{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52263/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52263","id":"gutenberg_52263","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52263","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Philosophy"],"text":"THE TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS\n\nBY\n\nFRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE\n\nOr, How to Philosophise with the Hammer\n\n\nTHE ANTICHRIST\n\n_NOTES TO ZARATHUSTRA, AND ETERNAL RECURRENCE_\n\n\nTRANSLATED BY\n\nANTHONY M. LUDOVICI\n\n\nThe Complete Works of Friedrich Nietzsche\n\nThe First Complete and Authorised English Translation\n\nEdited by Dr Oscar Levy\n\nVolume Sixteen\n\nT.N. FOULIS\n\n13 & 15 FREDERICK STREET\n\nEDINBURGH: AND LONDON\n\n1911\n\n\n\n\n    CONTENTS\n\n    TWILIGHT OF THE IDOLS\n\n    TRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE\n    PREFACE\n    MAXIMS AND MISSILES\n    THE PROBLEM OF SOCRATES\n    \u201cREASON\u201d IN PHILOSOPHY\n    HOW THE \u201cTRUE WORLD\u201d ULTIMATELY BECAME A FABLE\n    MORALITY AS THE ENEMY OF NATURE\n    THE FOUR GREAT ERRORS\n    THE \u201cIMPROVERS\u201d OF MANKIND\n    THINGS THE GERMANS LACK\n    SKIRMISHES IN A WAR WITH THE ACT\n    THINGS I OWE TO THE ANCIENTS\n\n    THE ANTICHRIST\n\n    ETERNAL RECURRENCE\n\n    NOTES TO ZARATHUSTRA\n\n\n\n\nTRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE\n\n\n_The Twilight of the Idols_ was written towards the end of the summer\nof 1888, its composition seems to have occupied only a few days,\u2014so\nfew indeed that, in _Ecce Homo_ (p. 118), Nietzsche says he hesitates\nto give their number; but, in any case, we know it was completed on the\n3rd of September in Sils Maria. The manuscript which was dispatched to\nthe printers on the 7th of September bore the title: \u201c_Idle Hours of a\nPsychologist_\u201d; this, however, was abandoned in favour of the present\ntitle, while the work was going through the press. During September\nand the early part of October 1888, Nietzsche added to the original\ncontents of the book by inserting the whole section entitled \u201cThings\nthe Germans Lack,\u201d and aphorisms 32-43 of \u201cSkirmishes in a War with the\nAge\u201d; and the book, as it now stands, represents exactly the form in\nwhich Nietzsche intended to publish it in the course of the year 1889.\nUnfortunately its author was already stricken down with illness when\nthe work first appeared at the end of January 1889, and he was denied\nthe joy of seeing it run into nine editions, of one thousand each,\nbefore his death in 1900.\n\nOf _The Twilight of the Idols,_ Nietzsche says in _Ecce Homo_ (p.\n118):\u2014\u201cIf anyone should desire to obtain a rapid sketch of how\neverything before my time was standing on its head, he should begin\nreading me in this book. That which is called \u2018Idols\u2019 on the title-page\nis simply the old truth that has been believed in hitherto. In plain\nEnglish, _The Twilight of the Idols_ means that the old truth is on its\nlast legs.\u201d\n\nCertain it is that, for a rapid survey of the whole of Nietzsche\u2019s\ndoctrine, no book, save perhaps the section entitled \u201cOf Old and New\nTables\u201d in _Thus Spake Zarathustra,_ could be of more real value than\n_The Twilight of the Idols._ Here Nietzsche is quite at his best. He\nis ripe for the marvellous feat of the transvaluation of all values.\nNowhere is his language\u2014that marvellous weapon which in his hand\nbecame at once so supple and so murderous\u2014more forcible and more\ncondensed. Nowhere are his thoughts more profound. But all this does\nnot by any means imply that this book is the easiest of Nietzsche\u2019s\nworks. On the contrary, I very much fear that, unless the reader is\nwell prepared, not only in Nietzscheism, but also in the habit of\ngrappling with uncommon and elusive problems, a good deal of the\ncontents of this work will tend rather to confuse than to enlighten\nhim in regard to what Nietzsche actually wishes to make clear in these\npages.\n\nHow much prejudice, for instance, how many traditional and deep-seated\nopinions, must be uprooted, if we are to see even so much as an\nimportant note of interrogation in the section entitled \u201cThe Problem\nof Socrates\u201d\u2014not to speak of such sections as \u201cMorality as the Enemy\nof Nature,\u201d \u201cThe Four Great Errors,\u201d &c. The errors exposed in these\nsections have a tradition of two thousand years behind them; and only a\nfantastic dreamer could expect them to be eradicated by a mere casual\nstudy of these pages. Indeed, Nietzsche himself looked forward only to\na gradual change in the general view of the questions he discussed; he\nknew only too well what the conversion of \u201clight heads\u201d was worth, and\nwhat kind of man would probably be the first to rush into his arms;\nand, grand psychologist that he was, he guarded himself beforehand\nagainst bad company by means of his famous warning:\u2014\u201cThe first\nadherents of a creed do not prove anything against it.\u201d\n\nTo the aspiring student of Nietzsche, however, it ought not to be\nnecessary to become an immediate convert in order to be interested in\nthe treasure of thought which Nietzsche here lavishes upon us. For\nsuch a man it will be quite difficult enough to regard the questions\nraised in this work as actual problems. Once, however, he has succeeded\nin doing this, and has given his imagination time to play round these\nquestions _as_ problems, the particular turn or twist that Nietzsche\ngives to their elucidation, may then perhaps strike him, not only as\nvaluable, but as absolutely necessary.\n\nWith regard to the substance of _The Twilight of the Idols,_ Nietzsche\nsays in _Ecce Homo_ (p. 119):\u2014\u201cThere is the waste of an all-too-rich\nautumn in this book: you trip over truths. You even crush some to\ndeath, there are too many of them.\u201d\n\nAnd what are these truths? They are things that are not yet held to\nbe true. They are the utterances of a man who, as a single exception,\nescaped for a while the general insanity of Europe, with its blind\nidealism in the midst of squalor, with its unscrupulous praise of\nso-called \u201cProgress\u201d while it stood knee-deep in the belittlement\nof \u201cMan,\u201d and with its vulgar levity in the face of effeminacy and\ndecay;\u2014they are the utterances of one who voiced the hopes, the\naims, and the realities of another world, not of an ideal world, not\nof a world beyond, but of a real world, of _this_ world regenerated\nand reorganised upon a sounder, a more virile, and a more orderly\nbasis,\u2014in fact, of a perfectly _possible_ world, one that has already\nexisted in the past, and could exist again, if only the stupendous\nrevolution of a transvaluation of all values were made possible.\n\nThis then is the nature of the truths uttered by this one sane man in\nthe whole of Europe at the end of last century; and when, owing to his\nunequal struggle against the overwhelming hostile forces of his time,\nhis highly sensitive personality was at last forced to surrender itself\nto the enemy and become one with them\u2014that is to say, insane!\u2014at\nleast the record of his sanity had been safely stored away, beyond the\nreach of time and change, in the volumes which constitute his life-work.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nNietzsche must have started upon the \u201cAntichrist,\u201d immediately after\nhaving dispatched the \u201cIdle Hours of a Psychologist\u201d to the printers,\nand the work appears to have been finished at the end of September\n1888. It was intended by Nietzsche to form the first book of a large\nwork entitled \u201cThe Transvaluation of all Values\u201d; but, though this work\nwas never completed, we can form some idea from the substance of the\n\u201cAntichrist\u201d and from the titles of the remaining three books, which\nalas! were never written, of what its contents would have been. These\ntitles are:\u2014Book II. The Free Spirit. A Criticism of Philosophy as a\nNihilistic Movement. Book III. The Immoralist. A Criticism of the most\nFatal Kind of Ignorance,\u2014Morality. Book IV. Dionysus. The Philosophy\nof Eternal Recurrence.\n\nNietzsche calls this book \u201cAn Attempted Criticism of Christianity.\u201d\nModest as this sub-title is, it will probably seem not quite modest\nenough to those who think that Nietzsche fell far short of doing\njustice to their Holy Creed. Be this as it may, there is the solution\nof a certain profound problem in this book, which, while it is the key\nto all Nietzscheism, is also the justification and the sanctification\nof Nietzsche\u2019s cause. The problem stated quite plainly is this: \u201c_To\nwhat end_ did Christianity avail itself of falsehood?\u201d\n\nMany readers of this amazing little work, who happen to be acquainted\nwith Nietzsche\u2019s doctrine of Art and of Ruling, will probably feel\nslightly confused at the constant deprecation of falsehood, of\ndeception, and of arbitrary make-believe, which seems to run through\nthis book like a litany in praise of a certain Absolute Truth.\n\nRemembering Nietzsche\u2019s utterance in volume ii. (p. 26) of the _Will\nto Power,_ to wit:\u2014\u201cThe prerequisite of all living things and of\ntheir lives is: that there should be a large amount of faith, that\nit should be possible to pass definite judgments on things, and\nthat there should be no doubt at all concerning values. Thus it is\nnecessary that something should be assumed to be true, _not_ that it\nis true;\u201d\u2014remembering these words, as I say, the reader may stand\nsomewhat aghast before all those passages in the second half of this\nvolume, where the very falsehoods of Christianity, its assumptions, its\nunwarrantable claims to Truth, are declared to be pernicious, base and\ncorrupt.\n\nAgain and again, if we commit the error of supposing that Nietzsche\nbelieved in a truth that was absolute, we shall find throughout his\nworks reasons for charging him with apparently the very same crimes\nthat he here lays at the door of Christianity. What then is the\nexplanation of his seeming inconsistency?\n\nIt is simple enough. Nietzsche\u2019s charge of falsehood against\nChristianity is not a moral one,\u2014in fact it may be taken as a general\nrule that Nietzsche scrupulously avoids making moral charges, and that\nhe emains throughout faithful to his position Beyond Good and Evil\n(see, for instance Aph. 6 (Antichrist) where he repudiates all moral\nprejudice in charging humanity with corruption). A man who maintained\nthat \u201ctruth is that form of error which enables a particular species to\nprevail,\u201d could not make a _moral_ charge of falsehood against any one,\nor any institution; but he could do so from another standpoint He could\nwell say, for instance, \u201cfalsehood is that kind of error which causes a\nparticular species to degenerate and to decay.\u201d\n\nThus the fact that Christianity \u201clied\u201d becomes a subject of alarm\nto Nietzsche, not owing to the fact that it is immoral to lie, but\nbecause in this particular instance, the lie was harmful, hostile to\nlife, and dangerous to humanity; for \u201ca belief might be false and yet\nlife-preserving\u201d (_Beyond Good and Evil,_ pp. 8, 9).\n\nSuppose, therefore, we say with Nietzsche that there is no absolute\ntruth, but that all that has been true in the past which has been\nthe means of making the \u201cplant man flourish best\u201d\u2014or, since the\nmeaning of \u201cbest\u201d is open to some debate, let us say, flourish in a\nNietzschean sense, that is to say, thanks to a mastery of life, and\nto a preponderance of all those qualities which say yea to existence,\nand which suggest no flight from this world and all its pleasure and\npain. And suppose we add that, wherever we may find the plant man\nflourishing, in this sense, we should there suspect the existence of\ntruth?\u2014I If we say this with Nietzsche, any sort of assumption or\narbitrary valuation which aims at a reverse order of things, becomes a\ndangerous lie in a super-moral and purely physiological sense.\n\nWith these preparatory remarks we are now prepared to read aphorism\n56 with a complete understanding of what Nietzsche means, and\nto recognise in this particular aphorism the key to the whole of\nNietzsche\u2019s attitude towards Christianity. It is at once a solution of\nour problem, and a justification of its author\u2019s position. Naturally,\nit still remains open to Nietzsche\u2019s opponents to argue, if they\nchoose, that man has flourished best under the sway of nihilistic\nreligions\u2014religions which deny life,\u2014and that consequently the\nfalsehoods of Christianity are not only warrantable but also in the\nhighest degree blessed; but, in any case, the aphorism in question\ncompletely exonerates Nietzsche from a charge of inconsistency in the\nuse of the terms \u201ctruth\u201d and \u201cfalsehood\u201d throughout his works, and\nit moreover settles once and for all the exact altitude from which\nour author looked down upon the religions of the world, not only to\ncriticise them, but also to _place_ them in the order of their merit as\ndisciplinary systems aiming at the cultivation of particular types of\nmen.\n\nNietzsche says in aphorism 56:\u2014\u201cAfter all, the question is, to what\nend are falsehoods perpetrated? The fact that, in Christianity, \u2018holy\u2019\nends are entirely absent, constitutes _my_ objection to the means it\nemploys. Its ends are only _bad_ ends: the poisoning, the calumniation\nand the denial of life, the contempt of the body, the degradation and\nself-pollution of man by virtue of the concept sin,\u2014consequently its\nmeans are bad as well.\u201d\n\nThus, to repeat it once more, it is not because Christianity availed\nitself of all kinds of lies that Nietzsche condemns it; for the Book\nof Manu\u2014which he admires\u2014is just as full of falsehood as the Semitic\nBook of Laws; but, in the Book of Manu the lies are calculated to\npreserve and to create a strong and noble type of man, whereas in\nChristianity the opposite type was the aim,\u2014an aim which has been\nachieved in a manner far exceeding even the expectations of the\nfaithful.\n\nThis then is the main argument of the book and its conclusion; but, in\nthe course of the general elaboration of this argument, many important\nside-issues are touched upon and developed, wherein Nietzsche reveals\nhimself as something very much more valuable than a mere iconoclast.\nOf course, on every page of his philosophy,\u2014whatever his enemies may\nmaintain to the contrary,\u2014he never once ceases to construct, since he\nis incessantly enumerating and emphasising those qualities and types\nwhich he fain would rear, as against those he fain would see destroyed;\nbut it is in aphorism 57 of this book that Nietzsche makes the\nplainest and most complete statement of his actual taste in Sociology,\nand it is upon this aphorism that all his followers and disciples will\nultimately have to build, if Nietzscheism is ever to become something\nmore than a merely intellectual movement.\n\nANTHONY M. LUDOVICI.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nTo maintain a cheerful attitude of mind in the midst of a gloomy and\nexceedingly responsible task, is no slight artistic feat. And yet, what\ncould be more necessary than cheerfulness? Nothing ever succeeds which\nexuberant spirits have not helped to produce. Surplus power, alone,\nis the proof of power.\u2014A _transvaluation of all values,_\u2014this note\nof interrogation which is so black, so huge, that it casts a shadow\neven upon him who affixes it,\u2014is a task of such fatal import, that\nhe who undertakes it is compelled every now and then to rush out into\nthe sunlight in order to shake himself free from an earnestness that\nbecomes crushing, far too crushing. This end justifies every means,\nevery event on the road to it is a windfall. Above all _war._ War has\nalways been the great policy of all spirits who have penetrated too\nfar into themselves or who have grown too deep; a wound stimulates the\nrecuperative powers. For many years, a maxim, the origin of which I\nwithhold from learned curiosity, has been my motto:\n\n_    increscunt animi, virescit volnere virtus._\n\nAt other times another means of recovery which is even more to my\ntaste, is to cross-examine idols. There are more idols than realities\nin the world: this constitutes my \u201cevil eye\u201d for this world: it is\nalso my \u201cevil ear.\u201d To put questions in this quarter with a hammer, and\nto hear perchance that well-known hollow sound which tells of blown-out\nfrogs,\u2014what a joy this is for one who has ears even behind his ears,\nfor an old psychologist and Pied Piper like myself in whose presence\nprecisely that which would fain be silent, _must betray itself._\n\nEven this treatise\u2014as its title shows\u2014is above all a recreation,\na ray of sunshine, a leap sideways of a psychologist in his leisure\nmoments. Maybe, too, a new war? And are we again cross-examining new\nidols? This little work is a great declaration of war; and with regard\nto the cross-examining of idols, this time it is not the idols of the\nage but eternal idols which are here struck with a hammer as with\na tuning fork,\u2014there are certainly no idols which are older, more\nconvinced, and more inflated. Neither are there any more hollow. This\ndoes not alter the fact that they are believed in more than any others,\nbesides they are never called idols,\u2014at least, not the most exalted\namong their number.\n\nFRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE.\n\nTURIN, the 30th _September_ 1888.\n    on the day when the first\n    book of the Transvaluation\n    of all Values was finished.\n\n\n\n\nMAXIMS AND MISSILES\n\n\n1\n\nIdleness is the parent of all psychology. What? Is psychology then\na\u2014vice?\n\n\n2\n\nEven the pluckiest among us has but seldom the courage of what he\nreally knows.\n\n\n3\n\nAristotle says that in order to live alone, a man must be either an\nanimal or a god. The third alternative is lacking: a man must be\nboth\u2014a _philosopher._\n\n\n4\n\n\u201cAll truth is simple.\u201d\u2014Is not this a double lie?\n\n\n5\n\nOnce for all I wish to be blind to many things.\u2014Wisdom sets bounds\neven to knowledge.\n\n\n6\n\nA man recovers best from his exceptional nature\u2014his\nintellectuality\u2014by giving his animal instincts a chance.\n\n\n7\n\nWhich is it? Is man only a blunder of God? Or is God only a blunder of\nman?\n\n\n8\n\n_From the military school of life._\u2014That which does not kill me, makes\nme stronger.\n\n\n9\n\nHelp thyself, then everyone will help thee. A principle of\nneighbour-love.\n\n\n10\n\nA man should not play the coward to his deeds. He should not repudiate\nthem once he has performed them. Pangs of conscience are indecent.\n\n\n11\n\nCan a donkey be tragic?\u2014To perish beneath a load that one can neither\nbear nor throw off? This is the case of the Philosopher.\n\n\n12\n\nIf a man knows the wherefore of his existence, then the manner of it\ncan take care of itself. Man does not aspire to happiness; only the\nEnglishman does that.\n\n\n13\n\nMan created woman\u2014out of what? Out of a rib of his god,\u2014of his\n\u201cideal.\u201d\n\n\n14\n\nWhat? Art thou looking for something? Thou wouldst fain multiply\nthyself tenfold, a hundredfold? Thou seekest followers? Seek ciphers!\n\n\n15\n\nPosthumous men, like myself, are not so well understood as men who\nreflect their age, but they are heard with more respect. In plain\nEnglish: we are never understood\u2014hence our authority.\n\n\n16\n\n_Among women._\u2014\u201cTruth? Oh, you do not know truth! Is it not an outrage\non all our _pudeurs?_\u201d\u2014\n\n\n17\n\nThere is an artist after my own heart, modest in his needs: he really\nwants only two things, his bread and his art\u2014_panem et Circem._\n\n\n18\n\nHe who knows not how to plant his will in things, at least endows them\nwith some meaning: that is to say, he believes that a will is already\npresent in them. (A principle of faith.)\n\n\n19\n\nWhat? Ye chose virtue and the heaving breast, and at the same time\nye squint covetously at the advantages of the unscrupulous.\u2014But\nwith virtue ye renounce all \u201cadvantages\u201d ... (to be nailed to an\nAntisemite\u2019s door).\n\n\n20\n\nThe perfect woman perpetrates literature as if it were a petty vice: as\nan experiment, _en passant,_ and looking about her all the while to\nsee whether anybody is noticing her, hoping that somebody _is_ noticing\nher.\n\n\n21\n\nOne should adopt only those situations in which one is in no need of\nsham virtues, but rather, like the tight-rope dancer on his tight rope,\nin which one must either fall or stand\u2014or escape.\n\n\n22\n\n\u201cEvil men have no songs.\u201d[1]\u2014How is it that the Russians have songs?\n\n\n23\n\n\u201cGerman intellect\u201d; for eighteen years this has been a _contradictio in\nadjecto._\n\n\n24\n\nBy seeking the beginnings of things, a man becomes a crab. The\nhistorian looks backwards: in the end he also _believes_ backwards.\n\n\n25\n\nContentment preserves one even from catching cold. Has a woman who knew\nthat she was well-dressed ever caught cold?\u2014No, not even when she had\nscarcely a rag to her back.\n\n\n26\n\nI distrust all systematisers, and avoid them. The will to a system,\nshows a lack of honesty.\n\n\n27\n\nMan thinks woman profound\u2014why? Because he can never fathom her depths.\nWoman is not even shallow.\n\n\n28\n\nWhen woman possesses masculine virtues, she is enough to make you run\naway. When she possesses no masculine virtues, she herself runs away.\n\n29\n\n\u201cHow often conscience had to bite in times gone by! What good teeth it\nmust have had! And to-day, what is amiss?\u201d\u2014A dentist\u2019s question.\n\n\n30\n\nErrors of haste are seldom committed singly. The first time a man\nalways docs too much. And precisely on that account he commits a second\nerror, and then he does too little.\n\n\n31\n\nThe trodden worm curls up. This testifies to its caution. It thus\nreduces its chances of being trodden upon again. In the language of\nmorality: Humility.\u2014\n\n\n32\n\nThere is such a thing as a hatred of lies and dissimulation, which is\nthe outcome of a delicate sense of humour; there is also the selfsame\nhatred but as the result of cowardice, in so far as falsehood is\nforbidden by Divine law. Too cowardly to lie....\n\n\n33\n\nWhat trifles constitute happiness! The sound of a bagpipe. Without\nmusic life would be a mistake. The German imagines even God as a\nsongster.\n\n\n34\n\n_On ne peut penser et \u00e9crire qu\u2019assis_ (G. Flaubert). Here I have got\nyou, you nihilist! A sedentary life is the real sin against the Holy\nSpirit. Only those thoughts that come by walking have any value.\n\n\n35\n\nThere are times when we psychologists are like horses, and grow\nfretful. We see our own shadow rise and fall before us. The\npsychologist must look away from himself if he wishes to see anything\nat all.\n\n\n36\n\nDo we immoralists injure virtue in any way? Just as little as the\nanarchists injure royalty. Only since they have been shot at do princes\nsit firmly on their thrones once more. Moral: _morality must be shot\nat._\n\n\n37\n\nThou runnest _ahead?_\u2014Dost thou do so as a shepherd or as an\nexception? A third alternative would be the fugitive.... First question\nof conscience.\n\n\n38\n\nArt thou genuine or art thou only an actor? Art thou a representative\nor the thing represented, itself? Finally, art thou perhaps simply a\ncopy of an actor? ... Second question of conscience.\n\n\n39\n\n_The disappointed man speaks:_\u2014I sought for great men, but all I found\nwere the apes of their ideal.\n\n\n40\n\nArt thou one who looks on, or one who puts his own shoulder to the\nwheel?\u2014Or art thou one who looks away, or who turns aside?... Third\nquestion of conscience.\n\n\n41\n\nWilt thou go in company, or lead, or go by thyself?... A man should\nknow what he desires, and that he desires something.\u2014Fourth question\nof conscience.\n\n\n42\n\nThey were but rungs in my ladder, on them I made my ascent:\u2014to that\nend I had to go beyond them. But they imagined that I wanted to lay\nmyself to rest upon them.\n\n\n43\n\nWhat matters it whether I am acknowledged to be right! I am much too\nright. And he who laughs best to-day, will also laugh last.\n\n\n44\n\nThe formula of my happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, _goal...._\n\n\n[1] This is a reference to Seume\u2019s poem \u201c_Die Ges\u00e4nge_,\u201d the first verse\nof which is:\u2014\n\n    _\u201cWo man singet, lass dich ruhig nieder,_\n    _Ohne Furcht, was man im Lande glaubt_;\n    _Wo man singet, wird kein Mensch beraubt_:\n    _B\u00f6sewichter haben keine Lieder_.\u201d\n\n(Wherever people sing thou canst safely settle down without a qualm\nas to what the general faith of the land may be Wherever people sing,\nno man is ever robbed; _rascals_ have no songs.) Popular tradition,\nhowever, renders the lines thus:\u2014\n\n    _\u201cWo man singt, da lass dich ruhig nieder;_\n    _Base Menschen_ [evil men] _haben keine Lieder.\u201d_\n\n\n\n\nTHE PROBLEM OF SOCRATES\n\n\n1\n\nIn all ages the wisest have always agreed in their judgment of life:\n_it is no good._ At all times and places the same words have been\non their lips,\u2014words full of doubt, full of melancholy, full of\nweariness of life, full of hostility to life. Even Socrates\u2019 dying\nwords were:\u2014\u201cTo live\u2014means to be ill a long while: I owe a cock to\nthe god \u00c6sculapius.\u201d Even Socrates had had enough of it. What does that\nprove? What does it point to? Formerly people would have said (\u2014oh,\nit has been said, and loudly enough too; by our Pessimists loudest of\nall!): \u201cIn any case there must be some truth in this! The _consensus\nsapientium_ is a proof of truth.\u201d\u2014Shall we say the same to-day? _May_\nwe do so? \u201cIn any case there must be some sickness here,\u201d we make\nreply. These great sages of all periods should first be examined more\nclosely! Is it possible that they were, everyone of them, a little\nshaky on their legs, effete, rocky, decadent? Does wisdom perhaps\nappear on earth after the manner of a crow attracted by a slight smell\nof carrion?\n\n\n2\n\nThis irreverent belief that the great sages were decadent types, first\noccurred to me precisely in regard to that case concerning which both\nlearned and vulgar prejudice was most opposed to my view. I recognised\nSocrates and Plato as symptoms of decline, as instruments in the\ndisintegration of Hellas, as pseudo-Greek, as anti-Greek (\u201cThe Birth\nof Tragedy,\u201d 1872). That _consensus sapientium,_ as I perceived ever\nmore and more clearly, did not in the least prove that they were right\nin the matter on which they agreed. It proved rather that these sages\nthemselves must have been alike in some physiological particular, in\norder to assume the same negative attitude towards life\u2014in order to\nbe bound to assume that attitude. After all, judgments and valuations\nof life, whether for or against, cannot be true: their only value lies\nin the fact that they are symptoms; they can be considered only as\nsymptoms,\u2014_per se_ such judgments are nonsense. You must therefore\nendeavour by all means to reach out and try to grasp this astonishingly\nsubtle axiom, _that the value of life cannot be estimated._ A living\nman cannot do so, because he is a contending party, or rather the very\nobject in the dispute, and not a judge; nor can a dead man estimate\nit\u2014for other reasons. For a philosopher to see a problem in the value\nof life, is almost an objection against him, a note of interrogation\nset against his wisdom\u2014a lack of wisdom. What? Is it possible that all\nthese great sages were not only decadents, but that they were not even\nwise? Let me however return to the problem of Socrates.\n\n\n3\n\nTo judge from his origin, Socrates belonged to the lowest of the low:\nSocrates was mob. You know, and you can still see it for yourself,\nhow ugly he was. But ugliness, which in itself is an objection, was\nalmost a refutation among the Greeks. Was Socrates really a Greek?\nUgliness is not infrequently the expression of thwarted development,\nor of development arrested by crossing. In other cases it appears\nas a decadent development. The anthropologists among the criminal\nspecialists declare that I the typical criminal is ugly: _monstrum\nin fronte, monstrum in animo._ But the criminal is a decadent?[1]\nWas Socrates a typical criminal?\u2014At all events this would not clash\nwith that famous physiognomist\u2019s judgment which was so repugnant to\nSocrates\u2019 friends. While on his way through Athens a certain foreigner\nwho was no fool at judging by looks, told Socrates to his face that\nhe was a monster, that his body harboured all the worst vices and\npassions. And Socrates replied simply: \u201cYou know me, sir!\u201d\u2014\n\n\n4\n\nNot only are the acknowledged wildness and anarchy of Socrates\u2019\ninstincts indicative of decadence, but also that preponderance of the\nlogical faculties and that malignity of the misshapen which was his\nspecial characteristic. Neither should we forget those aural delusions\nwhich were religiously interpreted as \u201cthe demon of Socrates.\u201d\nEverything in him is exaggerated, _buffo,_ caricature, his nature is\nalso full of concealment, of ulterior motives, and of underground\ncurrents. I try to understand the idiosyncrasy from which the Socratic\nequation:\u2014Reason = Virtue = Happiness, could have arisen: the\nweirdest equation ever seen, and one which was essentially opposed to\nall the instincts of the older Hellenes.\n\n\n5\n\nWith Socrates Greek taste veers round in favour of dialectics: what\nactually occurs? In the first place a noble taste is vanquished:\nwith dialectics the mob comes to the top. Before Socrates\u2019 time,\ndialectical manners were avoided in good society: they were regarded\nas bad manners, they were compromising. Young men were cautioned\nagainst them. All such proffering of one\u2019s reasons was looked upon with\nsuspicion. Honest things like honest men do not carry their reasons\non their sleeve in such fashion. It is not good form to make a show\nof everything. That which needs to be proved cannot be worth much.\nWherever authority still belongs to good usage, wherever men do not\nprove but command, the dialectician is regarded as a sort of clown.\nPeople laugh at him, they do not take him seriously. Socrates was a\nclown who succeeded in making men take him seriously: what then was the\nmatter?\n\n\n6\n\nA man resorts to dialectics only when he has no other means to hand.\nPeople know that they excite suspicion with it and that it is not\nvery convincing. Nothing is more easily dispelled than a dialectical\neffect: this is proved by the experience of every gathering in which\ndiscussions are held. It can be only the last defence of those who have\nno other weapons. One must require to extort one\u2019s right, otherwise one\nmakes no use of it. That is why the Jews were dialecticians. Reynard\nthe Fox was a dialectician: what?\u2014and was Socrates one as well?\n\n\n7\n\nIs the Socratic irony an expression of revolt, of mob resentment?\nDoes Socrates, as a creature suffering under oppression, enjoy his\ninnate ferocity in the knife-thrusts of the syllogism? Does he wreak\nhis revenge on the noblemen he fascinates?\u2014As a dialectician a man\nhas a merciless instrument to wield; he can play the tyrant with it:\nhe compromises when he conquers with it. The dialectician leaves it to\nhis opponent to prove that he is no idiot: he infuriates, he likewise\nparalyses. The dialectician cripples the intellect of his opponent. Can\nit be that dialectics was only a form of revenge in Socrates?\n\n\n8\n\nI have given you to understand in what way Socrates was able to repel:\nnow it is all the more necessary to explain how he fascinated.\u2014One\nreason is that he discovered a new kind of _Agon,_ and that he was the\nfirst fencing-master in the best circles in Athens. He fascinated by\nappealing to the combative instinct of the Greeks,\u2014he introduced a\nvariation into the contests between men and youths. Socrates was also a\ngreat erotic.\n\n\n9\n\nBut Socrates divined still more. He saw right through his noble\nAthenians; he perceived that his case, his peculiar case, was no\nexception even in his time. The same kind of degeneracy was silently\npreparing itself everywhere: ancient Athens was dying out. And Socrates\nunderstood that the whole world needed him,\u2014his means, his remedy, his\nspecial artifice for self-preservation. Everywhere the instincts were\nin a state of anarchy; everywhere people were within an ace of excess:\nthe _monstrum in animo_ was the general danger. \u201cThe instincts would\nplay the tyrant; we must discover a counter-tyrant who is stronger than\nthey.\u201d On the occasion when that physiognomist had unmasked Socrates,\nand had told him what he was, a crater full of evil desires, the great\nMaster of Irony let fall one or two words more, which provide the key\nto his nature. \u201cThis is true,\u201d he said, \u201cbut I overcame them all.\u201d How\ndid Socrates succeed in mastering himself? His case was at bottom only\nthe extreme and most apparent example of a state of distress which\nwas beginning to be general: that state in which no one was able to\nmaster himself and in which the instincts turned one against the other.\nAs the extreme example of this state, he fascinated\u2014his terrifying\nugliness made him conspicuous to every eye: it is quite obvious that he\nfascinated still more as a reply, as a solution, as an apparent cure of\nthis case.\n\n\n10\n\nWhen a man finds it necessary, as Socrates did, to create a tyrant out\nof reason, there is no small danger that something else wishes to play\nthe tyrant. Reason was then discovered as a saviour; neither Socrates\nnor his \u201cpatients\u201d were at liberty to be rational or not, as they\npleased; at that time it was _de rigueur,_ it had become a last shift.\nThe fanaticism with which the whole of Greek thought plunges into\nreason, betrays a critical condition of things: men were in danger;\nthere were only two alternatives: either perish or else be absurdly\nrational. The moral bias of Greek philosophy from Plato onward, is the\noutcome of a pathological condition, as is also its appreciation of\ndialectics. Reason = Virtue = Happiness, simply means: we must imitate\nSocrates, and confront the dark passions permanently with the light\nof day\u2014the light of reason. We must at all costs be clever, precise,\nclear: all yielding to the instincts, to the unconscious, leads\ndownwards.\n\n\n11\n\nI have now explained how Socrates fascinated: he seemed to be a\ndoctor, a Saviour. Is it necessary to expose the errors which lay in\nhis faith in \u201creason at any price\u201d?\u2014It is a piece of self-deception\non the part of philosophers and moralists to suppose that they can\nextricate themselves from degeneration by merely waging war upon it.\nThey cannot thus extricate themselves; that which they choose as a\nmeans, as the road to salvation, is in itself again only an expression\nof degeneration\u2014they only modify its mode of manifesting itself:\nthey do not abolish it. Socrates was a misunderstanding. _The whole\nof the morality of amelioration\u2014that of Christianity as well\u2014was\na misunderstanding._ The most blinding light of day: reason at any\nprice; life made clear, cold, cautious, conscious, without instincts,\nopposed to the instincts, was in itself only a disease, another kind\nof disease\u2014and by no means a return to \u201cvirtue,\u201d to \u201chealth,\u201d and to\nhappiness. To be obliged to fight the instincts\u2014this is the formula of\ndegeneration: as long as life is in the ascending line, happiness is\nthe same as instinct.\n\n\n12\n\n\u2014Did he understand this himself, this most intelligent of\nself-deceivers? Did he confess this to himself in the end, in the\nwisdom of his courage before death. Socrates wished to die. Not Athens,\nbut his own hand gave him the draught of hemlock; he drove Athens to\nthe poisoned cup. \u201cSocrates is not a doctor,\u201d he whispered to himself,\n\u201cdeath alone can be a doctor here.... Socrates himself has only been ill\na long while.\u201d\n\n\n[1] It should be borne in mind that Nietzsche recognised two types of\ncriminals,\u2014the criminal from strength, and the criminal from weakness.\nThis passage alludes to the latter, Aphorism 45, p. 103, alludes to the\nformer.\u2014TR.\n\n\n\n\n\u201cREASON\u201d IN PHILOSOPHY\n\n\n1\n\nYou ask me what all idiosyncrasy is in philosophers? ... For instance\ntheir lack of the historical sense, their hatred even of the idea of\nBecoming, their Egyptianism. They imagine that they do honour to a\nthing by divorcing it from history _sub specie \u00e6terni,\u2014_when they\nmake a mummy of it. All the ideas that philosophers have treated for\nthousands of years, have been mummied concepts; nothing real has ever\ncome out of their hands alive. These idolaters of concepts merely\nkill and stuff things when they worship,\u2014they threaten the life of\neverything they adore. Death, change, age, as well as procreation and\ngrowth, are in their opinion objections,\u2014even refutations. That which\nis cannot evolve; that which evolves _is_ not. Now all of them believe,\nand even with desperation, in Being. But, as they cannot lay hold of\nit, they try to discover reasons why this privilege is withheld from\nthem. \u201cSome merely apparent quality, some deception must be the cause\nof our not being able to ascertain the nature of Being: where is the\ndeceiver?\u201d \u201cWe have him,\u201d they cry rejoicing, \u201cit is sensuality!\u201d These\nsenses, _which in other things are so immoral,_ cheat us concerning the\ntrue world. Moral: we must get rid of the deception of the senses, of\nBecoming, of history, of falsehood.\u2014History is nothing more than the\nbelief in the senses, the belief in falsehood. Moral: we must say \u201cno\u201d\nto everything in which the senses believe: to all the rest of mankind:\nall that belongs to the \u201cpeople.\u201d Let us be philosophers, mummies,\nmonotono-theists, grave-diggers!\u2014And above all, away with the _body,_\nthis wretched _id\u00e9e fixe_ of the senses, infected with all the faults\nof logic that exist, refuted, even impossible, although it be impudent\nenough to pose as if it were real!\n\n\n2\n\nWith a feeling of great reverence I except the name of _Heraclitus._\nIf the rest of the philosophic gang rejected the evidences of the\nsenses, because the latter revealed a state of multifariousness and\nchange, he rejected the same evidence because it revealed things as if\nthey possessed permanence and unity. Even Heraclitus did an injustice\nto the senses. The latter lie neither as the Eleatics believed them\nto lie, nor as he believed them to lie,\u2014they do not lie at all. The\ninterpretations we give to their evidence is what first introduces\nfalsehood into it; for instance the lie of unity, the lie of matter,\nof substance and of permanence. Reason is the cause of our falsifying\nthe evidence of the senses. In so far as the senses show us a state\nof Becoming, of transiency, and of change, they do not lie. But in\ndeclaring that Being was an empty illusion, Heraclitus will remain\neternally right. The \u201capparent\u201d world is the only world: the \u201ctrue\nworld\u201d is no more than a false adjunct thereto.\n\n\n3\n\nAnd what delicate instruments of observation we have in our senses!\nThis human nose, for instance, of which no philosopher has yet spoken\nwith reverence and gratitude, is, for the present, the most finely\nadjusted instrument at our disposal: it is able to register even such\nslight changes of movement as the spectroscope would be unable to\nrecord. Our scientific triumphs at the present day extend precisely\nso far as we have accepted the evidence of our senses,\u2014as we have\nsharpened and armed them, and learned to follow them up to the\nend. What remains is abortive and not yet science\u2014that is to say,\nmetaphysics, theology, psychology, epistemology, or formal science, or\na doctrine of symbols, like logic and its applied form mathematics.\nIn all these things reality does not come into consideration at all,\neven as a problem; just as little as does the question concerning the\ngeneral value of such a convention of symbols as logic.\n\n\n4\n\nThe other idiosyncrasy of philosophers is no less dangerous; it\nconsists in confusing the last and the first things. They place that\nwhich makes its appearance last\u2014unfortunately! for it ought not\nto appear at all!\u2014the \u201chighest concept,\u201d that is to say, the most\ngeneral, the emptiest, the last cloudy streak of evaporating reality,\nat the beginning as the beginning. This again is only their manner of\nexpressing their veneration: the highest thing must not have grown out\nof the lowest, it must not have grown at all.... Moral: everything\nof the first rank must be _causa sui._ To have been derived from\nsomething else, is as good as an objection, it sets the value of a\nthing in question. All superior values are of the first rank, all the\nhighest concepts\u2014that of Being, of the Absolute, of Goodness, of\nTruth, and of Perfection; all these things cannot have been evolved,\nthey must therefore be _causa sui._ All these things cannot however be\nunlike one another, they cannot be opposed to one another. Thus they\nattain to their stupendous concept \u201cGod.\u201d The last, most attenuated and\nemptiest thing is postulated as the first thing, as the absolute cause,\nas _ens realissimum._ Fancy humanity having to take the brain diseases\nof morbid cobweb-spinners seriously!\u2014And it has paid dearly for having\ndone so.\n\n\n5\n\n\u2014Against this let us set the different manner in which we (\u2014you\nobserve that I am courteous enough to say \u201cwe\u201d) conceive the problem of\nthe error and deceptiveness of things. Formerly people regarded change\nand evolution in general as the proof of appearance, as a sign of the\nfact that something must be there that leads us astray. To-day, on\nthe other hand, we realise that precisely as far as the rational bias\nforces us to postulate unity, identity, permanence, substance, cause,\nmateriality and being, we are in a measure involved in error, driven\nnecessarily to error; however certain we may feel, as the result of a\nstrict examination of the matter, that the error lies here. It is just\nthe same here as with the motion of the sun: In its case it was our\neyes that were wrong; in the matter of the concepts above mentioned it\nis our language itself that pleads most constantly in their favour.\nIn its origin language belongs to an age of the most rudimentary\nforms of psychology: if we try to conceive of the first conditions of\nthe metaphysics of language, _i.e._ in plain English, of reason, we\nimmediately find ourselves in the midst of a system of fetichism. For\nhere, the doer and his deed are seen in all circumstances, will is\nbelieved in as a cause in general; the ego is taken for granted, the\nego as Being, and as substance, and the faith in the ego as substance\nis projected into all things\u2014in this way, alone, the concept \u201cthing\u201d\nis created. Being is thought into and insinuated into everything as\ncause; from the concept \u201cego,\u201d alone, can the concept \u201cBeing\u201d proceed.\nAt the beginning stands the tremendously fatal error of supposing the\nwill to be something that actuates,\u2014a faculty. Now we know that it\nis only a word.[1] Very much later, in a world a thousand times more\nenlightened, the assurance, the subjective certitude, in the handling\nof the categories of reason came into the minds of philosophers as a\nsurprise. They concluded that these categories could not be derived\nfrom experience,\u2014on the contrary, the whole of experience rather\ncontradicts them. _Whence do they come therefore?_ In India, as in\nGreece, the same mistake was made: \u201cwe must already once have lived\nin a higher world (\u2014instead of in a much lower one, which would have\nbeen the truth!), we must have been divine, for we possess reason!\u201d\n... Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion\nhitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics\nfor instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we\nutter!\u2014Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive\npowers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in\nhis discovery of the atom. \u201cReason\u201d in language!\u2014oh what a deceptive\nold witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as\nwe still believe in grammar.\n\n\n6\n\nPeople will feel grateful to me if I condense a point of view, which\nis at once so important and so new, into four theses: by this means\nI shall facilitate comprehension, and shall likewise challenge\ncontradiction.\n\n_Proposition One._ The reasons upon which the apparent nature of \u201cthis\u201d\nworld have been based, rather tend to prove its reality,\u2014any other\nkind of reality defies demonstration.\n\n_Proposition Two._ The characteristics with which man has endowed\nthe \u201ctrue Being\u201d of things, are the characteristics of non-Being, of\n_nonentity._ The \u201ctrue world\u201d has been erected upon a contradiction of\nthe real world; and it is indeed an apparent world, seeing that it is\nmerely a _moralo-optical_ delusion.\n\n_Proposition Three._ There is no sense in spinning yarns about another\nworld, provided, of course, that we do not possess a mighty instinct\nwhich urges us to slander, belittle, and cast suspicion upon this life:\nin this case we should be avenging ourselves on this life with the\nphantasmagoria of \u201canother,\u201d of a \u201cbetter\u201d life.\n\n_Proposition Four._ To divide the world into a \u201ctrue\u201d and an \u201capparent\u201d\nworld, whether after the manner of Christianity or of Kant (after all\na Christian in disguise), is only a sign of decadence,\u2014a symptom of\n_degenerating_ life. The fact that the artist esteems the appearance\nof a thing higher than reality, is no objection to this statement. For\n\u201cappearance\u201d signifies once more reality here, but in a selected,\nstrengthened and corrected form. The tragic artist is no pessimist,\u2014he\nsays _Yea_ to everything questionable and terrible, he is Dionysian.\n\n\n[1] Nietzsche here refers to the concept \u201cfree will\u201d of the Christians;\nthis does not mean that there is no such thing as will\u2014that is to say\na powerful determining force from within.\u2014TR.\n\n\nHOW THE \u201cTRUE WORLD\u201d ULTIMATELY BECAME A FABLE\n\nTHE HISTORY OF AN ERROR\n\n1. The true world, attainable to the sage, the pious man and the man of\nvirtue,\u2014he lives in it, _he is it._\n\n    (The most ancient form of the idea was relatively clever,\n    simple, convincing. It was a paraphrase of the proposition\n    \u201cI, Plato, am the truth.\u201d)\n\n\n2. The true world which is unattainable for the moment, is promised to\nthe sage, to the pious man and to the man of virtue (\u201cto the sinner who\nrepents\u201d).\n\n    (Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, more\n    insidious, more evasive,\u2014It _becomes a woman,_ it becomes\n    Christian.)\n\n\n3. The true world is unattainable, it cannot be proved, it cannot\npromise anything; but even as a thought, alone, it is a comfort, an\nobligation, a command.\n\n    (At bottom this is still the old sun; but seen through mist\n    and scepticism: the idea has become sublime, pale, northern,\n    K\u00f6nigsbergian.)[1]\n\n\n4. The true world\u2014is it unattainable? At all events it is unattained.\nAnd as unattained it is also _unknown._ Consequently it no longer\ncomforts, nor saves, nor constrains: what could something unknown\nconstrain us to?\n\n    (The grey of dawn. Reason stretches itself and yawns for the\n    first time. The cock-crow of positivism.)\n\n\n5. The \u201ctrue world\u201d\u2014an idea that no longer serves any purpose, that\nno longer constrains one to anything,\u2014a useless idea that has become\nquite superfluous, consequently an exploded idea: let us abolish it!\n\n    (Bright daylight; breakfast; the return of common sense\n    and of cheerfulness; Plato blushes for shame and all\n    free-spirits kick up a shindy.)\n\n\n6. We have suppressed the true world: what world survives? the apparent\nworld perhaps?... Certainly not! _In abolishing the true world we have\nalso abolished the world of appearance!_\n\n    (Noon; the moment of the shortest shadows; the end of the\n    longest error; mankind\u2019s zenith; _Incipit Zarathustra._)\n\n\n[1] Kant was a native of K\u00f6nigsberg and lived there all his life. Did\nNietzsche know that Kant was simply a Scotch Puritan, whose family had\nsettled in Germany?