natural purpose of the individual science become\ndegenerate, and science itself is finally shipwrecked: it has made\nprogress, but has either no effect at all on life or else an immoral\none.\n\n\n176\n\nMen not to be used like things!\n\nFrom the former very incomplete philology and knowledge of antiquity\nthere flowed out a stream of freedom, while our own highly developed\nknowledge produces slaves and serves the idol of the State.\n\n\n177\n\nThere will perhaps come a time when scientific work will be carried on\nby women, while the men will have to _create,_ using the word in a\nspiritual sense: states, laws, works of art, &c.\n\nPeople should study typical antiquity just as they do typical men:\n_i.e._, imitating what they understand of it, and, when the pattern\nseems to lie far in the distance, considering ways and means and\npreliminary preparations, and devising stepping-stones.\n\n\n178\n\nThe whole feature of study lies in this: that we should study only what\nwe feel we should like to imitate; what we gladly take up and have the\ndesire to multiply. What is really wanted is a progressive canon of the\n_ideal_ model, suited to boys, youths, and men.\n\n\n179\n\nGoethe grasped antiquity in the right way . invariably with an emulative\nsoul. But who else did so? One sees nothing of a well-thought-out\npedagogics of this nature: who knows that there is a certain knowledge\nof antiquity which cannot be imparted to youths!\n\nThe puerile character of philology: devised by teachers for pupils.\n\n\n180\n\nThe ever more and more common form of the ideal: first men, then\ninstitutions, finally tendencies, purposes, or the want of them. The\nhighest form: the conquest of the ideal by a backward movement from\ntendencies to institutions, and from institutions to men.\n\n\n181\n\nI will set down in writing what I no longer believe--and also what I do\nbelieve. Man stands in the midst of the great whirlpool of forces, and\nimagines that this whirlpool is rational and has a rational aim in\nview: error! The only rationality that we know is the small reason of\nman: he must exert it to the utmost, and it invariably leaves him in the\nlurch if he tries to place himself in the hands of \"Providence.\"\n\nOur only happiness lies in reason; all the remainder of the world is\ndreary. The highest reason, however, is seen by me in the work of the\nartist, and he can feel it to be such: there may be something which,\nwhen it can be consciously brought forward, may afford an even greater\nfeeling of reason and happiness: for example, the course of the solar\nsystem, the breeding and education of a man.\n\nHappiness lies in rapidity of feeling and thinking: everything else is\nslow, gradual, and stupid. The man who could feel the progress of a ray\nof light would be greatly enraptured, for it is very rapid.\n\nThinking of one's self affords little happiness. But when we do\nexperience happiness therein the reason is that we are not thinking of\nourselves, but of our ideal. This lies far off; and only the rapid man\nattains it and rejoices.\n\nAn amalgamation of a great centre of men for the breeding of better men\nis the task of the future. The individual must become familiarised with\nclaims that, when he says Yea to his own will, he also says Yea to the\nwill of that centre--for example, in reference to a choice, as among\nwomen for marriage, and likewise as to the manner in which his child\nshall be brought up. Until now no single individuality, or only the very\nrarest, have been free: they were influenced by these conceptions, but\nlikewise by the bad and contradictory organisation of the individual\npurposes.\n\n\n182\n\nEducation is in the first place instruction in what is necessary, and\nthen in what is changing and inconstant. The youth is introduced to\nnature, and the sway of laws is everywhere pointed out to him; followed\nby an explanation of the laws of ordinary society. Even at this early\nstage the question will arise: was it absolutely necessary that this\nshould have been so? He gradually comes to need history to ascertain how\nthese things have been brought about. He learns at the same time,\nhowever, that they may be changed into something else. What is the\nextent of man's power over things? This is the question in connection\nwith all education. To show how things may become other than what they\nare we may, for example, point to the Greeks. We need the Romans to show\nhow things became what they were.\n\n\n183\n\nIf, then, the Romans had spurned the Greek culture, they would perhaps\nhave gone to pieces completely. When could this culture have once again\narisen? Christianity and Romans and barbarians: this would have been an\nonslaught: it would have entirely wiped out culture. We see the danger\namid which genius lives. Cicero was one of the greatest benefactors of\nhumanity, even in his own time.\n\nThere is no \"Providence\" for genius; it is only for the ordinary run of\npeople and their wants that such a thing exists: they find their\nsatisfaction, and later on their justification.\n\n\n184\n\nThesis: the death of ancient culture inevitable. Greek culture must be\ndistinguished as the archetype; and it must be shown how all culture\nrests upon shaky conceptions.\n\nThe dangerous meaning of art: as the protectress and galvanisation of\ndead and dying conceptions; history, in so far as it wishes to restore\nto us feelings which we have overcome. To feel \"historically\" or \"just\"\ntowards what is already past, is only possible when we have risen above\nit. But the danger in the adoption of the feelings necessary for this is\nvery great . let the dead bury their dead, so that we ourselves may not\ncome under the influence of the smell of the corpses.\n\n\nTHE DEATH OF THE OLD CULTURE.\n\n1. The signification of the studies of antiquity hitherto pursued:\nobscure; mendacious.\n\n2. As soon as they recognise the goal they condemn themselves to death .\nfor their goal is to describe ancient culture itself as one to be\ndemolished.\n\n3. The collection of all the conceptions out of which Hellenic culture\nhas grown up. Criticism of religion, art, society, state, morals.\n\n4. Christianity is likewise denied.\n\n5. Art and history--dangerous.\n\n6. The replacing of the study of antiquity which has become superfluous\nfor the training of our youth.\n\nThus the task of the science of history is completed and it itself has\nbecome superfluous, if the entire inward continuous circle of past\nefforts has been condemned. Its place must be taken by the science of\nthe _future_.\n\n\n185\n\n\"Signs\" and \"miracles\" are not believed; only a \"Providence\" stands in\nneed of such things. There is no help to be found either in prayer or\nasceticism or in \"vision.\" If all these things constitute religion, then\nthere is no more religion for me.\n\nMy religion, if I can still apply this name to something, lies in the\nwork of breeding genius . from such training everything is to be hoped.\nAll consolation comes from art. Education is love for the offspring; an\nexcess of love over and beyond our self-love. Religion is \"love beyond\nourselves.\" The work of art is the model of such a love beyond\nourselves, and a perfect model at that.\n\n\n186\n\nThe stupidity of the will is Schopenhauer's greatest thought, if\nthoughts be judged from the standpoint of power. We can see in Hartmann\nhow he juggled away this thought. Nobody will ever call something\nstupid--God.\n\n\n187\n\nThis, then, is the new feature of all the future progress of the world .\nmen must never again be ruled over by religious conceptions. Will they\nbe any _worse_? It is not my experience that they behave well and\nmorally under the yoke of religion; I am not on the side of\nDemopheles[14] The fear of a beyond, and then again the fear of divine\npunishments will hardly have made men better.\n\n\n188\n\nWhere something great makes its appearance and lasts for a relatively\nlong time, we may premise a careful breeding, as in the case of the\nGreeks. How did so many men become free among them? Educate educators!\nBut the first educators must educate themselves! And it is for these\nthat I write.\n\n\n189\n\nThe denial of life is no longer an easy matter: a man may become a\nhermit or a monk--and what is thereby denied! This conception has now\nbecome deeper . it is above all a discerning denial, a denial based upon\nthe will to be just; not an indiscriminate and wholesale denial.\n\n\n190\n\nThe seer must be affectionate, otherwise men will have no confidence in\nhim . Cassandra.\n\n\n191\n\nThe man who to-day wishes to be good and saintly has a more difficult\ntask than formerly . in order to be \"good,\" he must not be so unjust to\nknowledge as earlier saints were. He would have to be a knowledge-saint:\na man who would link love with knowledge, and who would have nothing to\ndo with gods or demigods or \"Providence,\" as the Indian saints likewise\nhad nothing to do with them. He should also be healthy, and should keep\nhimself so, otherwise he would necessarily become distrustful of\nhimself. And perhaps he would not bear the slightest resemblance to the\nascetic saint, but would be much more like a man of the world.\n\n\n192\n\nThe better the state is organised, the duller will humanity be.\n\nTo make the individual uncomfortable is my task!\n\nThe great pleasure experienced by the man who liberates himself by\nfighting.\n\nSpiritual heights have had their age in history; inherited energy\nbelongs to them. In the ideal state all would be over with them.\n\n\n193\n\nThe highest judgment on life only arising from the highest energy of\nlife. The mind must be removed as far as possible from exhaustion.\n\nIn the centre of the world-history judgment will be the most accurate;\nfor it was there that the greatest geniuses existed.\n\nThe breeding of the genius as the only man who can truly value and deny\nlife.\n\nSave your genius! shall be shouted unto the people: set him free! Do all\nyou can to unshackle him.\n\nThe feeble and poor in spirit must not be allowed to judge life.\n\n\n194\n\n_I dream of a combination of men who shall make no concessions, who\nshall show no consideration, and who shall be willing to be called\n\"destroyers\": they apply the standard of their criticism to everything\nand sacrifice themselves to truth. The bad and the false shall be\nbrought to light! We will not build prematurely: we do not know, indeed,\nwhether we shall ever be able to build, or if it would not be better not\nto build at all. There are lazy pessimists and resigned ones in this\nworld--and it is to their number that we refuse to belong!_\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] No doubt a reminiscence of the \"Odyssey,\" Bk. ix--TR.\n\n[2] Formal education is that which tends to develop the critical and\nlogical faculties, as opposed to material education, which is intended\nto deal with the acquisition of knowledge and its valuation, _e.g._,\nhistory, mathematics, &c. \"Material\" education, of course, has nothing\nto do with materialism--TR.\n\n[3] The reference is not to Pope, but to Hegel.--TR.\n\n[4] Friedrich August Wolf (1759-1824), the well-known classical scholar,\nnow chiefly remembered by his \"Prolegomena ad Homerum.\"--TR.\n\n[5] Students who pass certain examinations need only serve one year in\nthe German Army instead of the usual two or three--TR.\n\n[6] Otto Jahn (1813-69), who is probably best remembered in philological\ncircles by his edition of Juvenal.--TR.\n\n[7] Gustav Freytag at one time a famous German novelist--TR.\n\n[8] A well-known anti-Wagnerian musical critic of Vienna.--TR.\n\n[9] See note on p 149.--TR.\n\n[10] Karl Ottfried Muller (1797-1840), classical archaeologist, who\ndevoted special attention to Greece--TR.\n\n[11] Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker (1784-1868), noted for his\nultra-profound comments on Greek poetry--TR.\n\n[12] \"We shall once again be shipwrecked.\" The omission is in the\noriginal--TR.\n\n[13] Johann Gottfried Jakob Hermann (1772-1848), noted for his works on\nmetre and Greek grammar.--TR.\n\n[14] A type in Schopenhauer's Essay \"On Religion.\" See \"Parerga and\nParalipomena\"--TR.\n\n\nFINIS.\n\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n_Printed at_ THE DARIEN PRESS, _Edinburgh_","title":"We Philologists: Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche, Volume 8","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":19359}