\n\n\n\n\nMORALITY AS THE ENEMY OF NATURE\n\n\n1\n\nThere is a time when all passions are simply fatal in their action,\nwhen they wreck their victims with the weight of their folly,\u2014and\nthere is a later period, a very much later period, when they marry with\nthe spirit, when they \u201cspiritualise\u201d themselves. Formerly, owing to the\nstupidity inherent in passion, men waged war against passion itself:\nmen pledged themselves to annihilate it,\u2014all ancient moral-mongers\nwere unanimous on this point, \u201c_il faut tuer les passions._\u201d The\nmost famous formula for this stands in the New Testament, in that\nSermon on the Mount, where, let it be said incidentally, things are\nby no means regarded _from a height._ It is said there, for instance,\nwith an application to sexuality: \u201cif thy eye offend thee, pluck it\nout\u201d: fortunately no Christian acts in obedience to this precept.\nTo annihilate the passions and desires, simply on account of their\nstupidity, and to obviate the unpleasant consequences of their\nstupidity, seems to us to-day merely an aggravated form of stupidity.\nWe no longer admire those dentists who extract teeth simply in order\nthat they may not ache again. On the other hand, it will be admitted\nwith some reason, that on the soil from which Christianity grew, the\nidea of the \u201cspiritualisation of passion\u201d could not possibly have been\nconceived. The early Church, as everyone knows, certainly did wage war\nagainst the \u201cintelligent,\u201d in favour of the \u201cpoor in spirit\u201d In these\ncircumstances how could the passions be combated intelligently? The\nChurch combats passion by means of excision of all kinds: its practice,\nits \u201cremedy,\u201d is _castration._ It never inquires \u201chow can a desire\nbe spiritualised, beautified, deified?\u201d\u2014In all ages it has laid the\nweight of discipline in the process of extirpation (the extirpation\nof sensuality, pride, lust of dominion, lust of property, and\nrevenge).\u2014But to attack the passions at their roots, means attacking\nlife itself at its source: the method of the Church is hostile to life.\n\n\n2\n\nThe same means, castration and extirpation, are instinctively chosen\nfor waging war against a passion, by those who are too weak of will,\ntoo degenerate, to impose some sort of moderation upon it; by those\nnatures who, to speak in metaphor (\u2014and without metaphor), need\n_la Trappe,_ or some kind of ultimatum of war, a _gulf_ set between\nthemselves and a passion. Only degenerates find radical methods\nindispensable: weakness of will, or more strictly speaking, the\ninability not to react to a stimulus, is in itself simply another form\nof degeneracy. Radical and mortal hostility to sensuality, remains a\nsuspicious symptom: it justifies one in being suspicious of the general\nstate of one who goes to such extremes. Moreover, that hostility and\nhatred reach their height only when such natures no longer possess\nenough strength of character to adopt the radical remedy, to renounce\ntheir inner \u201cSatan.\u201d Look at the whole history of the priests, the\nphilosophers, and the artists as well: the most poisonous diatribes\nagainst the senses have not been said by the impotent, nor by the\nascetics; but by those impossible ascetics, by those who found it\nnecessary to be ascetics.\n\n\n3\n\nThe spiritualisation of sensuality is called _love:_ it is a great\ntriumph over Christianity. Another triumph is our spiritualisation of\nhostility. It consists in the fact that we are beginning to realise\nvery profoundly the value of having enemies: in short that with them\nwe are forced to do and to conclude precisely the reverse of what\nwe previously did and concluded. In all ages the Church wished to\nannihilate its enemies: we, the immoralists and Antichrists, see our\nadvantage in the survival of the Church. Even in political life,\nhostility has now become more spiritual,\u2014much more cautious, much\nmore thoughtful, and much more moderate. Almost every party sees its\nself-preservative interests in preventing the Opposition from going\nto pieces; and the same applies to politics on a grand scale. A new\ncreation, more particularly, like the new Empire, has more need\nof enemies than friends: only as a contrast does it begin to feel\nnecessary, only as a contrast does it _become_ necessary. And we behave\nin precisely the same way to the \u201cinner enemy\u201d: in this quarter too we\nhave spiritualised enmity, in this quarter too we have understood its\nvalue. A man is productive only in so far as he is rich in contrasted\ninstincts; he can remain young only on condition that his soul does\nnot begin to take things easy and to yearn for peace. Nothing has\ngrown more alien to us than that old desire\u2014the \u201cpeace of the soul,\u201d\nwhich is the aim of Christianity. Nothing could make us less envious\nthan the moral cow and the plump happiness of a clean conscience. The\nman who has renounced war has renounced a grand life. In many cases,\nof course, \u201cpeace of the soul\u201d is merely a misunderstanding,\u2014it is\nsomething _very different_ which has failed to find a more honest name\nfor itself. Without either circumlocution or prejudice I will suggest a\nfew cases. \u201cPeace of the soul\u201d may for instance be the sweet effulgence\nof rich animality in the realm of morality (or religion). Or the first\npresage of weariness, the first shadow that evening, every kind of\nevening, is wont to cast. Or a sign that the air is moist, and that\nwinds are blowing up from the south. Or unconscious gratitude for a\ngood digestion (sometimes called \u201cbrotherly love\u201d). Or the serenity\nof the convalescent, on whose lips all things have a new taste, and\nwho bides his time. Or the condition which follows upon a thorough\ngratification of our strongest passion, the well-being of unaccustomed\nsatiety. Or the senility of our will, of our desires, and of our vices.\nOr laziness, coaxed by vanity into togging itself out in a moral garb.\nOr the ending of a state of long suspense and of agonising uncertainty,\nby a state of certainty, of even terrible certainty. Or the expression\nof ripeness and mastery in the midst of a task, of a creative work, of\na production, of a thing willed, the calm breathing that denotes that\n\u201cfreedom of will\u201d has been attained. Who knows?\u2014maybe _The Twilight\nof the Idols_ is only a sort of \u201cpeace of the soul.\u201d\n\n\n4\n\nI will formulate a principle. All naturalism in morality\u2014that is to\nsay, every sound morality is ruled by a life instinct,\u2014any one of\nthe laws of life is fulfilled by the definite canon \u201cthou shalt,\u201d\n\u201cthou shalt not,\u201d and any sort of obstacle or hostile element in the\nroad of life is thus cleared away. Conversely, the morality which is\nantagonistic to nature\u2014that is to say, almost every morality that has\nbeen taught, honoured and preached hitherto, is directed precisely\nagainst the life-instincts,\u2014it is a condemnation, now secret, now\nblatant and impudent, of these very instincts. Inasmuch as it says \u201cGod\nsees into the heart of man,\u201d it says Nay to the profoundest and most\nsuperior desires of life and takes God as the enemy of life. The saint\nin whom God is well pleased, is the ideal eunuch. Life terminates where\nthe \u201cKingdom of God\u201d begins.\n\n\n5\n\nAdmitting that you have understood the villainy of such a mutiny\nagainst life as that which has become almost sacrosanct in Christian\nmorality, you have fortunately understood something besides; and that\nis the futility, the fictitiousness, the absurdity and the falseness\nof such a mutiny. For the condemnation of life by a living creature is\nafter all but the symptom of a definite kind of life: the question as\nto whether the condemnation is justified or the reverse is not even\nraised. In order even to approach the problem of the value of life,\na man would need to be placed outside life, and moreover know it as\nwell as one, as many, as all in fact, who have lived it These are\nreasons enough to prove to us that this problem is an inaccessible one\nto us. When we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration, and\nthrough the optics of life: life itself urges us to determine values:\nlife itself values through us when we determine values. From which it\nfollows that even that morality which is antagonistic to life, and\nwhich conceives God as the opposite and the condemnation of life, is\nonly a valuation of life\u2014of what life? of what kind of life? But I\nhave already answered this question: it is the valuation of declining,\nof enfeebled, of exhausted and of condemned life. Morality, as it has\nbeen understood hitherto\u2014as it was finally formulated by Schopenhauer\nin the words \u201cThe Denial of the Will to Life,\u201d is the instinct of\ndegeneration itself, which converts itself into an imperative: it says:\n\u201cPerish!\u201d It is the death sentence of men who are already doomed.\n\n\n6\n\nLet us at last consider how exceedingly simple it is on our part to\nsay: \u201cMan should be thus and thus!\u201d Reality shows us a marvellous\nwealth of types, and a luxuriant variety of forms and changes: and yet\nthe first wretch of a moral loafer that comes along cries \u201cNo! Man\nshould be different!\u201d He even knows what man should be like, does this\nsanctimonious prig: he draws his own face on the wall and declares:\n\u201c_ecce homo!_\u201d But even when the moralist addresses himself only to the\nindividual and says \u201cthus and thus shouldst thou be!\u201d he still makes\nan ass of himself. The individual in his past and future is a piece of\nfate, one law the more, one necessity the more for all that is to come\nand is to be. To say to him \u201cchange thyself,\u201d is tantamount to saying\nthat everything should change, even backwards as well. Truly these have\nbeen consistent moralists, they wished man to be different, _i.e._,\nvirtuous; they wished him to be after their own image,\u2014that is to say\nsanctimonious humbugs. And to this end they denied the world! No slight\nform of insanity! No modest form of immodesty! Morality, in so far it\ncondemns _per se,_ and _not_ out of any aim, consideration or motive of\nlife, is a specific error, for which no one should feel any mercy, a\ndegenerate idiosyncrasy, that has done an unutterable amount of harm.\nWe others, we immoralists, on the contrary, have opened our hearts\nwide to all kinds of comprehension, understanding and approbation.[1]\nWe do not deny readily, we glory in saying yea to things. Our eyes\nhave opened ever wider and wider to that economy which still employs\nand knows how to use to its own advantage all that which the sacred\ncraziness of priests and the morbid reason in priests, rejects; to\nthat economy in the law of life which draws its own advantage even out\nof the repulsive race of bigots, the priests and the virtuous,\u2014what\nadvantage?\u2014But we ourselves, we immoralists, are the reply to this\nquestion.\n\n[1] _Cf._ Spinoza, who says in the _Tractatus politico_ (1677), Chap.\nI, \u00a7 4: _\u201cSedulo curavi, humanas actiones non ridere, non tugert,\nnegue detestari, sed intelligere\u201d_ (\u201cI have carefully endeavoured not\nto deride, or deplore, or detest human actions, but to understand\nthem.\u201d).\u2014TR.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FOUR GREAT ERRORS\n\n\n1\n\n_The error of the confusion of cause and effect.\u2014_There is no more\ndangerous error than to confound the effect with the cause: I call\nthis error the intrinsic perversion of reason. Nevertheless this error\nis one of the most ancient and most recent habits of mankind. In one\npart of the world it has even been canonised; and it bears the name of\n\u201cReligion\u201d and \u201cMorality.\u201d Every postulate formulated by religion and\nmorality contains it. Priests and the promulgators of moral laws are the\npromoters of this perversion of reason.\u2014Let me give you an example.\nEverybody knows the book of the famous Cornaro, in which he recommends\nhis slender diet as the recipe for a long, happy and also virtuous\nlife. Few books have been so widely read, and to this day many thousand\ncopies of it are still printed annually in England. I do not doubt that\nthere is scarcely a single book (the Bible of course excepted) that\nhas worked more mischief, shortened more lives, than this well-meant\ncuriosity. The reason of this is the confusion of effect and cause.\nThis worthy Italian saw the cause of his long life in his diet: whereas\nthe prerequisites of long life, which are exceptional slowness of\nmolecular change, and a low rate of expenditure in energy, were the\ncause of his meagre diet He was not at liberty to eat a small or a\ngreat amount. His frugality was not the result of free choice, he would\nhave been ill had he eaten more. He who does not happen to be a carp,\nhowever, is not only wise to eat well, but is also compelled to do so.\nA scholar of the present day, with his rapid consumption of nervous\nenergy, would soon go to the dogs on Cornaro\u2019s diet. _Crede experto._\u2014\n\n\n2\n\nThe most general principle lying at the root of every religion and\nmorality, is this: \u201cDo this and that and avoid this and that\u2014and\nthou wilt be happy. Otherwise\u2014\u2014.\u201d Every morality and every\nreligion is this Imperative\u2014I call it the great original sin of\nreason,\u2014_immortal unreason._ In my mouth this principle is converted\ninto its opposite\u2014first example of my \u201cTransvaluation of all Values\u201d:\na well-constituted man, a man who is one of \u201cNature\u2019s lucky strokes,\u201d\n_must_ perform certain actions and instinctively fear other actions;\nhe introduces the element of order, of which he is the physiological\nmanifestation, into his relations with men and things. In a formula:\nhis virtue is the consequence of his good constitution. Longevity\nand plentiful offspring are not the reward of virtue, virtue itself\nis on the contrary that retardation of the metabolic process which,\namong other things, results in a long life and in plentiful offspring,\nin short in _Cornarism._ The Church and morality say: \u201cA race, a\npeople perish through vice and luxury.\u201d My reinstated reason says:\nwhen a people are going to the dogs, when they are degenerating\nphysiologically, vice and luxury (that is to say, the need of ever\nstronger and more frequent stimuli such as all exhausted natures are\nacquainted with) are bound to result. Such and such a young man grows\npale and withered prematurely. His friends say this or that illness\nis the cause of it I say: the fact that he became ill, the fact that\nhe did not resist illness, was in itself already the outcome of\nimpoverished life, of hereditary exhaustion. The newspaper reader says:\nsuch and such a party by committing such an error will meet its death.\nMy superior politics say: a party that can make such mistakes, is in\nits last agony\u2014it no longer possesses any certainty of instinct. Every\nmistake is in every sense the sequel to degeneration of the instincts,\nto disintegration of the will. This is almost the definition of evil,\nEverything valuable is instinct\u2014and consequently easy, necessary,\nfree. Exertion is an objection, the god is characteristically different\nfrom the hero (in my language: light feet are the first attribute of\ndivinity).\n\n\n3\n\n_The error of false causality._ In all ages men have believed that\nthey knew what a cause was: but whence did we derive this knowledge,\nor more accurately, this faith in the fact that we know? Out of the\nrealm of the famous \u201cinner facts of consciousness,\u201d not one of which\nhas yet proved itself to be a fact We believed ourselves to be causes\neven in the action of the will; we thought that in this matter at\nleast we caught causality red-handed. No one doubted that all the\n_antecedentia_ of an action were to be sought in consciousness, and\ncould be discovered there\u2014as \u201cmotive\u201d\u2014if only they were sought.\nOtherwise we should not be free to perform them, we should not have\nbeen responsible for them. Finally who would have questioned that a\nthought is caused? that the ego causes the thought? Of these three\n\u201cfacts of inner consciousness\u201d by means of which causality seemed to\nbe guaranteed, the first and most convincing is that of the will as\ncause; the conception of consciousness (\u201cspirit\u201d) as a cause, and\nsubsequently that of the ego (the \u201csubject\u201d) as a cause, were merely\nborn afterwards, once the causality of the will stood established\nas \u201cgiven,\u201d as a fact of experience. Meanwhile we have come to our\nsenses. To-day we no longer believe a word of all this. The \u201cinner\nworld\u201d is full of phantoms and will-o\u2019-the-wisps: the will is one of\nthese. The will no longer actuates, consequently it no longer explains\nanything\u2014all it does is to accompany processes; it may even be absent.\nThe so-called \u201cmotive\u201d is another error. It is merely a ripple on\nthe surface of consciousness, a side issue of the action, which is\nmuch more likely to conceal than to reveal the _antecedentia_ of the\nlatter. And as for the ego! It has become legendary, fictional, a\nplay upon words: it has ceased utterly and completely from thinking,\nfeeling, and willing! What is the result of it all? There are no such\nthings as spiritual causes. The whole of popular experience on this\nsubject went to the devil! That is the result of it all. For we had\nblissfully abused that experience, we had built the world upon it as a\nworld of causes, as a world of will, as a world of spirit. The most\nantiquated and most traditional psychology has been at work here, it\nhas done nothing else: all phenomena were deeds in the light of this\npsychology, and all deeds were the result of will; according to it the\nworld was a complex mechanism of agents, an agent (a \u201csubject\u201d) lay\nat the root of all things. Man projected his three \u201cinner facts of\nconsciousness,\u201d the will, the spirit, and the ego in which he believed\nmost firmly, outside himself. He first deduced the concept Being out\nof the concept Ego, he supposed \u201cthings\u201d to exist as he did himself,\naccording to his notion of the ego as cause. Was it to be wondered at\nthat later on he always found in things only that which he had laid\nin them?\u2014The thing itself, I repeat, the concept thing was merely a\nreflex of the belief in the ego as cause. And even your atom, my dear\ngood Mechanists and Physicists, what an amount of error, of rudimentary\npsychology still adheres to it!\u2014Not to speak of the \u201cthing-in-itself,\u201d\nof the _horrendum pudendum_ of the metaphysicians! The error of spirit\nregarded as a cause, confounded with reality! And made the measure of\nreality! And called _God!_\n\n\n4\n\n_The Error of imaginary Causes._ Starting out from dreamland, we\nfind that to any definite sensation, like that produced by a distant\ncannon shot for instance, we are wont to ascribe a cause after the\nfact (very often quite a little romance in which the dreamer himself\nis, of course, the hero). Meanwhile the sensation becomes protracted\nlike a sort of continuous echo, until, as it were, the instinct of\ncausality allows it to come to the front rank, no longer however as a\nchance occurrence, but as a thing which has some meaning. The cannon\nshot presents itself in a _causal_ manner, by means of an apparent\nreversal in the order of time. That which occurs last, the motivation,\nis experienced first, often with a hundred details which flash past\nlike lightning, and the shot is the _result._ What has happened? The\nideas suggested by a particular state of our senses, are misinterpreted\nas the cause of that state. As a matter of fact we proceed in precisely\nthe same manner when we are awake. The greater number of our general\nsensations\u2014every kind of obstacle, pressure, tension, explosion in\nthe interplay of the organs, and more particularly the condition of\nthe _nervus sympathies_\u2014stimulate our instinct of causality: we will\nhave a reason which will account for our feeling thus or thus,\u2014for\nfeeling ill or well. We are never satisfied by merely ascertaining\nthe fact that we feel thus or thus: we admit this fact\u2014we become\nconscious of it\u2014only when we have attributed it to some kind of\nmotivation. Memory, which, in such circumstances unconsciously becomes\nactive, adduces former conditions of a like kind, together with the\ncausal interpretations with which they are associated,\u2014but not their\nreal cause. The belief that the ideas, the accompanying processes\nof consciousness, have been the causes, is certainly produced by\nthe agency of memory. And in this way we become _accustomed_ to a\nparticular interpretation of causes which, truth to tell, actually\nhinders and even utterly prevents the investigation of the proper\ncause.\n\n\n5\n\n_The Psychological Explanation of the above Fact._ To trace something\nunfamiliar back to something familiar, is at once a relief, a comfort\nand a satisfaction, while it also produces a feeling of power. The\nunfamiliar involves danger, anxiety and care,\u2014the fundamental instinct\nis to get rid of these painful circumstances. First principle: any\nexplanation is better than none at all. Since, at bottom, it is\nonly a question of shaking one\u2019s self free from certain oppressive\nideas, the means employed to this end are not selected with overmuch\npunctiliousness: the first idea by means of which the unfamiliar is\nrevealed as familiar, produces a feeling of such comfort that it is\n\u201cheld to be true.\u201d The proof of happiness (\u201cof power\u201d) as the criterion\nof truth. The instinct of causality is therefore conditioned and\nstimulated by the feeling of fear. Whenever possible, the question\n\u201cwhy?\u201d should not only educe the cause as cause, but rather a certain\nkind of cause\u2014a comforting, liberating and reassuring cause. The first\nresult of this need is that something known or already experienced, and\nrecorded in the memory, is posited as the cause. The new factor, that\nwhich has not been experienced and which is unfamiliar, is excluded\nfrom the sphere of causes. Not only do we try to find a certain kind\nof explanation as the cause, but those kinds of explanations are\nselected and preferred which dissipate most rapidly the sensation of\nstrangeness, novelty and unfamiliarity,\u2014in fact the most ordinary\nexplanations. And the result is that a certain manner of postulating\ncauses tends to predominate ever more and more, becomes concentrated\ninto a system, and finally reigns supreme, to the complete exclusion\nof all other causes and explanations. The banker thinks immediately of\nbusiness, the Christian of \u201csin,\u201d and the girl of her love affair.\n\n\n6\n\n_The whole Domain of Morality and Religion may be classified under the\nRubric \u201cImaginary Causes.\u201d_ The \u201cexplanation\u201d of general unpleasant\nsensations. These sensations are dependent upon certain creatures who\nare hostile to us (evil spirits: the most famous example of this\u2014the\nmistaking of hysterical women for witches). These sensations are\ndependent upon actions which are reprehensible (the feeling of \u201csin,\u201d\n\u201csinfulness\u201d is a manner of accounting for a certain physiological\ndisorder\u2014people always find reasons for being dissatisfied with\nthemselves). These sensations depend upon punishment, upon compensation\nfor something which we ought not to have done, which we ought not\nto have been (this idea was generalised in a more impudent form by\nSchopenhauer, into that principle in which morality appears in its real\ncolours,\u2014that is to say, as a veritable poisoner and slanderer of\nlife: \u201call great suffering, whether mental or physical, reveals what\nwe deserve: for it could not visit us if we did not deserve it,\u201d \u201cThe\nWorld as Will and Idea,\u201d vol. 2, p. 666). These sensations are the\noutcome of ill-considered actions, having evil consequences, (\u2014the\npassions, the senses, postulated as causes, as guilty. By means of\nother calamities distressing physiological conditions are interpreted\nas \u201cmerited\u201d).\u2014The \u201cexplanation\u201d of pleasant sensations. These\nsensations are dependent upon a trust in God. They may depend upon\nour consciousness of having done one or two good actions (a so-called\n\u201cgood conscience\u201d is a physiological condition, which may be the\noutcome of good digestion). They may depend upon the happy issue of\ncertain undertakings (\u2014an ingenuous mistake: the happy issue of an\nundertaking certainly does not give a hypochondriac or a Pascal any\ngeneral sensation of pleasure). They may depend upon faith, love and\nhope,\u2014the Christian virtues. As a matter of fact all these pretended\nexplanations are but the results of certain states, and as it were\ntranslations of feelings of pleasure and pain into a false dialect: a\nman is in a condition of hopefulness because the dominant physiological\nsensation of his being is again one of strength and wealth; he trusts\nin God because the feeling of abundance and power gives him a peaceful\nstate of mind. Morality and religion are completely and utterly parts\nof the psychology of error: in every particular case cause and effect\nare confounded; as truth is confounded with the effect of that which is\nbelieved to be true; or a certain state of consciousness is confounded\nwith the chain of causes which brought it about.\n\n\n7\n\n_The Error of Free-Will._ At present we no longer have any mercy upon\nthe concept \u201cfree-will\u201d: we know only too well what it is\u2014the most\negregious theological trick that has ever existed for the purpose of\nmaking mankind \u201cresponsible\u201d in a theological manner,\u2014that is to\nsay, to make mankind dependent upon theologians. I will now explain\nto you only the psychology of the whole process of inculcating the\nsense of responsibility. Wherever men try to trace responsibility\nhome to anyone, it is the instinct of punishment and of the desire\nto judge which is active. Becoming is robbed of its innocence when\nany particular condition of things is traced to a will, to intentions\nand to responsible actions. The doctrine of the will was invented\nprincipally for the purpose of punishment,\u2014that is to say, with\nthe intention of tracing guilt. The whole of ancient psychology,\nor the psychology of the will, is the outcome of the fact that its\noriginators, who were the priests at the head of ancient communities,\nwanted to create for themselves a right to administer punishments\u2014or\nthe right for God to do so. Men were thought of as \u201cfree\u201d in order that\nthey might be judged and punished\u2014in order that they might be held\nguilty: consequently every action had to be regarded as voluntary,\nand the origin of every action had to be imagined as lying in\nconsciousness(\u2014in this way the most fundamentally fraudulent character\nof psychology was established as the very principle of psychology\nitself). Now that we have entered upon the opposite movement, now that\nwe immoralists are trying with all our power to eliminate the concepts\nof guilt and punishment from the world once more, and to cleanse\npsychology, history, nature and all social institutions and customs\nof all signs of those two concepts, we recognise no more radical\nopponents than the theologians, who with their notion of \u201ca moral order\nof things,\u201d still continue to pollute the innocence of Becoming with\npunishment and guilt Christianity is the metaphysics of the hangman.\n\n\n8\n\nWhat then, alone, can our teaching be?\u2014That no one gives man his\nqualities, neither God, society, his parents, his ancestors, nor\nhimself (\u2014this nonsensical idea which is at last refuted here, was\ntaught as \u201cintelligible freedom\u201d by Kant, and perhaps even as early\nas Plato himself). No one is responsible for the fact that he exists\nat all, that he is constituted as he is, and that he happens to be in\ncertain circumstances and in a particular environment. The fatality of\nhis being cannot be divorced from the fatality of all that which has\nbeen and will be. This is not the result of an individual intention,\nof a will, of an aim, there is no attempt at attaining to any \u201cideal\nman,\u201d or \u201cideal happiness\u201d or \u201cideal morality\u201d with him,\u2014it is absurd\nto wish him to be careering towards some sort of purpose. _We_ invented\nthe concept \u201cpurpose\u201d; in reality purpose is altogether lacking. One\nis necessary, one is a piece of fate, one belongs to the whole, one is\nin the whole,\u2014there is nothing that could judge, measure, compare,\nand condemn our existence, for that would mean judging, measuring,\ncomparing and condemning the whole. _But there is nothing outside the\nwhole!_ The fact that no one shall any longer be made responsible, that\nthe nature of existence may not be traced to a _causa prima_, that the\nworld is an entity neither as a sensorium nor as a spirit\u2014_this alone\nis the great deliverance_,\u2014thus alone is the innocence of Becoming\nrestored.... The concept \u201cGod\u201d has been the greatest objection to\nexistence hitherto.... We deny God, we deny responsibility in God: thus\nalone do we save the world.\u2014\n\n\n\n\nTHE \u201cIMPROVERS\u201d OF MANKIND\n\n\n1\n\nYou are aware of my demand upon philosophers, that they should take\nup a stand Beyond Good and Evil,\u2014that they should have the illusion\nof the moral judgment beneath them. This demand is the result of a\npoint of view which I was the first to formulate: _that there are no\nsuch things as moral facts._ Moral judgment has this in common with\nthe religious one, that it believes in realities which are not real.\nMorality is only an interpretation of certain phenomena: or, more\nstrictly speaking, a misinterpretation of them. Moral judgment, like\nthe religious one, belongs to a stage of ignorance in which even the\nconcept of reality, the distinction between real and imagined things,\nis still lacking: so that truth, at such a stage, is applied to a host\nof things which to-day we call \u201cimaginary.\u201d That is why the moral\njudgment must never be taken quite literally: as such it is sheer\nnonsense. As a sign code, however, it is invaluable: to him at least\nwho knows, it reveals the most valuable facts concerning cultures and\ninner conditions, which did not know enough to \u201cunderstand\u201d themselves.\nMorality is merely a sign-language, simply symptomatology: one must\nalready know what it is all about in order to turn it to any use.\n\n\n2\n\nLet me give you one example, quite provisionally. In all ages there\nhave been people who wished to \u201cimprove\u201d mankind: this above all\nis what was called morality. But the most different tendencies\nare concealed beneath the same word. Both the taming of the beast\nman, and the rearing of a particular type of man, have been called\n\u201cimprovement\u201d: these zoological _termini,_ alone, represent real\nthings\u2014real things of which the typical \u201cimprover,\u201d the priest,\nnaturally knows nothing, and will know nothing. To call the taming\nof an animal \u201cimproving\u201d it, sounds to our ears almost like a joke.\nHe who knows what goes on in menageries, doubts very much whether an\nanimal is improved in such places. It is certainly weakened, it is\nmade less dangerous, and by means of the depressing influence of fear,\npain, wounds, and hunger, it is converted into a sick animal. And the\nsame holds good of the tamed man whom the priest has \u201cimproved.\u201d In\nthe early years of the Middle Ages, during which the Church was most\ndistinctly and above all a menagerie, the most beautiful examples of\nthe \u201cblond beast\u201d were hunted down in all directions,\u2014the noble\nGermans, for instance, were \u201cimproved.\u201d But what did this \u201cimproved\u201d\nGerman, who had been lured to the monastery look like after the\nprocess? He looked like a caricature of man, like an abortion: he had\nbecome a \u201csinner,\u201d he was caged up, he had been imprisoned behind a\nhost of apparling notions. He now lay there, sick, wretched, malevolent\neven toward himself: full of hate for the instincts of life, full of\nsuspicion in regard to all that is still strong and happy. In short a\n\u201cChristian.\u201d In physiological terms: in a fight with an animal, the\nonly way of making it weak may be to make it sick. The Church undersood\nthis: it ruined man, it made him weak,\u2014but it laid claim to having\n\u201cimproved\u201d him.\n\n\n3\n\nNow let us consider the other case which is called morality, the\ncase of the rearing of a particular race and species. The most\nmagnificent example of this is offered by Indian morality, and is\nsanctioned religiously as the \u201cLaw of Manu.\u201d In this book the task\nis set of rearing no less than four races at once: a priestly race,\na warrior race, a merchant and agricultural race, and finally a race\nof servants\u2014the Sudras. It is quite obvious that we are no longer\nin a circus watching tamers of wild animals in this book. To have\nconceived even the plan of such a breeding scheme, presupposes the\nexistence of a man who is a hundred times milder and more reasonable\nthan the mere lion-tamer. One breathes more freely, after stepping out\nof the Christian atmosphere of hospitals and prisons, into this more\nsalubrious, loftier and more spacious world. What a wretched thing the\nNew Testament is beside Manu, what an evil odour hangs around it!\u2014But\neven this organisation found it necessary to be terrible,\u2014not this\ntime in a struggle with the animal-man, but with his opposite, the\nnon-caste man, the hotch-potch man, the Chandala. And once again it\nhad no other means of making him weak and harmless, than by making\nhim sick,\u2014it was the struggle with the greatest \u201cnumber.\u201d Nothing\nperhaps is more offensive to our feelings than these measures of\nsecurity on the part of Indian morality. The third edict, for instance\n(Avadana-Sastra I.), which treats \u201cof impure vegetables,\u201d ordains that\nthe only nourishment that the Chandala should be allowed must consist\nof garlic and onions, as the holy scriptures forbid their being given\ncorn or grain-bearing fruit, water and fire. The same edict declares\nthat the water which they need must be drawn neither out of rivers,\nwells or ponds, but only out of the ditches leading to swamps and out\nof the holes left by the footprints of animals. They are likewise\nforbidden to wash either their linen or themselves since the water\nwhich is graciously granted to them must only be used for quenching\ntheir thirst. Finally Sudra women are forbidden to assist Chandala\nwomen at their confinements, while Chandala women are also forbidden to\nassist each other at such times. The results of sanitary regulations of\nthis kind could not fail to make themselves felt; deadly epidemics and\nthe most ghastly venereal diseases soon appeared, and in consequence\nof these again \u201cthe Law of the Knife,\u201d\u2014that is to say circumcision,\nwas prescribed for male children and the removal of the small labia\nfrom the females. Manu himself says: \u201cthe Chandala are the fruit of\nadultery, incest, and crime (\u2014this is the necessary consequence of the\nidea of breeding). Their clothes shall consist only of the rags torn\nfrom corpses, their vessels shall be the fragments of broken pottery,\ntheir ornaments shall be made of old iron, and their religion shall be\nthe worship of evil spirits; without rest they shall wander from place\nto place. They are forbidden to write from left to right or to use\ntheir right hand in writing: the use of the right hand and writing from\nleft to right are reserved to people of virtue, to people of race.\u201d\n\n\n4\n\nThese regulations are instructive enough: we can see in them the\nabsolutely pure and primeval humanity of the Aryans,\u2014we learn that\nthe notion \u201cpure blood,\u201d is the reverse of harmless. On the other hand\nit becomes clear among which people the hatred, the Chandala hatred\nof this humanity has been immortalised, among which people it has\nbecome religion and genius. From this point of view the gospels are\ndocuments of the highest value; and the Book of Enoch is still more\nso. Christianity as sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only\nas grown upon this soil, represents the counter-movement against that\nmorality of breeding, of race and of privilege:\u2014it is essentially an\nanti-Aryan religion: Christianity is the transvaluation of all Aryan\nvalues, the triumph of Chandala values, the proclaimed gospel of the\npoor and of the low, the general insurrection of all the down-trodden,\nthe wretched, the bungled and the botched, against the \u201crace,\u201d\u2014the\nimmortal revenge of the Chandala as the _religion of love._\n\n\n5\n\nThe morality of breeding and the morality of taming, in the means which\nthey adopt in order to prevail, are quite worthy of each other: we may\nlay down as a leading principle that in order to create morality a\nman must have the absolute will to immorality. This is the great and\nstrange problem with which I have so long been occupied: the psychology\nof the \u201cImprovers\u201d of mankind. A small, and at bottom perfectly\ninsignificant fact, known as the \u201c_pia fraus_,\u201d first gave me access\nto this problem: the _pia fraus_, the heirloom of all philosophers and\npriests who \u201cimprove\u201d mankind. Neither Manu, nor Plato, nor Confucius,\nnor the teachers of Judaism and Christianity, have ever doubted their\nright to falsehood. They have never doubted their right to quite a\nnumber of other things To express oneself in a formula, one might\nsay:\u2014all means which have been used heretofore with the object of\nmaking man moral, were through and through immoral.\n\n\n\n\nTHINGS THE GERMANS LACK\n\n\n1\n\nAmong Germans at the present day it does not suffice to have intellect;\none is actually forced to appropriate it, to lay claim to it.\n\nMaybe I know the Germans, perhaps I may tell them a few home-truths.\nModern Germany represents such an enormous store of inherited and\nacquired capacity, that for some time it might spend this accumulated\ntreasure even with some prodigality. It is no superior culture that has\nultimately become prevalent with this modern tendency, nor is it by any\nmeans delicate taste, or noble beauty of the instincts; but rather a\nnumber of virtues more manly than any that other European countries can\nshow. An amount of good spirits and self-respect, plenty of firmness\nin human relations and in the reciprocity of duties; much industry and\nmuch perseverance\u2014and a certain inherited soberness which is much more\nin need of a spur than of a brake. Let me add that in this country\npeople still obey without feeling that obedience humiliates. And no one\ndespises his opponent.\n\nYou observe that it is my desire to be fair to the Germans: and in this\nrespect I should not like to be untrue to myself,\u2014I must therefore\nalso state my objections to them. It costs a good deal to attain to a\nposition of power; for power _stultifies._ The Germans\u2014they were once\ncalled a people of thinkers: do they really think at all at present?\nNowadays the Germans are bored by intellect, they mistrust intellect;\npolitics have swallowed up all earnestness for really intellectual\nthings\u2014\u201cGermany, Germany above all.\u201d[1] I fear this was the death-blow\nto German philosophy. \u201cAre there any German philosophers? Are there any\nGerman poets? Are there any good German books?\u201d people ask me abroad. I\nblush; but with that pluck which is peculiar to me, even in moments of\ndesperation, I reply: \u201cYes, Bismarck!\u201d\u2014Could I have dared to confess\nwhat books _are_ read to-day? Cursed instinct of mediocrity!\u2014\n\n\n2\n\nWhat might not German intellect have been!\u2014who has not thought sadly\nupon this question! But this nation has deliberately stultified itself\nfor almost a thousand years: nowhere else have the two great European\nnarcotics, alcohol and Christianity, been so viciously abused as in\nGermany. Recently a third opiate was added to the list, one which in\nitself alone would have sufficed to complete the ruin of all subtle\nand daring intellectual animation, I speak of music, our costive and\nconstipating German music. How much peevish ponderousness, paralysis,\ndampness, dressing-gown languor, and beer is there not in German\nintelligence!\n\nHow is it really possible that young men who consecrate their whole\nlives to the pursuit of intellectual ends, should not feel within them\nthe first instinct of intellectuality, the _self-preservative instinct\nof the intellect_\u2014and should drink beer? The alcoholism of learned\nyouths does not incapacitate them for becoming scholars\u2014a man quite\ndevoid of intellect may be a great scholar,\u2014but it is a problem in\nevery other respect. Where can that soft degeneracy not be found, which\nis produced in the intellect by beer! I once laid my finger upon a case\nof this sort, which became almost famous,\u2014the degeneration of our\nleading German free-spirit, the _clever_ David Strauss, into the author\nof a suburban gospel and New Faith. Not in vain had he sung the praises\nof \u201cthe dear old brown liquor\u201d in verse\u2014true unto death.\n\n\n3\n\nI have spoken of German intellect. I have said that it is becoming\ncoarser and shallower. Is that enough?\u2014In reality something very\ndifferent frightens me, and that is the ever steady decline of\nGerman earnestness, German profundity, and German passion in things\nintellectual. Not only intellectuality, but also pathos has altered.\nFrom time to time I come in touch with German universities; what\nan extraordinary atmosphere prevails among their scholars! what\nbarrenness! and what self-satisfied and lukewarm intellectuality! For\nany one to point to German science as an argument against me would show\nthat he grossly misunderstood my meaning, while it would also prove\nthat he had not read a word of my writings. For seventeen years I\nhave done little else than expose the de-intellectualising influence\nof our modern scientific studies. The severe slavery to which every\nindividual nowadays is condemned by the enormous range covered by the\nsciences, is the chief reason why fuller, richer and profounder natures\ncan find no education or educators that are fit for them. Nothing\nis more deleterious to this age than the superfluity of pretentious\nloafers and fragmentary human beings; our universities are really\nthe involuntary forcing houses for this kind of withering-up of the\ninstincts of intellectuality. And the whole of Europe is beginning\nto know this\u2014politics on a large scale deceive no one. Germany is\nbecoming ever more and more the Flat-land of Europe. I am still in\nsearch of a German with whom I could be serious after my own fashion.\nAnd how much more am I in search of one with whom I could be cheerful\n_\u2014The Twilight of the Idols:_ ah! what man to-day would be capable\nof understanding the kind of seriousness from which a philosopher is\nrecovering in this work! It is our cheerfulness that people understand\nleast.\n\n\n4\n\nLet us examine another aspect of the question: it is not only obvious\nthat German culture is declining, but adequate reasons for this decline\nare not lacking. After all, nobody can spend more than he has:\u2014this\nis true of individuals, it is also true of nations. If you spend\nyour strength in acquiring power, or in politics on a large scale,\nor in economy, or in universal commerce, or in parliamentarism, or\nin military interests\u2014if you dissipate the modicum of reason, of\nearnestness, of will, and of self-control that constitutes your nature\nin one particular fashion, you cannot dissipate it in another. Culture\nand the state\u2014let no one be deceived on this point\u2014are antagonists:\nA \u201cculture-state\u201d[2] is merely a modern idea. The one lives upon\nthe other, the one flourishes at the expense of the other. All great\nperiods of culture have been periods of political decline; that which\nis great from the standpoint of culture, was always unpolitical\u2014even\nanti-political. Goethe\u2019s heart opened at the coming of Napoleon\u2014it\nclosed at the thought of the \u201cWars of Liberation.\u201d At the very moment\nwhen Germany arose as a great power in the world of politics, France\nwon new importance as a force in the world of culture. Even at this\nmoment a large amount of fresh intellectual earnestness and passion\nhas emigrated to Paris; the question of pessimism, for instance,\nand the question of Wagner; in France almost all psychological and\nartistic questions are considered with incomparably more subtlety and\nthoroughness than they are in Germany,\u2014the Germans are even incapable\nof this kind of earnestness. In the history of European culture the\nrise of the Empire signifies, above all, a displacement of the centre\nof gravity. Everywhere people are already aware of this: in things that\nreally matter\u2014and these after all constitute culture,\u2014the Germans\nare no longer worth considering. I ask you, can you show me one single\nman of brains who could be mentioned in the same breath with other\nEuropean thinkers, like your Goethe, your Hegel, your Heinrich Heine,\nand your Schopenhauer?\u2014The fact that there is no longer a single\nGerman philosopher worth mentioning is an increasing wonder.\n\n\n5\n\nEverything that matters has been lost sight of by the whole of the\nhigher educational system of Germany: the end quite as much as the\nmeans to that end. People forget that education, the process of\ncultivation itself, is the end\u2014and not \u201cthe Empire\u201d\u2014they forget that\nthe _educator_ is required for this end\u2014and not the public-school\nteacher and university scholar. Educators are needed who are themselves\neducated, superior and noble intellects, who can prove that they are\nthus qualified, that they are ripe and mellow products of culture\nat every moment of their lives, in word and in gesture;\u2014not the\nlearned louts who, like \u201csuperior wet-nurses,\u201d are now thrust upon the\nyouth of the land by public schools and universities. With but rare\nexceptions, that which is lacking in Germany is the first prerequisite\nof education\u2014that is to say, the educators; hence the decline of\nGerman culture. One of those rarest exceptions is my highly respected\nfriend Jacob Burckhardt of B\u00e2le: to him above all is B\u00e2le indebted\nfor its foremost position in human culture What the higher schools\nof Germany really do accomplish is this, they brutally train a vast\ncrowd of young men, in the smallest amount of time possible, to become\nuseful and exploitable servants of the state. \u201cHigher education\u201d\nand a vast crowd\u2014these terms contradict each other from the start.\nAll superior education can only concern the exception: a man must be\nprivileged in order to have a right to such a great privilege. All\ngreat and beautiful things cannot be a common possession: _pulchrum\nest paucorum hominum._\u2014What is it that brings about the decline of\nGerman culture? The fact that \u201chigher education\u201d is no longer a special\nprivilege\u2014the democracy of a process of cultivation that has become\n\u201cgeneral,\u201d _common._ Nor must it be forgotten that the privileges of\nthe military profession by urging many too many to attend the higher\nschools, involve the downfall of the latter. In modern Germany nobody\nis at liberty to give his children a noble education: in regard to\ntheir teachers, their curricula, and their educational aims, our higher\nschools are one and all established upon a fundamentally doubtful\nmediocre basis. Everywhere, too, a hastiness which is unbecoming rules\nsupreme; just as if something would be forfeited if the young man were\nnot \u201cfinished\u201d at the age of twenty-three, or did not know how to\nreply to the most essential question, \u201cwhich calling to choose?\u201d\u2014The\nsuperior kind of man, if you please, does not like \u201ccallings,\u201d\nprecisely because he knows himself to be called. He has time, he takes\ntime, he cannot possibly think of becoming \u201cfinished,\u201d\u2014in the matter\nof higher culture, a man of thirty years is a beginner, a child. Our\novercrowded public-schools, our accumulation of foolishly manufactured\npublic-school masters, are a scandal: maybe there are very serious\n_motives_ for defending this state of affairs, as was shown quite\nrecently by the professors of Heidelberg; but there can be no reasons\nfor doing so.\n\n\n6\n\nIn order to be true to my nature, which is affirmative and which\nconcerns itself with contradictions and criticism only indirectly\nand with reluctance, let me state at once what the three objects\nare for which we need educators. People must learn to see; they\nmust learn to think, and they must learn to speak and to write: the\nobject of all three of these pursuits is a noble culture. To learn\nto see\u2014to accustom the eye to calmness, to patience, and to allow\nthings to come up to it; to defer judgment, and to acquire the habit\nof approaching and grasping an individual case from all sides. This\nis the first preparatory schooling of intellectuality. One must not\nrespond immediately to a stimulus; one must acquire a command of the\nobstructing and isolating instincts. To learn to see, as I understand\nthis matter, amounts almost to that which in popular language is\ncalled \u201cstrength of will\u201d: its essential feature is precisely _not_\nto _wish_ to see, to be able to postpone one\u2019s decision. All lack of\nintellectuality, all vulgarity, arises out of the inability to resist\na stimulus:\u2014one must respond or react, every impulse is indulged. In\nmany cases such necessary action is already a sign of morbidity, of\ndecline, and a symptom of exhaustion. Almost everything that coarse\npopular language characterises as vicious, is merely that physiological\ninability to refrain from reacting.\u2014As an instance of what it means\nto have learnt to see, let me state that a man thus trained will as a\nlearner have become generally slow, suspicious, and refractory. With\nhostile calm he will first allow every kind of strange and _new_ thing\nto come right up to him,\u2014he will draw back his hand at its approach.\nTo stand with all the doors of one\u2019s soul wide open, to lie slavishly\nin the dust before every trivial fact, at all times of the day to be\nstrained ready for the leap, in order to deposit one\u2019s self, to plunge\none\u2019s self, into other souls and other things, in short, the famous\n\u201cobjectivity\u201d of modern times, is bad taste, it is essentially vulgar\nand cheap.\n\n\n7\n\nAs to learning how to think\u2014our schools no longer have any notion\nof such a thing. Even at the universities, among the actual scholars\nin philosophy, logic as a theory, as a practical pursuit, and as a\nbusiness, is beginning to die out. Turn to any German book: you will\nnot find the remotest trace of a realisation that there is such a\nthing as a technique, a plan of study, a will to mastery, in the\nmatter of thinking,\u2014that thinking insists upon being learnt, just\nas dancing insists upon being learnt, and that thinking insists upon\nbeing learnt as a form of dancing. What single German can still say he\nknows from experience that delicate shudder which _light footfalls_\nin matters intellectual cause to pervade his whole body and limbs!\nStiff awkwardness in intellectual attitudes, and the clumsy fist in\ngrasping\u2014these things are so essentially German, that outside Germany\nthey are absolutely confounded with the German spirit. The German\nhas no fingers for delicate _nuances. _ The fact that the people of\nGermany have actually tolerated their philosophers, more particularly\nthat most deformed cripple of ideas that has ever existed\u2014the great\nKant, gives one no inadequate notion of their native elegance. For,\ntruth to tell, dancing in all its forms cannot be excluded from the\ncurriculum of all noble education: dancing with the feet, with ideas,\nwith words, and, need I add that one must also be able to dance with\nthe pen\u2014that one must learn how to write?\u2014But at this stage I should\nbecome utterly enigmatical to German readers.\n\n\n[1] The German national hymn: \u201c_Deutschland, Deutschland \u00fcber\nalles.\u2014_\u201d TR.\n\n[2] The word _Kultur-Staat_ \u201cculture-state\u201d has become a standard\nexpression in the German language, and is applied to the leading\nEuropean States.\u2014TR.\n\n\n\n\nSKIRMISHES IN A WAR WITH THE AGE\n\n\n1\n\n_My Impossible People._\u2014Seneca, or the toreador of virtue\u2014-Rousseau,\nor the return to nature, _in impuris naturalibus._\u2014Schiller, or the\nMoral-Trumpeter of Sackingen.\u2014Dante, or the hy\u00e6na that writes poetry\nin tombs.\u2014Kant, or _cant_ as an intelligible character.\u2014Victor\nHugo, or the lighthouse on the sea of nonsense.\u2014Liszt, or the\nschool of racing\u2014after women.\u2014George Sand, or _lactea ubertas,_\nin plain English: the cow with plenty of beautiful milk.\u2014Michelet,\nor enthusiasm in its shirt sleeves.\u2014Carlyle, or Pessimism after\nundigested meals.\u2014John Stuart Mill, or offensive lucidity.\u2014The\nbrothers Goncourt, or the two Ajaxes fighting with Homer. Music by\nOffenbach.\u2014Zola, or the love of stinking.\n\n\n2\n\n_Renan._\u2014Theology, or the corruption of reason by original sin\n(Christianity). Proof of this,\u2014Renan who, even in those rare cases\nwhere he ventures to say either Yes or No on a general question,\ninvariably misses the point with painful regularity. For instance,\nhe would fain associate science and nobility: but surely it must be\nobvious that science is democratic. He seems to be actuated by a\nstrong desire to represent an aristocracy of intellect: but, at the\nsame time he grovels on his knees, and not only on his knees, before\nthe opposite doctrine, the gospel of the humble. What is the good of\nall free-spiritedness, modernity, mockery and acrobatic suppleness,\nif in one\u2019s belly one is still a Christian, a Catholic, and even a\npriest! Renan\u2019s forte, precisely like that of a Jesuit and Father\nConfessor, lies in his seductiveness. His intellectuality is not\ndevoid of that unctuous complacency of a parson,\u2014like all priests, he\nbecomes dangerous only when he loves. He is second to none in the art\nof skilfully worshipping a dangerous thing. This intellect of Renan\u2019s,\nwhich in its action is enervating, is one calamity the more, for poor,\nsick France with her will-power all going to pieces.\n\n\n3\n\n_Sainte-Beuve._\u2014There is naught of man in him; he is full of petty\nspite towards all virile spirits. He wanders erratically; he is subtle,\ninquisitive, a little bored, for ever with his ear to key-holes,\u2014at\nbottom a woman, with all woman\u2019s revengefulness and sensuality. As a\npsychologist he is a genius of slander; inexhaustively rich in means\nto this end; no one understands better than he how to introduce a\nlittle poison into praise. In his fundamental instincts he is plebeian\nand next of kin to Rousseau\u2019s resentful spirit: consequently he is\na Romanticist\u2014for beneath all romanticism Rousseau\u2019s instinct for\nrevenge grunts and frets. He is a revolutionary, but kept within\nbounds by \u201cfunk.\u201d He is embarrassed in the face of everything that is\nstrong (public opinion, the Academy, the court, even Port Royal). He\nis embittered against everything great in men and things, against\neverything that believes in itself. Enough of a poet and of a female to\nbe able to feel greatness as power; he is always turning and twisting,\nbecause, like the proverbial worm, he constantly feels that he is\nbeing trodden upon. As a critic he has no standard of judgment, no\nguiding principle, no backbone. Although he possesses the tongue of\nthe Cosmopolitan libertine which can chatter about a thousand things,\nhe has not the courage even to acknowledge his _libertinage._ As a\nhistorian he has no philosophy, and lacks the power of philosophical\nvision,\u2014hence his refusal to act the part of a judge, and his adoption\nof the mask of \u201cobjectivity\u201d in all important matters. His attitude\nis better in regard to all those things in which subtle and effete\ntaste is the highest tribunal: in these things he really does have\nthe courage of his own personality\u2014he really does enjoy his own\nnature\u2014he actually is a _master,_\u2014In some respects he is a prototype\nof Baudelaire.\n\n\n4\n\n\u201c_The Imitation of Christ_\u201d is one of those books which I cannot even\ntake hold of without physical loathing: it exhales a perfume of the\neternally feminine, which to appreciate fully one must be a Frenchman\nor a Wagnerite. This saint has a way of speaking about love which\nmakes even Parisiennes feel a little curious.\u2014I am told that that\n_most intelligent_ of Jesuits, Auguste Comte, who wished to lead his\ncompatriots back to Rome by the circuitous route of science, drew his\ninspiration from this book. And I believe it: \u201cThe religion of the\nheart.\u201d\n\n\n5\n\n_G. Eliot._\u2014They are rid of the Christian God and therefore\nthink it all the more incumbent upon them to hold tight to Christian\nmorality: this is an English way of reasoning; but let us not take it\nill in moral females _\u00e0 la_ Eliot. In England, every man who indulges\nin any trifling emancipation from theology, must retrieve his honour\nin the most terrifying manner by becoming a moral fanatic. That is how\nthey do penance in that country.\u2014As for us, we act differently. When\nwe renounce the Christian faith, we abandon all right to Christian\nmorality. This is not by any means self-evident and in defiance of\nEnglish shallow-pates the point must be made ever more and more plain.\nChristianity is a system, a complete outlook upon the world, conceived\nas a whole. If its leading concept, the belief in God, is wrenched\nfrom it, the whole is destroyed; nothing vital remains in our grasp.\nChristianity presupposes that man does not and cannot know what is\ngood or bad for him: the Christian believes in God who, alone, can\nknow these things. Christian morality is a command, its origin is\ntranscendental. It is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism;\nit is true only on condition that God is truth,\u2014it stands or falls\nwith the belief in God. If the English really believe that they know\nintuitively, and of their own accord, what is good and evil; if,\ntherefore, they assert that they no longer need Christianity as a\nguarantee of morality, this in itself is simply the outcome of the\ndominion of Christian valuations, and a proof of the strength and\nprofundity of this dominion. It only shows that the origin of English\nmorality has been forgotten, and that its exceedingly relative right to\nexist is no longer felt. For Englishmen morality is not yet a problem.\n\n\n6\n\n_George Sand._\u2014I have been reading the first \u201c_Lettres d\u2019un\nVoyageur_:\u201d like everything that springs from Rousseau\u2019s influence\nit is false, made-up, blown out, and exaggerated! I cannot endure\nthis bright wall-paper style, any more than I can bear the vulgar\nstriving after generous feelings. The worst feature about it is\ncertainly the coquettish adoption of male attributes by this female,\nafter the manner of ill-bred schoolboys. And how cold she must have\nbeen inwardly all the while, this insufferable artist! She wound\nherself up like a clock\u2014and wrote. As cold as Hugo and Balzac, as\ncold as all Romanticists are as soon as they begin to write! And how\nself-complacently she must have lain there, this prolific ink-yielding\ncow. For she had something German in her (German in the bad sense),\njust as Rousseau, her master, had;\u2014something which could only have\nbeen possible when French taste was declining!\u2014and Renan adores her!...\n\n\n7\n\n_A Moral for Psychologists._ Do not go in for any note-book psychology!\nNever observe for the sake of observing! Such things lead to a false\npoint of view, to a squint, to something forced and exaggerated.\nTo experience things on purpose\u2014this is not a bit of good. In the\nmidst of an experience a man should not turn his eyes upon himself;\nin such cases any eye becomes the \u201cevil eye.\u201d A born psychologist\ninstinctively avoids seeing for the sake of seeing. And the same holds\ngood of the born painter. Such a man never works \u201cfrom nature,\u201d\u2014he\nleaves it to his instinct, to his _camera obscura_ to sift and to\ndefine the \u201cfact,\u201d \u201cnature,\u201d the \u201cexperience.\u201d The general idea,\nthe conclusion, the result, is the only thing that reaches his\nconsciousness. He knows nothing of that wilful process of deducing\nfrom particular cases. What is the result when a man sets about this\nmatter differently?\u2014when, for instance, after the manner of Parisian\nnovelists, he goes in for note-book psychology on a large and small\nscale? Such a man is constantly spying on reality, and every evening\nhe bears home a handful of fresh curios.... But look at the result!\u2014a\nmass of daubs, at best a piece of mosaic, in any case something heaped\ntogether, restless and garish. The Goncourts are the greatest sinners\nin this respect: they cannot put three sentences together which are not\nabsolutely painful to the eye\u2014the eye of the psychologist. From an\nartistic standpoint, nature is no model. It exaggerates, distorts, and\nleaves gaps. Nature is the _accident._ To study \u201cfrom nature\u201d seems to\nme a bad sign: it betrays submission, weakness, fatalism\u2014this lying\nin the dust before trivial facts is unworthy of a thorough artist. To\nsee _what is_\u2014is the function of another order of intellects, the\n_anti-artistic,_ the matter-of-fact. One must know _who_ one is.\n\n\n8\n\n_Concerning the psychology of the artist_ For art to be possible at\nall\u2014that is to say, in order that an \u00e6sthetic mode of action and of\nobservation may exist, a certain preliminary physiological state is\nindispensable _ecstasy._[1] This state of ecstasy must first have\nintensified the susceptibility of the whole machine: otherwise, no art\nis possible. All kinds of ecstasy, however differently produced, have\nthis power to create art, and above all the state dependent upon sexual\nexcitement\u2014this most venerable and primitive form of ecstasy. The same\napplies to that ecstasy which is the outcome of all great desires,\nall strong passions; the ecstasy of the feast, of the arena, of the\nact of bravery, of victory, of all extreme action; the ecstasy of\ncruelty; the ecstasy of destruction; the ecstasy following upon certain\nmeteorological influences, as for instance that of spring-time, or upon\nthe use of narcotics; and finally the ecstasy of will, that ecstasy\nwhich results from accumulated and surging will-power.\u2014The essential\nfeature of ecstasy is the feeling of increased strength and abundance.\nActuated by this feeling a man gives of himself to things, _he\nforces_ them to partake of his riches, he does violence to them\u2014this\nproceeding is called _idealising._ Let us rid ourselves of a prejudice\nhere: idealising does not consist, as is generally believed, in a\nsuppression or an elimination of detail or of unessential features.\nA stupendous _accentuation_ of the principal characteristics is by\nfar the most decisive factor at work, and in consequence the minor\ncharacteristics vanish.\n\n\n9\n\nIn this state a man enriches everything from out his own abundance:\nwhat he sees, what he wills, he sees distended, compressed, strong,\noverladen with power. He transfigures things until they reflect his\npower,\u2014until they are stamped with his perfection. This compulsion\nto transfigure into the beautiful is\u2014Art. Everything\u2014even that which\nhe is not,\u2014is nevertheless to such a man a means of rejoicing over\nhimself; in Art man rejoices over himself as perfection.\u2014It is\npossible to imagine a contrary state, a specifically anti-artistic\nstate of the instincts,\u2014a state in which a man impoverishes,\nattenuates, and draws the blood from everything. And, truth to tell,\nhistory is full of such anti-artists, of such creatures of low\nvitality who have no choice but to appropriate everything they see\nand to suck its blood and make it thinner. This is the case with the\ngenuine Christian, Pascal for instance. There is no such thing as a\nChristian who is also an artist ... Let no one be so childish as to\nsuggest Raphael or any homeopathic Christian of the nineteenth century\nas an objection to this statement: Raphael said Yea, Raphael _did_\nYea,\u2014consequently Raphael was no Christian.\n\n\n10\n\nWhat is the meaning of the antithetical concepts _Apollonian_ and\n_Dionysian_ which I have introduced into the vocabulary of \u00c6sthetic, as\nrepresenting two distinct modes of ecstasy?\u2014Apollonian ecstasy acts\nabove all as a force stimulating the eye, so that it acquires the power\nof vision. The painter, the sculptor, the epic poet are essentially\nvisionaries. In the Dionysian state, on the other hand, the whole\nsystem of passions is stimulated and intensified, so that it discharges\nitself by all the means of expression at once, and vents all its power\nof representation, of imitation, of transfiguration, of transformation,\ntogether with every kind of mimicry and histrionic display at the same\ntime. The essential feature remains the facility in transforming,\nthe inability to refrain from reaction (\u2014a similar state to that of\ncertain hysterical patients, who at the slightest hint assume any\nr\u00f4le). It is impossible for the Dionysian artist not to understand any\nsuggestion; no outward sign of emotion escapes him, he possesses the\ninstinct of comprehension and of divination in the highest degree,\njust as he is capable of the most perfect art of communication. He\nenters into every skin, into every passion: he is continually changing\nhimself. Music as we understand it to-day is likewise a general\nexcitation and discharge of the emotions; but, notwithstanding this, it\nis only the remnant of a much richer world of emotional expression, a\nmere residuum of Dionysian histrionism. For music to be made possible\nas a special art, quite a number of senses, and particularly the\nmuscular sense, had to be paralysed (at least relatively: for all\nrhythm still appeals to our muscles to a certain extent): and thus man\nno longer imitates and represents physically everything he feels, as\nsoon as he feels it. Nevertheless that is the normal Dionysian state,\nand in any case its primitive state. Music is the slowly attained\nspecialisation of this state at the cost of kindred capacities.\n\n\n11\n\nThe actor, the mime, the dancer, the musician, and the lyricist, are\nin their instincts fundamentally related; but they have gradually\nspecialised in their particular branch, and become separated\u2014even\nto the point of contradiction. The lyricist remained united with the\nmusician for the longest period of time; and the actor with the dancer.\nThe architect manifests neither a Dionysian nor an Apollonian state: In\nhis case it is the great act of will, the will that moveth mountains,\nthe ecstasy of the great will which aspires to art. The most powerful\nmen have always inspired architects; the architect has always been\nunder the suggestion of power. In the architectural structure, man\u2019s\npride, man\u2019s triumph over gravitation, man\u2019s will to power, assume\na visible form. Architecture is a sort of oratory of power by means\nof forms. Now it is persuasive, even flattering, and at other times\nmerely commanding. The highest sensation of power and security finds\nexpression in grandeur of style. That power which no longer requires to\nbe proved, which scorns to please; which responds only with difficulty;\nwhich feels no witnesses around it; which is oblivious of the fact\nthat it is being opposed; which relies on itself fatalistically, and\nis a law among laws:\u2014such power expresses itself quite naturally in\ngrandeur of style.\n\n\n12\n\nI have been reading the life of Thomas Carlyle, that unconscious and\ninvoluntary farce, that heroico-moral interpretation of dyspeptic\nmoods.\u2014Carlyle, a man of strong words and attitudes, a rhetorician by\nnecessity, who seems ever to be tormented by the desire of finding some\nkind of strong faith, and by his inability to do so (\u2014in this respect\na typical Romanticist!). To yearn for a strong faith is not the proof\nof a strong faith, but rather the reverse. If a man have a strong faith\nhe can indulge in the luxury of scepticism; he is strong enough, firm\nenough, well-knit enough for such a luxury. Carlyle stupefies something\nin himself by means of the _fortissimo_ of his reverence for men of a\nstrong faith, and his rage over those who are less foolish: he is in\nsore need of noise. An attitude of constant and passionate dishonesty\ntowards himself\u2014this is his _proprium;_ by virtue of this he is and\nremains interesting.\u2014Of course, in England he is admired precisely\non account of his honesty. Well, that is English; and in view of the\nfact that the English are the nation of consummate cant, it is not only\ncomprehensible but also very natural. At bottom, Carlyle is an English\natheist who makes it a point of honour not to be one.\n\n\n13\n\n_Emerson._\u2014He is much more enlightened, much broader, more versatile,\nand more subtle than Carlyle; but above all, he is happier. He is one\nwho instinctively lives on ambrosia and who leaves the indigestible\nparts of things on his plate. Compared with Carlyle he is a man of\ntaste.\u2014Carlyle, who was very fond of him, nevertheless declared that\n\u201che does not give us enough to chew.\u201d This is perfectly true but\nit is not unfavourable to Emerson.\u2014Emerson possesses that kindly\nintellectual cheerfulness which deprecates overmuch seriousness; he\nhas absolutely no idea of how old he is already, and how young he will\nyet be,\u2014he could have said of himself, in Lope de Vega\u2019s words: \u201c_yo\nme sucedo a mi mismo._\u201d His mind is always finding reasons for being\ncontented and even thankful; and at times he gets preciously near to\nthat serene superiority of the worthy bourgeois who returning from an\namorous rendezvous _tamquam re bene gesta,_ said gratefully \u201c_Ut desint\nvires, tamen est laudanda voluptas._\u201d\u2014\n\n\n14\n\n_Anti-Darwin._\u2014As to the famous \u201cstruggle for existence,\u201d it seems to\nme, for the present, to be more of an assumption than a fact. It does\noccur, but as an exception. The general condition of life is not one\nof want or famine, but rather of riches, of lavish luxuriance, and even\nof absurd prodigality,\u2014where there is a struggle, it is a struggle\nfor power. We should not confound Malthus with nature.\u2014Supposing,\nhowever, that this struggle exists,\u2014and it does indeed occur,\u2014its\nresult is unfortunately the very reverse of that which the Darwinian\nschool seems to desire, and of that which in agreement with them we\nalso might desire: that is to say, it is always to the disadvantage\nof the strong, the privileged, and the happy exceptions. Species\ndo not evolve towards perfection: the weak always prevail over the\nstrong\u2014simply because they are the majority, and because they are also\nthe more crafty. Darwin forgot the intellect (\u2014that is English!), the\nweak have more intellect. In order to acquire intellect, one must be in\nneed of it. One loses it when one no longer needs it. He who possesses\nstrength flings intellect to the deuce (\u2014\u201clet it go hence!\u201d[2]\nsay the Germans of the present day, \u201cthe _Empire_ will remain\u201d).\nAs you perceive, intellect to me means caution, patience, craft,\ndissimulation, great self-control, and everything related to mimicry\n(what is praised nowadays as virtue is very closely related the latter).\n\n\n15\n\n_Casuistry of a Psychologist._\u2014This man knows mankind: to what purpose\ndoes he study his fellows? He wants to derive some small or even\ngreat advantages from them,\u2014he is a politician!... That man yonder\nis also well versed in human nature: and ye tell me that he wishes to\ndraw no personal profit from his knowledge, that he is a thoroughly\ndisinterested person? Examine him a little more closely! Maybe he\nwishes to derive a more wicked advantage from his possession; namely,\nto feel superior to men, to be able to look down upon them, no longer\nto feel one of them. This \u201cdisinterested person\u201d is a despiser of\nmankind; and the former is of a more humane type, whatever appearances\nmay seem to say to the contrary. At least he considers himself the\nequal of those about him, at least he classifies himself with them.\n\n\n16\n\n_The psychological tact_ of Germans seems to me to have been set in\ndoubt by a whole series of cases which my modesty forbids me to\nenumerate. In one case at least I shall not let the occasion slip\nfor substantiating my contention: I bear the Germans a grudge for\nhaving made a mistake about Kant and his \u201cbackstairs philosophy,\u201d as\nI call it. Such a man was not the type of intellectual uprightness.\nAnother thing I hate to hear is a certain infamous \u201cand\u201d: the Germans\nsay, \u201cGoethe _and_ Schiller,\u201d\u2014I even fear that they say, \u201cSchiller\nand Goethe.\u201d ... Has nobody found Schiller out yet?\u2014But there are\nother \u201cands\u201d which are even more egregious. With my own ears I have\nheard\u2014only among University professors, it is true!\u2014men speak of\n\u201cSchopenhauer _and_ Hartmann.\u201d ...[3]\n\n\n17\n\nThe most intellectual men, provided they are also the most courageous,\nexperience the most excruciating tragedies: but on that very account\nthey honour life, because it confronts them with its most formidable\nantagonism.\n\n\n18\n\nConcerning \u201c_the Conscience of the Intellect_\u201d Nothing seems to me\nmore uncommon to-day than genuine hypocrisy. I strongly suspect that\nthis growth is unable to flourish in the mild climate of our culture.\nHypocrisy belongs to an age of strong faith,\u2014one in which one does\nnot lose one\u2019s own faith in spite of the fact that one has to make\nan outward show of holding another faith. Nowadays a man gives it\nup; or, what is still more common, he acquires a second faith,\u2014in\nany case, however, he remains honest. Without a doubt it is possible\nto have a much larger number of convictions at present, than it was\nformerly: _possible_\u2014that is to say, allowable,\u2014that is to say,\n_harmless._ From this there arises an attitude of toleration towards\none\u2019s self. Toleration towards one\u2019s self allows of a greater number\nof convictions: the latter live comfortably side by side, and they\ntake jolly good care, as all the world does to-day, not to compromise\nthemselves. How does a man compromise himself to-day? When he is\nconsistent; when he pursues a straight course; when he has anything\nless than five faces; when he is genuine.... I very greatly fear that\nmodern man is much too fond of comfort for certain vices; and the\nconsequence is that the latter are dying out. Everything evil which\nis the outcome of strength of will\u2014and maybe there is nothing evil\nwithout the strengh of will,\u2014degenerates, in our muggy atmosphere,\ninto virtue. The few hypocrites I have known only imitated hypocrisy:\nlike almost every tenth man to-day, they were actors.\u2014\n\n\n19\n\n_Beautiful and Ugly:_\u2014Nothing is more relative, let us say, more\nrestricted, than our sense of the beautiful. He who would try to\ndivorce it from the delight man finds in his fellows, would immediately\nlose his footing. \u201cBeauty in itself,\u201d is simply a word, it is not even\na concept. In the beautiful, man postulates himself as the standard of\nperfection; in exceptional cases he worships himself as that standard.\nA species has no other alternative than to say \u201cyea\u201d to itself alone,\nin this way. Its lowest instinct, the instinct of self-preservation and\nself-expansion, still radiates in such sublimities. Man imagines the\nworld itself to be overflowing with beauty,\u2014he forgets that he is the\ncause of it all. He alone has endowed it with beauty. Alas! and only\nwith human all-too-human beauty! Truth to tell man reflects himself in\nthings, he thinks everything beautiful that throws his own image back\nat him. The judgment \u201cbeautiful\u201d is the \u201cvanity of his species.\u201d ...\nA little demon of suspicion may well whisper into the sceptic\u2019s ear:\nis the world really beautified simply because man thinks it beautiful?\nHe has only humanised it\u2014that is all. But nothing, absolutely nothing\nproves to us that it is precisely man who is the proper model of\nbeauty. Who knows what sort of figure he would cut in the eyes of a\nhigher judge of taste? He might seem a little _outr\u00e9_? perhaps even\nsomewhat amusing? perhaps a trifle arbitrary? \u201cO Dionysus, thou divine\none, why dost thou pull mine ears?\u201d Ariadne asks on one occasion of\nher philosophic lover, during one of those famous conversations on the\nisland of Naxos. \u201cI find a sort of humour in thine ears, Ariadne: why\nare they not a little longer?\u201d\n\n\n20\n\nNothing is beautiful; man alone is beautiful: all \u00e6sthetic rests on\nthis piece of ingenuousness, it is the first axiom of this science.\nAnd now let us straightway add the second to it: nothing is ugly save\nthe degenerate man,\u2014within these two first principles the realm of\n\u00e6sthetic judgments is confined. From the physiological standpoint,\neverything ugly weakens and depresses man. It reminds him of decay,\ndanger, impotence; he literally loses strength in its presence. The\neffect of ugliness may be gauged by the dynamometer. Whenever man\u2019s\nspirits are downcast, it is a sign that he scents the proximity of\nsomething \u201cugly.\u201d His feeling of power, his will to power, his courage\nand his pride\u2014these things collapse at the sight of what is ugly, and\nrise at the sight of what is beautiful. In both cases an inference is\ndrawn; the premises to which are stored with extra ordinary abundance\nin the instincts. Ugliness is understood to signify a hint and a\nsymptom of degeneration: that which reminds us however remotely of\ndegeneracy, impels us to the judgment \u201cugly.\u201d Every sign of exhaustion,\nof gravity, of age, of fatigue; every kind of constraint, such as\ncramp, or paralysis; and above all the smells, colours and forms\nassociated with decomposition and putrefaction, however much they may\nhave been attenuated into symbols,\u2014all these things provoke the same\nreaction which is the judgment \u201cugly.\u201d A certain hatred expresses\nitself here: what is it that man hates? Without a doubt it is the\n_decline of his type._ In this regard his hatred springs from the\ndeepest instincts of the race: there is horror, caution, profundity and\nfar-reaching vision in this hatred,\u2014it is the most profound hatred\nthat exists. On its account alone Art is profound.\n\n\n21\n\n_Schopenhauer._\u2014Schopenhauer, the last German who is to be reckoned\nwith (\u2014who is a European event like Goethe, Hegel, or Heinrich Heine,\nand who is not merely local, national), is for a psychologist a case\nof the first rank: I mean as a malicious though masterly attempt to\nenlist on the side of a general nihilistic depreciation of life, the\nvery forces which are opposed to such a movement,\u2014that is to say, the\ngreat self-affirming powers of the \u201cwill to live,\u201d the exuberant forms\nof life itself. He interpreted Art, heroism, genius, beauty, great\nsympathy, knowledge, the will to truth, and tragedy, one after the\nother, as the results of the denial, or of the need of the denial, of\nthe \u201cwill\u201d\u2014the greatest forgery, Christianity always excepted, which\nhistory has to show. Examined more carefully, he is in this respect\nsimply the heir of the Christian interpretation; except that he knew\nhow to approve in a Christian fashion (_i.e._, nihilistically) even\nof the great facts of human culture, which Christianity completely\nrepudiates. (He approved of them as paths to \u201csalvation,\u201d as\npreliminary stages to \u201csalvation,\u201d as _appetisers_ calculated to arouse\nthe desire for \u201csalvation.\u201d)\n\n\n22\n\nLet me point to one single instance. Schopenhauer speaks of beauty with\nmelancholy ardour,\u2014why in sooth does he do this? Because in beauty\nhe sees a bridge on which one can travel further, or which stimulates\none\u2019s desire to travel further. According to him it constitutes a\nmomentary emancipation from the \u201cwill\u201d\u2014it lures to eternal salvation.\nHe values it more particularly as a deliverance from the \u201cburning core\nof the will\u201d which is sexuality,\u2014in beauty he recognises the negation\nof the procreative instinct. Singular Saint! Some one contradicts thee;\nI fear it is Nature. Why is there beauty of tone, colour, aroma, and\nof rhythmic movement in Nature at all? What is it forces beauty to the\nfore? Fortunately, too, a certain philosopher contradicts him. No less\nan authority than the divine Plato himself (thus does Schopenhauer\ncall him), upholds another proposition: that all beauty lures to\nprocreation,\u2014that this precisely is the chief characteristic of its\neffect, from the lowest sensuality to the highest spirituality.\n\n\n23\n\nPlato goes further. With an innocence for which a man must be Greek\nand not \u201cChristian,\u201d he says that there would be no such thing as\nPlatonic philosophy if there were not such beautiful boys in Athens:\nit was the sight of them alone that set the soul of the philosopher\nreeling with erotic passion, and allowed it no rest until it had\nplanted the seeds of all lofty things in a soil so beautiful. He\nwas also a singular saint!\u2014One scarcely believes one\u2019s ears, even\nsupposing one believes Plato. At least one realises that philosophy was\npursued differently in Athens; above all, publicly. Nothing is less\nGreek than the cobweb-spinning with concepts by an anchorite, _amor\nintellectualis dei_ after the fashion of Spinoza. Philosophy according\nto Plato\u2019s style might be defined rather as an erotic competition, as a\ncontinuation and a spiritualisation of the old agonal gymnastics and\nthe conditions on which they depend.... What was the ultimate outcome\nof this philosophic eroticism of Plato\u2019s? A new art-form of the Greek\n_Agon,_ dialectics.\u2014In opposition to Schopenhauer and to the honour of\nPlato, I would remind you that all the higher culture and literature of\nclassical France, as well, grew up on the soil of sexual interests. In\nall its manifestations you may look for gallantry, the senses, sexual\ncompetition, and \u201cwoman,\u201d and you will not look in vain.\n\n\n24\n\n_L\u2019Art pour l\u2019Art._\u2014The struggle against a purpose in art is always a\nstruggle against the moral tendency in art, against its subordination\nto morality. _L\u2019art pour l\u2019art_ means, \u201clet morality go to the devil!\u201d\n\u2014But even this hostility betrays the preponderating power of the moral\nprejudice. If art is deprived of the purpose of preaching morality\nand of improving mankind, it does not by any means follow that art is\nabsolutely pointless, purposeless, senseless, in short _l\u2019art pour\nl\u2019art_\u2014a snake which bites its own tail. \u201cNo purpose at all is better\nthan a moral purpose!\u201d\u2014thus does pure passion speak. A psychologist,\non the other hand, puts the question: what does all art do? does it\nnot praise? does it not glorify? does it not select? does it not\nbring things into prominence? In all this it strengthens or weakens\ncertain valuations. Is this only a secondary matter? an accident?\nsomething in which the artist\u2019s instinct has no share? Or is it not\nrather the very prerequisite which enables the artist to accomplish\nsomething?... Is his most fundamental instinct concerned with art?\nIs it not rather concerned with the purpose of art, with life? with\na certain desirable kind of life? Art is the great stimulus to life;\nhow can it be regarded as purpose less, as pointless, as _l\u2019art pour\nl\u2019art?_\u2014There still remains one question to be answered: Art also\nreveals much that is ugly, hard and questionable in life,\u2014does it\nnot thus seem to make life intolerable?\u2014And, as a matter of fact,\nthere have been philosophers who have ascribed this function to art.\nAccording to Schopenhauer\u2019s doctrine, the general object of art was to\n\u201cfree one from the Will\u201d; and what he honoured as the great utility\nof tragedy, was that it \u201cmade people more resigned.\u201d\u2014But this, as\nI have already shown, is a pessimistic standpoint; it is the \u201cevil\neye\u201d: the artist himself must be appealed to. What is it that the soul\nof the tragic artist communicates to others? Is it not precisely his\nfearless attitude towards that which is terrible and questionable?\nThis attitude is in itself a highly desirable one; he who has once,\nexperienced it honours it above everything else. He communicates it. He\nmust communicate, provided he is an artist and a genius in the art of\ncommunication. A courageous and free spirit, in the presence of a mighty\nfoe, in the presence of a sublime misfortune, and face to face with a\nproblem that inspires horror\u2014this is the triumphant attitude which\nthe tragic artist selects and which he glorifies. The martial elements\nin our soul celebrate their Saturnalia in tragedy; he who is used to\nsuffering, he who looks out for suffering, the heroic man, extols his\nexistence by means of tragedy,\u2014to him alone does the tragic artist\noffer this cup of sweetest cruelty.\u2014\n\n\n25\n\nTo associate in an amiable fashion with anybody; to keep the house of\none\u2019s heart open to all, is certainly liberal: but it is nothing else.\nOne can recognise the hearts that are capable of noble hospitality, by\ntheir wealth of screened windows and closed shutters: they keep their\nbest rooms empty. Whatever for?\u2014Because they are expecting guests who\nare somebodies.\n\n\n26\n\nWe no longer value ourselves sufficiently highly when we communicate\nour soul\u2019s content. Our real experiences are not at all garrulous. They\ncould not communicate themselves even if they wished to. They are at a\nloss to find words for such confidences. Those things for which we find\nwords, are things wehave already overcome. In all speech there lies\nan element of contempt. Speech, it would seem, was only invented for\naverage, mediocre and communicable things.\u2014Every spoken word proclaims\nthe speaker vulgarised\u2014(Extract from a moral code for deaf-and-dumb\npeople and other philosophers.)\n\n\n27\n\n\u201cThis picture is perfectly beautiful!\u201d[4] The dissatisfied and\nexasperated literary woman with a desert in her heart and in her belly,\nlistening with agonised curiosity every instant to the imperative\nwhich whispers to her from the very depths of her being: _aut liberi,\naut libri:_ the literary woman, sufficiently educated to understand the\nvoice of nature, even when nature speaks Latin, and moreover enough\nof a peacock and a goose to speak even French with herself in secret\n\u201c_Je me verrai, je me lirai, je m\u2019extasierai et je dirai: Possible, que\nj\u2019aie eu tant d\u2019esprit?_\u201d ...\n\n\n28\n\nThe objective ones speak.\u2014\u201cNothing comes more easily to us, than to\nbe wise, patient, superior. We are soaked in the oil of indulgence and\nof sympathy, we are absurdly just, we forgive everything. Precisely on\nthat account we should be severe with ourselves; for that very reason\nwe ought from time to time to go in for a little emotion, a little\nemotional vice. It may seem bitter to us; and between ourselves we may\neven laugh at the figure which it makes us cut But what does it matter?\nWe have no other kind of self-control left. This is our asceticism, our\nmanner of performing penance.\u201d _To become personal_\u2014the virtues of the\n\u201cimpersonal and objective one.\u201d\n\n\n29\n\n_Extract from a doctor\u2019s examination paper._\u2014\u201cWhat is the task of all\nhigher schooling?\u201d\u2014To make man into a machine. \u201cWhat are the means\nemployed?\u201d\u2014He must learn how to be bored. \u201cHow is this achieved?\u201d\u2014By\nmeans of the concept duty. \u201cWhat example of duty has he before his\neyes?\u201d\u2014The philologist: it is he who teaches people how to swat.\n\u201cWho is the perfect man?\u201d\u2014The Government official. \u201cWhich philosophy\nfurnishes the highest formula for the Government official?\u201d\u2014Kant\u2019s\nphilosophy: the Government official as thing-in-itself made judge over\nthe Government official as appearance.\n\n\n30\n\n_The right to Stupidity._\u2014The worn-out worker, whose breath is\nslow, whose look is good-natured, and who lets things slide just as\nthey please: this typical figure which in this age of labour (and\nof \u201cEmpire!\u201d) is to be met with in all classes of society, has now\nbegun to appropriate even Art, including the book, above all the\nnewspaper,\u2014and how much more so beautiful nature, Italy! This man\nof the evening, with his \u201csavage instincts lulled,\u201d as Faust has it;\nneeds his summer holiday, his sea-baths, his glacier, his Bayreuth.\nIn such ages Art has the right to be _purely foolish,_\u2014as a sort of\nvacation for spirit, wit and sentiment. Wagner understood this. Pure\nfoolishness[5] is a pick-me-up....\n\n\n31\n\n_Yet another problem of diet._\u2014The means with which Julius C\u00e6sar\npreserved himself against sickness and headaches: heavy marches,\nthe simplest mode of living, uninterrupted sojourns in the open\nair, continual hardships,\u2014generally speaking these are the\nself-preservative and self-defensive measures against the extreme\nvulnerability of those subtle machines working at the highest\npressure, which are called geniuses.\n\n\n32\n\n_The Immoralist speaks._\u2014Nothing is more distasteful to true\nphilosophers than man when he begins to wish.... If they see man only\nat his deeds; if they see this bravest, craftiest and most enduring\nof animals even inextricably entangled in disaster, how admirable he\nthen appears to them! They even encourage him.... But true philosophers\ndespise the man who wishes, as also the \u201cdesirable\u201d man\u2014and all the\ndesiderata and _ideals_ of man in general. If a philosopher could be a\nnihilist, he would be one; for he finds only nonentity behind all human\nideals. Or, not even nonentity, but vileness, absurdity, sickness,\ncowardice, fatigue and all sorts of dregs from out the quaffed goblets\nof his life.... How is it that man, who as a reality is so estimable,\nceases from deserving respect the moment he begins to desire? Must he\npay for being so perfect as a reality? Must he make up for his deeds,\nfor the tension of spirit and will which underlies all his deeds, by an\neclipse of his powers in matters of the imagination and in absurdity?\nHitherto the history of his desires has been the _partie honteuse_ of\nmankind: one should take care not to read too deeply in this history.\nThat which justifies man is his reality,\u2014it will justify him to all\neternity. How much more valuable is a real man than any other man\nwho is merely the phantom of desires, of dreams of stinks and of\nlies?\u2014than any kind of ideal man? ... And the ideal man, alone, is\nwhat the philosopher cannot abide.\n\n\n33\n\n_The Natural Value of Egoism._\u2014Selfishness has as much value as the\nphysiological value of him who practises it: its worth may be great,\nor it may be worthless and contemptible. Every individual may be\nclassified according to whether he represents the ascending or the\ndescending line of life. When this is decided, a canon is obtained\nby means of which the value of his selfishness may be determined.\nIf he represent the ascending line of life, his value is of course\nextraordinary\u2014and for the sake of the collective life which in him\nmakes one step _forward,_ the concern about his maintenance, about\nprocuring his _optimum_ of conditions may even be extreme. The human\nunit, the \u201cindividual,\u201d as the people and the philosopher have always\nunderstood him, is certainly an error: he is nothing in himself, no\natom, no \u201clink in the chain,\u201d no mere heritage from the past,\u2014he\nrepresents the whole direct line of mankind up to his own life....\nIf he represent declining development, decay, chronic degeneration,\nsickness (\u2014illnesses are on the whole already the outcome of decline,\nand not the cause thereof), he is of little worth, and the purest\nequity would have him _take away_ as little as possible from those who\nare lucky strokes of nature. He is then only a parasite upon them....\n\n\n34\n\n_The Christian and the Anarchist._\u2014When the anarchist, as the\nmouthpiece of the decaying strata of society, raises his voice in\nsplendid indignation for \u201cright,\u201d \u201cjustice,\u201d \u201cequal rights,\u201d he\nis only groaning under the burden of his ignorance, which cannot\nunderstand _why_ he actually suffers,\u2014what his poverty consists\nof\u2014the poverty of life. An instinct of causality is active in\nhim: someone must be responsible for his being so ill at ease. His\n\u201csplendid indignation\u201d alone relieves him somewhat, it is a pleasure\nfor all poor devils to grumble\u2014it gives them a little intoxicating\nsensation of power. The very act of complaining, the mere fact that one\nbewails one\u2019s lot, may lend such a charm to life that on that account\nalone, one is ready to endure it. There is a small dose of revenge in\nevery lamentation. One casts one\u2019s afflictions, and, under certain\ncircumstances, even one\u2019s baseness, in the teeth of those who are\ndifferent, as if their condition were an injustice, an _iniquitous_\nprivilege. \u201cSince I am _a blackguard_ you ought to be one too.\u201d It is\nupon such reasoning that revolutions are based.\u2014To bewail one\u2019s lot\nis always despicable: it is always the outcome of weakness. Whether\none ascribes one\u2019s afflictions to others or to _one\u2019s self,_ it is all\nthe same. The socialist does the former, the Christian, for instance,\ndoes the latter. That which is common to both attitudes, or rather\nthat which is equally ignoble in them both, is the fact that somebody\nmust be to _blame_ if one suffers\u2014in short that the sufferer drugs\nhimself with the honey of revenge to allay his anguish. The objects\ntowards which this lust of vengeance, like a lust of pleasure, are\ndirected, are purely accidental causes. In all directions the sufferer\nfinds reasons for cooling his petty passion for revenge. If he is a\nChristian, I repeat, he finds these reasons in himself. The Christian\nand the Anarchist\u2014both are decadents. But even when the Christian\ncondemns, slanders, and sullies the world, he is actuated by precisely\nthe same instinct as that which leads the socialistic workman to curse,\ncalumniate and cast dirt at society. The last \u201cJudgment\u201d itself is\nstill the sweetest solace to revenge\u2014revolution, as the socialistic\nworkman expects it, only thought of as a little more remote.... The\nnotion of a \u201cBeyond,\u201d as well\u2014why a Beyond, if it be not a means of\nsplashing mud over a \u201cHere,\u201d over this world? ...\n\n\n35\n\n_A Criticism of the Morality of Decadence._\u2014An \u201caltruistic\u201d\nmorality, a morality under which selfishness withers, is in all\ncircumstances a bad sign. This is true of individuals and above\nall of nations. The best are lacking when selfishness begins to be\nlacking. Instinctively to select that which is harmful to one, to be\n_lured_ by \u201cdisinterested\u201d motives,\u2014these things almost provide the\nformula for decadence. \u201cNot to have one\u2019s own interests at heart\u201d\n\u2014this is simply a moral fig-leaf concealing a very different fact, a\nphysiological one, to wit:\u2014\u201cI no longer know how to find what is to my\ninterest.\u201d... Disintegration of the instincts!\u2014All is up with man when\nhe becomes altruistic.\u2014Instead of saying ingenuously \u201cI am no longer\nany good,\u201d the lie of morality in the decadent\u2019s mouth says: \u201cNothing\nis any good,\u2014life is no good.\u201d\u2014A judgment of this kind ultimately\nbecomes a great danger; for it is infectious, and it soon flourishes\non the polluted soil of society with tropical luxuriance, now as a\nreligion (Christianity), anon as a philosophy (Schopenhauerism). In\ncertain circumstances the mere effluvia of such a venomous vegetation,\nspringing as it does out of the very heart of putrefaction, can poison\nlife for thousands and thousands of years.\n\n\n36\n\n_A moral for doctors._\u2014The sick man is a parasite of society. In\ncertain cases it is indecent to go on living. To continue to vegetate\nin a state of cowardly dependence upon doctors and special treatments,\nonce the meaning of life, the right to life, has been lost, ought to\nbe regarded with the greatest contempt by society. The doctors, for\ntheir part, should be the agents for imparting this contempt,\u2014they\nshould no longer prepare prescriptions, but should every day administer\na fresh dose of _disgust_ to their patients. A new responsibility\nshould be created, that of the doctor\u2014the responsibility of ruthlessly\nsuppressing and eliminating _degenerate_ life, in all cases in which\nthe highest interests of life itself, of ascending life, demand such\na course\u2014for instance in favour of the right of procreation, in\nfavour of the right of being born, in favour of the right to live.\nOne should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly.\nDeath should be chosen freely,\u2014death at the right time, faced clearly\nand joyfully and embraced while one is surrounded by one\u2019s children\nand other witnesses. It should be affected in such a way that a proper\nfarewell is still possible, that he who is about to take leave of us\nis still _himself,_ and really capable not only of valuing what he\nhas achieved and willed in life, but also of _summing-up_ the value\nof life itself. Everything precisely the opposite of the ghastly\ncomedy which Christianity has made of the hour of death. We should\nnever forgive Christianity for having so abused the weakness of the\ndying man as to do violence to his conscience, or for having used\nhis manner of dying as a means of valuing both man and his past\u2014In\nspite of all cowardly prejudices, it is our duty, in this respect,\nabove all to reinstate the proper\u2014that is to say, the physiological,\naspect of so-called _natural_ death, which after all is perfectly\n\u201cunnatural\u201d and nothing else than suicide. One never perishes through\nanybody\u2019s fault but one\u2019s own. The only thing is that the death which\ntakes place in the most contemptible circumstances, the death that\nis not free, the death which occurs at the wrong time, is the death\nof a coward. Out of the very love one bears to life, one should wish\ndeath to be different from this\u2014that is to say, free, deliberate, and\nneither a matter of chance nor of surprise. Finally let me whisper a\nword of advice to our friends the pessimists and all other decadents.\nWe have not the power to prevent ourselves from being born: but this\nerror\u2014for sometimes it is an error\u2014can be rectified if we choose. The\nman who does away with himself, performs the most estimable of deeds:\nhe almost deserves to live for having done so. Society\u2014nay, life\nitself, derives more profit from such a deed than from any sort of life\nspent in renunciation, an\u00e6mia and other virtues,\u2014at least the suicide\nfrees others from the sight of him, at least he removes one objection\nagainst life. Pessimism _pur et vert,_ can _be proved only_ by the\nself-refutation of the pessimists themselves: one should go a step\nfurther in one\u2019s consistency; one should not merely deny life with\n\u201cThe World as Will and Idea,\u201d as Schopenhauer did; one should in the\nfirst place _deny Schopenhauer._ ... Incidentally, Pessimism, however\ninfectious it may be, does not increase the morbidness of an age or of\na whole species; it is rather the expression of that morbidness. One\nfalls a victim to it in the same way as one falls a victim to cholera;\none must already be predisposed to the disease. Pessimism in itself\ndoes not increase the number of the world\u2019s _decadents_ by a single\nunit. Let me remind you of the statistical fact that in those years in\nwhich cholera rages, the total number of deaths does not exceed that of\nother years.\n\n\n37\n\n_Have we become more moral?_\u2014As might have been expected, the whole\n_ferocity_ of moral stultification, which, as is well known, passes\nfor morality itself in Germany, hurled itself against my concept\n\u201cBeyond Good and Evil.\u201d I could tell you some nice tales about this.\nAbove all, people tried to make me see the \u201cincontestable superiority\u201d\nof our age in regard to moral sentiment, and the _progress_ we had\nmade in these matters. Compared with us, a C\u00e6sar Borgia was by no\nmeans to be represented as \u201chigher man,\u201d the sort of _Superman,_\nwhich I declared him to be. The editor of the Swiss paper the _Bund_\nwent so far as not only to express his admiration for the courage\ndisplayed by my enterprise, but also to pretend to \u201cunderstand\u201d that\nthe intended purpose of my work was to abolish all decent feeling.\nMuch obliged!\u2014In reply, I venture to raise the following question:\n_have we really become more moral?_ The fact that everybody believes\nthat we have is already an objection to the belief. We modern men,\nso extremely delicate and susceptible, full of consideration one for\nthe other, actually dare to suppose that the pampering fellow-feeling\nwhich we all display, this unanimity which we have at last acquired\nin sparing and helping and trusting one another marks a definite step\nforward, and shows us to be far ahead of the man of the Renaissance.\nBut every age thinks the same, it is _bound_ to think the same. This\nat least, is certain, that we should not dare to stand amid the\nconditions which prevailed at the Renaissance, we should not even dare\nto imagine ourselves in those conditions: our nerves could not endure\nthat reality, not to speak of our muscles. The inability to do this\nhowever does not denote any progress; but simply the different and\nmore senile quality of our particular nature, its greater weakness,\ndelicateness, and susceptibility, out of which a morality _more rich\nin consideration_ was bound to arise. If we imagine our delicateness\nand senility, our physiological decrepitude as non-existent, our\nmorality of \u201chumanisation\u201d would immediately lose all value\u2014no\nmorality has any value _per se_\u2014it would even fill us with scorn. On\nthe other hand, do not let us doubt that we moderns, wrapped as we are\nin the thick cotton wool of our humanitarianism which would shrink\neven from grazing a stone, would present a comedy to C\u00e6sar Borgia\u2019s\ncontemporaries which would literally make them die of laughter. We are\nindeed, without knowing it, exceedingly ridiculous with our modern\n\u201cvirtues.\u201d ... The decline of the instincts of hostility and of\nthose instincts that arouse suspicion,\u2014for this if anything is what\nconstitutes our progress\u2014is only one of the results manifested by\nthe general decline in _vitality_: it requires a hundred times more\ntrouble and caution to live such a dependent and senile existence.\nIn such circumstances everybody gives everybody else a helping hand,\nand, to a certain extent, everybody is either an invalid or an\ninvalid\u2019s attendant. This is then called \u201cvirtue\u201d: among those men\nwho knew a different life\u2014that is to say, a fuller, more prodigal,\nmore superabundant sort of life, it might have been called by another\nname,\u2014possibly \u201ccowardice,\u201d or \u201cvileness,\u201d or \u201cold woman\u2019s morality.\u201d\n... Our mollification of morals\u2014this is my cry; this it you will is\nmy _innovation_\u2014is the outcome of our decline; conversely hardness\nand terribleness in morals may be the result of a surplus of life.\nWhen the latter state prevails, much is dared, much is challenged,\nand much is also _squandered_. That which formerly was simply the\nsalt of life, would now be our _poison_. To be indifferent\u2014even this\nis a form of strength\u2014for that, likewise, we are too senile, too\ndecrepit: our morality of fellow-feeling, against which I was the\nfirst to raise a finger of warning, that which might be called _moral\nimpressionism_, is one symptom the more of the excessive physiological\nirritability which is peculiar to everything decadent. That movement\nwhich attempted to introduce itself in a scientific manner on the\nshoulders of Schopenhauer\u2019s morality of pity\u2014a very sad attempt!\u2014is\nin its essence the movement of decadence in morality, and as such\nit is intimately related to Christian morality. Strong ages and\nnoble cultures see something contemptible in pity, in the \u201clove of\none\u2019s neighbour,\u201d and in a lack of egoism and of self-esteem.\u2014Ages\nshould be measured according to their _positive forces_;\u2014valued\nby this standard that prodigal and fateful age of the Renaissance,\nappears as the last _great_ age, while we moderns with our anxious\ncare of ourselves and love of our neighbours, with all our unassuming\nvirtues of industry, equity, and scientific method\u2014with our lust of\ncollection, of economy and of mechanism\u2014represent a _weak_ age....\nOur virtues are necessarily determined, and are even stimulated, by our\nweakness. \u201cEquality,\u201d a certain definite process of making everybody\nuniform, which only finds its expression in the theory of equal rights,\nis essentially bound up with a declining culture: the chasm between\nman and man, class and class, the multiplicity of types, the will to\nbe one\u2019s self, and to distinguish one\u2019s self\u2014that, in fact, which I\ncall the _pathos of distance_ is proper to all _strong_ ages. The force\nof tension,\u2014nay, the tension itself, between extremes grows slighter\nevery day,\u2014the extremes themselves are tending to become obliterated\nto the point of becoming identical. All our political theories and\nstate constitutions, not by any means excepting \u201cThe German Empire,\u201d\nare the logical consequences, the necessary consequences of decline;\nthe unconscious effect of _decadence_ has begun to dominate even the\nideals of the various sciences. My objection to the whole of English\nand French sociology still continues to be this, that it knows only\nthe _decadent form_ of society from experience, and with perfectly\nchildlike innocence takes the instincts of decline as the norm, the\nstandard, of sociological valuations. _Descending_ life, the decay\nof all organising power\u2014that is to say, of all that power which\nseparates, cleaves gulfs, and establishes rank above and below,\nformulated itself in modern sociology as _the_ ideal. Our socialists\nare decadents: but Herbert Spencer was also a _decadent,_\u2014he saw\nsomething to be desired in the triumph of altruism!...\n\n\n38\n\n_My Concept of Freedom._\u2014Sometimes the value of a thing does not lie\nin that which it helps us to achieve, but in the amount we have to\npay for it,\u2014what it _costs_ us. For instance, liberal institutions\nstraightway cease from being liberal, the moment they are soundly\nestablished: once this is attained no more grievous and more thorough\nenemies of freedom exist than liberal institutions! One knows, of\ncourse, what they bring about: they undermine the Will to Power,\nthey are the levelling of mountain and valley exalted to a morality,\nthey make people small, cowardly and pleasure-loving,\u2014by means of\nthem the gregarious animal invariably triumphs. Liberalism, or, in\nplain English, the _transformation of mankind into cattle._ The\nsame institutions, so long as they are fought for, produce quite\nother results; then indeed they promote the cause of freedom quite\npowerfully. Regarded more closely, it is war which produces these\nresults, war in favour of liberal institutions, which, as war, allows\nthe illiberal instincts to subsist. For war trains men to be free.\nWhat in sooth is freedom? Freedom is the will to be responsible\nfor ourselves. It is to preserve the distance which separates us\nfrom other men. To grow more indifferent to hardship, to severity,\nto privation, and even to life itself. To be ready to sacrifice\nmen for one\u2019s cause, one\u2019s self included. Freedom denotes that the\nvirile instincts which rejoice in war and in victory, prevail over\nother instincts; for instance, over the instincts of \u201chappiness.\u201d\nThe man who has won his freedom, and how much more so, therefore,\nthe spirit that has won its freedom, tramples ruthlessly upon that\ncontemptible kind of comfort which tea-grocers, Christians, cows,\nwomen, Englishmen and other democrats worship in their dreams. The\nfree man is a _warrior._\u2014How is freedom measured in individuals\nas well as in nations? According to the resistance which has to be\novercome, according to the pains which it costs to remain _uppermost._\nThe highest type of free man would have to be sought where the\ngreatest resistance has continually to be overcome: five paces away\nfrom tyranny, on the very threshold of the danger of thraldom. This\nis psychologically true if, by the word \u201cTyrants\u201d we mean inexorable\nand terrible instincts which challenge the _maximum_ amount of\nauthority and discipline to oppose them\u2014the finest example of this\nis Julius C\u00e6sar; it is also true politically: just examine the course\nof history. The nations which were worth anything, which _got to\nbe_ worth anything, never attained to that condition under liberal\ninstitutions: _great danger_ made out of them something which deserves\nreverence, that danger which alone can make us aware of our resources,\nour virtues, our means of defence, our weapons, our _genius,_\u2014which\n_compels_ us to be strong. _First_ principle: a man must need to be\nstrong, otherwise he will never attain it.\u2014Those great forcing-houses\nof the strong, of the strongest kind of men that have ever existed on\nearth, the aristocratic communities like those of Rome and Venice,\nunderstood freedom precisely as I understand the word: as something\nthat one has and that one has _not,_ as something that one _will_ have\nand that one _seizes by force._\n\n\n39\n\n_A Criticism of Modernity._\u2014Our institutions are no longer any good;\non this point we are all agreed. But the fault does not lie with\nthem; but with _us._ Now that we have lost all the instincts out\nof which institutions grow, the latter on their part are beginning\nto disappear from our midst because we are no longer fit for them.\nDemocracy has always been the death agony of the power of organisation:\nalready in \u201cHuman All-too-Human,\u201d Part I., Aph. 472, I pointed out\nthat modern democracy, together with its half-measures, of which the\n\u201cGerman Empire\u201d is an example, was a decaying form of the State. For\ninstitutions to be possible there must exist a sort of will, instinct,\nimperative, which cannot be otherwise than antiliberal to the point of\nwickedness: the will to tradition, to authority, to responsibility\nfor centuries to come, to _solidarity_ in long family lines forwards\nand backwards _in infinitum._ If this will is present, something is\nfounded which resembles the _imperium Romanum;_ or Russia, the _only_\ngreat nation to-day that has some lasting power and grit in her, that\ncan bide her time, that can still promise something.\u2014Russia the\nopposite of all wretched European petty-statism and neurasthenia,\nwhich the foundation of the German Empire has brought to a crisis. The\nwhole of the Occident no longer possesses those instincts from which\ninstitutions spring, out of which a _future_ grows: maybe nothing is\nmore opposed to its \u201cmodern spirit\u201d than these things. People live\nfor the present, the live at top speed,\u2014they certainly live without\nany sense of responsibility; and this is precisely what they call\n\u201cfreedom.\u201d Everything in institutions which makes them institutions,\nis scorned, loathed and repudiated: everybody is in mortal fear of a\nnew slavery, wherever the word \u201cauthority\u201d is so much as whispered.\nThe decadence of the valuing instinct, both in our politicians and in\nour political parties, goes so far, that they instinctively prefer\nthat which acts as a solvent, that which precipitates the final\ncatastrophe.... As an example of this behold _modern_ marriage. All\nreason has obviously been divorced from modern marriage: but this is\nno objection to matrimony itself but to modernity. The rational basis\nof marriage\u2014it lay in the exclusive legal responsibility of the man:\nby this means some ballast was laid in the ship of matrimony, whereas\nnowadays it has a list, now on this side, now on that. The rational\nbasis of marriage\u2014it lay in its absolute indissolubleness: in this way\nit was given a gravity which knew how to make its influence felt, in\nthe face of the accident of sentiment, passion and momentary impulse:\nit lay also in the fact that the responsibility of choosing the parties\nto the contract, lay with the families. By showing ever more and more\nfavour to love-marriages, the very foundation of matrimony, that which\nalone makes it an institution, has been undermined. No institution\never has been nor ever will be built upon an idiosyncrasy; as I say,\nmarriage cannot be based upon \u201clove.\u201d It can be based upon sexual\ndesire; upon the instinct of property (wife and child as possessions);\nupon the instinct of dominion, which constantly organises for itself\nthe smallest form of dominion,\u2014the family which _requires_ children\nand heirs in order to hold fast, also in the physiological sense, to\na certain quantum of acquired power, influence and wealth, so as to\nprepare for lasting tasks, and for solidarity in the instincts from\none century to another. Marriage as an institution presupposes the\naffirmation of the greatest and most permanent form of organisation; if\nsociety cannot as a whole _stand security_ for itself into the remotest\ngenerations, marriage has no meaning whatsoever.\u2014Modern marriage _has\nlost_ its meaning; consequently it is being abolished.\n\n\n40\n\n_The question of the Working-man._\u2014The mere fact that there is such\na thing as the question of the working-man is due to stupidity, or at\nbottom to degenerate instincts which are the cause of all the stupidity\nof modern times. Concerning certain things _no questions ought to be\nput:_ the first imperative principle of instinct. For the life of me\nI cannot see what people want to do with the working-man of Europe,\nnow that they have made a question of him. He is far too comfortable\nto cease from questioning ever more and more, and with ever less\nmodesty. After all, he has the majority on his side. There is now\nnot the slightest hope that an unassuming and contented sort of man,\nafter the style of the Chinaman, will come into being in this quarter:\nand this would have been the reasonable course, it was even a dire\nnecessity. What has been done? Everything has been done with the view\nof nipping the very pre-requisite of this accomplishment in the bud,\n\u2014with the most frivolous thoughtlessness those selfsame instincts by\nmeans of which a working-class becomes possible, and _tolerable even_\nto its members themselves, have been destroyed root and branch. The\nworking-man has been declared fit for military service; he has been\ngranted the right of combination, and of voting: can it be wondered at\nthat he already regards his condition as one of distress (expressed\nmorally, as an injustice)? But, again I ask, what do people want? If\nthey desire a certain end, then they should desire the means thereto.\nIf they will have slaves, then it is madness to educate them to be\nmasters.\n\n\n41\n\n\u201cThe kind of freedom I do _not_ mean....\u201d[6]\u2014In an age like the\npresent, it simply adds to one\u2019s perils to be left to one\u2019s instincts.\nThe instincts contradict, disturb, and destroy each other; I have\nalready defined modernism as physiological self-contradiction. A\nreasonable system of education would insist upon at least one of\nthese instinct-systems being _paralysed_ beneath an iron pressure, in\norder to allow others to assert their power, to grow strong, and to\ndominate. At present, the only conceivable way of making the individual\npossible would be to _prune_ him:\u2014of making him possible\u2014that is to\nsay, _whole._ The very reverse occurs. Independence, free development,\nand _laisser aller_ are clamoured for most violently precisely by\nthose for whom no restraint _could be too severe_\u2014this is true _in\npolitics,_ it is true in Art. But this is a symptom of decadence: our\nmodern notion of \u201cfreedom\u201d is one proof the more of the degeneration of\ninstinct.\n\n\n42\n\n_Where faith is necessary._\u2014Nothing is more rare among moralists and\nsaints than uprightness; maybe they say the reverse is true, maybe\nthey even believe it. For, when faith is more useful, more effective,\nmore convincing than _conscious_ hypocrisy, by instinct that hypocrisy\nforthwith becomes _innocent:_ first principle towards the understanding\nof great saints. The same holds good of philosophers, that other order\nof saints; their whole business compels them to concede only certain\ntruths\u2014that is to say, those by means of which their particular trade\nreceives the _public_ sanction,\u2014to speak \u201cKantingly\u201d: the truths of\n_practical_ reason. They know what they _must_ prove; in this respect\nthey are practical,\u2014they recognise each other by the fact that\nthey agree upon \u201ccertain truths.\u201d\u2014\u201cThou shalt not lie\u201d\u2014in plain\nEnglish:\u2014_Beware,_ Mr Philosopher, of speaking the truth....\n\n\n43\n\n_A quiet hint to Conservatives._\u2014That which we did not know\nformerly, and know now, or might know if we chose,\u2014is the fact that\na _retrograde formation,_ a reversion in any sense or degree, is\nabsolutely impossible. We physiologists, at least, are aware of this.\nBut all priests and moralists have believed in it,\u2014they wished to\ndrag and screw man back to a former standard of virtue. Morality has\nalways been a Procrustean bed. Even the politicians have imitated\nthe preachers of virtue in this matter. There are parties at the\npresent day whose one aim and dream is to make all things adopt the\n_crab-march._ But not everyone can be a crab. It cannot be helped: we\nmust go forward,\u2014that is to say step by step further and further into\ndecadence (\u2014this is my definition of modern \u201cprogress\u201d). We can hinder\nthis development, and by so doing dam up and accumulate degeneration\nitself and render it more convulsive, more _volcanic:_ we cannot do\nmore.\n\n\n44\n\n_My concept of Genius._\u2014Great men, like great ages, are explosive\nmaterial, in which a stupendous amount of power is accumulated;\nthe first conditions of their existence are always historical and\nphysiological; they are the outcome of the fact that for long ages\nenergy has been collected, hoarded up, saved up and preserved for their\nuse, and that no explosion has taken place. When, the tension in the\nbulk has become sufficiently excessive, the most fortuitous stimulus\nsuffices in order to call \u201cgenius,\u201d \u201cgreat deeds,\u201d and momentous\nfate into the world. What then is the good of all environment,\nhistorical periods, \u201c_Zeitgeist_\u201d (Spirit of the age) and \u201cpublic\nopinion\u201d?\u2014Take the case of Napoleon. France of the Revolution,\nand still more of the period preceding the Revolution, would have\nbrought forward a type which was the very reverse of Napoleon: it\nactually _did_ produce such a type. And because Napoleon was something\ndifferent, the heir of a stronger, more lasting and older civilisation\nthan that which in France was being smashed to atoms he became master\nthere, he was the only master there. Great men are necessary, the age\nin which they appear is a matter of chance; the fact that they almost\ninvariably master their age is accounted for simply by the fact that\nthey are stronger, that they are older, and that power has been stored\nlonger for them. The relation of a genius to his age is that which\nexists between strength and weakness and between maturity and youth:\nthe age is relatively always very much younger, thinner, less mature,\nless resolute and more childish. The fact that the general opinion in\nFrance at the present day, is utterly different on this very point (in\nGermany too, but that is of no consequence); the fact that in that\ncountry the theory of environment\u2014a regular neuropathic notion\u2014has\nbecome sacrosanct and almost scientific, and finds acceptance even\namong the physiologists, is a very bad, and exceedingly depressing\nsign. In England too the same belief prevails: but nobody will be\nsurprised at that. The Englishman knows only two ways of understanding\nthe genius and the \u201cgreat man\u201d: either _democratically_ in the style\nof Buckle, or religiously after the manner of Carlyle.\u2014The danger\nwhich great men and great ages represent, is simply extraordinary;\nevery kind of exhaustion and of sterility follows in their wake. The\ngreat man is an end; the great age\u2014the Renaissance for instance,\u2014is\nan end. The genius\u2014in work and in deed,\u2014is necessarily a squanderer:\nthe fact that he spends himself constitutes his greatness. The instinct\nof self-preservation is as it were suspended in him; the overpowering\npressure of out-flowing energy in him forbids any such protection and\nprudence. People call this \u201cself-sacrifice,\u201d they praise his \u201cheroism,\u201d\nhis indifference to his own well-being, his utter devotion to an idea,\na great cause, a father-land: All misunderstandings.... He flows out,\nhe flows over, he consumes himself, he does not spare himself,\u2014and\ndoes all this with fateful necessity, irrevocably, involuntarily, just\nas a river involuntarily bursts its dams. But, owing to the fact that\nhumanity has been much indebted to such explosives, it has endowed them\nwith many things, for instance, with a kind of _higher morality_....\nThis is indeed the sort of gratitude that humanity is capable of: it\n_misunderstands_ its benefactors.\n\n\n45\n\n_The criminal and his like._\u2014The criminal type is the type of the\nstrong man amid unfavourable conditions, a strong man made sick. He\nlacks the wild and savage state, a form of nature and existence which\nis freer and more dangerous, in which everything that constitutes\nthe shield and the sword in the instinct of the strong man, takes\na place by right. Society puts a ban upon his virtues; the most\nspirited instincts inherent in him immediately become involved with\nthe depressing passions, with suspicion, fear and dishonour. But this\nis almost the recipe for physiological degeneration. When a man has\nto do that which he is best suited to do, which he is most fond of\ndoing, not only clandestinely, but also with long suspense, caution and\nruse, he becomes an\u00e6mic; and inasmuch as he is always having to pay\nfor his instincts in the form of danger, persecution and fatalities,\neven his feelings begin to turn against these instincts\u2014he begins to\nregard them as fatal. It is society, our tame, mediocre, castrated\nsociety, in which an untutored son of nature who comes to us from his\nmountains or from his adventures at sea, must necessarily degenerate\ninto a criminal. Or almost necessarily: for there are cases in which\nsuch a man shows himself to be stronger than society: the Corsican\nNapoleon is the most celebrated case of this. Concerning the problem\nbefore us, Dostoiewsky\u2019s testimony is of importance\u2014Dostoiewsky who,\nincidentally, was the only psychologist from whom I had anything\nto learn: he belongs to the happiest windfalls of my life, happier\neven than the discovery of Stendhal. This profound man, who was\nright ten times over in esteeming the superficial Germans low, found\nthe Siberian convicts among whom he lived for many years,\u2014those\nthoroughly hopeless criminals for whom no road back to society stood\nopen\u2014very different from what even he had expected,\u2014that is to say\ncarved from about the best, hardest and most valuable material that\ngrows on Russian soil.[7] Let us generalise the case of the criminal;\nlet us imagine creatures who for some reason or other fail to meet\nwith public approval, who know that they are regarded neither as\nbeneficent nor useful,\u2014the feeling of the Chandala, who are aware\nthat they are not looked upon as equal, but as proscribed, unworthy,\npolluted. The thoughts and actions of all such natures are tainted\nwith a subterranean mouldiness; everything in them is of a paler hue\nthan in those on whose existence the sun shines. But almost all those\ncreatures whom, nowadays, we honour and respect, formerly lived in this\nsemi-sepulchral atmosphere: the man of science, the artist, the genius,\nthe free spirit, the actor, the business man, and the great explorer.\nAs long as the _priest_ represented the highest type of man, every\nvaluable kind of man was depreciated.... The time is coming\u2014this I\nguarantee\u2014when he will pass as the _lowest_ type, as our Chandala, as\nthe falsest and most disreputable kind of man.... I call your attention\nto the fact that even now, under the sway of the mildest customs and\nusages which have ever ruled on earth or at least in Europe, every\nform of standing aside, every kind of prolonged, excessively prolonged\nconcealment, every unaccustomed and obscure form of existence tends to\napproximate to that type which the criminal exemplifies to perfection.\nAll pioneers of the spirit have, for a while, the grey and fatalistic\nmark of the Chandala on their brows: _not_ because they are regarded as\nChandala, but because they themselves feel the terrible chasm which\nseparates them from all that is traditional and honourable. Almost\nevery genius knows the \u201cCatilinarian life\u201d as one of the stages in his\ndevelopment, a feeling of hate, revenge and revolt against everything\nthat exists, that has ceased to evolve.... Catiline\u2014the early stage of\nevery C\u00e6sar.\n\n\n46\n\n_Here the outlook is free._\u2014When a philosopher holds his tongue it may\nbe the sign of the loftiness of his soul: when he contradicts himself\nit may be love; and the very courtesy of a knight of knowledge may\nforce him to lie. It has been said, and not without subtlety:\u2014_il\nest indigne des grands c\u0153urs de r\u00e9pandre le trouble qu\u2019ils\nressentent[8]:_ but it is necessary to add that there may also be\n_grandeur de c\u0153ur_ in not shrinking _from the most undignified\nproceeding._ A woman who loves sacrifices her honour; a knight of\nknowledge who \u201cloves,\u201d sacrifices perhaps his humanity; a God who\nloved, became a Jew....\n\n\n47\n\n_Beauty no accident_\u2014Even the beauty of a race or of a family,\nthe charm and perfection of all its movements, is attained with\npains: like genius it is the final result of the accumulated work\nof generations. Great sacrifices must have been made on the altar\nol good taste, for its sake many things must have been done, and\nmuch must have been left undone\u2014the seventeenth century in France\nis admirable for both of these things,\u2014in this century there must\nhave been a principle of selection in respect to company, locality,\nclothing, the gratification of the instinct of sex; beauty must have\nbeen preferred to profit, to habit, to opinion and to indolence. The\nfirst rule of all:\u2014nobody must \u201clet himself go,\u201d not even when he is\nalone.\u2014Good things are exceedingly costly:; and in all cases the law\nobtains that he who possesses them is a different person from him who\nis _acquiring_ them. Everything good is an inheritance: that which is\nnot inherited is imperfect, it is simply a beginning. In Athens at\nthe time of Cicero\u2014who expresses his surprise at the fact\u2014the men\nand youths were by far superior in beauty to the women: but what hard\nwork and exertions the male sex had for centuries imposed upon itself\nin the service of beauty! We must not be mistaken in regard to the\nmethod employed here: the mere discipline of feelings and thoughts\nis little better than nil (\u2014it is in this that the great error of\nGerman culture, which is quite illusory, lies): the _body_ must be\npersuaded first. The strict maintenance of a distinguished and tasteful\ndemeanour, the obligation of frequenting only those who do not \u201clet\nthemselves go,\u201d is amply sufficient to render one distinguished and\ntasteful: in two or three generations everything has already _taken\ndeep root._ The fate of a people and of humanity is decided according\nto whether they begin culture at the _right place\u2014not_ at the \u201csoul\u201d\n(as the fatal superstition of the priests and half-priests would have\nit): the right place is the body, demeanour, diet, physiology\u2014the rest\nfollows as the night the day.... That is why the Greeks remain the\n_first event in culture_\u2014they knew and they _did_ what was needful.\nChristianity with its contempt of the body is the greatest mishap that\nhas ever befallen mankind.\n\n\n48\n\n_Progress in my sense._\u2014I also speak of a \u201creturn to nature,\u201d although\nit is not a process of going back but of going up\u2014up into lofty, free\nand even terrible nature and naturalness; such a nature as can play\nwith great tasks and _may_ play with them.... To speak in a _parable._\nNapoleon was an example of a \u201creturn to nature,\u201d as I understand it\n(for instance _in rebus tacticis,_ and still more, as military experts\nknow, in strategy). But Rousseau\u2014whither did he want to return?\nRousseau this first modern man, idealist and _canaille_ in one person;\nwho was in need of moral \u201cdignity,\u201d in order even to endure the sight\nof his own person,\u2014ill with unbridled vanity and wanton self-contempt;\nthis abortion, who planted his tent on the threshold of modernity,\nalso wanted a \u201creturn to nature\u201d; but, I ask once more, whither did\nhe wish to return? I hate Rousseau, even _in_ the Revolution itself:\nthe latter was the historical expression of this hybrid of idealist\nand _canaille._ The bloody farce which this Revolution ultimately\nbecame, its \u201cimmorality,\u201d concerns me but slightly; what I loathe\nhowever is its Rousseauesque _morality_\u2014the so-called \u201ctruths\u201d of the\nRevolution, by means of which it still exercises power and draws all\nflat and mediocre things over to its side. The doctrine of equality!\n... But there is no more deadly poison than this; for it _seems_ to\nproceed from the very lips of justice, whereas in reality it draws\nthe curtain down on all justice.... \u201cTo equals equality, to unequals\ninequality\u201d\u2014that would be the real speech of justice and that which\nfollows from it \u201cNever make unequal things equal.\u201d The fact that so\nmuch horror and blood are associated with this doctrine of equality,\nhas lent this \u201cmodern idea\u201d _par excellence_ such a halo of fire and\nglory, that the Revolution as a drama has misled even the most noble\nminds.\u2014That after all is no reason for honouring it the more.\u2014I can\nsee only one who regarded it as it should be regarded\u2014that is to say,\nwith _loathing;_ I speak of Goethe.\n\n\n49\n\n_Goethe_.\u2014No mere German, but a European event: a magnificent attempt\nto overcome the eighteenth century by means of a return to nature, by\nmeans of an ascent to the naturalness of the Renaissance, a kind of\nself-overcoming on the part of the century in question.\u2014He bore the\nstrongest instincts of this century in his breast: its sentimentality,\nand idolatry of nature, its anti-historic, idealistic, unreal, and\nrevolutionary spirit (\u2014the latter is only a form of the unreal). He\nenlisted history, natural science, antiquity, as well as Spinoza, and\nabove all practical activity, in his service. He drew a host of very\ndefinite horizons around him; far from liberating himself from life, he\nplunged right into it; he did not give in; he took as much as he could\non his own shoulders, and into his heart. That to which he aspired was\n_totality_; he was opposed to the sundering of reason, sensuality,\nfeeling and will (as preached with most repulsive scholasticism\nby Kant, the antipodes of Goethe); he disciplined himself into a\nharmonious whole, he _created_ himself. Goethe in the midst of an age\nof unreal sentiment, was a convinced realist: he said yea to everything\nthat was like him in this regard,\u2014there was no greater event in his\nlife than that _ens realissimum_, surnamed Napoleon. Goethe conceived\na strong, highly-cultured man, skilful in all bodily accomplishments,\nable to keep himself in check, having a feeling of reverence for\nhimself, and so constituted as to be able to risk the full enjoyment\nof naturalness in all its rich profusion and be strong enough for this\nfreedom; a man of tolerance, not out of weakness but out of strength,\nbecause he knows how to turn to his own profit that which would ruin\nthe mediocre nature; a man unto whom nothing is any longer forbidden,\nunless it be weakness either as a vice or as a virtue. Such a spirit,\n_become free_, appears in the middle of the universe with a feeling\nof cheerful and confident fatalism; he believes that only individual\nthings are bad, and that as a whole the universe justifies and, affirms\nitself\u2014_He no longer denies_.... But such a faith is the highest Of\nall faiths: I christened it with the name of Dionysus.\n\n\n50\n\nIt might be said that, in a certain sense, the nineteenth century\nalso strove after all that Goethe himself aspired to: catholicity in\nunderstanding, in approving; a certain reserve towards everything,\ndaring realism, and a reverence for every fact. How is it that\nthe total result of this is not a Goethe, but a state of chaos, a\nnihilistic groan, an inability to discover where one is, an instinct\nof fatigue which _in praxi_ is persistently driving Europe _to hark\nback to the eighteenth century_? (\u2014For instance in the form of maudlin\nromanticism, altruism, hyper-sentimentality, pessimism in taste,\nand socialism in politics). Is not the nineteenth century, at least\nin its closing years, merely an accentuated, brutalised eighteenth\ncentury,\u2014that is to say a century of decadence? And has not Goethe\nbeen\u2014not alone for Germany, but also for the whole of Europe,\u2014merely\nan episode, a beautiful \u201cin vain\u201d? But great men are misunderstood when\nthey are regarded from the wretched standpoint of public utility. The\nfact that no advantage can be derived from them\u2014_this in itself may\nperhaps be peculiar to greatness._\n\n\n51\n\nGoethe is the last German whom I respect: he had understood three\nthings as I understand them. We also agree as to the \u201ccross.\u201d[9] People\noften ask me why on earth I write in _German:_ nowhere am I less read\nthan in the Fatherland. But who knows whether I even _desire_ to be\nread at present?\u2014To create things on which time may try its teeth in\nvain; to be concerned both in the form and the substance of my writing,\nabout a certain degree of immortality\u2014never have I been modest enough\nto demand less of myself. The aphorism, the sentence, in both of\nwhich I, as the first among Germans, am a master, are the forms of\n\u201ceternity\u201d; it is my ambition to say in ten sentences what everyone\nelse says in a whole book,\u2014what everyone else does _not_ say in a\nwhole book.\n\nI have given mankind the deepest book it possesses, my _Zarathustra;_\nbefore long I shall give it the most independent one.\n\n\n[1] The German word _Rausch_ as used by Nietzsche here, suggests a\nblend of our two English words \u201cintoxication\u201d and \u201celation.\u201d\u2014TR.\n\n[2] An allusion to a verse in Luther\u2019s hymn: \u201c_Lass fahren dahin_ ...\n_das Reich muss uns doch bleiben,_\u201d which Nietzsche applies to the\nGerman Empire.\u2014TR.\n\n[3] A disciple of Schopenhauer who blunted the sharpness of his\nmaster\u2019s Pessimism and who watered it down for modern requirements.\u2014TR.\n\n[4] Quotation from the Libretto of Mozart\u2019s \u201cMagic Flute\u201d Act I, Sc.\n3.\u2014TR.\n\n[5] This alludes to Parsifal. See my note on p. 96, vol. i., \u201cThe Will\nto Power.\u201d\u2014TR.\n\n[6] This is a playful adaptation of Max von Schenkendorfs poem\n\u201c_Freiheit_\u201d The proper line reads: \u201c_Freiheit die ich meine_\u201d (The\nfreedom that I do mean).\u2014TR.\n\n[7] See \u201cMemoirs of a House of the Dead,\u201d by Dostoiewsky (translation\nby Marie von Thilo: \u201cBuried Alive\u201d).\u2014TR.\n\n[8] Clothilde de Veaux.\u2014TR.\n\n[9] See my note on p. 147 of Vol. I. of the _Will to Power._\u2014TR.\n\n\n\n\nTHINGS I OWE TO THE ANCIENTS\n\n\n1\n\nIn conclusion I will just say a word concerning that world to which I\nhave sought new means of access, to which I may perhaps have found a\nnew passage\u2014the ancient world. My taste, which is perhaps the reverse\nof tolerant, is very far from saying yea through and through even to\nthis world: on the whole it is not over eager to say _Yea,_ it would\nprefer to say _Nay,_ and better still nothing whatever.... This is true\nof whole cultures; it is true of books,\u2014it is also true of places\nand of landscapes. Truth to tell, the number of ancient books that\ncount for something in my life is but small; and the most famous are\nnot of that number. My sense of style, for the epigram as style, was\nawakened almost spontaneously upon my acquaintance with Sallust. I have\nnot forgotten the astonishment of my respected teacher Corssen, when\nhe was forced to give his worst Latin pupil the highest marks,\u2014at one\nstroke I had learned all there was to learn. Condensed, severe, with as\nmuch substance as possible in the background, and with cold but roguish\nhostility towards all \u201cbeautiful words\u201d and \u201cbeautiful feelings\u201d\u2014in\nthese things I found my own particular bent. In my writings up to my\n\u201cZarathustra,\u201d there will be found a very earnest ambition to attain\nto the _Roman_ style, to the \u201c_\u00e6re perennius_\u201d in style.\u2014The same\nthing happened on my first acquaintance with Horace. Up to the present\nno poet has given me the same artistic raptures as those which from\nthe first I received from an Horatian ode. In certain languages it\nwould be absurd even to aspire to what is accomplished by this poet.\nThis mosaic of words, in which every unit spreads its power to the\nleft and to the right over the whole, by its sound, by its place in\nthe sentence, and by its meaning, this _minimum_ in the compass and\nnumber of the signs, and the _maximum_ of energy in the signs which is\nthereby achieved\u2014all this is Roman, and, if you will believe me, noble\n_par excellence._ By the side of this all the rest of poetry becomes\nsomething popular,\u2014nothing more than senseless sentimental twaddle.\n\n\n2\n\nI am not indebted to the Greeks for anything like such strong\nimpressions; and, to speak frankly, they cannot be to us what the\nRomans are. One cannot _learn_ from the Greeks\u2014their style is too\nstrange, it is also too fluid, to be imperative or to have the effect\nof a classic. Who would ever have learnt writing from a Greek! Who\nwould ever have learned it without the Romans!... Do not let anyone\nsuggest Plato to me. In regard to Plato I am a thorough sceptic, and\nhave never been able to agree to the admiration of Plato the _artist,_\nwhich is traditional among scholars. And after all, in this matter,\nthe most refined judges of taste in antiquity are on my side. In my\nopinion Plato bundles all the forms of style pell-mell together,\nin this respect he is one of the first decadents of style: he has\nsomething similar on his conscience to that which the Cynics had\nwho invented the _satura Menippea._ For the Platonic dialogue\u2014this\nrevoltingly self-complacent and childish kind of dialectics\u2014to\nexercise any charm over you, you must never have read any good French\nauthors,\u2014Fontenelle for instance. Plato is boring. In reality my\ndistrust of Plato is fundamental. I find him so very much astray\nfrom all the deepest instincts of the Hellenes, so steeped in moral\nprejudices, so pre-existently Christian\u2014the concept \u201cgood\u201d is already\nthe highest value with him,\u2014that rather than use any other expression\nI would prefer to designate the whole phenomenon Plato with the hard\nword \u201csuperior bunkum,\u201d or, if you would like it better, \u201cidealism.\u201d\nHumanity has had to pay dearly for this Athenian having gone to school\namong the Egyptians (\u2014or among the Jews in Egypt?...) In the great\nfatality of Christianity, Plato is that double-faced fascination\ncalled the \u201cideal,\u201d which made it possible for the more noble natures\nof antiquity to misunderstand themselves and to tread the _bridge_\nwhich led to the \u201ccross.\u201d And what an amount of Plato is still to be\nfound in the concept \u201cchurch,\u201d and in the construction, the system\nand the practice of the church!\u2014My recreation, my predilection, my\ncure, after all Platonism, has always been Thucydides. Thucydides and\nperhaps Machiavelli\u2019s _principe_ are most closely related to me owing\nto the absolute determination which they show of refusing to deceive\nthemselves and of seeing reason in _reality,_\u2014not in \u201crationality,\u201d\nand still less in \u201cmorality.\u201d There is no more radical cure than\nThucydides for the lamentably rose-coloured idealisation of the\nGreeks which the \u201cclassically-cultured\u201d stripling bears with him into\nlife, as a reward for his public school training. His writings must be\ncarefully studied line by line, and his unuttered thoughts must be read\nas distinctly as what he actually says. There are few thinkers so rich\nin unuttered thoughts. In him the culture \u201cof the Sophists\u201d\u2014that is to\nsay, the culture of realism, receives its most perfect expression: this\ninestimable movement in the midst of the moral and idealistic knavery\nof the Socratic Schools which was then breaking out in all directions.\nGreek philosophy is the decadence of the Greek instinct: Thucydides is\nthe great summing up, the final manifestation of that strong, severe\npositivism which lay in the instincts of the ancient Hellene. After\nall, it is courage in the face of reality that distinguishes such\nnatures as Thucydides from Plato: Plato is a coward in the face of\nreality\u2014consequently he takes refuge in the ideal: Thucydides is\nmaster of himself,\u2014consequently he is able to master life.\n\n\n3\n\nTo rout up cases of \u201cbeautiful souls,\u201d \u201cgolden means\u201d and other\nperfections among the Greeks, to admire, say, their calm grandeur,\ntheir ideal attitude of mind, their exalted simplicity\u2014from this\n\u201cexalted simplicity,\u201d which after all is a piece of _niaiserie\nallemande,_ I was preserved by the psychologist within me. I saw their\nstrongest instinct, the Will to Power, I saw them quivering with the\nfierce violence of this instinct,\u2014I saw all their institutions grow\nout of measures of security calculated to preserve each member of\ntheir society from the inner _explosive material_ that lay in his\nneighbour\u2019s breast This enormous internal tension thus discharged\nitself in terrible and reckless hostility outside the state: the\nvarious states mutually tore each other to bits, in order that each\nindividual state could remain at peace with itself. It was then\nnecessary to be strong; for danger lay close at hand,\u2014it lurked in\nambush everywhere. The superb suppleness of their bodies, the daring\nrealism and immorality which is peculiar to the Hellenes, was a\nnecessity not an inherent quality. It was a result, it had not been\nthere from the beginning. Even their festivals and their arts were but\nmeans in producing a feeling of superiority, and of showing it: they\nare measures of self-glorification; and in certain circumstances of\nmaking one\u2019s self terrible.... Fancy judging the Greeks in the German\nstyle, from their philosophers; fancy using the suburban respectability\nof the Socratic schools as a key to what is fundamentally Hellenic!...\nThe philosophers are of course the decadents of Hellas, the\ncounter-movement directed against the old and noble taste\u2014(against the\nagonal instinct, against the _Polls,_ against the value of the race,\nagainst the authority of tradition), Socratic virtues were preached to\nthe Greeks, _because_ the Greeks had lost virtue: irritable, cowardly,\nunsteady, and all turned to play-actors, they had more than sufficient\nreason to submit to having morality preached to them. Not that it\nhelped them in any way; but great words and attitudes are so becoming\nto decadents.\n\n\n4\n\nI was the first who, in order to understand the ancient, still rich and\neven superabundant Hellenic instinct, took that marvellous phenomenon,\nwhich bears the name of Dionysus, seriously: it can be explained only\nas a manifestation of excessive energy. Whoever had studied the Greeks,\nas that most profound of modern connoisseurs of their culture, Jakob\nBurckhardt of B\u00e2le, had done, knew at once that something had been\nachieved by means of this interpretation. And in his \u201c_Cultur der\nGriechen_\u201d Burckhardt inserted a special chapter on the phenomenon\nin question. If you would like a glimpse of the other side, you have\nonly to refer to the almost laughable poverty of instinct among German\nphilologists when they approach the Dionysian question. The celebrated\nLobeck, especially, who with the venerable assurance of a worm dried up\nbetween books, crawled into this world of mysterious states, succeeded\ninconvincing himself that he was scientific, whereas he was simply\nrevoltingly superficial and childish,\u2014Lobeck, with all the pomp of\nprofound erudition, gave us to understand that, as a matter of fact,\nthere was nothing at all in all these curiosities. Truth to tell, the\npriests may well have communicated not a few things of value to the\nparticipators in such orgies; for instance, the fact that wine provokes\ndesire, that man in certain circumstances lives on fruit, that plants\nbloom in the spring and fade in the autumn. As regards the astounding\nwealth of rites, symbols and myths which take their origin in the orgy,\nand with which the world of antiquity is literally smothered, Lobeck\nfinds that it prompts him to a feat of even greater ingenuity than\nthe foregoing phenomenon did. \u201cThe Greeks,\u201d he says, (_Aglaophamus,_\nI. p. 672), \u201cwhen they had nothing better to do, laughed, sprang and\nromped about, or, inasmuch as men also like a change at times, they\nwould sit down, weep and bewail their lot Others then came up who tried\nto discover some reason for this strange behaviour; and thus, as an\nexplanation of these habits, there arose an incalculable number of\nfestivals, legends, and myths. On the other hand it was believed that\nthe _farcical performances_ which then perchance began to take place\non festival days, necessarily formed part of the celebrations, and\nthey were retained as an indispensable part of the ritual.\u201d\u2014This is\ncontemptible nonsense, and no one will take a man like Lobeck seriously\nfor a moment We are very differently affected when we examine the\nnotion \u201cHellenic,\u201d as Winckelmann and Goethe conceived it, and find it\nincompatible with that element out of which Dionysian art springs\u2014I\nspeak of orgiasm. In reality I do not doubt that Goethe would have\ncompletely excluded any such thing from the potentialities of the Greek\nsoul. _Consequently Goethe did not understand the Greeks._ For it is\nonly in the Dionysian mysteries, in the psychology of the Dionysian\nstate, that the _fundamental fact_ of the Hellenic instinct\u2014its \u201cwill\nto life\u201d\u2014is expressed. What did the Hellene secure himself with these\nmysteries? _Eternal_ life, the eternal recurrence of life; the future\npromised and hallowed in the past; the triumphant Yea to life despite\ndeath and change; real life conceived as the collective prolongation\nof life through procreation, through the mysteries of sexuality.\nTo the Greeks, the symbol of sex was the most venerated of symbols,\nthe really deep significance of all the piety of antiquity. All the\ndetails of the act of procreation, pregnancy and birth gave rise to\nthe loftiest and most solemn feelings. In the doctrine of mysteries,\n_pain_ was pronounced holy: the \u201cpains of childbirth\u201d sanctify pain in\ngeneral,\u2014all becoming and all growth, everything that guarantees the\nfuture _involves_ pain.... In order that there may be eternal joy in\ncreating, in order that the will to life may say Yea to itself in all\neternity, the \u201cpains of childbirth\u201d must also be eternal. All this is\nwhat the word Dionysus signifies: I know of no higher symbolism than\nthis Greek symbolism, this symbolism of the Dionysian phenomenon. In\nit the profoundest instinct of life, the instinct that guarantees the\nfuture of life and life eternal, is understood religiously,\u2014the road\nto life itself, procreation, is pronounced _holy,_ ... It was only\nChristianity which, with its fundamental resentment against life, made\nsomething impure out of sexuality: it flung _filth_ at the very basis,\nthe very first condition of our life.\n\n\n5\n\nThe psychology of orgiasm conceived as the feeling of a superabundance\nof vitality and strength, within the scope of which even pain _acts\nas a stimulus,_ gave me the key to the concept _tragic_ feeling,\nwhich has been misunderstood not only by Aristotle, but also even\nmore by our pessimists. Tragedy is so far from proving anything in\nregard to the pessimism of the Greeks, as Schopenhauer maintains,\nthat it ought rather to be considered as the categorical repudiation\nand _condemnation_ thereof. The saying of Yea to life, including\neven its most strange and most terrible problems, the will to life\nrejoicing over its own inexhaustibleness in the _sacrifice_ of its\nhighest types\u2014this is what I called Dionysian, this is what I\ndivined as the bridge leading to the psychology of the _tragic_ poet.\nNot in order to escape from terror and pity, not to purify one\u2019s self\nof a dangerous passion by discharging it with vehemence\u2014this is how\nAristotle understood it\u2014but to be far beyond terror and pity and to\nbe the eternal lust of Becoming itself\u2014that lust which also involves\nthe _lust of destruction._ And with this I once more come into touch\nwith the spot from which I once set out\u2014-the \u201cBirth of Tragedy\u201d was\nmy first transvaluation of all values: with this I again take my stand\nupon the soil from out of which my will and my capacity spring\u2014I, the\nlast disciple of the philosopher Dionysus,\u2014I, the prophet of eternal\nrecurrence.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nTHE HAMMER SPEAKETH\n\n\n\u201cWhy so hard!\u201d\u2014said the diamond once unto the charcoal; \u201care we then\nnot next of kin?\u201d\n\n\u201cWhy so soft? O my brethren; this is my question to you. For are ye\nnot\u2014my brothers?\n\n\u201cWhy so soft, so servile and yielding? Why are your hearts so fond of\ndenial and self-denial? How is it that so little fate looketh out from\nyour eyes?\n\n\u201cAnd if ye will not be men of fate and inexorable, how can ye hope one\nday to conquer with me?\n\n\u201cAnd if your hardness will not sparkle, cut and divide, how can ye hope\none day to create with me?\n\n\u201cFor all creators are hard. And it must seem to you blessed to stamp\nyour hand upon millenniums as upon wax,\u2014\n\n\u2014Blessed to write upon the will of millenniums as upon brass,\u2014harder\nthan brass, nobler than brass.\u2014Hard through and through is only the\nnoblest.\n\nThis new table of values, O my brethren, I set over your heads: Become\nhard.\u201d\n\n\u2014\u201cThus Spake Zarathustra,\u201d\n\nIII., 29.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ANTICHRIST\n\nAn Attempted Criticism of Christianity\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE\n\n\nThis book belongs to the very few. Maybe not one of them is yet alive;\nunless he be of those who understand my Zarathustra. How _can_ I\nconfound myself with those who to-day already find a hearing?\u2014Only the\nday after to-morrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously.\n\nI am only too well aware of the conditions under which a man\nunderstands me, and then _necessarily_ understands. He must be\nintellectually upright to the point of hardness, in order even to\nendure my seriousness and my passion. He must be used to living on\nmountain-tops,\u2014and to feeling the wretched gabble of politics and\nnational egotism _beneath_ him. He must have become indifferent; he\nmust never inquire whether truth is profitable or whether it may\nprove fatal.... Possessing from strength a predilection for questions\nfor which no one has enough courage nowadays; the courage for the\n_forbidden;_ his predestination must be the labyrinth. The experience\nof seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for the most\nremote things. A new conscience for truths which hitherto have\nremained dumb. And the will to economy on a large scale: to husband\nhis strength and his enthusiasm.... He must honour himself, he must\nlove himself; he must be absolutely free with regard to himself....\nVery well then! Such men alone are my readers, my proper readers,\nmy preordained readers: of what account are the rest?\u2014the rest are\nsimply\u2014humanity.\u2014One must be superior to humanity in power, in\nloftiness of soul,\u2014in contempt.\n\nFRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE.\n\n\n1\n\nLet us look each other in the face. We are hyperboreans,\u2014we know\nwell enough how far outside the crowd we stand. \u201cThou wilt find the\nway to the Hyperboreans neither by land nor by water\u201d: Pindar already\nknew this much about us. Beyond the north, the ice, and death\u2014_our\nlife, our happiness...._ We discovered happiness; we know the way; we\nfound the way out of thousands of years of labyrinth. Who _else_ would\nhave found it?\u2014Not the modern man, surely?\u2014\u201cI do not know where I\nam or what I am to do; I am everything that knows not where it is or\nwhat to do,\u201d\u2014sighs the modern man. We were made quite ill by _this_\nmodernity,\u2014with its indolent peace, its cowardly compromise, and the\nwhole of the virtuous filth of its Yea and Nay. This tolerance and\n_largeur de c\u0153ur_ which \u201cforgives\u201d everything because it \u201cunderstands\u201d\neverything, is a Sirocco for us. We prefer to live amid ice than to\nbe breathed upon by modern virtues and other southerly winds!... We\nwere brave enough; we spared neither ourselves nor others: but we\nwere very far from knowing whither to direct our bravery. We were\nbecoming gloomy; people called us fatalists. _Our_ fate\u2014it was the\nabundance, the tension and the storing up of power. We thirsted for\nthunderbolts and great deeds; we kept at the most respectful distance\nfrom the joy of the weakling, from \u201cresignation.\u201d ... Thunder was in\nour air, that part of nature which we are, became overcast\u2014_for we had\nno direction._ The formula of our happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight\nline, a goal.\n\n\n2\n\nWhat is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to\nPower, and power itself in man. What is bad?\u2014All that proceeds\nfrom weakness. What is happiness?\u2014The feeling that power is\n_increasing,_\u2014that resistance has been overcome.\n\nNot contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not\nvirtue, but efficiency[1] (virtue in the Renaissance sense, _virtu,_\nfree from all moralic acid). The weak and the botched shall perish:\nfirst principle of our humanity. And they ought even to be helped to\nperish.\n\nWhat is more harmful than any vice?\u2014Practical sympathy with all the\nbotched and the weak\u2014Christianity.\n\n\n3\n\nThe problem I set in this work is not what will replace mankind in the\norder of living being! (\u2014Man is an _end_\u2014); but, what type of man\nmust be _reared,_ must be _willed,_ as having the higher value, as\nbeing the most worthy of life and the surest guarantee of the future.\n\nThis more valuable type has appeared often enough already: but as a\nhappy accident, as an exception, never as _willed._ He has rather been\nprecisely the most feared; hitherto he has been almost the terrible in\nitself;\u2014and from out the very fear he provoked there arose the will\nto rear the type which has how been reared, _attained:_ the domestic\nanimal, the gregarious animal, the sick animal man,\u2014the Christian.\n\n\n4\n\nMankind does _not_ represent a development towards a better, stronger\nor higher type, in the sense in which this is supposed to occur to-day.\n\u201cProgress\u201d is merely a modern idea\u2014that is to say, a false idea.[2]\nThe modern European is still far below the European of the Renaissance\nin value. The process of evolution does not by any means imply\nelevation, enhancement and increasing strength.\n\nOn the other hand isolated and individual cases are continually\nsucceeding in different places on earth, as the outcome of the most\ndifferent cultures, and in these a _higher type_ certainly manifests\nitself: something which by the side of mankind in general, represents a\nkind of superman. Such lucky strokes of great success have always been\npossible and will perhaps always be possible. And even whole races,\ntribes and nations may in certain circumstances represent such _lucky\nstrokes._\n\n\n5\n\nWe must not deck out and adorn Christianity: it has waged a deadly\nwar upon this _higher_ type of man, it has set a ban upon all the\nfundamental instincts of this type, and has distilled evil and the\ndevil himself out of these instincts:\u2014the strong man as the typical\npariah, the villain. Christianity has sided with everything weak, low,\nand botched; it has made an ideal out of _antagonism_ towards all the\nself-preservative instincts of strong life: it has corrupted even the\nreason of the strongest intellects, by teaching that the highest values\nof intellectuality are sinful, misleading and full of temptations.\nThe most lamentable example of this was the corruption of Pascal, who\nbelieved in the perversion of his reason through original sin, whereas\nit had only been perverted by his Christianity.\n\n\n6\n\nA painful and ghastly spectacle has just risen before my eyes. I tore\ndown the curtain which concealed mankind\u2019s _corruption._ This word in\nmy mouth is at least secure from the suspicion that it contains a moral\ncharge against mankind. It is\u2014I would fain emphasise this again\u2014free\nfrom moralic acid: to such an extent is this so, that I am most\nthoroughly conscious of the corruption in question precisely in those\nquarters in which hitherto people have aspired with most determination\nto \u201cvirtue\u201d and to \u201cgodliness.\u201d As you have already surmised, I\nunderstand corruption in the sense of _decadence._ What I maintain is\nthis, that all the values upon which mankind builds its highest hopes\nand desires are _decadent_ values.\n\nI call an animal, a species, an individual corrupt, when it loses its\ninstincts, when it selects and _prefers_ that which is detrimental to\nit. A history of the \u201chigher feelings,\u201d of \u201chuman ideals\u201d\u2014and it is\nnot impossible that I shall have to write it\u2014would almost explain why\nman is so corrupt. Life itself, to my mind, is nothing more nor less\nthan the instinct of growth, of permanence, of accumulating forces,\nof power: where the will to power is lacking, degeneration sets in.\nMy contention is that all the highest values of mankind _lack_ this\nwill,\u2014that the values of decline and of _nihilism_ are exercising the\nsovereign power under the cover of the holiest names.\n\n\n7\n\nChristianity is called the religion of _pity._\u2014Pity is opposed to\nthe tonic passions which enhance the energy of the feeling of life:\nits action is depressing. A man loses power when he pities. By\nmeans of pity the drain on strength which suffering itself already\nintroduces into the world is multiplied a thousandfold. Through pity,\nsuffering itself becomes infectious; in certain circumstances it may\nlead to a total loss of life and vital energy, which is absurdly\nput of proportion to the magnitude of the cause (\u2014the case of the\ndeath of the Nazarene). This is the first standpoint; but there is a\nstill more important one. Supposing one measures pity according to\nthe value of the reactions it usually stimulates, its danger to life\nappears in a much more telling light On the whole, pity thwarts the\nlaw of development which is the law of selection. It preserves that\nwhich is ripe for death, it fights in favour of the disinherited and\nthe condemned of life; thanks to the multitude of abortions of all\nkinds which it maintains in life, it lends life itself a sombre and\nquestionable aspect. People have dared to call pity a virtue (\u2014in\nevery _noble_ culture it is considered as a weakness\u2014); people went\nstill further, they exalted it to _the_ virtue, the root and origin\nof all virtues,\u2014but, of course, what must never be forgotten is the\nfact that this was done from the standpoint of a philosophy which\nwas nihilistic, and on whose shield the device _The Denial of Life_\nwas inscribed. Schopenhauer was right in this respect: by means of\npity, life is denied and made _more worthy of denial,_\u2014pity is\nthe _praxis_ of Nihilism. I repeat, this depressing and infectious\ninstinct thwarts those instincts which aim at the preservation and\nenhancement of the value life: by _multiplying_ misery quite as much\nas by preserving all that is miserable, it is the principal agent in\npromoting decadence,\u2014pity exhorts people to nothing, to _nonentity!_\nBut they do not say \u201c_nonentity_\u201d they say \u201cBeyond,\u201d or \u201cGod,\u201d or \u201cthe\ntrue life\u201d; or Nirvana, or Salvation, or Blessedness, instead. This\ninnocent rhetoric, which belongs to the realm of the religio-moral\nidiosyncrasy, immediately appears to be _very much less innocent_ if\none realises what the tendency is which here tries to drape itself in\nthe mantle of sublime expressions\u2014the tendency of hostility to life.\nSchopenhauer was hostile to life: that is why he elevated pity to a\nvirtue.... Aristotle, as you know, recognised in pity a morbid and\ndangerous state, of which it was wise to rid one\u2019s self from time to\ntime by a purgative: he regarded tragedy as a purgative. For the sake\nof the instinct of life, it would certainly seem necessary to find some\nmeans of lancing any such morbid and dangerous accumulation of pity, as\nthat which possessed Schopenhauer (and unfortunately the whole of our\nliterary and artistic decadence as well, from St Petersburg to Paris,\nfrom Tolstoi to Wagner), if only to make it _burst...._ Nothing is\nmore unhealthy in the midst of our unhealthy modernity, than Christian\npity. To be doctors _here,_ to be inexorable _here,_ to wield the knife\neffectively _here,\u2014_ all this is our business, all this is _our_\nkind of love to our fellows, this is what makes _us_ philosophers, us\nhyperboreans!\u2014\n\n\n8\n\nIt is necessary to state whom we regard as our antithesis:\u2014the\ntheologians, and all those who have the blood of theologians in their\nveins\u2014the whole of our philosophy.... A man must have had his very\nnose upon this fatality, or better still he must have experienced it\nin his own soul; he must almost have perished through it, in order\nto be unable to treat this matter lightly (\u2014the free-spiritedness\nof our friends the naturalists and physiologists is, in my opinion,\na _joke,_\u2014what they lack in these questions is passion, what they\nlack is having suffered from these questions\u2014). This poisoning\nextends much further than people think: I unearthed the \u201carrogant\u201d\ninstinct of the theologian, wherever nowadays people feel themselves\nidealists,\u2014wherever, thanks to superior antecedents, they claim the\nright to rise above reality and to regard it with suspicion.... Like\nthe priest the idealist has every grandiloquent concept in his hand\n(\u2014and not only in his hand!), he wields them all with kindly contempt\nagainst the \u201cunderstanding,\u201d the \u201csenses,\u201d \u201chonours,\u201d \u201cdecent living,\u201d\n\u201cscience\u201d; he regards such things as _beneath_ him, as detrimental and\nseductive forces, upon the face of which, \u201cthe Spirit\u201d moves in pure\nabsoluteness:\u2014as if humility, chastity, poverty, in a word _holiness,_\nhad not done incalculably more harm to life hitherto, than any sort of\nhorror and vice.... Pure spirit is pure falsehood.... As long as the\npriest, the _professional_ denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is\nconsidered as the _highest_ kind of man, there can be no answer to the\nquestion, what _is_ truth? Truth has already been turned topsy-turvy,\nwhen the conscious advocate of nonentity and of denial passes as the\nrepresentative of \u201ctruth.\u201d\n\n\n9\n\nIt is upon this theological instinct that I wage war. I find traces\nof it everywhere. Whoever has the blood of theologians in his veins,\nstands from the start in a false and dishonest position to all things.\nThe pathos which grows out of this state, is called _Faith:_ that is\nto say, to shut one\u2019s eyes once and for all, in order not to suffer\nat the sight of incurable falsity. People convert this faulty view of\nall things into a moral, a virtue, a thing of holiness. They endow\ntheir distorted vision with a good conscience,\u2014they claim that no\n_other_ point of view is any longer of value, once theirs has been\nmade sacrosanct with the names \u201cGod,\u201d \u201cSalvation,\u201d \u201cEternity.\u201d I\nunearthed the instinct of the theologian everywhere: it is the most\nuniversal, and actually the most subterranean form of falsity on earth.\nThat which a theologian considers true, _must_ of necessity be false:\nthis furnishes almost the criterion of truth. It is his most profound\nself-preservative instinct which forbids reality ever to attain to\nhonour in any way, or even to raise its voice. Whithersoever the\ninfluence of the theologian extends, _valuations_ are topsy-turvy,\nand the concepts \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cfalse\u201d have necessarily changed places:\nthat which is most deleterious to life, is here called \u201ctrue,\u201d that\nwhich enhances it, elevates it, says Yea to it, justifies it and\nrenders it triumphant, is called \u201cfalse.\u201d ... If it should happen that\ntheologians, _via_ the \u201cconscience\u201d either of princes or of the people,\nstretch out their hand for power, let us not be in any doubt as to\nwhat results therefrom each time, namely:\u2014the will to the end, the\n_nihilistic_ will to power....\n\n\n10\n\nAmong Germans I am immediately understood when I say, that philosophy\nis ruined by the blood of theologians. The Protestant minister is\nthe grand-father of German philosophy, Protestantism itself is the\nlatter\u2019s _peccatum originale._ Definition of Protestantism: the\npartial paralysis of Christianity\u2014and of reason.... One needs only to\npronounce the words \u201cT\u00fcbingen Seminary,\u201d in order to understand what\nGerman philosophy really is at bottom, theology _in disguise_.... The\nSwabians are the best liars in Germany, they lie innocently.... Whence\ncame all the rejoicing with which the appearance of Kant was greeted\nby the scholastic world of Germany, three-quarters of which consist of\nclergymen\u2019s and schoolmasters\u2019 sons? Whence came the German conviction,\nwhich finds an echo even now, that Kant inaugurated a change for the\n_better?_ The theologian\u2019s instinct in the German scholar divined what\nhad once again been made possible.... A back-staircase leading into\nthe old ideal was discovered, the concept \u201ctrue world,\u201d the concept\nmorality as the _essence_ of the world (\u2014those two most vicious errors\nthat have ever existed!), were, thanks to a subtle and wily scepticism,\nonce again, if not demonstrable, at least no longer _refutable...._\nReason, the _prerogative_ of reason, does not extend so far.... Out of\nreality they had made \u201cappearance\u201d; and an absolutely false world\u2014that\nof being\u2014had been declared to be reality. Kant\u2019s success is merely a\ntheologian\u2019s success. Like Luther, and like Leibniz, Kant was one brake\nthe more upon the already squeaky wheel of German uprightness.\n\n\n11\n\nOne word more against Kant as a _moralist._ A virtue _must_ be _our_\ninvention, our most personal defence and need: in every other sense it\nis merely a danger. That which does not constitute a condition of our\nlife, is merely harmful to it: to possess a virtue merely because one\nhappens to respect the concept \u201cvirtue,\u201d as Kant would have us do, is\npernicious. \u201cVirtue,\u201d \u201cDuty,\u201d \u201cGoodness in itself,\u201d goodness stamped\nwith the character of impersonality and universal validity\u2014these\nthings are mere mental hallucinations, in which decline the final\ndevitalisation of life and K\u00f6nigsbergian Chinadom find expression. The\nmost fundamental laws of preservation and growth, demand precisely the\nreverse, namely:\u2014that each should discover _his_ own virtue, his own\nCategorical Imperative. A nation goes to the dogs when it confounds\nits concept of duty with the general concept of duty. Nothing is more\nprofoundly, more thoroughly pernicious, than every impersonal feeling\nof duty, than every sacrifice to the Moloch of abstraction.\u2014Fancy no\none\u2019s having thought Kant\u2019s Categorical Imperative _dangerous to life!_\n... The instinct of the theologist alone took it under its wing!\u2014An\naction stimulated by the instinct of life, is proved to be a proper\naction by the happiness that accompanies it: and that nihilist with the\nbowels of a Christian dogmatist regarded happiness as an _objection\n..._. What is there that destroys a man more speedily than to work,\nthink, feel, as an automaton of \u201cduty,\u201d without internal promptings,\nwithout a profound personal predilection, without joy? This is the\nrecipe _par excellence_ of decadence and even of idiocy.... Kant became\nan idiot\u2014And he was the contemporary of Goethe! This fatal spider was\nregarded as _the_ German philosopher,\u2014is still regarded as such!... I\nrefrain from saying what I think of the Germans.... Did Kant not see in\nthe French Revolution the transition of the State from the inorganic to\nthe _organic_ form? Did he not ask himself whether there was a single\nevent on record which could be explained otherwise than as a moral\nfaculty of mankind; so that by means of it, \u201cmankind\u2019s tendency towards\ngood,\u201d might be _proved_ once and for all? Kant\u2019s reply: \u201cthat is the\nRevolution.\u201d Instinct at fault in anything and everything, hostility to\nnature as an instinct, German decadence made into philosophy_\u2014that is\nKant!_\n\n\n12\n\nExcept for a few sceptics, the respectable type in the history of\nphilosophy, the rest do not know the very first pre-requisite of\nintellectual uprightness. They all behave like females, do these great\nenthusiasts and animal prodigies,\u2014they regard \u201cbeautiful feelings\u201d\nthemselves as arguments, the \u201cheaving breast\u201d as the bellows of\ndivinity, and conviction as the _criterion_ of truth. In the end,\neven Kant, with \u201cTeutonic\u201d innocence, tried to dress this lack of\nintellectual conscience up in a scientific garb by means of the concept\n\u201cpractical reason.\u201d He deliberately invented a kind of reason which\nat times would allow one to dispense with reason, that is to say when\n\u201cmorality,\u201d when the sublime command \u201cthou shalt,\u201d makes itself heard.\nWhen one remembers that in almost all nations the philosopher is only a\nfurther development of the priestly type, this heirloom of priesthood,\nthis _fraud towards one\u2019s self,_ no longer surprises one. When a man\nhas a holy life-task, as for instance to improve, save, or deliver\nmankind, when a man bears God in his breast, and is the mouthpiece of\nimperatives from another world,\u2014with such a mission he stands beyond\nthe pale of all merely reasonable valuations. He is even sanctified by\nsuch a taste, and is already the type of a higher order! What does a\npriest care about science! He stands too high for that!\u2014And until now\nthe priest has _ruled!_\u2014He it was who determined the concept \u201ctrue\nand false.\u201d\n\n\n13\n\nDo not let us undervalue the fact that we _ourselves,_ we free spirits,\nare already a \u201ctransvaluation of all values,\u201d an incarnate declaration\nof war against all the old concepts \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cuntrue\u201d and of a\ntriumph over them. The most valuable standpoints are always the last\nto be found: but the most valuable standpoints are the methods. AH the\nmethods and the first principles of our modern scientific procedure,\nhad for years to encounter the profoundest contempt: association\nwith them meant exclusion from the society of decent people\u2014one was\nregarded as an \u201cenemy of God,\u201d as a scoffer at truth and as \u201cone\npossessed.\u201d With one\u2019s scientific nature, one belonged to the Chandala.\nWe have had the whole feeling of mankind against us; hitherto their\nnotion of that which ought to be truth, of that which ought to serve\nthe purpose of truth: every \u201cthou shalt,\u201d has been directed against\nus.... Our objects, our practices, our calm, cautious distrustful\nmanner\u2014everything about us seemed to them absolutely despicable and\nbeneath contempt After all, it might be asked with some justice,\nwhether the thing which kept mankind blindfold so long, were not an\n\u00e6sthetic taste: what they demanded of truth was a _picturesque_ effect,\nand from the man of science what they expected was that he should make\na forcible appeal to their senses. It was our _modesty_ which ran\ncounter to their taste so long ... And oh! how well they guessed this,\ndid these divine turkey-cocks!\u2014\n\n\n14\n\nWe have altered our standpoint. In every respect we have become\nmore modest We no longer derive man from the \u201cspirit,\u201d and from the\n\u201cgodhead\u201d; we have thrust him back among the beasts. We regard him as\nthe strongest animal, because he is the craftiest: one of the results\nthereof is his intellectuality. On the other hand we guard against the\nvain pretension, which even here would fain assert itself: that man is\nthe great _arri\u00e8re pens\u00e9e_ of organic evolution! He is by no means the\ncrown of creation, beside him, every other creature stands at the same\nstage of perfection.... And even in asserting this we go a little too\nfar; for, relatively speaking, man is the most botched and diseased\nof animals, and he has wandered furthest from his instincts. Be all\nthis as it may, he is certainly the most _interesting!_ As regards\nanimals, Descartes was the first, with really admirable daring, to\nventure the thought that the beast was _machina,_ and the whole of\nour physiology is endeavouring to prove this proposition. Moreover,\nlogically we do not set man apart, as Descartes did: the extent\nto which man is understood to-day goes only so far as he has been\nunderstood mechanistically. Formerly man was given \u201cfree will,\u201d as his\ndowry from a higher sphere; nowadays we have robbed him even of will,\nin view of the fact that no such faculty is any longer known. The only\npurpose served by the old word \u201cwill,\u201d is to designate a result, a\nsort of individual reaction which necessarily follows upon a host of\npartly discordant and partly harmonious stimuli:\u2014the will no longer\n\u201ceffects\u201d or \u201cmoves\u201d anything.... Formerly people thought that man\u2019s\nconsciousness, his \u201cspirit,\u201d was a proof of his lofty origin, of his\ndivinity. With the idea of perfecting man, he was conjured to draw his\nsenses inside himself, after the manner of the tortoise, to cut off all\nrelations with terrestrial things, and to divest himself of his mortal\nshell. Then the most important thing about him, the \u201cpure spirit,\u201d\nwould remain over. Even concerning these things we have improved our\nstandpoint Consciousness, \u201cspirit,\u201d now seems to us rather a symptom of\nrelative imperfection in the organism, as an experiment, a groping, a\nmisapprehension, an affliction which absorbs an unnecessary quantity of\nnervous energy. We deny that anything can be done perfectly so long as\nit is done consciously. \u201cPure spirit\u201d is a piece of \u201cpure stupidity\u201d:\nif we discount the nervous system, the senses and the \u201cmortal shell,\u201d\nwe have miscalculated\u2014that it is all!...\n\n\n15\n\nIn Christianity neither morality nor religion comes in touch at all\nwith reality. Nothing but imaginary _causes_ (God, the soul, the ego,\nspirit, free will\u2014or even non-free will); nothing but imaginary\n_effects_ (sin, salvation, grace, punishment, forgiveness of sins).\nImaginary beings are supposed to have intercourse (God, spirits,\nsouls); imaginary Natural History (anthropocentric: total lack of\nthe notion \u201cnatural causes\u201d); an imaginary _psychology_ (nothing\nbut misunderstandings of self, interpretations of pleasant or\nunpleasant general feelings; for instance of the states of the _nervus\nsympathicus,_ with the help of the sign language of a religio-moral\nidiosyncrasy,\u2014repentance, pangs of conscience, the temptation of\nthe devil, the presence of God); an imaginary teleology (the Kingdom\nof God, the Last Judgment, Everlasting Life).\u2014This purely fictitious\nworld distinguishes itself very unfavourably from the world of\ndreams: the latter _reflects_ reality, whereas the former falsifies,\ndepreciates and denies it Once the concept \u201cnature\u201d was taken to mean\nthe opposite of the concept God, the word \u201cnatural\u201d had to acquire the\nmeaning of abominable,\u2014the whole of that fictitious world takes its\nroot in the hatred of nature (\u2014reality!\u2014), it is the expression of\nprofound discomfiture in the presence of reality.... _But this explains\neverything._ What is the only kind of man who has reasons for wriggling\nout of reality by lies? The man who suffers from reality. But in\norder to suffer from reality one must be a bungled portion of it. The\npreponderance of pain over pleasure is the _cause_ of that fictitious\nmorality and religion: but any such preponderance furnishes the formula\nfor decadence.\n\n\n16\n\nA criticism of the Christian concept of God inevitably leads to the\nsame conclusion.\u2014A nation that still believes in itself, also has\nits own God. In him it honours the conditions which enable it to\nremain uppermost,\u2014that is to say, its virtues. It projects its joy\nover itself, its feeling of power, into a being, to whom it can be\nthankful for such things. He who is rich, will give of his riches: a\nproud people requires a God, unto whom it can _sacrifice_ things....\nReligion, when restricted to these principles, is a form of gratitude.\nA man is grateful for his own existence; for this he must have a\nGod.\u2014Such a God must be able to benefit and to injure him, he must be\nable to act the friend and the foe. He must be esteemed for his good\nas well as for his evil qualities. The monstrous castration of a God\nby making him a God only of goodness, would lie beyond the pale of the\ndesires of such a community. The evil God is just as urgently needed\nas the good God: for a people in such a form of society certainly does\nnot owe its existence to toleration and humaneness.... What would be\nthe good of a God who knew nothing of anger, revenge, envy, scorn,\ncraft, and violence?\u2014who had perhaps never experienced the rapturous\n_ardeurs_ of victory and of annihilation? No one would understand such\na God: why should one possess him?\u2014Of course, when a people is on\nthe road to ruin; when it feels its belief in a future, its hope of\nfreedom vanishing for ever; when it becomes conscious of submission\nas the most useful quality, and of the virtues of the submissive as\nself-preservative measures, then its God must also modify himself.\nHe then becomes a tremulous and unassuming sneak; he counsels \u201cpeace\nof the soul,\u201d the cessation of all hatred, leniency and \u201clove\u201d even\ntowards friend and foe. He is for ever moralising, he crawls into\nthe heart of every private virtue, becomes a God for everybody, he\nretires from active service and becomes a Cosmopolitan.... Formerly\nhe represented a people, the strength of a people, everything\naggressive and desirous of power lying concealed in the heart of a\nnation: now he is merely the good God.... In very truth Gods have no\nother alternative, they are _either_ the Will to Power\u2014in which case\nthey are always the Gods of whole nations,\u2014or, on the other hand, the\nincapacity for power\u2014in which case they necessarily become good.\n\n\n17\n\nWherever the Will to Power, no matter in what form, begins to decline,\na physiological retrogression, decadence, always supervenes. The\ngodhead of _decadence,_ shorn of its masculine virtues and passions\nis perforce converted into the God of the physiologically degraded,\nof the weak. Of course they do not call themselves the weak, they\ncall themselves \u201cthe good.\u201d ... No hint will be necessary to help you\nto understand at what moment in history the dualistic fiction of a\ngood and an evil God first became possible. With the same instinct by\nwhich the subjugated reduce their God to \u201cGoodness in itself,\u201d they\nalso cancel the good qualities from their conqueror\u2019s God; they avenge\nthemselves on their masters by diabolising the latter\u2019s God.\u2014The _good\nGod_ and the devil as well:\u2014both the abortions of decadence.\u2014How\nis it possible that we are still so indulgent towards the simplicity\nof Christian theologians to-day, as to declare with them that the\nevolution of the concept God, from the \u201cGod of Israel,\u201d the God of\na people, to the Christian God, the quintessence of all goodness,\nmarks a _step forward?_\u2014But even Renan does this. As if Renan had\na right to simplicity! Why the very contrary stares one in the face.\nWhen the pre-requisites of _ascending_ life, when everything strong,\nplucky, masterful and proud has been eliminated from the concept\nof God, and step by step he has sunk down to the symbol of a staff\nfor the weary, of a last straw for all those who are drowning; when\nhe becomes the pauper\u2019s God, the sinner\u2019s God, the sick man\u2019s God\n_par excellence,_ and the attribute \u201cSaviour,\u201d \u201cRedeemer,\u201d remains\n_over_ as the one essential attribute of divinity: what does such a\nmetamorphosis, such an abasement of the godhead imply?\u2014Undoubtedly,\n\u201cthe kingdom of God\u201d has thus become larger. Formerly all he had was\nhis people, his \u201cchosen\u201d people. Since then he has gone travelling\nover foreign lands, just as his people have done; since then he has\nnever rested anywhere: until one day he felt at home everywhere, the\nGreat Cosmopolitan,\u2014until he got the \u201cgreatest number,\u201d and half the\nworld on his side. But the God of the \u201cgreatest number,\u201d the democrat\namong gods, did not become a proud heathen god notwithstanding: he\nremained a Jew, he remained the God of the back streets, the God of\nall dark corners and hovels, of all the unwholesome quarters of the\nworld!... His universal empire is now as ever a netherworld empire,\nan infirmary, a subterranean empire, a ghetto-empire.... And he\nhimself is so pale, so weak, so decadent ... Even the palest of the\npale were able to master him\u2014our friends the metaphysicians, those\nalbinos of thought. They spun their webs around him so long that\nultimately he was hypnotised by their movements and himself became a\nspider, a metaphysician. Thenceforward he once more began spinning the\nworld out of his inner being\u2014_sub specie Spinoz\u00e6,_\u2014thenceforward\nhe transfigured himself into something ever thinner and ever more\nan\u00e6mic, became \u201cideal,\u201d became \u201cpure spirit,\u201d became _\u201cabsotutum\u201d_ and\n\u201cthing-in-itself.\u201d ... _The decline and fall of a god:_ God became the\n\u201cthing-in-itself.\u201d\n\n\n18\n\nThe Christian concept of God\u2014God as the deity of the sick, God as a\nspider, God as spirit\u2014is one of the most corrupt concepts of God that\nhas ever been attained on earth. Maybe it represents the low-water\nmark in the evolutionary ebb of the godlike type God degenerated into\nthe _contradiction of life,_ instead of being its transfiguration and\neternal Yea! With God war is declared on life, nature, and the will to\nlife! God is the formula for every calumny of this world and for every\nlie concerning a beyond! In God, nonentity is deified, and the will to\nnonentity is declared holy!\n\n\n19\n\nThe fact that the strong races of Northern Europe did not repudiate\nthe Christian God, certainly does not do any credit to their religious\npower, not to speak of their taste They ought to have been able\nsuccessfully to cope with such a morbid and decrepit offshoot of\ndecadence. And a curse lies on their heads; because they were unable to\ncope with him: they made illness, decrepitude and contradiction a part\nof all their instincts,\u2014since then they have not _created_ any other\nGod! Two thousand years have passed and not a single new God! But still\nthere exists, and as if by right,\u2014like an _ultimum_ and _maximum_ of\ngod-creating power,\u2014the _creator spiritus_ in man, this miserable God\nof Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid creature of decay, nonentity,\nconcept and contradiction, in which all the instincts of decadence, all\nthe cowardices and languors of the soul find their sanction!\u2014\u2014\n\n\n20\n\nWith my condemnation of Christianity I should not like to have done\nan injustice to a religion which is related to it and the number of\nwhose followers is even greater; I refer to Buddhism. As nihilistic\nreligions, they are akin,\u2014they are religions of decadence,\u2014while\neach is separated from the other in the most extraordinary fashion.\nFor being able to compare them at all, the critic of Christianity is\nprofoundly grateful to Indian scholars.\u2014Buddhism is a hundred times\nmore realistic than Christianity,\u2014it is part of its constitutional\nheritage to be able to face problems objectively and coolly, it is\nthe outcome of centuries of lasting philosophical activity. The\nconcept \u201cGod\u201d was already exploded when it appeared. Buddhism is\nthe only really _positive_ religion to be found in history, even\nin its epistemology (which is strict phenomenalism)\u2014it no longer\nspeaks of the \u201cstruggle with _sin_\u201d but fully recognising the true\nnature of reality it speaks of the \u201cstruggle with _pain._\u201d It already\nhas\u2014and this distinguishes it fundamentally from Christianity,\u2014the\nself-deception of moral concepts beneath it,\u2014to use my own\nphraseology, it stands _Beyond Good and Evil._ The two physiological\nfacts upon which it rests and upon which it bestows its attention\nare: in the first place excessive irritability of feeling, which\nmanifests itself as a refined susceptibility to pain, _and also_ as\nsuper-spiritualisation, an all-too-lengthy sojourn amid concepts and\nlogical procedures, under the influence of which the personal instinct\nhas suffered in favour of the \u201cimpersonal.\u201d (\u2014Both of these states\nwill be known to a few of my readers, the objective ones, who, like\nmyself, will know them from experience.) Thanks to these physiological\nconditions, a state of depression set in, which Buddha sought to combat\nby means of hygiene. Against it, he prescribes life in the open, a life\nof travel; moderation and careful choice in food; caution in regard to\nall intoxicating liquor, as also in regard to all the passions which\ntend to create bile and to heat the blood; and he deprecates care\neither on one\u2019s own or on other people\u2019s account He recommends ideas\nthat bring one either peace or good cheer,\u2014he invents means whereby\nthe habit of contrary ideas may be lost He understands goodness\u2014being\ngood\u2014as promoting health. _Prayer_ is out of the question, as is\nalso _asceticism;_ there is neither a Categorical Imperative nor any\ndiscipline whatsoever, even within the walls of a monastery (\u2014it is\nalways possible to leave it if one wants to). All these things would\nhave been only a means of accentuating the excessive irritability\nalready referred to. Precisely on this account he does not exhort his\nfollowers to wage war upon those who do not share their views; nothing\nis more abhorred in his doctrine than the feeling of revenge, of\naversion, and of resentment (\u2014\u201cnot through hostility doth hostility\nend\u201d: the touching refrain of the whole of Buddhism....) And in this\nhe was right; for it is precisely these passions which are thoroughly\nunhealthy in view of the principal dietetic object The mental fatigue\nwhich he finds already existent and which expresses itself in\nexcessive \u201cobjectivity\u201d (_i.e._, the enfeeblement of the individual\u2019s\ninterest\u2014loss of ballast and of \u201cegoism\u201d), he combats by leading\nthe spiritual interests as well imperatively back to the individual\nIn Buddha\u2019s doctrine egoism is a duty: the thing which is above all\nnecessary, _i.e.,_ \u201chow canst thou be rid of suffering\u201d regulates\nand defines the whole of the spiritual diet (\u2014let anyone but think\nof that Athenian who also declared war upon pure \u201cscientificality,\u201d\nSocrates, who made a morality out of personal egoism even in the realm\nof problems).\n\n\n21\n\nThe pre-requisites for Buddhism are a very mild climate, great\ngentleness and liberality in the customs of a people and _no_\nmilitarism. The movement must also originate among the higher and\neven learned classes. Cheerfulness, peace and absence of desire, are\nthe highest of inspirations, and they are _realised._ Buddhism is not\na religion in which perfection is merely aspired to: perfection is\nthe normal case. In Christianity all the instincts of the subjugated\nand oppressed come to the fore: it is the lowest classes who seek\ntheir salvation in this religion. Here the pastime, the manner of\nkilling time is to practise the casuistry of sin, self-criticism, and\nconscience inquisition. Here the ecstasy in the presence of a _powerful\nbeing,_ called \u201cgod,\u201d is constantly maintained by means of prayer;\nwhile the highest thing is regarded as unattainable, as a gift, as an\nact of \u201cgrace\u201d Here plain dealing is also entirely lacking: concealment\nand the darkened room are Christian. Here the body is despised, hygiene\nis repudiated as sensual; the church repudiates even cleanliness (\u2014the\nfirst Christian measure after the banishment of the Moors was the\nclosing of the public baths, of which Cordova alone possessed 270).\nA certain spirit of cruelty towards one\u2019s self and others is also\nChristian: hatred of all those who do not share one\u2019s views; the will\nto persecute Sombre and exciting ideas are in the foreground; the most\ncoveted states and those which are endowed with the finest names, are\nreally epileptic in their nature; diet is selected in such a way as\nto favour morbid symptoms and to over-excite the nerves. Christian,\ntoo, is the mortal hatred of the earth\u2019s rulers,\u2014the \u201cnoble,\u201d\u2014and\nat the same time a sort of concealed and secret competition with them\n(the subjugated leave the \u201cbody\u201d to their master\u2014all they want is\nthe \u201csoul\u201d). Christian is the hatred of the intellect, of pride, of\ncourage, freedom, intellectual _libertinage;_ Christian is the hatred\nof the _senses,_ of the joys of the senses, of joy in general.\n\n\n22\n\nWhen Christianity departed from its native soil, which consisted of the\nlowest classes, the _submerged masses_ of the ancient world, and set\nforth in quest of power among barbaric nations, it no longer met with\nexhausted men but inwardly savage and self-lacerating men\u2014the strong\nbut bungled men. Here, dissatisfaction with one\u2019s self, suffering\nthrough one\u2019s self, is not as in the case of Buddhism, excessive\nirritability and susceptibility to pain, but rather, conversely, it\nis an inordinate desire for inflicting pain, for a discharge of the\ninner tension in hostile deeds and ideas. Christianity was in need of\n_barbaric_ ideas and values, in order to be able to master barbarians:\nsuch are for instance, the sacrifice of the first-born, the drinking\nof blood at communion, the contempt of the intellect and of culture;\ntorture in all its forms, sensual and non-sensual; the great pomp of\nthe cult Buddhism is a religion for _senile_ men, for races which\nhave become kind, gentle, and over-spiritual, and which feel pain too\neasily (\u2014Europe is not nearly ripe for it yet\u2014); it calls them back\nto peace and cheerfulness, to a regimen for the intellect, to a certain\nhardening of the body. Christianity aims at mastering _beasts of prey_;\nits expedient is to make them _ill,_\u2014to render feeble is the Christian\nrecipe for taming, for \u201ccivilisation.\u201d Buddhism is a religion for the\nclose and exhaustion of civilisation; Christianity does not even find\ncivilisation at hand when it appears, in certain circumstances it lays\nthe foundation of civilisation.\n\n\n23\n\nBuddhism, I repeat, is a hundred times colder, more truthful,\nmore objective. It no longer requires to justify pain and its\nsusceptibility to suffering by the interpretation of sin,\u2014it simply\nsays what it thinks, \u201cI suffer.\u201d To the barbarian, on the other hand,\nsuffering in itself is not a respectable thing: in order to acknowledge\nto himself that he suffers, what he requires, in the first place, is\nan explanation (his instinct directs him more readily to deny his\nsuffering, or to endure it in silence). In his case, the word \u201cdevil\u201d\nwas a blessing: man had an almighty and terrible enemy,\u2014he had no\nreason to be ashamed of suffering at the hands of such an enemy.\u2014\n\nAt bottom there are in Christianity one or two subtleties which belong\nto the Orient In the first place it knows that it is a matter of\nindifference whether a thing be true or not; but that it is of the\nhighest importance that it should be believed to be true. Truth and\nthe belief that something is true: two totally separate worlds of\ninterest, almost _opposite worlds,_ the road to the one and the road to\nthe other lie absolutely apart To be initiated into this fact almost\nconstitutes one a sage in the Orient: the Brahmins understood it thus,\nso did Plato, and so does every disciple of esoteric wisdom. If for\nexample it give anyone pleasure to believe himself delivered from sin,\nit is _not_ a necessary prerequisite thereto that he should be sinful,\nbut only that he should _feel_ sinful. If, however, _faith_ is above\nall necessary, then reason, knowledge, and scientific research must be\nbrought into evil repute: the road to truth becomes the _forbidden_\nroad.\u2014Strong _hope_ is a much greater stimulant of life than any\nsingle realised joy could be. Sufferers must be sustained by a hope\nwhich no actuality can contradict,\u2014and which cannot ever be realised:\nthe hope of another world. (Precisely on account of this power that\nhope has of making the unhappy linger on, the Greeks regarded it as\nthe evil of evils, as the most _mischievous_ evil: it remained behind\nin Pandora\u2019s box.) In order that _love_ may be possible, God must be a\nperson. In order that the lowest instincts may also make their voices\nheard God must be young. For the ardour of the women a beautiful saint,\nand for the ardour of the men a Virgin Mary has to be pressed into the\nforeground. All this on condition that Christianity wishes to rule\nover a certain soil, on which Aphrodisiac or Adonis cults had already\ndetermined the _notion_ of a cult. To insist upon _chastity_ only\nintensifies the vehemence and profundity of the religious instinct\u2014it\nmakes the cult warmer, more enthusiastic, more soulful.\u2014Love is the\nstate in which man sees things most widely different from what they\nare. The force of illusion reaches its zenith here, as likewise the\nsweetening and transfiguring power. When a man is in love he endures\nmore than at other times; he submits to everything. The thing was to\ndiscover a religion in which it was possible to love: by this means\nthe worst in life is overcome\u2014it is no longer even seen.\u2014So much\nfor three Christian virtues Faith, Hope, and Charity: I call them the\nthree Christian _precautionary measures._\u2014Buddhism is too full of aged\nwisdom, too positivistic to be shrewd in this way.\n\n\n24\n\nHere I only touch upon the problem of the origin of Christianity.\nThe first principle of its solution reads: Christianity can be\nunderstood only in relation to the soil out of which it grew,\u2014it is\nnot a counter-movement against the Jewish instinct, it is the rational\noutcome of the latter, one step further in its appalling logic. In\nthe formula of the Saviour: \u201cfor Salvation is of the Jews.\u201d\u2014The\nsecond principle is: the psychological type of the Galilean is still\nrecognisable, but it was only in a state of utter degeneration (which\nis at once a distortion and an overloading with foreign features) that\nhe was able to serve the purpose for which he has been used,\u2014namely,\nas the type of a Redeemer of mankind.\n\nThe Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world,\nbecause when they were confronted with the question of Being or\nnon-Being, with simply uncanny deliberateness, they preferred Being\n_at any price:_ this price was the fundamental _falsification_ of all\nNature, all the naturalness and all the reality, of the inner quite\nas much as of the outer world. They hedged themselves in behind all\nthose conditions under which hitherto a people has been able to live,\nhas been allowed to live; of themselves they created an idea which was\nthe reverse of _natural_ conditions,\u2014each in turn, they twisted first\nreligion, then the cult, then morality, history and psychology, about\nin a manner so perfectly hopeless that they were made _to contradict\ntheir natural value._ We meet with the same phenomena again, and\nexaggerated to an incalculable degree, although only as a copy:\u2014the\nChristian Church as compared with the \u201cchosen people,\u201d lacks all\nclaim to originality. Precisely on this account the Jews are the most\n_fatal_ people in the history of the world: their ultimate influence\nhas falsified mankind to such an extent, that even to this day the\nChristian can be anti-Semitic in spirit, without comprehending that he\nhimself is the _final consequence of Judaism._\n\nIt was in my \u201cGenealogy of Morals\u201d that I first gave a\npsychological exposition of the idea of the antithesis noble and\n_resentment-morality,_ the latter having arisen out of an attitude\nof negation to the former: but this is Jud\u00e6o-Christian morality\nheart and soul. In order to be able to say Nay to everything that\nrepresents the ascending movement of life, prosperity, power,\nbeauty, and self-affirmation on earth, the instinct of resentment,\nbecome genius, bad to invent _another_ world, from the standpoint\nof which that _Yea-saying_ to life appeared as _the_ most evil and\nmost abominable thing. From the psychological standpoint the Jewish\npeople are possessed of the toughest vitality. Transplanted amid\nimpossible conditions, with profound self-preservative intelligence,\nit voluntarily took the side of all the instincts of decadence,\u2014_not_\nas though dominated by them, but because it detected a power in them\nby means of which it could assert itself _against_ \u201cthe world.\u201d The\nJews are the opposite of all _decadents_: they have been forced to\nrepresent them to the point of illusion, and with a _non plus ultra_ of\nhistrionic genius, they have known how to set themselves at the head\nof all decadent movements (St Paul and Christianity for instance), in\norder to create something from them which is stronger than every party\n_saying Yea to life._ For the category of men which aspires to power in\nJudaism and Christianity,\u2014that is to say, for the sacerdotal class,\ndecadence is but a _means;_ this category of men has a vital interest\nin making men sick, and in turning the notions \u201cgood\u201d and \u201cbad,\u201d \u201ctrue\u201d\nand \u201cfalse,\u201d upside down in a manner which is not only dangerous to\nlife, but also slanders it.\n\n\n25\n\nThe history of Israel is invaluable as the typical history of every\n_denaturalization_ of natural values: let me point to five facts\nwhich relate thereto. Originally, and above all in the period of\nthe kings, even Israel\u2019s attitude to all things was the _right_ one\n\u2014that is to say, the natural one. Its Jehovah was the expression of\nits consciousness of power, of its joy over itself, of its hope for\nitself: victory and salvation were expected from him, through him it\nwas confident that Nature would give what a people requires\u2014above\nall rain. Jehovah is the God of Israel, and _consequently_ the God\nof justice: this is the reasoning of every people which is in the\nposition of power, and which has a good conscience in that position. In\nthe solemn cult both sides of this self-affirmation of a people find\nexpression: it is grateful for the great strokes of fate by means of\nwhich it became uppermost; it is grateful for the regularity in the\nsuccession of the seasons and for all good fortune in the rearing of\ncattle and in the tilling of the soil.\u2014This state of affairs remained\nthe ideal for some considerable time, even after it had been swept away\nin a deplorable manner by anarchy from within and the Assyrians from\nwithout But the people still retained, as their highest desideratum,\nthat vision of a king who was a good soldier and a severe judge;\nand he who retained it most of all was that typical prophet (\u2014that\nis to say, critic and satirist of the age), Isaiah.\u2014But all hopes\nremained unrealised. The old God was no longer able to do what he had\ndone formerly. He ought to have been dropped. What happened? The idea\nof him was changed,\u2014the idea of him was denaturalised: this was the\nprice they paid for retaining him.\u2014Jehovah, the God of \u201cJustice,\u201d\u2014is\nno longer one with Israel, no longer the expression of a people\u2019s\nsense of dignity: he is only a god on certain conditions.... The\nidea of him becomes a weapon in the hands of priestly agitators who\nhenceforth interpret all happiness as a reward, all unhappiness as a\npunishment for disobedience to God, for \u201csin\u201d: that most fraudulent\nmethod of interpretation which arrives at a so-called \u201cmoral order\nof the Universe,\u201d by means of which the concept \u201ccause\u201d and \u201ceffect\u201d\nis turned upside down. Once natural causation has been swept out of\nthe world by reward and punishment, a causation _hostile to nature_\nbecomes necessary; whereupon all the forms of unnaturalness follow.\nA God who _demands,_\u2014in the place of a God who helps, who advises,\nwho is at bottom only a name for every happy inspiration of courage\nand of self-reliance.... Morality is no longer the expression of the\nconditions of life and growth, no longer the most fundamental instinct\nof life, but it has become abstract, it has become the opposite of\nlife,\u2014Morality as the fundamental perversion of the imagination,\nas the \u201cevil eye\u201d for all things. What is Jewish morality, what is\nChristian morality? Chance robbed of its innocence; unhappiness\npolluted with the idea of \u201csin\u201d; well-being interpreted as a danger, as\na \u201ctemptation\u201d; physiological indisposition poisoned by means of the\ncanker-worm of conscience....\n\n\n26\n\nThe concept of God falsified; the concept of morality falsified: but\nthe Jewish priesthood did not stop at this. No use could be made of\nthe whole _history_ of Israel, therefore it must go! These priests\naccomplished that miracle of falsification, of which the greater part\nof the Bible is the document: with unparalleled contempt and in the\nteeth of all tradition and historical facts, they interpreted their own\npeople\u2019s past in a religious manner,\u2014that is to say, they converted\nit into a ridiculous mechanical process of salvation, on the principle\nthat all sin against Jehovah led to punishment, and that all pious\nworship of Jehovah led to reward. We would feel this shameful act of\nhistorical falsification far more poignantly if the ecclesiastical\ninterpretation of history through millenniums had not blunted almost\nall our sense for the demands of uprightness _in historicis._ And\nthe church is seconded by the philosophers: _the_ of \u201ca moral order\nof the universe\u201d permeates the whole development even of more modern\nphilosophy. What does a \u201cmoral order of the universe\u201d mean? That once\nand for all there is such a thing as a will of God which determines\nwhat man has to do and what he has to leave undone; that the value\nof a people or of an individual is measured according to how much or\nhow little the one or the other obeys the will of God; that in the\ndestinies of a people or of an individual, the will of God shows\nitself dominant, that is to say it punishes or rewards according to\nthe degree of obedience. In the place of this miserable falsehood,\n_reality_ says: a parasitical type of man, who can flourish only at the\ncost of all the healthy elements of life, the priest abuses the name\nof God: he calls that state of affairs in which the priest determines\nthe value of things \u201cthe Kingdom of God\u201d; he calls the means whereby\nsuch a state of affairs is attained or maintained, \u201cthe Will of God\u201d;\nwith cold-blooded cynicism he measures peoples, ages and individuals\naccording to whether they favour or oppose the ascendancy of the\npriesthood. Watch him at work: in the hands of the Jewish priesthood\nthe Augustan Age in the history of Israel became an age of decline;\nthe exile, the protracted misfortune transformed itself into eternal\n_punishment_ for the Augustan Age\u2014that age in which the priest did not\nyet exist Out of the mighty and thoroughly free-born figures of the\nhistory of Israel, they made, according to their requirements, either\nwretched bigots and hypocrites, or \u201cgodless ones\u201d: they simplified\nthe psychology of every great event to the idiotic formula \u201cobedient\nor disobedient to God.\u201d\u2014A step further: the \u201cWill of God,\u201d that is\nto say the self-preservative measures of the priesthood, must be\nknown\u2014to this end a \u201crevelation\u201d is necessary. In plain English: a\nstupendous literary fraud becomes necessary, \u201choly scriptures\u201d are\ndiscovered,\u2014and they are published abroad with all hieratic pomp,\nwith days of penance and lamentations over the long state Of \u201csin.\u201d\nThe \u201cWill of God\u201d has long stood firm: the whole of the trouble\nlies in the fact that the \u201cHoly Scriptures\u201d have been discarded....\nMoses was already the \u201cWill of God\u201d revealed.... What had happened?\nWith severity and pedantry, the priest had formulated once and for\nall\u2014even to the largest and smallest contributions that were to be\npaid to him (\u2014not forgetting the daintiest portions of meat; for the\npriest is a consumer of beef-steaks)\u2014_what he wanted,_ \u201cwhat the Will\nof God was.\u201d ... Hence-forward everything became so arranged that the\npriests were _indispensable everywhere._ At all the natural events of\nlife, at birth, at marriage, at the sick-bed, at death,\u2014not to speak\nof the sacrifice (\u201cthe meal\u201d),\u2014the holy parasite appears in order\nto denaturalise, or in his language, to \u201csanctify,\u201d everything....\nFor this should be understood: every natural custom, every natural\ninstitution (the State, the administration of justice, marriage, the\ncare of the sick and the poor), every demand inspired by the instinct\nof life, in short everything that has a value in itself, is rendered\nabsolutely worthless and even dangerous through the parasitism of the\npriest (or of the \u201cmoral order of the universe\u201d): a sanction after\nthe fact is required,\u2014a _power which imparts value_ is necessary,\nwhich in so doing says, Nay to nature, and which by this means alone\n_creates_ a valuation.... The priest depreciates and desecrates nature:\nit is only at this price that he exists at all.\u2014Disobedience to God,\nthat is to say, to the priest, to the \u201claw,\u201d now receives the name of\n\u201csin\u201d; the means of \u201creconciling one\u2019s self with God\u201d are of course\nof a nature which render subordination to the priesthood all the\nmore fundamental: the priest alone is able to \u201csave.\u201d ... From the\npsychological standpoint, in every society organised upon a hieratic\nbasis, \u201csins\u201d are indispensable: they are the actual weapons of power,\nthe priest _lives_ upon sins, it is necessary for him that people\nshould \u201csin.\u201d ... Supreme axiom: \u201cGod forgiveth him that repenteth\u201d\u2014in\nplain English: _him that submitteth himself to the priest._\n\n\n27\n\nChristianity grew out of an utterly _false_ soil, in which all nature,\nevery natural value, every _reality_ had the deepest instincts of the\nruling class against it; it was a form of deadly hostility to reality\nwhich has never been surpassed. The \u201choly people\u201d which had retained\nonly priestly values and priestly names for all things, and which, with\na logical consistency that is terrifying, had divorced itself from\neverything still powerful on earth as if it were \u201cunholy,\u201d \u201cworldly,\u201d\n\u201csinful,\u201d\u2014this people created a final formula for its instinct which\nwas consistent to the point of self-suppression; as _Christianity_ it\ndenied even the last form of reality, the \u201choly people,\u201d the \u201cchosen\npeople,\u201d _Jewish_ reality itself. The case is of supreme interest:\nthe small insurrectionary movement christened with the name of Jesus\nof Nazareth, is the Jewish instinct _over again,_\u2014in other words,\nit is the sacerdotal instinct which can no longer endure the priest\nas a fact; it is the discovery of a kind of life even more fantastic\nthan the one previously conceived, a vision of life which is even\nmore unreal than that which the organisation of a church stipulates.\nChristianity denies the church.[3]\n\nI fail to see against whom was directed the insurrection of which\nrightly or _wrongly_ Jesus is understood to have been the promoter,\nif it were not directed against the Jewish church,\u2014the word \u201cchurch\u201d\nbeing used here in precisely the same sense in which it is used to-day.\nIt was an insurrection against the \u201cgood and the just,\u201d against\nthe \u201cprophets of Israel,\u201d against the hierarchy of society\u2014not\nagainst the latter\u2019s corruption, but against caste, privilege, order,\nformality. It was the lack of faith in \u201chigher men,\u201d it was a \u201cNay\u201d\nuttered against everything that was tinctured with the blood of priests\nand theologians. But the hierarchy which was set in question if only\ntemporarily by this movement, formed the construction of piles upon\nwhich, alone, the Jewish people was able to subsist in the midst of the\n\u201cwaters\u201d; it was that people\u2019s _last_ chance of survival wrested from\nthe world at enormous pains, the _residuum_ of its political autonomy:\nto attack this construction was tantamount to attacking the most\nprofound popular instinct, the most tenacious national will to live\nthat has ever existed on earth. This saintly anarchist who called the\nlowest of the low, the outcasts and \u201csinners,\u201d the Chandala of Judaism,\nto revolt against the established order of things (and in language\nwhich, if the gospels are to be trusted, would get one sent to Siberia\neven to-day)\u2014this man was a political criminal in so far as political\ncriminals were possible in a community so absurdly non-political. This\nbrought him to the cross: the proof of this is the inscription found\nthereon. He died for _his_ sins\u2014and no matter how often the contrary\nhas been asserted there is absolutely nothing to show that he died for\nthe sins of others.\n\n\n28\n\nAs to whether he was conscious of this contrast, or whether he was\nmerely _regarded_ as such, is quite another question. And here, alone,\ndo I touch upon the problem of the psychology of the Saviour.\u2014I\nconfess there are few books which I have as much difficulty in reading\nas the gospels. These difficulties are quite different from those which\nallowed the learned curiosity of the German, mind to celebrate one\nof its most memorable triumphs. Many years have now elapsed since I,\nlike every young scholar, with the sage conscientiousness of a refined\nphilologist, relished the work of the incomparable Strauss. I was then\ntwenty years of age; now I am too serious for that sort of thing. What\ndo I care about the contradictions of \u201ctradition\u201d? How can saintly\nlegends be called \u201ctradition\u201d at all! The stories of saints constitute\nthe most ambiguous literature on earth: to apply the scientific method\nto them, _when there are no other documents to hand,_ seems to me to be\na fatal procedure from the start\u2014simply learned fooling.\n\n\n29\n\nThe point that concerns me is the psychological type of the Saviour.\nThis type might be contained in the gospels, in spite of the gospels,\nand however much it may have been mutilated, or overladen with\nforeign features: just as that of Francis of Assisi is contained\nin his legends in spite of his legends. It is _not_ a question of\nthe truth concerning what he has done, what he has said, and how he\nactually died; but whether his type may still be conceived in any way,\nwhether it has been handed down to us at all?\u2014The attempts which\nto my knowledge have been made to read the _history_ of a \u201csoul\u201d out\nof the gospels, seem to me to point only to disreputable levity in\npsychological matters. M. Renan, that buffoon _in psychologies,_ has\ncontributed the two most monstrous ideas imaginable to the explanation\nof the type of Jesus: the idea of the _genius_ and the idea of the\n_hero_ (\u201c_h\u00e9ros_\u201d). But if there is anything thoroughly unevangelical\nsurely it is the idea of the hero. It is precisely the reverse of all\nstruggle, of all consciousness of taking part in the fight, that has\nbecome instinctive here: the inability to resist is here converted into\na morality (\u201cresist not evil,\u201d the profoundest sentence in the whole of\nthe gospels, their key in a certain sense), the blessedness of peace,\nof gentleness, of not _being able_ to be an enemy. What is the meaning\nof \u201cglad tidings\u201d?\u2014True life, eternal life has been found\u2014it is not\npromised, it is actually here, it is in _you;_ it is life in love, in\nlove free from all selection or exclusion, free from all distance.\nEverybody is the child of God\u2014Jesus does not by any means claim\nanything for himself alone,\u2014as the child of God everybody is equal to\neverybody else.... Fancy making Jesus a _hero!_\u2014And what a tremendous\nmisunderstanding the word \u201cgenius\u201d is! Our whole idea of \u201cspirit,\u201d\nwhich is a civilised idea, could have had no meaning whatever in the\nworld in which Jesus lived. In the strict terms of the physiologist, a\nvery different word ought to be used here.... We know of a condition of\nmorbid irritability of the sense of _touch,_ which recoils shuddering\nfrom every kind of contact, and from every attempt at grasping a solid\nobject. Any such physiological _habitus_ reduced to its ultimate\nlogical conclusion, becomes an instinctive hatred of all reality, a\nflight into the \u201cintangible,\u201d into the \u201cincomprehensible\u201d; a repugnance\nto all formul\u00e6, to every notion of time and space, to everything that\nis established such as customs, institutions, the church; a feeling\nat one\u2019s ease in a world in which no sign of reality is any longer\nvisible, a merely \u201cinner\u201d world, a \u201ctrue\u201d world, an \u201ceternal\u201d world....\n\u201cThe Kingdom of God is within you\u201d...\n\n\n30\n\n_The instinctive hatred of reality_ is the outcome of an extreme\nsusceptibility to pain and to irritation, which can no longer endure to\nbe \u201ctouched\u201d at all, because every sensation strikes too deep.\n\n_The instinctive exclusion of all aversion, of all hostility, of all\nboundaries and distances in feeling,_ is the outcome of an extreme\nsusceptibility to pain and to irritation, which regards all resistance,\nall compulsory resistance as insufferable _anguish_(\u2014that is to say,\nas harmful, as _deprecated_ by the self-preservative instinct), and\nwhich knows blessedness (happiness) only when it is no longer obliged\nto offer resistance to anybody, either evil or detrimental,\u2014love as\nthe Only ultimate possibility of life....\n\nThese are the two _physiological realities_ upon which and out of which\nthe doctrine of salvation has grown. I call them a sublime further\ndevelopment of hedonism, upon a thoroughly morbid soil. Epicureanism,\nthe pagan theory of salvation, even though it possessed a large\nproportion of Greek vitality and nervous energy, remains the most\nclosely related to the above. Epicurus was a _typical_ decadent: and I\nwas the first to recognise him as such.\u2014The terror of pain, even of\ninfinitely slight pain\u2014such a state cannot possibly help culminating\nin a _religion_ of love....\n\n\n31\n\nI have given my reply to the problem in advance. The prerequisite\nthereto was the admission of the fact that the type of the Saviour has\nreached us only in a very distorted form. This distortion in itself\nis extremely feasible: for many reasons a type of that kind could not\nbe pure, whole, and free from additions. The environment in which\nthis strange figure moved, must have left its mark upon him, and the\nhistory, the _destiny_ of the first Christian communities must have\ndone so to a still greater degree. Thanks to that destiny, the type\nmust have been enriched retrospectively with features which can be\ninterpreted only as serving the purposes of war and of propaganda\nThat strange and morbid world into which the gospels lead us\u2014a\nworld which seems to have been drawn from a Russian novel, where\nthe scum and dross of society, diseases of the nerves and \u201cchildish\u201d\nimbecility seem to have given each other rendezvous\u2014must in any case\nhave _coarsened_ the type: the first disciples especially must have\ntranslated an existence conceived entirely in symbols and abstractions\ninto their own crudities, in order at least to be able to understand\nsomething about it,\u2014for them the type existed only after it had\nbeen cast in a more familiar mould.... The prophet, the Messiah, the\nfuture judge, the teacher of morals, the thaumaturgist, John the\nBaptist\u2014all these were but so many opportunities of misunderstanding\nthe type.... Finally, let us not under-rate the _proprium_ of all great\nand especially sectarian veneration: very often it effaces from the\nvenerated object, all the original and frequently painfully un-familiar\ntraits and idiosyncrasies\u2014_it does not even see them._ It is greatly\nto be deplored that no Dostoiewsky lived in the neighbourhood of this\nmost interesting decadent,\u2014I mean someone who would have known how to\nfeel the poignant charm of such a mixture of the sublime, the morbid,\nand the childlike. Finally, the type, as an example of decadence, may\nactually have been extraordinarily multifarious and contradictory:\nthis, as a possible alternative, is not to be altogether ignored.\nAlbeit, everything seems to point away from it; for, precisely in this\ncase, tradition would necessarily have been particularly true and\nobjective: whereas we have reasons for assuming the reverse. Meanwhile\na yawning chasm of contradiction separates the mountain, lake, and\npastoral preacher, who strikes us as a Buddha on a soil only very\nslightly Hindu, from that combative fanatic, the mortal enemy of\ntheologians and priests, whom Renan\u2019s malice has glorified as \u201c_le\ngrand ma\u00eetre en ironie._\u201d For my part, I do not doubt but what the\ngreater part of this venom (and even of _esprit_) was inoculated into\nthe type of the Master only as the outcome of the agitated condition\nof Christian propaganda. For we have ample reasons for knowing the\nunscrupulousness of all sectarians when they wish to contrive their own\n_apology_ out of the person of their master. When the first Christian\ncommunity required a discerning, wrangling, quarrelsome, malicious and\nhair-splitting theologian, to oppose other theologians, it created its\n\u201cGod\u201d according to its needs; just as it did not hesitate to put upon\nhis lips those utterly unevangelical ideas of \u201chis second coming,\u201d the\n\u201clast judgment,\u201d\u2014ideas with which it could not then dispense,\u2014and\nevery kind of expectation and promise which happened to be current.\n\n\n32\n\nI can only repeat that I am opposed to the importation of the fanatic\ninto the type of the Saviour: the word \u201c_imp\u00e9rieux,_\u201d which Renan\nuses, in itself annuls the type. The \u201cglad tidings\u201d are simply that\nthere are no longer any contradictions, that the Kingdom of Heaven is\nfor the _children;_ the faith which raises its voice here is not a\nfaith that has been won by a struggle,\u2014it is to hand, it was there\nfrom the beginning, it is a sort of spiritual return to childishness.\nThe case of delayed and undeveloped puberty in the organism, as the\nresult of degeneration is at least familiar to physiologists. A faith\nof this sort does not show anger, it does not blame, neither does it\ndefend itself: it does not bring \u201cthe sword,\u201d\u2014it has no inkling of\nhow it will one day establish feuds between man and man. It does not\ndemonstrate itself, either by miracles, or by reward and promises, or\nyet \u201cthrough the scriptures\u201d: it is in itself at every moment its own\nmiracle, its own reward, its own proof, its own \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d This\nfaith cannot be formulated\u2014it lives, it guards against formulas. The\naccident of environment, of speech, of preparatory culture, certainly\ndetermines a particular series of conceptions: early Christianity deals\nonly in Jud\u00e6o-Semitic conceptions (\u2014the eating and drinking at the\nlast supper form part of these,\u2014this idea which like everything Jewish\nhas been abused so maliciously by the church). But one should guard\nagainst seeing anything more than a language of signs, semiotics, an\nopportunity for parables in all this. The very fact that no word is to\nbe taken literally, is the only condition on which this Anti-realist\nis able to speak at all. Among Indians he would have made use of the\nideas of Sankhyara, among Chinese, those of Lao-tze\u2014and would not\nhave been aware of any difference. With a little terminological laxity\nJesus might be called a \u201cfree spirit\u201d\u2014he cares not a jot for anything\nthat is established: the word _killeth,_ everything fixed _killtth._\nThe idea, _experience,_ \u201clife\u201d as he alone knows it, is, according to\nhim, opposed to every kind of word, formula, law, faith and dogma. He\nspeaks only of the innermost things: \u201clife\u201d or \u201ctruth,\u201d or \u201clight,\u201d is\nhis expression for the innermost thing,\u2014everything else, the whole of\nreality, the whole of nature, language even, has only the value of a\nsign, of a simile for him.\u2014It is of paramount importance not to make\nany mistake at this point, however great may be the temptation thereto\nthat lies in Christian\u2014I mean to say, ecclesiastical prejudice. Any\nsuch essential symbolism stands beyond the pale of all religion, all\nnotions of cult, all history, all natural science, all experience of\nthe world, all knowledge, all politics, all psychology, all books and\nall Art\u2014for his \u201cwisdom\u201d is precisely the complete ignorance[4] of the\nexistence of such things. He has not even heard speak of _culture,_ he\ndoes not require to oppose it,\u2014he does not deny it.... The same holds\ngood of the state, of the whole of civil and social order, of work\nand of war\u2014he never had any reason to deny the world, he had not the\nvaguest notion of the ecclesiastical concept \u201cthe world.\u201d ... Denying\nis precisely what was quite impossible to him.\u2014Dialectic is also\nquite absent, as likewise the idea that any faith, any \u201ctruth\u201d can be\nproved by argument (\u2014his proofs are inner \u201clights,\u201d inward feelings of\nhappiness and self-affirmation, a host of \u201cproofs of power\u201d\u2014). Neither\ncan such a doctrine contradict, it does not even realise the fact that\nthere are or can be other doctrines, it is absolutely incapable of\nimagining a contrary judgment.... Wherever it encounters such things,\nfrom a feeling of profound sympathy it bemoans such \u201cblindness,\u201d\u2014for\nit sees the \u201clight,\u201d\u2014but it raises no objections.\n\n\n33\n\nThe whole psychology of the \u201cgospels\u201d lacks the concept of guilt and\npunishment, as also that of reward. \u201cSin,\u201d any sort of aloofness\nbetween God and man, is done away with,\u2014_this is precisely what\nconstitutes the \u201cglad tidings\u201d._ Eternal bliss is not promised, it is\nnot bound up with certain conditions; it is the only reality\u2014the rest\nconsists only of signs wherewith to speak about it....\n\nThe results of such a state project themselves into a new practice\nof life, the actual evangelical practice. It is not a \u201cfaith\u201d which\ndistinguishes the Christians: the Christian acts, he distinguishes\nhimself by means of a _different_ mode of action. He does not resist\nhis enemy either by words or in his heart He draws no distinction\nbetween foreigners and natives, between Jews and Gentiles (\u201cthe\nneighbour\u201d really means the co-religionist, the Jew). He is angry with\nno one, he despises no one. He neither shows himself at the tribunals\nnor does he acknowledge any of their claims (\u201cSwear not at all\u201d).\nHe never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when her\ninfidelity has been proved.\u2014All this is at bottom one principle, it is\nall the outcome of one instinct\u2014\n\nThe life of the Saviour was naught else than this practice,\u2014neither\nwas his death. He no longer required any formul\u00e6, any rites for his\nrelations with God\u2014not even prayer. He has done with all the Jewish\nteaching of repentance and of atonement; he alone knows the _mode_\nof life which makes one feel \u201cdivine,\u201d \u201csaved,\u201d \u201cevangelical,\u201d and\nat all times a \u201cchild of God.\u201d _Not_ \u201crepentance,\u201d _not_ \u201cprayer and\nforgiveness\u201d are the roads to God: the _evangelical mode of life\nalone_ leads to God, it _is_ \u201cGod.\u201d\u2014That which the gospels abolished\nwas the Judaism of the concepts \u201csin,\u201d \u201cforgiveness of sin,\u201d \u201cfaith,\u201d\n\u201csalvation through faith,\u201d\u2014the whole doctrine of the Jewish church was\ndenied by the \u201cglad tidings.\u201d\n\nThe profound instinct of how one must live in order to feel \u201cin\nHeaven,\u201d in order to feel \u201ceternal,\u201d while in every other respect\none feels by _no_ means \u201cin Heaven\u201d: this alone is the psychological\nreality of \u201cSalvation.\u201d\u2014A new life and _not_ a new faith....\n\n\n34\n\nIf I understand anything at all about this great symbolist, it is\nthis that he regarded only _inner_ facts as facts, as \u201ctruths,\u201d\u2014that\nhe understood the rest, everything natural, temporal, material\nand historical, only as signs, as opportunities for parables. The\nconcept \u201cthe Son of Man,\u201d is not a concrete personality belonging to\nhistory, anything individual and isolated, but an \u201ceternal\u201d fact,\na psychological symbol divorced from the concept of time. The same\nis true, and in the highest degree, of the _God_ of this typical\nsymbolist, of the \u201cKingdom of God,\u201d of the \u201cKingdom of Heaven,\u201d and\nof the \u201cSonship of God.\u201d Nothing is more un-Christlike than the\n_ecclesiastical crudity_ of a personal God, of a Kingdom of God that\nis coming, of a \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d beyond, of a \u201cSon of God\u201d as the\nsecond person of the Trinity. All this, if I may be forgiven the\nexpression, is as fitting as a square peg in a round hole\u2014and oh!\nwhat a hole!\u2014the gospels: a _world-historic_ cynicism in the scorn\nof symbols.... But what is meant by the signs \u201cFather\u201d and \u201cSon,\u201d is\nof course obvious\u2014not to everybody, I admit: with the word \u201cSon,\u201d\n_entrance_ into the feeling of the general transfiguration of all\nthings (beatitude) is expressed, with the word \u201cFather,\u201d _this feeling\nitself_ the feeling of eternity and of perfection.\u2014I blush to have to\nremind you of what the Church has done with this symbolism: has it not\nset an Amphitryon story at the threshold of the Christian \u201cfaith\u201d? And\na dogma of immaculate conception into the bargain?... _But by so doing\nit defiled conception._\u2014\u2014\n\nThe \u201cKingdom of Heaven\u201d is a state of the heart\u2014not something\nwhich exists \u201cbeyond this earth\u201d or comes to you \u201cafter death.\u201d The\nwhole idea of natural death is lacking in the gospels. Death is not\na bridge, not a means of access: it is absent because it belongs to\nquite a different and merely apparent world the only use of which is\nto furnish signs, similes. The \u201chour of death\u201d is not a Christian\nidea\u2014the \u201chour,\u201d time in general, physical life and its crises do not\nexist for the messenger of \u201cglad tidings.\u201d ... The \u201cKingdom of God\u201d is\nnot some thing that is expected; it has no yesterday nor any day after\nto-morrow, it is not going to come in a \u201cthousand years\u201d\u2014it is an\nexperience of a human heart; it is everywhere, it is nowhere....\n\n\n35\n\nThis \u201cmessenger of glad tidings\u201d died as he lived and as he\ntaught\u2014_not_ in order \u201cto save mankind,\u201d but in order to show how one\nought to live. It was a mode of life that he bequeathed to mankind: his\nbehaviour before his judges, his attitude towards his executioners,\nhis accusers, and all kinds of calumny and scorn,\u2014his demeanour on\nthe _cross._ He offers no resistance; he does not defend his rights;\nhe takes no step to ward off the most extreme consequences, he does\nmore,\u2014he provokes them. And he prays, suffers and loves with those, in\nthose, who treat him ill.... _Not_ to defend one\u2019s self, _not_ to show\nanger, not to hold anyone responsible.... But to refrain from resisting\neven the evil one,\u2014to _love_ him....\n\n\n36\n\n\u2014Only we spirits that have _become free,_ possess the necessary\ncondition for understanding something which nineteen centuries have\nmisunderstood,\u2014that honesty which has become an instinct and a passion\nin us, and which wages war upon the \u201choly lie\u201d with even more vigour\nthan upon every other lie.... Mankind was unspeakably far from our\nbeneficent and cautious neutrality, from that discipline of the mind,\nwhich, alone, renders the solution of such strange and subtle things\npossible: at all times, with shameless egoism, all that people sought\nwas their _own_ advantage in these matters, the Church was built up out\nof contradiction to the gospel....\n\nWhoever might seek for signs pointing to the guiding fingers of an\nironical deity behind the great comedy of existence, would find no\nsmall argument in the _huge note of interrogation_ that is called\nChristianity. The fact that mankind is on its knees before the reverse\nof that which formed the origin, the meaning and the _rights_ of\nthe gospel; the fact that, in the idea \u201cChurch,\u201d precisely that is\npronounced holy which the \u201cmessenger of glad tidings\u201d regarded as\n_beneath_ him, as _behind_ him\u2014one might seek in vain for a more\negregious example _of world-historic_ irony\u2014-\n\n\n37\n\n\u2014Our age is proud of its historical sense: how could it allow\nitself to be convinced of the nonsensical idea that at the beginning\nChristianity consisted only of the _clumsy fable of the thaumaturgist\nand of the Saviour,_ and that all its spiritual and symbolic\nside was only developed later? On the contrary: the history of\nChristianity\u2014from the death on the cross onwards\u2014is the history of\na gradual and ever coarser misunderstanding of an original symbolism.\nWith every extension of Christianity over ever larger and ruder\nmasses, who were ever less able to grasp its first principles, the\nneed of _vulgarising and barbarising it_ increased proportionately\u2014it\nabsorbed the teachings and rites of all the _subterranean_ cults of the\n_imperium Romanum,_ as well as the nonsense of every kind of morbid\nreasoning. The fatal feature of Christianity lies in the necessary\nfact that its faith had to become as morbid, base and vulgar as the\nneeds to which it had to minister were morbid, base and vulgar. _Morbid\nbarbarism_ at last braces itself together for power in the form of the\nChurch\u2014the Church, this deadly hostility to all honesty, to all\nloftiness of the soul, to all discipline of the mind, to all frank and\nkindly humanity.\u2014_Christian_ and _noble_ values: only we spirits _who\nhave become free have_ re-established this contrast in values which is\nthe greatest that has ever existed on earth!\u2014\n\n\n38\n\n\u2014I cannot, at this point, stifle a sigh. There are days when I\nam visited by a feeling blacker than the blackest melancholy\u2014the\n_contempt of man._ And in order that I may leave you in no doubt as\nto what I despise, _whom_ I despise: I declare that it is the man of\nto-day, the man with whom I am fatally contemporaneous. The man of\nto-day, I am asphyxiated by his foul breath.... Towards the past, like\nall knights of knowledge, I am profoundly tolerant,\u2014that is to say,\nI exercise a sort of _generous_ self-control: with gloomy caution I\npass through whole millennia of this mad-house world, and whether it\nbe called \u201cChristianity,\u201d \u201cChristian Faith,\u201d or \u201cChristian Church,\u201d I\ntake care not to hold mankind responsible for its mental disorders.\nBut my feeling suddenly changes, and vents itself the moment I enter\nthe modern age, _our_ age. Our age _knows...._ That which formerly\nwas merely morbid, is now positively indecent It is indecent nowadays\nto be a Christian. _And it is here that my loathing begins._ I look\nabout me: not a word of what was formerly known as \u201ctruth\u201d has remained\nstanding; we can no longer endure to hear a priest even pronounce the\nword \u201ctruth.\u201d Even he who makes but the most modest claims upon truth,\n_must_ know at present, that a theologian, a priest, or a pope, not\nonly errs but actually _ties,_ with every word that he utters,\u2014and\nthat he is no longer able to lie from \u201cinnocence,\u201d from \u201cignorance.\u201d\nEven the priest knows quite as well as everybody else does that there\nis no longer any \u201cGod,\u201d any \u201csinner\u201d or any \u201cSaviour,\u201d and that \u201cfree\nwill,\u201d and \u201ca moral order of the universe\u201d are _lies._ Seriousness,\nthe profound self-conquest of the spirit no longer allows anyone to\nbe _ignorant_ about this.... All the concepts of the Church have been\nrevealed in their true colours\u2014that is to say, as the most vicious\nfrauds on earth, calculated to _depreciate_ nature and all natural\nvalues. The priest himself has been recognised as what he is\u2014that is\nto say, as the most dangerous kind of parasite, as the actual venomous\nspider of existence.... At present we know, our _conscience_ knows,\nthe real value of the gruesome inventions which the priests and the\nChurch have made, _and what end they served._ By means of them that\nstate of self-profanation on the part of man has been attained, the\nsight of which makes one heave. The concepts \u201cBeyond,\u201d \u201cLast Judgment,\u201d\n\u201cImmortality of the Soul,\u201d the \u201csoul\u201d itself, are merely so many\ninstruments of torture, so many systems of cruelty, on the strength\nof which the priest became and remained master.... Everybody knows\nthis, _and nevertheless everything remains as it was._ Whither has\nthe last shred of decency, of self-respect gone, if nowadays even\nour statesmen\u2014a body of men who are otherwise so unembarrassed, and\nsuch thorough anti-Christians in deed\u2014still declare themselves\nChristians and still flock to communion?[5].... Fancy a prince at the\nhead of his legions, magnificent as the expression of the egoism and\nself-exaltation of his people,\u2014but _shameless_ enough to acknowledge\nhimself a Christian!... What then does Christianity deny? What does\nit call \u201cworld\u201d? \u201cThe world\u201d to Christianity means that a man is a\nsoldier, a judge, a patriot, that he defends himself, that he values\nhis honour, that he desires his own advantage, that he is _proud._\n... The conduct of every moment, every instinct, every valuation that\nleads to a deed, is at present anti-Christian: what an _abortion of\nfalsehood_ modern man must be, in order to be able _without a blush_\nstill to call himself a Christian!\u2014\u2014\n\n\n39\n\n\u2014I will retrace my steps, and will tell you the _genuine_\nhistory of Christianity.\u2014The very word \u201cChristianity\u201d is a\nmisunderstanding,\u2014truth to tell, there never was more than one\nChristian, and he _died_ on the Cross. The \u201cgospel\u201d _died_ on the\ncross. That which thenceforward was called \u201cgospel\u201d was the reverse\nof that \u201cgospel\u201d that Christ had lived: it was \u201cevil tidings,\u201d a\n_dysangel_ It is false to the point of nonsense to see in \u201cfaith,\u201d\nin the faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing trait\nof the Christian: the only thing that is Christian is the Christian\nmode of existence, a life such as he led who died on the Cross.... To\nthis day a life of this kind is still possible; for certain men, it\nis even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will be possible\nin all ages.... _Not_ a faith, but a course of action, above all a\ncourse of inaction, non-interference, and a different life.... States\nof consciousness, any sort of faith, a holding of certain things\nfor true, as every psychologist knows, are indeed of absolutely no\nconsequence, and are only of fifth-rate importance compared with the\nvalue of the instincts: more exactly, the whole concept of intellectual\ncausality is false. To reduce the fact of being a Christian, or of\nChristianity, to a holding of something for true, to a mere phenomenon\nof consciousness, is tantamount to denying Christianity. _In fact\nthere have never been any Christians._ The \u201cChristian,\u201d he who for two\nthousand years has been called a Christian, is merely a psychological\nmisunderstanding of self. Looked at more closely, there ruled in\nhim, _notwithstanding_ all his faith, only instincts\u2014and _what\ninstincts!_\u2014\u201cFaith\u201d in all ages, as for instance in the case of\nLuther, has always been merely a cloak, a pretext, a _screen,_ behind\nwhich the instincts played their game,\u2014a prudent form of _blindness_\nin regard to the dominion of _certain_ instincts. \u201cFaith\u201d I have\nalready characterised as a piece of really Christian cleverness; for\npeople have always spoken of \u201cfaith\u201d and acted according to their\ninstincts.... In the Christian\u2019s world of ideas there is nothing which\neven touches reality: but I have already recognised in the instinctive\nhatred of reality the actual motive force, the only driving power at\nthe root of Christianity. What follows therefrom? That here, even\n_in psychologicis_, error is fundamental,\u2014that is to say capable\nof determining the spirit of things,\u2014that is to say, _substance._\nTake one idea away from the whole, and put one realistic fact in its\nstead,\u2014and the whole of Christianity tumbles into nonentity!\u2014Surveyed\nfrom above, this strangest of all facts,-a religion not only dependent\nupon error, but inventive and showing signs of genius only in those\nerrors which are dangerous and which poison life and the human\nheart\u2014remains a _spectacle for gods,_ for those gods who are at the\nsame time philosophers and whom I met for instance in those celebrated\ndialogues on the island of Naxos. At the moment when they get rid\nof their _loathing (\u2014and we do as well!_), they will be thankful\nfor the spectacle the Christians have offered: the wretched little\nplanet called Earth perhaps deserves on account of _this_ curious\ncase alone, a divine glance, and divine interest.... Let us not\ntherefore underestimate the Christians: the Christian, false _to the\npoint of innocence in falsity,_ is far above the apes,\u2014in regard to\nthe Christians a certain well-known theory of Descent becomes a mere\ngood-natured compliment.\n\n\n40\n\n\u2014The fate of the gospel was decided at the moment of the death,\u2014it\nhung on the \u201ccross.\u201d ... It was only death, this unexpected and\nignominious death; it was only the cross which as a rule was reserved\nsimply for the _canaille,_\u2014only this appalling paradox which\nconfronted the disciples with the actual riddle: _Who was that? what\nwas that?_\u2014The state produced by the excited and profoundly wounded\nfeelings of these men, the suspicion that such a death might imply the\n_refutation_ of their cause, and the terrible note of interrogation:\n\u201cwhy precisely thus?\u201d will be understood only too well. In this case\neverything _must_ be necessary, everything must have meaning, a reason,\nthe highest reason. The love of a disciple admits of no such thing as\naccident. Only then did the chasm yawn: \u201cwho has killed him?\u201d \u201cwho was\nhis natural enemy?\u201d\u2014this question rent the firmament like a flash of\nlightning. Reply: _dominant_ Judaism, its ruling class. Thenceforward\nthe disciple felt himself in revolt _against_ established order; he\nunderstood Jesus, after the fact, as one in _revolt against established\norder._ Heretofore this warlike, this nay-saying and nay-doing feature\nin Christ had been lacking; nay more, he was its contradiction. The\nsmall primitive community had obviously understood _nothing_ of the\nprincipal factor of all, which was the example of freedom and of\nsuperiority to every form of _resentment_ which lay in this way of\ndying. And this shows how little they understood him altogether! At\nbottom Jesus could not have desired anything else by his death than to\ngive the strongest public _example_ and _proof_ of his doctrine....\nBut his disciples were very far from _forgiving this_ death\u2014though if\nthey had done so it would have been in the highest sense evangelical\non their part,\u2014neither were they prepared, with a gentle and serene\ncalmness of heart, to _offer_ themselves for a similar death....\nPrecisely the most unevangelical feeling, _revenge,_ became once more\nascendant. It was impossible for the cause to end with this death:\n\u201ccompensation\u201d and \u201cjudgment\u201d were required (\u2014and forsooth, what could\nbe more unevangelical than \u201ccompensation,\u201d \u201cpunishment,\u201d \u201cjudgment\u201d!)\nThe popular expectation of a Messiah once more became prominent;\nattention was fixed upon one historical moment: the \u201cKingdom of God\u201d\ndescends to sit in judgment upon his enemies. But this proves that\neverything was misunderstood: the \u201cKingdom of God\u201d regarded as the last\nscene of the last act, as a promise! But the Gospel had clearly been\nthe living, the fulfilment, the _reality_ of this \u201cKingdom of God.\u201d\nIt was precisely a death such as Christ\u2019s that was this \u201cKingdom of\nGod.\u201d It was only now that all the contempt for the Pharisees and the\ntheologians, and all bitter feelings towards them, were introduced\ninto the character of the Master,\u2014and by this means he himself was\nconverted into a Pharisee and a theologian! On the other hand, the\nsavage veneration of these completely unhinged souls could no longer\nendure that evangelical right of every man to be the child of God,\nwhich Jesus had taught: their revenge consisted in _elevating_ Jesus in\na manner devoid of all reason, and in separating him from themselves:\njust as, formerly, the Jews, with the view of revenging themselves on\ntheir enemies, separated themselves from their God, and placed him high\nabove them. The Only God, and the Only Son of God:\u2014both were products\nof resentment.\n\n\n41\n\n\u2014And from this time forward an absurd problem rose into prominence:\n\u201chow _could_ God allow it to happen?\u201d To this question the disordered\nminds of the small community found a reply which in its absurdity\nwas literally terrifying: God gave his Son as a _sacrifice_ for the\nforgiveness of sins. Alas! how prompt and sudden was the end of\nthe gospel! Expiatory sacrifice for guilt, and indeed in its most\nrepulsive and barbaric form,\u2014the sacrifice of the _innocent_ for\nthe sins of the guilty! What appalling Paganism!\u2014For Jesus himself\nhad done away with the concept \u201cguilt,\u201d\u2014he denied any gulf between\nGod and man, he _lived_ this unity between God and man, it was this\nthat constituted _his_ \u201cglad tidings.\u201d ... And he did _not_ teach it\nas a privilege!\u2014Thenceforward there was gradually imported into the\ntype of the Saviour the doctrine of the Last Judgment, and of the\n\u201csecond coming,\u201d the doctrine of sacrificial death, and the doctrine\nof _Resurrection,_ by means of which the whole concept \u201cblessedness,\u201d\nthe entire and only reality of the gospel, is conjured away\u2014in favour\nof a state _after_ death!... St Paul, with that rabbinic impudence\nwhich characterises all his doings, rationalised this conception, this\nprostitution of a conception, as follows: \u201cif Christ did not rise from\nthe dead, our faith is vain.\u201d\u2014And, in a trice, the most contemptible\nof all unrealisable promises, the _impudent_ doctrine of personal\nimmortality, was woven out of the gospel.... St Paul even preached this\nimmortality as a reward.\n\n\n42\n\nYou now realise what it was that came to an end with the death on the\ncross: a new and thoroughly original effort towards a Buddhistic\nmovement of peace, towards real and _not_ merely promised _happiness\non earth._ For, as I have already pointed out, this remains the\nfundamental difference between the two religions _of decadence:_\nBuddhism promises little but fulfils more, Christianity promises\neverything but fulfils nothing.\u2014The \u201cglad tidings\u201d were followed\nclosely by the absolutely _worst_ tidings\u2014those of St Paul. Paul is\nthe incarnation of a type which is the reverse of that of the Saviour;\nhe is the genius in hatred, in the standpoint of hatred, and in the\nrelentless logic of hatred. And alas what did this dysangelist not\nsacrifice to his hatred! Above all the Saviour himself: he nailed him\nto _his_ cross. Christ\u2019s life, his example, his doctrine and death,\nthe sense and the right of the gospel\u2014not a vestige of alt this\nwas left, once this forger, prompted by his hatred, had understood\nin it only that which could serve his purpose. _Not_ reality: _not_\nhistorical truth! ... And once more, the sacerdotal instinct of\nthe Jew, perpetrated the same great crime against history,\u2014he\nsimply cancelled the yesterday, and the day before that, out of\nChristianity; he _contrived of his own accord a history of the birth\nof Christianity._ He did more: he once more falsified the history of\nIsrael, so as to make it appear as a prologue to _his_ mission: all the\nprophets had referred to _his_ \u201cSaviour.\u201d ... Later on the Church even\ndistorted the history of mankind so as to convert it into a prelude to\nChristianity.... The type of the Saviour, his teaching, his life, his\ndeath, the meaning of his death, even the sequel to his death\u2014nothing\nremained untouched, nothing was left which even remotely resembled\nreality. St Paul simply transferred the centre of gravity of the whole\nof that great life, to a place _behind_ this life,\u2014in the _lie_ of\nthe \u201cresuscitated\u201d Christ. At bottom, he had no possible use for the\nlife of the Saviour,\u2014he needed the death on the cross, _and_ something\nmore. To regard as honest a man like St Paul (a man whose home was the\nvery headquarters of Stoical enlightenment) when he devises a proof\nof the continued existence of the Saviour out of a hallucination; or\neven to believe him when he declares that he had this hallucination,\nwould amount to foolishness on the part of a psychologist: St Paul\ndesired the end, consequently he also desired the means.... Even what\nhe himself did not believe, was believed in by the idiots among whom\nhe spread _his_ doctrine.\u2014What he wanted was power; with St Paul the\npriest again aspired to power,\u2014he could make use only of concepts,\ndoctrines, symbols with which masses may be tyrannised over, and\nwith which herds are formed. What was the only part of Christianity\nwhich was subsequently borrowed by Muhamed? St Paul\u2019s invention, his\nexpedient for priestly tyranny and to the formation of herds: the\nbelief in immortality\u2014_that is to say, the doctrine of the \u201cLast\nJudgment.\u201d ..._\n\n\n43\n\nWhen the centre of gravity of life is laid, _not_ in life, but in a\nbeyond\u2014_in nonentity,_\u2014life is utterly robbed of its balance. The\ngreat lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all nature in\nthe instincts,\u2014everything in the instincts that is beneficent, that\npromotes life and that is a guarantee of the future, henceforward\naroused suspicion. The very meaning of life is now construed as the\neffort to live in such a way that life no longer has any point.... Why\nshow any public spirit? Why be grateful for one\u2019s origin and one\u2019s\nforebears? Why collaborate with one\u2019s fellows, and be confident? Why\nbe concerned about the general weal or strive after it?... All these\nthings are merely so many \u201ctemptations,\u201d so many deviations from the\n\u201cstraight path.\u201d \u201cOne thing only is necessary.\u201d ... That everybody, as\nan \u201cimmortal soul,\u201d should have equal rank, that in the totality of\nbeings, the \u201csalvation\u201d of each individual may lay claim to eternal\nimportance, that insignificant bigots and three-quarter-lunatics may\nhave the right to suppose that the laws of nature may be persistently\n_broken_ on their account,\u2014any such magnification of every kind\nof selfishness to infinity, to _insolence,_ cannot be branded with\nsufficient contempt And yet it is to this miserable flattery of\npersonal vanity that Christianity owes its _triumph,_\u2014by this means\nit lured all the bungled and the botched, all revolting and revolted\npeople, all abortions, the whole of the refuse and offal of humanity,\nover to its side. The \u201csalvation of the soul\u201d\u2014in plain English: \u201cthe\nworld revolves around me\u201d ... The poison of the doctrine \u201c_equal_\nrights for all\u201d\u2014has been dispensed with the greatest thoroughness by\nChristianity: Christianity, prompted by the most secret recesses of\nbad instincts, has waged a deadly war upon all feeling of reverence\nand distance between man and man\u2014that is to say, the _prerequisite_\nof all elevation, of every growth in culture; out of the resentment\nof the masses it wrought its _principal weapons_ against us, against\neverything noble, joyful, exalted on earth, against our happiness on\nearth.... To grant \u201cimmortality\u201d to every St Peter and St Paul, was\nthe greatest, the most vicious outrage upon _noble_ humanity that has\never been perpetrated.\u2014And do not let us underestimate the fatal\ninfluence which, springing from Christianity, has insinuated itself\neven into politics! Nowadays no one has the courage of special rights,\nof rights of t dominion, of a feeling of self-respect and of respect\nfor his equals,\u2014of _pathos of distance._ Our politics are diseased\nwith this lack of courage!\u2014The aristocratic attitude of mind has been\nmost thoroughly undermined by the lie of the equality of souls; and if\nthe belief in the \u201cprivilege of the greatest number\u201d creates and will\ncontinue _to create revolutions,_\u2014it is Christianity, let there be no\ndoubt about it, and Christian values, which convert every revolution\ninto blood and crime! Christianity is the revolt of all things that\ncrawl on their bellies against everything that is lofty: the gospel of\nthe \u201clowly\u201d _lowers...._\n\n\n44\n\n\u2014The Gospels are invaluable as a testimony of the corruption which\nwas already persistent _within_ the first Christian communities. That\nwhich St Paul, with the logician\u2019s cynicism of a Rabbi, carried to its\nlogical conclusion, was nevertheless merely the process of decay which\nbegan with the death of the Saviour.\u2014These gospels cannot be read\ntoo cautiously; difficulties lurk behind every word they contain. I\nconfess, and people will not take this amiss, that they are precisely\non that account a joy of the first rank for a psychologist,\u2014as the\nreverse of all naive perversity, as refinement _par excellence,_ as\na masterpiece of art in psychological corruption. The gospels stand\nalone. Altogether the Bible allows of no comparison. The _first_ thing\nto be remembered if we do not wish to lose the scent here, is, that\nwe are among Jews. The dissembling of holiness which, here, literally\namounts to genius, and which has never been even approximately achieved\nelsewhere either by books or by men, this fraud in word and pose\nwhich in this book is elevated to an _Art,_ is not the accident of\nany individual gift, of any exceptional nature. These qualities are\na matter of _race._ With Christianity, the art of telling holy lies,\nwhich constitutes the whole of Judaism, reaches its final mastership,\nthanks to many centuries of Jewish and most thoroughly serious training\nand practice. The Christian, this _ultima ratio_ of falsehood, is the\nJew over again\u2014he is even three times a Jew.... The fundamental will\nonly to make use of concepts, symbols and poses, which are demonstrated\nby the practice of the priests, the instinctive repudiation of every\nother kind of practice, every other standpoint of valuation and of\nutility\u2014all this is not only tradition, it is _hereditary;_ only as\nan inheritance is it able to work like nature. The whole of mankind,\nthe best brains, and even the best ages\u2014(one man only excepted who\nis perhaps only a monster)\u2014have allowed themselves to be deceived.\nThe gospels were read as the _book of innocence ..._ this is no\ninsignificant sign of the virtuosity with which deception has been\npractised here.\u2014Of course, if we could only succeed in seeing all\nthese amazing bigots and pretended saints, even for a moment, all\nwould be at an end\u2014and it is precisely because _I_ can read no\nsingle word of theirs, without seeing their pretentious poses, _that\nI have made an end of them_.... I cannot endure a certain way they\nhave of casting their eyes heavenwards.\u2014Fortunately for Christianity,\nbooks are for the greatest number, merely literature. We must not let\nourselves be led away: \u201cjudge not!\u201d they say, but they dispatch all\nthose to hell who stand in their way. Inasmuch as they let God do the\njudging, they themselves, judge; inasmuch as they glorify God, they\nglorify themselves; inasmuch as they exact those virtues of which\nthey themselves happen to be capable\u2014nay more, of which they are in\nneed in order to be able to remain on top at all;\u2014they assume the\ngrand airs of struggling for virtue, of struggling for the dominion of\nvirtue. \u201cWe live, we die, we sacrifice ourselves for the good\u201d (\u2014\u201cthe\nTruth,\u201d \u201cthe Light,\u201d \u201cthe Kingdom of God\u201d): as a matter of fact they\ndo only what they cannot help doing. Like sneaks they have to play a\nhumble part; sit away in corners, and remain obscurely in the shade,\nand they make all this appear a duty; their humble life now appears as\na duty, and their humility is one proof the more of their piety!...\nOh, what a humble, chaste and compassionate kind of falsity! \u201cVirtue\nitself shall bear us testimony.\u201d ... Only read the gospels as books\ncalculated to seduce by means of morality: morality is appropriated by\nthese petty people,\u2014they know what morality can do! The best way of\nleading mankind by the nose is with morality! The fact is that the most\nconscious _conceit_ of people who believe themselves to be _chosen,_\nhere simulates modesty: in this way they, the Christian community, the\n\u201cgood and the just\u201d place themselves once and for all on a certain\nside, the side \u201cof Truth\u201d\u2014and the rest of mankind, \u201cthe world\u201d on\nthe other.... This was the most fatal kind of megalomania that had\never yet existed on earth: insignificant little abortions of bigots\nand liars began to lay sole claim to the concepts \u201cGod,\u201d \u201cTruth,\u201d\n\u201cLight,\u201d \u201cSpirit,\u201d \u201cLove,\u201d \u201cWisdom,\u201d \u201cLife,\u201d as if these things were,\nso to speak, synonyms of themselves, in order to fence themselves off\nfrom \u201cthe world\u201d; little ultra-Jews, ripe for every kind of madhouse,\ntwisted values round in order to suit themselves, just as if the\nChristian, alone, were the meaning, the salt, the standard and even the\n\u201c_ultimate tribunal_\u201d of all the rest of mankind.... The whole fatality\nwas rendered possible only because a kind of megalomania, akin to this\none and allied to it in race,\u2014the Jewish kind\u2014was already to hand in\nthe world: the very moment the gulf between Jews and Jud\u00e6o-Christians\nwas opened, the latter had no alternative left, but to adopt the same\nself-preservative measures as the Jewish instinct suggested, even\n_against_ the Jews themselves, whereas the Jews, theretofore, had\nemployed these same measures only against the Gentiles. The Christian\nis nothing more than an anarchical Jew.\n\n\n45\n\n\u2014Let me give you a few examples of what these paltry people have\nstuffed into their heads, what they have laid _on the lips of their\nMaster_: quite a host of confessions from \u201cbeautiful souls.\u201d\u2014\n\n\u201cAnd whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart\nthence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against\nthem. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom\nand Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.\u201d (Mark vi.\n11.)\u2014_How evangelical!..._\n\n\u201cAnd whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in\nme, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,\nand he were cast into the sea.\u201d (Mark ix. 42.)\u2014How _evangelical!..._\n\n\u201cAnd if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it fa better for thee to\nenter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be\ncast into hell fire: where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not\nquenched.\u201d (Mark ix. 47, 48.)\u2014The eye is not precisely what is meant\nin this passage....\n\n\u201cVerily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here,\nwhich shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God\ncome with power.\u201d (Mark ix. 1.)\u2014Well _lied,_ lion![6] ...\n\n\u201cWhosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his\ncross, and follow me. _For_ ...\u201d (_A psychologist\u2019s comment._ Christian\nmorality is refuted by its \u201cFor\u2019s\u201d: its \u201creasons\u201d refute,\u2014this is\nChristian.) (Mark viii. 34.)\n\n\u201cJudge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge,\nye shall be judged.\u201d (Matthew vii. I, 2.)\u2014What a strange notion of\njustice on the part of a \u201cjust\u201d judge!...\n\n\u201cFor if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even\nthe publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye\nmore _than others?_ do not even the publicans so?\u201d (Matthew v. 46, 47.)\nThe principle of \u201cChristian love\u201d: it insists upon being _well paid_....\n\n\u201cBut if ye forgive not men their trespasses neither will your Father\nforgive your trespasses.\u201d (Matthew vi. 15.)\u2014Very compromising for the\n\u201cFather\u201d in question.\n\n\u201cBut seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all\nthese things shall be added unto you.\u201d (Matthew vi. 33)\u2014\u201cAll these\nthings\u201d\u2014that is to say, food, clothing, all the necessities of life.\nTo use a moderate expression, this is an _error ..._. Shortly before\nthis God appears as a tailor, at least in certain cases....\n\n\u201cRejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy: for, behold, your reward\n_is_ great in heaven: for in the like manner did their fathers unto\nthe prophets.\u201d (Luke vi. 23.)\u2014_Impudent_ rabble! They dare to compare\nthemselves with the prophets....\n\n\u201cKnow ye not that ye are the temple of God and _that_ the Spirit of God\ndwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, _him shall God\ndestroy;_ for the temple of God is holy, which _temple ye are._\u201d (St\nPaul, I Corinthians iii. 16, 17.)\u2014One cannot have too much contempt\nfor this sort of thing....\n\n\u201cDo ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world\nshall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?\u201d\n(St Paul, I Corinthians vi. 2.)\u2014Unfortunately this is not merely the\nspeech of a lunatic.... This _appalling impostor_ proceeds thus: \u201cKnow\nye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to\nthis life?\u201d\n\n\u201cHath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in\nthe wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by\nthe foolishness of preaching to save them that believe ... not many\nwise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble _are called;_\nBut God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the\nwise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound\nthe things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things\nwhich are despised, hath God chosen; _yea,_ and things which are not,\nto bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in\nhis presence.\u201d (St Paul, I Corinthians i. 20 _et seq._)\u2014In order to\n_understand_ this passage, which is of the highest importance as an\nexample of the psychology of every Chandala morality, the reader should\nrefer to my _Genealogy of Morals:_ in this book, the contrast between\na _noble_ and a Chandala morality born of _resentment_ and impotent\nrevengefulness, is brought to light for the first time. St Paul was the\ngreatest of all the apostles of revenge....\n\n\n46\n\n_What follows from this?_ That one does well to put on one\u2019s gloves\nwhen reading the New Testament The proximity of so much pitch almost\ndefiles one. We should feel just as little inclined to hobnob with\n\u201cthe first Christians\u201d as with Polish Jews: not that we need explain\nour objections.... They simply smell bad.\u2014In vain have I sought for a\nsingle sympathetic feature in the New Testament; there is not a trace\nof freedom, kindliness, open-heartedness and honesty to be found in\nit. Humaneness has not even made a start in this book, while _cleanly_\ninstincts are entirely absent from it.... Only evil instincts are to be\nfound in the New Testament, it shows no sign of courage, these people\nlack even the courage of their evil instincts. All is cowardice, all is\na closing of one\u2019s eyes and self-deception. Every book becomes clean,\nafter one has just read the New Testament: for instance, immediately\nafter laying down St Paul, I read with particular delight that most\ncharming and most wanton of scoffers, Petronius, of whom someone might\nsay what Domenico Boccaccio wrote to the Duke of Parma about C\u00e6sar\nBorgia: \u201c_\u00e8 tutto festo_\u201d\u2014immortally healthy, immortally cheerful\nand well-constituted. ... These petty bigots err in their calculations\nand in the most important thing of all. They certainly attack; but\neverything they assail is, by that very fact alone, _distinguished._\nHe whom a \u201cprimitive Christian\u201d attacks, is _not_ thereby sullied....\nConversely it is an honour to be opposed by \u201cprimitive Christians.\u201d\nOne cannot read the New Testament without feeling a preference for\neverything in it which is the subject of abuse\u2014not to speak of the\n\u201cwisdom of this world,\u201d which an impudent windbag tries in vain to\nconfound \u201cby the foolishness of preaching.\u201d Even the Pharisees and the\nScribes derive advantage from such opposition: they must certainly\nhave been worth something in order to have been hated in such a\ndisreputable way. Hypocrisy\u2014as if this were a reproach which the\n\u201cfirst Christians\u201d _were at liberty_ to make!\u2014After all the Scribes\nand Pharisees were the _privileged ones;_ this was quite enough, the\nhatred of the Chandala requires no other reasons. I very much fear\nthat the \u201cfirst Christian\u201d\u2014as also the \u201c_last Christian\u201d whom I may\nyet be able to meet,\u2014_ is in his deepest instincts a rebel against\neverything privileged; he lives and struggles unremittingly for \u201cequal\nrights\u201d!... Regarded more closely, he has no alternative.... If one\u2019s\ndesire be personally to represent \u201cone of the chosen of God\u201d\u2014or a\n\u201ctemple of God,\u201d or \u201ca judge of angels,\u201d\u2014then every _other_ principle\nof selection, for instance that based upon a standard of honesty,\nintellect, manliness and pride, or upon beauty and freedom of heart,\nbecomes the \u201cworld,\u201d\u2014_evil in itself._ Moral: every word on the lips\nof a \u201cfirst Christian\u201d is a lie, every action he does is an instinctive\nfalsehood,\u2014all his values, all his aims are pernicious; but the man\nhe, hates, _the thing_ he hates, _has value._ ... The Christian, more\nparticularly the Christian priest, is a _criterion of values_\u2014Do I\nrequire to add that in the whole of the New Testament only _one_ figure\nappears which we cannot help respecting? Pilate, the Roman Governor. To\ntake a Jewish quarrel _seriously_ was a thing he could not get himself\nto do. One Jew more or less\u2014what did it matter?... The noble scorn\nof a Roman, in whose presence the word \u201ctruth\u201d had been shamelessly\nabused, has enriched the New Testament with the only saying which _is\nof value,_\u2014and this saying is not only the criticism, but actually the\nshattering of that Testament: \u201cWhat is truth!\u201d...\n\n\n47\n\n\u2014That which separates us from other people is not the fact that\nwe can discover no God, either in history, or in nature, or behind\nnature,\u2014but that we regard what has been revered as \u201cGod,\u201d not as\n\u201cdivine,\u201d but as wretched, absurd, pernicious; not as an error, but as\na _crime against life._ ... We deny God as God.... If the existence\nof this Christian God were _proved_ to us, we should feel even less\nable to believe in him.\u2014In a formula: _deus qualem Paulus creavit,\ndei negatio._\u2014A religion such as Christianity which never once comes\nin touch with reality, and which collapses the very moment reality\nasserts its rights even on one single point, must naturally be a mortal\nenemy of the \u201cwisdom of this world\u201d\u2014that is to say, _science._ It\nwill call all those means good with which mental discipline, lucidity\nand severity in intellectual matters, nobility and freedom of the\nintellect may be poisoned, calumniated and _decried_. \u201cFaith\u201d as an\nimperative is a _veto_ against science,\u2014_in praxi,_ it means lies\nat any price. St Paul _understood_ that falsehood\u2014that \u201cfaith\u201d was\nnecessary; subsequently the Church understood St Paul.\u2014That \u201cGod\u201d\nwhich St Paul invented for himself, a God who \u201cconfounds\u201d the \u201cwisdom\nof this world\u201d (in a narrower sense, the two great opponents of all\nsuperstition, philology and medicine), means, in very truth, simply St\nPaul\u2019s firm _resolve_ to do so: to call his own will \u201cGod\u201d, _thora,_\nthat is arch-Jewish. St Paul insists upon confounding the \u201cwisdom of\nthis world\u201d: his enemies are the _good old_ philologists and doctors of\nthe Alexandrine schools; it is on them that he wages war. As a matter\nof fact no one is either a philologist or a doctor, who is not also an\n_Antichrist._ As a philologist, for instance, a man sees _behind_ the\n\u201choly books,\u201d as a doctor he sees _behind_ the physiological rottenness\nof the typical Christian. The doctor says \u201cincurable,\u201d the philologist\nsays \u201cforgery.\u201d\n\n\n48\n\n\u2014Has anybody ever really understood the celebrated story which stands\nat the beginning of the Bible,\u2014concerning God\u2019s deadly panic over\n_science?_ ... Nobody has understood it This essentially sacerdotal\nbook naturally begins with the great inner difficulty of the priest:\n_he_ knows only one great danger, _consequently_ \u201cGod\u201d has only one\ngreat danger.\u2014\n\nThe old God, entirely \u201cspirit,\u201d a high-priest through and through, and\nwholly perfect, is wandering in a leisurely fashion round his garden;\nbut he is bored. Against boredom even the gods themselves struggle in\nvain.[7] What does he do? He invents man,\u2014man is entertaining.... But,\nbehold, even man begins to be bored. God\u2019s compassion for the only\nform of misery which is peculiar to all paradises, exceeds all bounds:\nso forthwith he creates yet other animals. God\u2019s _first_ mistake: man\ndid not think animals entertaining,\u2014he dominated them, he did not even\nwish to be an \u201canimal.\u201d Consequently God created woman. And boredom did\nindeed cease from that moment,\u2014but many other things ceased as well!\nWoman was God\u2019s _second_ mistake.\u2014\u201cWoman in her innermost nature is a\nserpent, Heva\u201d\u2014every priest knows this: \u201call evil came into this world\nthrough woman,\u201d\u2014every priest knows this too. \u201c_Consequently science_\nalso comes from woman.\u201d ... Only through woman did man learn to taste\nof the tree of knowledge.\u2014What had happened? Panic had seized the\nold God Man himself had been his _greatest_ mistake, he had created\na rival for himself, science makes you _equal to God,_\u2014it is all up\nwith priests and gods when man becomes scientific!\u2014Moral: science is\nthe most prohibited thing of all,\u2014it alone, is forbidden. Science is\nthe _first,_ the germ of all sins, the original sin. _This alone is\nmorality._\u2014\u201cThou shalt _not_ know\u201d:\u2014the rest follows as a matter of\ncourse, God\u2019s panic did not deprive him of his intelligence. How can\none _guard_ against science? For ages this was his principal problem.\nReply: man must be kicked out of paradise! Happiness, leisure leads to\nthinking,\u2014all thoughts are bad thoughts.... Man _must_ not think.\u2014And\nthe \u201cpriest-per-se\u201d proceeds to invent distress, death, the vital\ndanger of pregnancy, every kind of misery, decrepitude, and affliction,\nand above all _disease,_\u2014all these are but weapons employed in the\nstruggle with science! Trouble prevents man from thinking.... And\nnotwithstanding all these precautions! Oh, horror! the work of science\ntowers aloft, it storms heaven itself, it rings the death-knell of the\ngods,\u2014what\u2019s to be done?\u2014The old God invents _war;_ he separates the\nnations, and contrives to make men destroy each other mutually (\u2014the\npriests have always been in need of war....) War, among other things,\nis a great disturber of science!\u2014Incredible! Knowledge, _the rejection\nof the sacerdotal yoke,_ nevertheless increases.\u2014So the old God\narrives at this final decision: \u201cMan has become scientific,\u2014_there is\nno help for it, he must be drowned!_\u201d ...\n\n\n49\n\nYou have understood me The beginning of the Bible contains the whole\npsychology of the priest\u2014The priest knows only one great danger, and\nthat is science,\u2014the healthy concept of cause and effect But, on the\nwhole, science flourishes onlyunder happy conditions,\u2014a man must\nhave time, he must also have superfluous mental energy in order to\n\u201cpursue knowledge\u201d ... \u201c_Consequently_ man must be made unhappy,\u201d\u2014this\nhas been the argument of the priest of all ages.\u2014You have already\ndivined what, in accordance with such a manner of arguing, must\nfirst have come into the world:\u2014\u201csin.\u201d ... The notion of guilt and\npunishment, the whole \u201cmoral order of the universe,\u201d was invented\nagainst science,\u2014against the deliverance of man from the priest....\nMan must _not_ cast his glance upon the outer world, he must turn it\ninwards into himself; he must not as a learner look cleverly and\ncautiously _into_ things; he must not see at all: he must _suffer._\n... And he must suffer, so that he may be in need of the priest every\nminute.\u2014Away with doctors! What is needed is a Saviour!\u2014The notion of\nguilt and punishment, including the doctrine of \u201cgrace,\u201d of \u201csalvation\u201d\nand of \u201cforgiveness\u201d\u2014all _lies_ through and through without a shred\nof psychological reality\u2014were invented in order to destroy man\u2019s\n_sense of causality:_ they are an attack on the concept of cause and\neffect!\u2014And _not_ an attack with the fist, with the knife, with\nhonesty in hate and love! But one actuated by the most cowardly, most\ncrafty, and most ignoble instincts! A _priests_ attack! A _parasite\u2019s_\nattack! A vampyrism of pale subterranean leeches!\u2014... When the natural\nconsequences of an act are no longer \u201cnatural,\u201d but are thought to\nbe conjured up by phantom concepts of superstition, by \u201cGod,\u201d by\n\u201cspirits,\u201d and by \u201csouls,\u201d as merely moral consequences, in the form\nof rewards, punishments, hints, and educational means,\u2014then the whole\nbasis of knowledge is destroyed,\u2014_then the greatest crime against man\nhas been perpetrated._\u2014Sin, I repeat, this form of self-pollution _par\nexcellence_ on the part of man, was invented in order to make science,\nculture and every elevation and noble trait in man quite impossible; by\nmeans of the invention of sin the priest is able to _rule._\n\n\n50\n\n\u2014I cannot here dispense with a psychology of \u201cfaith\u201d and of the\n\u201cfaithful,\u201d which will naturally be to the advantage of the \u201cfaithful.\u201d\nIf to-day there are still many who do not know how very _indecent_ it\nis to be a \u201cbeliever\u201d\u2014_or_ to what extent such a state is the sign\nof decadence, and of the broken will to Life,\u2014they will know it no\nlater than to-morrow. My voice can make even those hear who are hard\nof hearing.\u2014If perchance my ears have not deceived me, it seems that\namong Christians there is such a thing as a kind of criterion of truth,\nwhich is called \u201cthe proof of power.\u201d \u201cFaith saveth; _therefore_ it\nis true.\u201d\u2014It might be objected here that it is precisely salvation\nwhich is not proved but only _promised:_ salvation is bound up with\nthe condition \u201cfaith,\u201d\u2014one _shall_ be saved, _because_ one has\nfaith.... But how prove _that_ that which the priest promises to the\nfaithful really will take place, to wit: the \u201cBeyond\u201d which defies\nall demonstration?\u2014The assumed \u201cproof of power\u201d is at bottom once\nagain only a belief in the fact that the effect which faith promises\nwill not fail to take place. In a formula: \u201cI believe that faith\nsaveth;\u2014_consequently_ it is true.\u201d\u2014But with this we are at the end\nof our tether. This \u201cconsequently\u201d would be the _absurdum_ itself as\na criterion of truth.\u2014Let us be indulgent enough to assume, however,\nthat salvation is proved by faith (\u2014_not_ only desired, and _not_\nmerely promised by the somewhat suspicious lips of a priest): could\nsalvation\u2014or, in technical terminology, _happiness_\u2014ever be a proof\nof truth? So little is it so that, when pleasurable sensations make\ntheir influence felt in replying to the question \u201cwhat is true,\u201d they\nfurnish almost the contradiction of truth, or at any rate they make\nit in the highest degree suspicious. The proof through \u201chappiness,\u201d\nis a proof of happiness\u2014and nothing else; why in the world should\nwe take it for granted that _true_ judgments cause more pleasure than\nfalse ones, and that in accordance with a pre-established harmony, they\nnecessarily bring pleasant feelings in their wake?\u2014The experience of\nall strict and profound minds teaches the _reverse._ Every inch of\ntruth has been conquered only after a struggle, almost everything to\nwhich our heart, our love and our trust in life cleaves, has had to be\nsacrificed for it Greatness of soul is necessary for this: the service\nof truth is the hardest of all services.\u2014What then is meant by honesty\nin things intellectual? It means that a man is severe towards his own\nheart, that he scorns \u201cbeautiful feelings,\u201d and that he makes a matter\nof conscience out of every Yea and Nay!\u2014-Faith saveth: _consequently_\nit lies....\n\n\n51\n\nThe fact that faith may in certain circumstances save, the fact that\nsalvation as the result of an _id\u00e9e fixe_ does not constitute a true\nidea, the fact that faith moves _no_ mountains, but may very readily\nraise them where previously they did not exist\u2014all these things are\nmade sufficiently clear by a mere casual stroll through a _lunatic\nasylum._ Of course _no_ priest would find this sufficient: for he\ninstinctively denies that illness is illness or that lunatic asylums\nare lunatic asylums. Christianity is in _need_ of illness, just as\nAncient Greece was in need of a superabundance of health. The actual\nulterior motive of the whole of the Church\u2019s system of salvation\nis to _make people ill._ And is not the Church itself the Catholic\nmadhouse as an ultimate ideal?\u2014The earth as a whole converted into a\nmadhouse?\u2014The kind of religious man which the Church aims at producing\nis a typical _decadent_ The moment of time at which a religious crisis\nattains the ascendancy over a people, is always characterised by\nnerve-epidemics; the \u201cinner world\u201d of the religious man is ridiculously\nlike the \u201cinner world\u201d of over-irritable and exhausted people; the\n\u201chighest\u201d states which Christianity holds up to mankind as the value\nof values, are epileptic in character,\u2014the Church has pronounced only\nmadmen _or_ great swindlers _in majorem dei honorem_ holy. Once I\nventured to characterise the whole of the Christian training of penance\nand salvation (which nowadays is best studied in England) as a _folie\ncirculaire_ methodically generated upon a soil which, of course, is\nalready prepared for it,\u2014that is to say, which is thoroughly morbid.\nNot every one who likes can be a Christian: no man is \u201cconverted\u201d\nto Christianity,\u2014he must be sick enough for it ... We others who\npossess enough courage both for health and for contempt, how rightly\n_we_ may despise a religion which taught men to misunderstand the\nbody I which would not rid itself of the superstitions of the soul!\nwhich made a virtue of taking inadequate nourishment! which in health\ncombats a sort of enemy, devil, temptation! which persuaded itself that\nit was possible to bear a perfect soul about in a cadaverous body,\nand which, to this end, had to make up for itself a new concept of\n\u201cperfection,\u201d a pale, sickly, idiotically gushing ideal,\u2014so-called\n\u201choliness,\u201d\u2014holiness, which in itself is simply a symptom of an\nimpoverished, enervated and incurably deteriorated body!... The\nmovement of Christianity, as a European movement, was from first to\nlast, a general accumulation of the ruck and scum of all sorts and\nkinds (\u2014and these, by means of Christianity, aspire to power). It\ndoes _not_ express the downfall of a race, it is rather a conglomerate\nassembly of all the decadent elements from everywhere which seek each\nother and crowd together. It was not, as some believe, the corruption\nof antiquity, of _noble_ antiquity, which made Christianity possible:\nthe learned idiocy which nowadays tries to support such a notion cannot\nbe too severely contradicted. At the time when the morbid and corrupted\nChandala classes became Christianised in the whole of the _imperium,_\nthe very _contrary type,_ nobility, was extant in its finest and\nmaturest forms. The greatest number became master; the democracy of\nChristian instincts triumphed.... Christianity was not \u201cnational,\u201d it\nwas not determined by race,\u2014it appealed to all the disinherited forms\nof life, it had its allies everywhere. Christianity is built upon the\nrancour of the sick; its instinct is directed _against_ the sound,\nagainst health. Everything well-constituted, proud, high-spirited,\nand beautiful is offensive to its ears and eyes. Again I remind you\nof St Paul\u2019s priceless words: \u201cAnd God hath chosen the _weak_ things\nof the world, the _foolish_ things of the world; and _base_ things of\nthe world, and things which are _despised\u201d_: this was the formula, _in\nhoc signo_ decadence triumphed.\u2014_God on the Cross_\u2014does no one yet\nunderstand the terrible ulterior motive of this symbol?\u2014Everything\nthat suffers, everything that hangs on the cross, is _divine...._ All\nof us hang on the cross, consequently we are _divine ..._. We alone are\ndivine.... Christianity was a victory; a _nobler_ type of character\nperished through it,\u2014Christianity has been humanity\u2019s greatest\nmisfortune hitherto.\u2014\u2014\n\n\n52\n\nChristianity also stands opposed to everything happily constituted\nin the _mind,_\u2014it can make use only of morbid reason as Christian\nreason; it takes the side of everything idiotic, it utters a curse\nupon \u201cintellect,\u201d upon the _superbia_ of the healthy intellect. Since\nillness belongs to the essence of Christianity, the typically Christian\nstate, \u201cfaith,\u201d _must_ also be a form of illness, and all straight,\nhonest and scientific roads to knowledge must be repudiated by the\nChurch as forbidden.... Doubt in itself is already a sin.... The total\nlack of psychological cleanliness in the priest, which reveals itself\nin his look, is a _result_ of decadence. Hysterical women, as also\nchildren with scrofulous constitutions, should be observed as a proof\nof how invariably instinctive falsity, the love of lying for the sake\nof lying, and the in ability either to look or to walk straight, are\nthe expression of decadence. \u201cFaith\u201d simply means the refusal to know\nwhat is true. The pious person, the priest of both sexes, is false\nbecause he is ill: his instinct _demands_ that truth should not assert\nits right anywhere. \u201cThat which makes ill is good: that which proceeds\nfrom abundance, from superabundance and from power, is evil\u201d: that\nis the view of the faithful. The _constraint to lie_\u2014that is the\nsign by which I recognise every predetermined theologian.\u2014Another\ncharacteristic of the theologian is his lack of _capacity_ for\n_philology._ What I mean here by the word philology is, in a general\nsense to be understood as the art of reading well, of being able to\ntake account of facts _without_ falsifying them by interpretation,\nwithout losing either caution, patience or subtlety owing to one\u2019s\ndesire to understand. Philology as _ephexis_[8] in interpretation,\nwhether one be dealing with books, newspaper reports, human destinies\nor meteorological records,\u2014not to speak of the \u201csalvation of the\nsoul.\u201d ... The manner in which a theologian, whether in Berlin or in\nRome, interprets a verse from the \u201cScriptures,\u201d or an experience, or\nthe triumph of his nation\u2019s army for instance, under the superior\nguiding light of David\u2019s Psalms, is always so exceedingly _daring,_\nthat it is enough to make a philologist\u2019s hair stand on end. And what\nis he to do, when pietists and other cows from Swabia explain their\nmiserable every-day lives in their smoky hovels by means of the \u201cFinger\nof God,\u201d a miracle of \u201cgrace,\u201d of \u201cProvidence,\u201d of experiences of\n\u201csalvation\u201d! The most modest effort of the intellect, not to speak of\ndecent feeling, ought at least to lead these interpreters to convince\nthemselves of the absolute childishness and unworthiness of any such\nabuse of the dexterity of God\u2019s fingers. However small an amount of\nloving piety we might possess, a god who cured us in time of a cold in\nthe nose, or who arranged for us to enter a carriage just at the moment\nwhen a cloud burst over our heads, would be such an absurd God, that he\nwould have to be abolished, even if he existed.[9] God as a domestic\nservant, as a postman, as a general provider,\u2014in short, merely a word\nfor the most foolish kind of accidents.... \u201cDivine Providence,\u201d as it\nis believed in to-day by almost every third man in \u201ccultured Germany,\u201d\nwould be an argument against God, in fact it would be the strongest\nargument against God that could be Imagined. And in any case it is an\nargument against the Germans.\n\n\n53\n\n\u2014The notion that martyrs prove anything at all in favour of a thing,\nis so exceedingly doubtful, that I would fain deny that there has ever\nyet existed a martyr who had anything to do with truth. In the very\nmanner in which a martyr flings his little parcel of truth at the\nhead of the world, such a low degree of intellectual honesty and such\nobtuseness in regard to the question \u201ctruth\u201d makes itself felt, that\none never requires to refute a martyr. Truth is not a thing which one\nmight have and another be without: only peasants or peasant-apostles,\nafter the style of Luther, can think like this about truth. You may be\nquite sure, that the greater a man\u2019s degree of conscientiousness may\nbe in matters intellectual, the more modest he will show himself on\nthis point To _know_ about five things, and with a subtle wave of the\nhand to refuse to know _others._ ... \u201cTruth\u201d as it is understood by\nevery prophet, every sectarian, every free thinker, every socialist and\nevery church-man, is an absolute proof of the fact that these people\nhaven\u2019t even begun that discipline of the mind and that process of\nself-mastery, which is necessary for the discovery of any small, even\nexceedingly small truth.\u2014Incidentally, the deaths of martyrs have\nbeen a great misfortune in the history of the world: they led people\nastray.... The conclusion which all idiots, women and common people\ncome to, that there must be something in a cause for which someone lays\ndown his life (or which, as in the case of primitive Christianity,\nprovokes an epidemic of sacrifices),\u2014this conclusion put a tremendous\ncheck upon all investigation, upon the spirit of investigation and of\ncaution. Martyrs have _harmed_ the cause of truth. ... Even to this day\nit only requires the crude fact of persecution, in order to create an\nhonourable name for any obscure sect who does not matter in the least\nWhat? is a cause actually changed in any way by the fact that some\none has laid down his life for it? An error which becomes honourable,\nis simply an error that possesses one seductive charm the more: do\nyou suppose, dear theologians, that we shall give you the chance of\nacting the martyrs for your lies?\u2014A thing is refuted by being laid\nrespectfully on ice, and theologians are refuted in the same way. This\nwas precisely the world-historic foolishness of all persecutors; they\nlent the thing they combated a semblance of honour by conferring the\nfascination of martyrdom upon it.... Women still lie prostrate before\nan error to-day, because they have been told that some one died on the\ncross for it _Is the cross then an argument?_\u2014But concerning all these\nthings, one person alone has said what mankind has been in need of for\nthousands of years,\u2014_Zarathustra._\n\n\u201cLetters of blood did they write on the way they went, and their folly\ntaught that truth is proved by blood.\n\n\u201cBut blood is the very worst testimony of truth; blood poisoneth even\nthe purest teaching, and turneth it into delusion and into blood feuds.\n\n\u201cAnd when a man goeth through fire for his teaching\u2014what does that\nprove? Verily, it is more when out of one\u2019s own burning springeth one\u2019s\nown teaching.\u201d[10]\n\n\n54\n\nDo not allow yourselves to be deceived: great minds are sceptical.\nZarathustra is a sceptic. Strength and the _freedom_ which proceeds\nfrom the power and excessive power of the mind, _manifests_ itself\nthrough scepticism. Men of conviction are of no account whatever\nin regard to any principles of value or of non-value. Convictions\nare prisons. They never see far enough, they do not look down from\na sufficient height: but in order to have any say in questions of\nvalue and non-value, a man must see five hundred convictions _beneath_\nhim,\u2014_behind_ him.... A spirit who desires great things, and who also\ndesires the means thereto, is necessarily a sceptic. Freedom from every\nkind of conviction _belongs_ to strength, to the _ability_ to open\none\u2019s eyes freely.... The great passion of a sceptic, the basis and\npower of his being, which is more enlightened and more despotic than he\nis himself, enlists all his intellect into its service; it makes him\nunscrupulous; it even gives him the courage to employ unholy means;\nin certain circumstances it even allows him convictions. Conviction\nas a _means:_ much is achieved merely by means of a conviction. Great\npassion makes use of and consumes convictions, it does not submit to\nthem\u2014it knows that it is a sovereign power. Conversely; the need of\nfaith, of anything either absolutely affirmative or negative, Carlylism\n(if I may be allowed this expression), is the need of _weakness._\nThe man of beliefs, the \u201cbeliever\u201d of every sort and condition, is\nnecessarily a dependent man;\u2014he is one who cannot regard _himself_ as\nan aim, who cannot postulate aims from the promptings of his own heart\nThe \u201cbeliever\u201d does not belong to himself, he can be only a means,\nhe must be _used up,_ he is in need of someone who uses him up. His\ninstinct accords the highest honour to a morality of self-abnegation:\neverything in him, his prudence, his experience, his vanity, persuade\nhim to adopt this morality. Every sort of belief is in itself an\nexpression of self-denial, of self-estrangement. ... If one considers\nhow necessary a regulating code of conduct is to the majority of\npeople, a code of conduct which constrains them and fixes them from\noutside; and how control, or in a higher sense, _slavery,_ is the only\nand ultimate condition under which the weak-willed man, and especially\nwoman, flourish; one also understands conviction, \u201cfaith.\u201d The man\nof conviction finds in the latter his _backbone._ To be _blind_ to\nmany things, to be impartial about nothing, to belong always to a\nparticular side, to hold a strict and necessary point of view in all\nmatters of values\u2014these are the only conditions under which such a man\ncan survive at all. But all this is the reverse of, the _antagonist_\nof, the truthful man,\u2014of truth.... The believer is not at liberty to\nhave a conscience for the question \u201ctrue\u201d and \u201cuntrue\u201d: to be upright\non _this_ point would mean his immediate downfall. The pathological\nlimitations of his standpoint convert the convinced man into the\nfanatic\u2014Savonarola, Luther Rousseau, Robespierre, Saint-Simon,\u2014these\nare the reverse type of the strong spirit that has become _free._ But\nthe grandiose poses of these _morbid_ spirits, of these epileptics\nof ideas, exercise an influence over the masses,\u2014fanatics are\npicturesque, mankind prefers to look at poses than to listen to reason.\n\n\n55\n\nOne step further in the psychology of conviction of \u201cfaith.\u201d It\nis already some time since I first thought of considering whether\nconvictions were not perhaps more dangerous enemies of truth than lies\n(\u201cHuman All-too-Human,\u201d Part I, Aphs. 54 and 483). Now I would fain put\nthe decisive question: is there any difference at all between a lie\nand a conviction?\u2014All the world believes that there is, but what in\nHeaven\u2019s name does not all the world believe! Every conviction has its\nhistory, its preliminary stages, its period of groping and of mistakes:\nit becomes a conviction only after it has _not_ been one for a long\ntime, only after it has _scarcely_ been one for a long time. What?\nmight not falsehood be the embryonic form of conviction?\u2014At times\nall that is required is a change of personality: very often what was\na lie in the father becomes a conviction in the son.\u2014I call a lie,\nto refuse to see something that one sees, to refuse to see it exactly\n_as_ one sees it: whether a lie is perpetrated before witnesses or not\nis beside the point.\u2014The most common sort of lie is the one uttered\nto one\u2019s self; to lie to others is relatively exceptional. Now this\nrefusal to see what one sees, this refusal to see a thing exactly as\none sees it, is almost the first condition for all those who belong\nto a _party_ in any sense whatsoever: the man who belongs to a party\nperforce becomes a liar. German historians, for instance, are convinced\nthat Rome stood for despotism, whereas the Teutons introduced the\nspirit of freedom into the world: what difference is there between\nthis conviction and a lie? After this is it to be wondered at, that\nall parties, including German historians, instinctively adopt the\ngrandiloquent phraseology of morality,\u2014that morality almost owes\nits _survival_ to the fact that the man who belongs to a party, no\nmatter what it may be, is in need of morality every moment?\u2014\u201cThis\nis our conviction: we confess it to the whole world, we live and die\nfor it,\u2014let us respect every thing that has a conviction!\u201d\u2014I have\nactually heard antisemites speak in this way. On the contrary, my dear\nsirs! An antisemite does not become the least bit more respectable\nbecause he lies on principle.... Priests, who in such matters are\nmore subtle, and who perfectly understand the objection to which the\nidea of a conviction lies open\u2014that is to say of a falsehood which\nis perpetrated on principle _because_ it serves a purpose, borrowed\nfrom the Jews the prudent measure of setting the concept \u201cGod,\u201d \u201cWill\nof God,\u201d \u201cRevelation of God,\u201d at this place. Kant, too, with his\ncategorical imperative, was on the same road: this was his _practical_\nreason.\u2014There are some questions in which it is _not_ given to man\nto decide between true and false; all the principal questions, all\nthe principal problems of value, stand beyond human reason.... To\ncomprehend the limits of reason\u2014this alone is genuine philosophy. For\nwhat purpose did God give man revelation? Would God have done anything\nsuperfluous? Man cannot of his own accord know what is good and what is\nevil, that is why God taught man his will.... Moral: the priest does\n_not_ lie, such questions as \u201ctruth\u201d or \u201cfalseness\u201d have nothing to do\nwith the things concerning which the priest speaks; such things do not\nallow of lying. For, in order to lie, it would be necessary to know\n_what_ is true in this respect. But that is precisely what man cannot\nknow: hence the priest is only the mouthpiece of God.\u2014This sort of\nsacerdotal syllogism is by no means exclusively Judaic or Christian;\nthe right to lie and the _prudent measure_ of \u201crevelation\u201d belongs\nto the priestly type, whether of decadent periods or of Pagan times\n(\u2014Pagans are all those who say yea to life, and to whom \u201cGod\u201d is the\nword for the great yea to all things). The \u201claw,\u201d the \u201cwill of God,\u201d\nthe \u201choly book,\u201d and inspiration.\u2014All these things are merely words\nfor the conditions under which the priest attains to power, and with\nwhich he maintains his power,\u2014these concepts are to be found at the\nbase of all sacerdotal organisations, of all priestly or philosophical\nand ecclesiastical governments. The \u201choly lie,\u201d which is common to\nConfucius, to the law-book of Manu, to Muhamed, and to the Christian\nchurch, is not even absent in Plato. \u201cTruth is here\u201d; this phrase\nmeans, wherever it is uttered: _the priest lies...._\n\n\n56\n\nAfter all, the question is, to what _end_ are falsehoods perpetrated?\nThe fact that, in Christianity, \u201choly\u201d ends are entirely absent,\nconstitutes _my_ objection to the means it employs. Its ends are only\n_bad_ ends: the poisoning, the calumniation and the denial of life,\nthe contempt of the body, the degradation and self-pollution of man by\nvirtue of the concept sin,\u2014consequently its means are bad as well.\u2014My\nfeelings are quite the reverse when I read the law-book of _Manu, an_\nincomparably superior and more intellectual work, which it would be\na sin against the _spirit_ even to _mention_ in the same breath with\nthe Bible. You will guess immediately why: it has a genuine philosophy\nbehind it, _in_ it, not merely an evil-smelling Jewish distillation\nof Rabbinism and superstition,\u2014it gives something to chew even\nto the most fastidious psychologist. And, _not_ to forget the most\nimportant point of all, it is fundamentally different from every kind\nof Bible: by means of it the _noble classes,_ the philosophers and the\nwarriors guard and guide the masses; it is replete with noble values,\nit is filled with a feeling of perfection, with a saying of yea to\nlife, and a triumphant sense of well-being in regard to itself and to\nlife,\u2014the sun shines upon the whole book.\u2014All those things which\nChristianity smothers with its bottomless vulgarity: procreation,\nwoman, marriage, are here treated with earnestness, with revere nee,\nwith love and confidence. How can one possibly place in the hands of\nchildren and women, a book that contains those vile words: \u201cto avoid\nfornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman\nhave her own husband ... it is better to marry than to burn.\u201d[11]\nAnd is it decent to be a Christian so long as the very origin of\nman is Christianised,\u2014that is to say, befouled, by the idea of the\n_immaculata conceptio?_ ... I know of no book in which so many delicate\nand kindly things are said to woman, as in the Law-Rook of Manu; these\nold grey-beards and saints have a manner of being gallant to women\nwhich, perhaps, cannot be surpassed. \u201cThe mouth of a woman,\u201d says Manu\non one occasion, \u201cthe breast of a maiden, the prayer of a child, and\nthe smoke of the sacrifice, are always pure.\u201d Elsewhere he says: \u201cthere\nis nothing purer than the light of the sun, the shadow cast by a cow,\nair, water, fire and the breath of a maiden.\u201d And finally\u2014perhaps this\nis also a holy lie:\u2014\u201call the openings of the body above the navel are\npure, all those below the navel are impure. Only in a maiden is the\nwhole body pure.\u201d\n\n\n57\n\nThe unholiness of Christian means is caught _in flagranti,_ if only\nthe end aspired to by Christianity be compared with that of the\nLaw-Book of Manu; if only these two utterly opposed aims be put under\na strong light The critic of Christianity simply cannot avoid making\nChristianity _contemptible._\u2014A Law-Book like that of Manu comes into\nbeing like every good law-book: it epitomises the experience, the\nprecautionary measures, and the experimental morality of long ages,\nit settles things definitely, it no longer creates. The prerequisite\nfor a codification of this kind, is the recognition of the fact that\nthe means which procure authority for a _truth_ to which it has cost\nboth time and great pains to attain, are fundamentally different from\nthose with which that same truth would be proved. A law-book never\nrelates the utility, the reasons, the preliminary casuistry, of a\nlaw: for it would be precisely in this way that it would forfeit its\nimperative tone, the \u201cthou shalt,\u201d the first condition of its being\nobeyed. The problem lies exactly in this.\u2014At a certain stage in the\ndevelopment of a people, the most far-seeing class within it (that is\nto say, the class that sees farthest backwards and forwards), declares\nthe experience of how its fellow-creatures ought to live\u2014_can_\nlive\u2014to be finally settled. Its object is, to reap as rich and as\ncomplete a harvest as possible, in return for the ages of experiment\nand _terrible_ experience it has traversed. Consequently, that which\nhas to be avoided, above all, is any further experimentation, the\ncontinuation of the state when values are still fluid, the testing,\nchoosing, and criticising of values _in infinitum. _ Against all this a\ndouble wall is built up: in the first place, _Revelation,_ which is the\nassumption that the rationale of every law is not human in its origin,\nthat it was not sought and found after ages of error, but that it is\ndivine in its origin, completely and utterly without a history, gift, a\nmiracle, a mere communication.... And secondly, _tradition,_ which is\nthe assumption that the law has obtained since the most primeval times,\nthat it is impious and a crime against one\u2019s ancestors to attempt to\ndoubt it. The authority of law is established on the principles: God\n_gave_ it, the ancestors _lived_ it.\u2014The superior reason of such a\nprocedure lies in the intention to draw consciousness off step by step\nfrom that mode of life which has been recognised as correct (_i.e.,\nproved_ after enormous and carefully examined experience), so that\nperfect automatism of the instincts may be attained,\u2014this being the\nonly possible basis of all mastery of every kind of perfection in\nthe Art of Life. To draw up a law-book like Manu\u2019s, is tantamount\nto granting a people mastership for the future, perfection for the\nfuture,\u2014the right to aspire to the highest Art of Life. _To that\nend it must be made unconscious;_ this is the object of every holy\nlie.\u2014_The order of castes,_ the highest, the dominating law, is only\nthe sanction of a _natural order,_ of a natural legislation of the\nfirst rank, over which no arbitrary innovation, no \u201cmodern idea\u201d has\nany power. Every healthy society falls into three distinct types, which\nreciprocally condition one another and which gravitate differently in\nthe physiological sense; and each of these has its own hygiene, its\nown sphere of work, its own special feeling of perfection, and its\nown mastership. It is Nature, not Manu, that separates from the rest,\nthose individuals preponderating in intellectual power, those excelling\nin muscular strength and temperament, and the third class which is\ndistinguished neither in one way nor the other, the mediocre,\u2014the\nlatter as the greatest number, the former as the _\u00e9lite._ The superior\ncaste\u2014I call them the _fewest,_\u2014has, as the perfect caste, the\nprivileges of the fewest: it devolves upon them to represent happiness,\nbeauty and goodness on earth. Only the most intellectual men have\nthe right to beauty, to the beautiful: only in them is goodness not\nweakness. _Pulchrum est paucorum hominum:_ goodness is a privilege.\nOn the other hand there is nothing which they should be more strictly\nforbidden than repulsive manners or a pessimistic look, a look that\nmakes everything _seem ugly,_\u2014or even indignation at the general\naspect of things. Indignation is the privilege of the Chandala, and so\nis pessimism. \u201c_The world is perfect_\u201d\u2014that is what the instinct of\nthe most intellectual says, the yea-saying instinct; \u201cimperfection,\nevery kind of _inferiority_ to us, distance, the pathos of distance,\neven the Chandala belongs to this perfection.\u201d The most intellectual\nmen, as the _strongest_ find their happiness where others meet\nwith their ruin: in the labyrinth, in hardness towards themselves\nand others, in endeavour; their delight is self-mastery: with them\nasceticism becomes a second nature, a need, an instinct They regard\na difficult task as their privilege; to play with burdens which crush\ntheir fellows is to them a _recreation...._ Knowledge, a form of\nasceticism.\u2014They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does\nnot prevent them from being the most cheerful and most gracious. They\nrule, not because they will, but because they _are;_ they are not at\nliberty to take a second place.\u2014The second in rank are the guardians\nof the law, the custodians of order and of security, the noble\nwarriors, the king, above all, as the highest formula of the warrior,\nthe judge, and keeper of the law. The second in rank are the executive\nof the most intellectual, the nearest to them in duty, relieving them\nof all that is _coarse_ in the work of ruling,\u2014their retinue, their\nright hand, their best disciples. In all this, I repeat, there is\nnothing arbitrary, nothing \u201cartificial,\u201d that which is _otherwise_ is\nartificial,\u2014by that which is otherwise, nature is put to shame.... The\norder of castes, and the order of rank merely formulates the supreme\nlaw of life itself; the differentiation of the three types is necessary\nfor the maintenance of society, and for enabling higher and highest\ntypes to be reared,\u2014the _inequality_ of rights is the only condition\nof there being rights at all.\u2014A right is a privilege. And in his\nway, each has his privilege. Let us not underestimate the privileges\nof the _mediocre._ Life always gets harder towards the summit,\u2014the\ncold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilisation is a\npyramid: it can stand only upon a broad base, its first prerequisite is\na strongly and soundly consolidated mediocrity. Handicraft, commerce,\nagriculture, science, the greater part of art,\u2014in a word, the whole\nrange of professional and business callings, is compatible only with\nmediocre ability and ambition; such pursuits would be out of place\namong exceptions, the instinct pertaining thereto would oppose not\nonly aristocracy but anarchy as well. The fact that one is publicly\nuseful, a wheel, a function, presupposes a certain natural destiny: it\nis not _society,_ but the only kind of _happiness_ of which the great\nmajority are capable, that makes them intelligent machines. For the\nmediocre it is a joy to be mediocre; in them mastery in one thing, a\nspeciality, is a natural instinct. It would be absolutely unworthy of\na profound thinker to see any objection in mediocrity _per se._ For\nin itself it is the first essential condition under which exceptions\nare possible; a high culture is determined by it. When the exceptional\nman treats the mediocre with more tender care than he does himself or\nhis equals, this is not mere courtesy of heart on his part\u2014but simply\nhis _duty._ ... Whom do I hate most among the rabble of the present\nday? The socialistic rabble, the Chandala apostles, who undermine the\nworking man\u2019s instinct, his happiness and his feeling of contentedness\nwith his insignificant existence,\u2014who make him envious, and who teach\nhim revenge. ... The wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the\nclaim to equal rights. What is _bad?_ But I have already replied to\nthis: Everything that proceeds from weakness, envy and _revenge._\u2014The\nanarchist and the Christian are offspring of the same womb....\n\n\n58\n\nIn point of fact, it matters greatly to what end one lies: whether one\npreserves or _destroys_ by means of falsehood. It is quite justifiable\nto bracket the _Christian_ and the _Anarchist_ together: their object,\ntheir instinct, is concerned only with destruction. The proof of this\nproposition can be read quite plainly from history: history spells it\nwith appalling distinctness. Whereas we have just seen a religious\nlegislation, whose object was to render the highest possible means of\nmaking life _flourish,_ and of making a grand organisation of society,\neternal,\u2014Christianity found its mission in putting an end to such an\norganisation, _precisely because life flourishes through it._ In the\none case, the net profit to the credit of reason, acquired through\nlong ages of experiment and of insecurity, is applied usefully to the\nmost remote ends, and the harvest, which is as large, as rich and\nas complete as possible, is reaped and garnered: in the other case,\non the contrary, the harvest is _blighted_ in a single night That\nwhich stood there, _\u00e6re perennius,_ the _imperium Romanum,_ the most\nmagnificent form of organisation, under difficult conditions, that has\never been achieved, and compared with which everything that preceded,\nand everything which followed it, is mere patchwork, gimcrackery,\nand dilettantism,\u2014those holy anarchists made it their \u201cpiety,\u201d to\ndestroy \u201cthe world\u201d\u2014that is to say, the _imperium Romanum,_ until\nno two stones were left standing one on the other,\u2014until even the\nTeutons and other clodhoppers were able to become master of it The\nChristian and the anarchist are both decadents; they are both incapable\nof acting in any other way than disintegratingly, poisonously and\nwitheringly, like _blood-suckers;_ they are both actuated by an\ninstinct of _mortal hatred_ of everything that stands erect, that is\ngreat, that is lasting, and that is a guarantee of the future....\nChristianity was the vampire of the _imperium Romanum,_\u2014in a night\nit shattered the stupendous achievement of the Romans, which was to\nacquire the territory for a vast civilisation which could _bide its\ntime._\u2014Does no one understand this yet? The _imperium Romanum_ that\nwe know, and which the history of the Roman province teaches us to\nknow ever more thoroughly, this most admirable work of art on a grand\nscale, was the beginning, its construction was calculated _to prove_\nits worth by millenniums,\u2014unto this day nothing has ever again been\nbuilt in this fashion, nor have men even dreamt since of building on\nthis scale _sub specie aterni!_\u2014This organisation was sufficiently\nfirm to withstand bad emperors: the accident of personalities must\nhave nothing to do with such matters\u2014the _first_ principle of all\ngreat architecture. But it was not sufficiently firm to resist the\n_corruptest_ form of corruption, to resist the Christians.... These\nstealthy canker-worms, which under the shadow of night, mist and\nduplicity, insinuated themselves into the company of every individual,\nand proceeded to drain him of all seriousness for _real_ things,\nof all his instinct for _realities;_ this cowardly, effeminate and\nsugary gang have step by step alienated all \u201csouls\u201d from this colossal\nedifice,\u2014those valuable, virile and noble natures who felt that\nthe cause of Rome was their own personal cause, their own personal\nseriousness, their own personal _pride._ The stealth of the bigot,\nthe secrecy of the conventicle, concepts as black as hell such as\nthe sacrifice of the innocent, the _unto mystica_ in the drinking\nof blood, above all the slowly kindled fire of revenge, of Chandala\nrevenge\u2014such things became master of Rome, the same kind of religion\non the pre-existent form of which Epicurus had waged war. One has\nonly to read Lucretius in order to understand what Epicurus combated,\n_not_ Paganism, but \u201cChristianity,\u201d that is to say the corruption of\nsouls through the concept of guilt, through the concept of punishment\nand immortality. He combated the _subterranean_ cults, the whole of\nlatent Christianity\u2014to deny immortality was at that time a genuine\n_deliverance._\u2014And Epicurus had triumphed, every respectable thinker\nin the Roman Empire was an Epicurean: _then St Paul appeared_ ... St\nPaul, the Chandala hatred against Rome, against \u201cthe world,\u201d the Jew,\nthe eternal Jew _par excellence,_ become flesh and genius. ... What\nhe divined was, how, by the help of the small sectarian Christian\nmovement, independent of Judaism, a universal conflagration could be\nkindled; how, with the symbol of the \u201cGod on the Cross,\u201d everything\nsubmerged, everything secretly insurrectionary, the whole offspring\nof anarchical intrigues could be gathered together to constitute an\nenormous power. \u201cFor salvation is of the Jews.\u201d\u2014Christianity is\nthe formula for the supersession, _and_ epitomising of all kinds of\nsubterranean cults, that of Osiris, of the Great Mother, of Mithras for\nexample: St Paul\u2019s genius consisted in his discovery of this. In this\nmatter his instinct was so certain, that, regardless of doing violence\nto truth, he laid the ideas by means of which those Chandala religions\nfascinated, upon the very lips of the \u201cSaviour\u201d he had invented, and\nnot only upon his lips,\u2014that he _made_ out of him something which even\na Mithras priest could understand.... This was his moment of Damascus:\nhe saw that he had _need of_ the belief in immortality in order to\ndepreciate \u201cthe world,\u201d that the notion of \u201chell\u201d would become master\nof Rome, that with a \u201cBeyond\u201d _this life_ can be killed. ... Nihilist\nand Christian,\u2014they rhyme in German, and they do not only rhyme.\n\n\n59\n\nThe whole labour of the ancient world _in vain:_ I am at a loss for a\nword which could express my feelings at something so atrocious.\u2014And\nin view of the fact that its labour was only preparatory, that with\nadamantine self-consciousness it laid the substructure, alone, to\na work which was to last millenniums, the whole _significance_ of\nthe ancient world was certainly in vain!... What was the use of the\nGreeks? what was the use of the Romans?\u2014All the prerequisites of a\nlearned culture, all the scientific methods already existed, the great\nand peerless art of reading well had already been established\u2014that\nindispensable condition to tradition, to culture and to scientific\nunity; natural science hand in hand with mathematics and mechanics\nwas on the best possible road,\u2014the sense for facts, the last and\nmost valuable of all senses, had its schools, and its tradition was\nalready centuries old! Is this understood? Everything _essential_ had\nbeen discovered to make it possible for work to be begun:\u2014methods,\nand this cannot be said too often, are the essential thing, also the\nmost difficult thing, while they moreover have to wage the longest war\nagainst custom and indolence. That which to-day we have successfully\nreconquered for ourselves, by dint of unspeakable self-discipline\u2014for\nin some way or other all of us still have the bad instincts, the\nChristian instincts, in our body,\u2014the impartial eye for reality,\nthe cautious hand, patience and seriousness in the smallest details,\ncomplete _uprightness_ in knowledge,\u2014all this was already there; it\nhad been there over two thousand years before! And in addition to this\nthere was also that excellent and subtle tact and taste! _Not_ in the\nform of brain drilling! _Not_ in the form of \u201cGerman\u201d culture with the\nmanners of a boor! But incarnate, manifesting itself in men\u2019s bearing\nand in their instinct,\u2014in short constituting reality.... _All this\nin vain!_ In one night it became merely a memory!\u2014The Greeks! The\nRomans! Instinctive nobility, instinctive taste, methodic research,\nthe genius of organisation and administration, faith, the _will_ to\nthe future of mankind, the great _yea_ to all things materialised\nin the _imperium Romanum,_ become visible to all the senses, grand\nstyle no longer manifested in mere art, but in reality, in truth,\nin _life._\u2014And buried in a night, not by a natural catastrophe!\nNot stamped to death by Teutons and other heavy-footed vandals!\nBut destroyed by crafty, stealthy, invisible an\u00e6mic vampires! Not\nconquered,\u2014but only drained of blood!... The concealed lust of\nrevenge, miserable envy become _master!_ Everything wretched, inwardly\nailing, and full of ignoble feelings, the whole Ghetto-world of souls,\nwas in a trice _uppermost!_\u2014One only needs to read any one of the\nChristian agitators\u2014St Augustine, for instance,\u2014in order to realise,\nin order to _smell,_ what filthy fellows came to the top in this\nmovement. You would deceive yourselves utterly if you supposed that the\nleaders of the Christian agitation showed any lack of understanding\n\u2014Ah! they were shrewd, shrewd to the point of holiness were these\ndear old Fathers of the Church I What they lack is something quite\ndifferent. Nature neglected them,\u2014it forgot to give them a modest\ndowry of decent, of respectable and of _cleanly_ instincts.... Between\nourselves, they are not even men. If Islam despises Christianity, it is\njustified a thousand times over; for Islam presupposes men.\n\n\n60\n\nChristianity destroyed the harvest we might have reaped from the\nculture of antiquity, later it also destroyed our harvest of the\nculture of Islam. The wonderful Moorish world of Spanish culture, which\nin its essence is more closely related to _us,_ and which appeals\nmore to our sense and taste than Rome and Greece, was _trampled to\ndeath_(\u2014I do not say by what kind of feet), why?\u2014because it owed\nits origin to noble, to manly instincts, because it said yea to life,\neven that life so full of the rare and refined luxuries of the Moors!\n... Later on the Crusaders waged war upon something before which it\nwould have been more seemly in them to grovel in the dust,\u2014a culture,\nbeside which even our Nineteenth Century would seem very poor and\nvery \u201csenile.\u201d\u2014Of course they wanted booty: the Orient was rich....\nFor goodness\u2019 sake let us forget our prejudices! Crusades\u2014superior\npiracy, that is all! German nobility\u2014that is to say, a Viking nobility\nat bottom, was in its element in such wars: the Church was only too\nwell aware of how German nobility is to be won.... German nobility\nwas always the \u201cSwiss Guard\u201d of the Church, always at the service of\nall the bad instincts of the Church; but it was _well paid for it\nall...._ Fancy the Church having waged its deadly war upon everything\nnoble on earth, precisely with the help of German swords, German blood\nand courage! A host of painful _questions_ might be raised on this\npoint German nobility scarcely takes a place in the history of higher\nculture: the reason of this is obvious; Christianity, alcohol\u2014the two\n_great_ means of corruption. As a matter of fact choice ought to be\njust as much out of the question between Islam and Christianity, as\nbetween an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already self-evident; nobody\nis at liberty to exercise a choice in this matter. A man is either of\nthe Chandala or he is _not ..._ \u201cWar with Rome to the knife! Peace\nand friendship with Islam\u201d: this is what that great free spirit, that\ngenius among German emperors,\u2014Frederick the Second, not only felt\nbut also _did._ What? Must a German in the first place be a genius, a\nfree-spirit, in order to have _decent_ feelings? I cannot understand\nhow a German was ever able to have _Christian_ feelings.\n\nHere it is necessary to revive a memory which will be a hundred times\nmore painful to Germans. The Germans have destroyed the last great\nharvest of culture which was to be garnered for Europe,\u2014it destroyed\nthe _Renaissance._ Does anybody at last understand, _will_ anybody\nunderstand what the Renaissance was? _The transvaluation of Christian\nvalues,_ the attempt undertaken with all means, all instincts and all\ngenius to make the _opposite_ values, the _noble_ values triumph,...\nHitherto there has been only _this_ great war: there has never yet\nbeen a more decisive question than the Renaissance,\u2014_my_ question\nis the question of the Renaissance:\u2014there has never been a more\nfundamental, a more direct and a more severe _attack,_ delivered with\na whole front upon the centre of the foe. To attack at the decisive\nquarter, at the very seat of Christianity, and there to place _noble_\nvalues on the throne,\u2014that is to say, to _introduce_ them into the\ninstincts, into the most fundamental needs and desires of those\nsitting there.... I see before me a possibility perfectly magic in\nits charm and glorious colouring\u2014it seems to me to scintillate\nwith all the quivering grandeur of refined beauty, that there is\nan art at work within it which is so divine, so infernally divine,\nthat one might seek through millenniums in vain for another such\npossibility; I see a spectacle so rich in meaning and so wonderfully\nparadoxical to boot, that it would be enough to make all the gods of\nOlympus rock with immortal laughter,\u2014_C\u00e6sar Borgia as Pope._ ...\nDo you understand me? ... Very well then, this would have been the\ntriumph which I alone am longing for to-day:\u2014this would have _swept_\nChristianity _away!_\u2014What happened? A German monk, Luther, came to\nRome. This monk, with all the vindictive instincts of an abortive\npriest in his body, foamed with rage over the Renaissance in Rome....\nInstead of, with the profoundest gratitude, understanding the vast\nmiracle that had taken place, the overcoming of Christianity at its\n_headquarters,_\u2014the fire of his hate knew only how to draw fresh fuel\nfrom this spectacle. A religious man thinks only of himself.\u2014Luther\nsaw the corruption of the Papacy when the very reverse stared him in\nthe face: the old corruption, the _peceatum originate,_ Christianity\n_no_ longer sat upon the Papal chair! But Life! The triumph of\nLife! The great yea to all lofty, beautiful and daring things!...\nAnd Luther reinstated the Church; he attacked it The Renaissance\nthus became an event without meaning, a great _in vain!_\u2014Ah these\nGermans, what have they not cost us already! In vain\u2014this has always\nbeen the achievement of the Germans.\u2014The Reformation, Leibniz,\nKant and so-called German philosophy, the Wars of Liberation, the\nEmpire\u2014in each case are in vain for something which had already\nexisted, for something which _cannot be recovered._ ... I confess it,\nthese Germans are my enemies: I despise every sort of uncleanliness\nin concepts and valuations in them, every kind of cowardice in the\nface of every honest yea or nay. For almost one thousand years, now,\nthey have tangled and confused everything they have laid their hands\non; they have on their conscience all the half-measures, all the\nthree-eighth measures of which Europe is sick; they also have the\nmost unclean, the most incurable, and the most irrefutable kind of\nChristianity\u2014Protestantism\u2014on their conscience.... If we shall never\nbe able to get rid of Christianity, the _Germans_ will be to blame.\n\n\n62\n\n\u2014With this I will now conclude and pronounce my judgment. I _condemn_\nChristianity and confront it with the most terrible accusation that\nan accuser has ever had in his mouth. To my mind it is the greatest\nof all conceivable corruptions, it has had the will to the last\nimaginable corruption. The Christian Church allowed nothing to escape\nfrom its corruption; it converted every value into its opposite, every\ntruth into a He, and every honest impulse into an ignominy of the\nsoul. Let anyone dare to speak to me of its humanitarian blessings!\nTo _abolish_ any sort of distress was opposed to its profoundest\ninterests; its very existence depended on states of distress; it\ncreated states of distress in order to make itself immortal.... The\ncancer germ of sin, for instance: the Church was the first to enrich\nmankind with this misery!\u2014The \u201cequality of souls before God,\u201d this\nfalsehood, this _pretext_ for the _rancunes_ of all the base-minded,\nthis anarchist bomb of a concept, which has ultimately become the\nrevolution, the modern idea, the principle of decay of the whole of\nsocial order,\u2014this is _Christian_ dynamite ... The \u201chumanitarian\u201d\nblessings of Christianity! To breed a self-contradiction, an art of\nself-profanation, a will to lie at any price, an aversion, a contempt\nof all good and honest instincts out of _humanitas!_ Is this what you\ncall the blessings of Christianity?\u2014Parasitism as the only method of\nthe Church; sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope of life\nout of mankind with an\u00e6mic and sacred ideals. A \u201cBeyond\u201d as the will to\ndeny all reality; the cross as the trade-mark of the most subterranean\nform of conspiracy that has ever existed,\u2014against health, beauty,\nwell-constitutedness, bravery, intellect, kindliness of soul, _against\nLife itself...._\n\nThis eternal accusation against Christianity I would fain write on all\nwalls, wherever there are walls,\u2014I have letters with which I can make\neven the blind see.... I call Christianity the one great curse, the one\nenormous and innermost perversion, the one great instinct of revenge,\nfor which no means are too venomous, too underhand, too underground and\ntoo _petty,_\u2014I call it the one immortal blemish of mankind....\n\nAnd _time_ is reckoned from the _dies nefastus_ upon which this\nfatality came into being\u2014from the first day of Christianity!\u2014_why\nnot rather from its last day?\u2014From to-day?_\u2014Transvaluation of all\nValues!...\n\n\n[1] The German \u201c_T\u00fcchtigkeit_\u201d has a nobler ring than our word\n\u201cefficiency.\u201d\u2014TR.\n\n[2] _Cf._ Disraeli: \u201cBut enlightened Europe is not happy. Its existence\nis a fever which it calls progress. Progress to what?\u201d (\u201cTancred,\u201d Book\nIII., Chap, vii.).\u2014TR.\n\n[3] It will be seen from this that in spite of Nietzsche\u2019s ruthless\ncriticism of the priests, he draws a sharp distinction between\nChristianity and the Church. As the latter still contained elements\nof order, it was more to his taste than the denial of authority\ncharacteristic of real Christianity.\u2014TR.\n\n[4] \u201c_reine Thorheit_\u201d in the German text, referring once again to\nParsifal.\u2014Tr.\n\n[5] This applies apparently to Bismarck, the forger of the Ems telegram\nand a sincere Christian.\u2014Tr.\n\n[6] An adaptation of Shakespeare\u2019s \u201cWell roared, lion\u201d (_Mid. N. D.,_\nAct 5, Sc. i.), the lion, as is well known, being the symbol for St\nMark in Christian literature and Art\u2014TR.\n\n[7] A parody on a line in Schiller\u2019s \u201c_Jungfrau von Orleans_\u201d (Act 3,\nSc. vi.): \u201c_Mit der Dummheit k\u00e4mpfen G\u00f6tter selbst vergebens._\u201d (With\nstupidity even the gods themselves struggle in vain).\u2014TR.\n\n[8] \u1f12\u03c6\u03b5\u03be\u03b9\u03c2 = Lat. Retentio, Inhibitio (Stephanus, Thesaurus Gr\u00e6c\u00e6\nLingu\u00e6); therefore: reserve, caution. The Greek Sceptics were also\ncalled Ephectics owing to their caution in judging and in concluding\nfrom facts.\u2014TR.\n\n[9] The following passage from Multatuti will throw light on this\npassage:\u2014\n\n\u201cFather:\u2014\u2018Behold, my son, how wisely Providence has arranged\neverything! This bird lays its eggs in its nest and the young will be\nhatched just about the time when there will be worms and flies with\nwhich to feed them. Then they will sing a song of praise in honour of\nthe Creator who overwhelms his creatures with blessings.\u2019\u2014\n\n\u201cSon:\u2014\u2018Will the worms join in the song, Dad?\u2019\u201d.\u2014TR.\n\n[10] \u201cThus Spake Zarathustra.\u201d The Priests.\u2014TR.\n\n[11] I Corinthians vii. 2, 9.\u2014TR.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ETERNAL RECURRENCE\n\nAND\n\nEXPLANATORY NOTES TO \u201cTHUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA.\u201d\n\n\nTRANSLATOR\u2019S PREFACE\n\nThe notes concerning the Eternal Recurrence, in this volume, are said\nby Mrs Foerster-Nietzsche to have been the first that Nietzsche ever\nwrote on the subject of his great doctrine. This being so, they must\nhave been composed towards the autumn of the year 1881.\n\nI have already pointed out elsewhere (_Will to Power,_ vol. ii.,\nTranslator\u2019s Preface) how much importance Nietzsche himself ascribed\nto this doctrine, and how, until the end, he regarded it as the\ninspiration which had led to his chief work, _Thus Spake Zarathustra._\nFor the details relating to its inception, however, I would refer the\nreader to Mrs Foerster-Nietzsche\u2019s Introduction to her brother\u2019s chief\nwork, which was translated for the eleventh volume of this Edition of\nthe Complete Works.\n\nIn reading these notes it would be well to refer to Nietzsche\u2019s other\nutterances on the subject which are to be found at the end of vol.\nii. of the _Will to Power,_ and also, if possible, to have recourse\nto the original German text. Despite the greatest care, I confess\nthat in some instances, I have felt a little doubt as to the precise\nEnglish equivalent for the thoughts expressed under the heading\n_Eternal Recurrence;_ and, though I have attributed this difficulty to\nthe extreme novelty of the manner in which the subject is presented,\nit is well that the reader should be aware that such doubt has been\nentertained. For I disbelieve utterly in mere verbal translation,\nhowever accurate, and would question anybody\u2019s right to convert a\nGerman sentence into English\u2014even though he were so perfect in\nboth languages as to be almost absolutely bilingual,\u2014if he did not\ncompletely grasp the thought behind the sentence.\n\nThe writing of the collected Explanatory Notes to _Thus Spake\nZarathustra_, cannot be given any exact date. Some of them consist of\ncomments, written down by Nietzsche after the completion of the book,\nand kept as the nucleus of an actual commentary to Zarathustra, which\nit seems to have been his intention, one day, to write; while others\nare merely memoranda and rough sketches, probably written before the\ncompletion of the work, and which served the purpose of a draft of his\noriginal plan. The reader who knows _Thus Spake Zarathustra_ will be\nable to tell wherein the book ultimately differed from the plan visible\nin these preliminary notes.\n\nAs an authoritative, though alas! all too fragmentary elucidation of a\nfew of the more obscure passages of Zarathustra, some of these notes\nare of the greatest value; and, in paragraph 73, for instance, there\nis an interpretation of the Fourth and Last Part, which I myself would\nhave welcomed with great enthusiasm, at the time when I was having my\nfirst struggles with the spirit of this great German sage\u2019s life work.\n\nANTHONY M. LUDOVICI.\n\n\n\n\nI. ETERNAL RECURRENCE\n\n\n1. THE DOCTRINE EXPOUNDED AND SUBSTANTIATED.\n\n\n1.\n\nThe extent of universal energy is limited; it is not \u201cinfinite\u201d: we\nshould beware of such excesses in our concepts! Consequently the number\nof states, changes, combinations, and evolutions of this energy,\nalthough it may be enormous and practically incalculable, is at any\nrate definite and not unlimited. The time, however, in which this\nuniversal energy works its changes is infinite\u2014that is to say, energy\nremains eternally the same and is eternally active:\u2014at this moment an\ninfinity has already elapsed, that is to say, every possible evolution\nmust already have taken place. Consequently the present process of\nevolution must be a repetition, as was also the one before it, as will\nalso be the one which will follow. And so on forwards and backwards!\nInasmuch as the entire state of all forces continually returns,\neverything has existed an infinite number of times. Whether, apart from\nthis, anything exactly like something that formerly existed has ever\nappeared, is completely beyond proof. It would seem that each complete\nstate of energy forms all qualities afresh even to the smallest\ndegree, so that two different complete states could have nothing in\ncommon. Is it to be supposed that in one and the same complete states\ntwo precisely similar things could appear\u2014for instance two leaves?\nI doubt it: it would take for granted that they had both had an\nabsolutely similar origin, and in that case we should have to assume\nthat right back in infinity two similar things had also existed despite\nall the changes in the complete states and their creation of new\nqualities\u2014an impossible assumption.\n\n\n2\n\nFormerly it was thought that unlimited energy was a necessary corollary\nto unlimited activity in time, and that this energy could be exhausted\nby no form of consumption. Now it is thought that energy remains\nconstant and docs not require to be infinite. It is eternally active\nbut it is no longer able eternally to create new forms, it must repeat\nitself: that is my conclusion.\n\n\n3\n\nAn incalculable number of complete states of energy have existed,\nbut these have not been infinitely different: for if they had been,\nunlimited energy would have been necessary. The energy of the universe\ncan only have a given number of possible qualities.\n\n\n4\n\nThe endless evolution of new forms is a contradiction, for it would\nimply eternally increasing energy. But whence would it grow? Whence\nwould it derive its nourishment and its surplus of nourishment? The\nassumption that the universe is an organism contradicts the very\nessence of the organic.\n\n\n5\n\nIn what principle and belief is that decisive turning point in\nphilosophical thought best expressed which has come into being thanks\nto the preponderance of the scientific spirit over the religious and\nGod-creating one? We insist upon the fact that the world as a sum of\nenergy must not be regarded as unlimited\u2014we forbid ourselves the\nconcept infinite energy, because it seems incompatible with the concept\nenergy.\n\n\n6\n\nAn unlimited number of new changes and states on the part of limited\nenergy is a contradiction, however extensive one may imagine it to be,\nand however economical the changes may be, provided it is infinite.\nWe are therefore forced to conclude: (1) either that the universe\nbegan its activity at a given moment of time and will end in a similar\nfashion,\u2014but the beginning of activity is absurd; if a state of\nequilibrium had been reached it would have persisted to all eternity;\n(2) Or there is no such thing as an endless number of changes, but\na circle consisting of a definite number of them which continually\nrecurs: activity is eternal, the number of the products and states of\nenergy is limited.\n\n\n7\n\nIf all the possible combinations and relations of forces had not\nalready been exhausted, then an infinity would not yet lie behind\nus. Now since infinite time must be assumed, no fresh possibility\ncan exist and everything must have appeared already, and moreover an\ninfinite number of times.\n\n\n8\n\nThe present world of forces leads back to a state of greatest\nsimplicity in these forces: it likewise leads forwards to such a\nstate,\u2014cannot and must not _both_ states be identical? No incalculable\nnumber of states can evolve out of a system of limited forces, that\nis to say, out of a given quantity of energy which may be precisely\nmeasured. Only when we falsely assume that space is unlimited, and that\ntherefore energy gradually becomes dissipated, can the final state be\nan unproductive and lifeless one.\n\n\n9\n\nFirst principles.\u2014The last physical state of energy which we can\nimagine must necessarily be the first also. The absorption of energy\nin latent energy must be the cause of the production of the most vital\nenergy. For a highly positive state must follow a negative state Space\nlike matter is a subjective form, time is not. The notion of space\nfirst arose from the assumption that space could be empty. But there is\nno such thing as empty space. Everything is energy.\n\nWe cannot think of that which moves and that which is moved together,\nbut both these things constitute matter and space. We isolate.\n\n\n10\n\nConcerning the resurrection of the world.\u2014Out of two negatives, when\nthey are forces, a positive arises. (Darkness comes of light opposed to\nlight, cold arises from warmth opposed to warmth, &c, &c.)\n\n\n11\n\nAn uncertain state of equilibrium occurs just as seldom in nature as\ntwo absolutely equal triangles. Consequently anything like a static\nstate of energy in general is impossible. If stability were possible it\nwould already have been reached.\n\n\n12\n\nEither complete equilibrium must in itself be an impossibility, or\nthe changes of energy introduce themselves in the circular process\nbefore that equilibrium which is in itself possible has appeared.\u2014But\nit would be madness to ascribe a feeling of self-preservation to\nexistence! And the same applies to the conception of a contest of pain\nand pleasure among atoms.\n\n\n13\n\nPhysics supposes that energy may be divided up: but every one of its\npossibilities must first be adjusted to reality. There can therefore\nbe no question of dividing energy into equal parts; in every one of\nits states it manifests a certain quality, and qualities cannot be\nsubdivided: hence a state of equilibrium in energy is impossible.\n\n\n14\n\nIf energy had ever reached a stage of equilibrium that stage would\nhave persisted: it has therefore never reached such a stage. The\npresent condition of things contradicts this assumption. If we assume\nthat there has ever been a state absolutely like the present one this\nassumption is in no wise refuted by the present state. For, among\nall the endless possibilities, this case must already have occurred,\nas an infinity is already behind us. If equilibrium were possible it\nwould already have been reached.\u2014And if this momentary state has\nalready existed then that which bore it and the previous one also would\nlikewise have existed and so on backwards,\u2014and from this it follows\nthat it has already existed not only twice but three times,\u2014just as it\nwill exist again not only twice but three times,\u2014in fact an infinite\nnumber of times backwards and forwards. That is to say, the whole\nprocess of Becoming consists of a repetition of a definite number of\nprecisely similar states.\u2014Clearly the human brain cannot be left to\nimagine the whole series of possibilities: but in any case, quite apart\nfrom our ability to judge or our inability to conceive the whole range\nof possibilities, the present state at least is a possible one\u2014because\nit is a real one. We should therefore say: in the event of the number\nof possibilities not being infinite, and assuming that in the course of\nunlimited time a limited number of these must appear, all real states\nmust have been preceded by similar states? Because from every given\nmoment a whole infinity is to be calculated backwards? The stability of\nforces and their equilibrium is a possible alternative: but it has not\nbeen reached; consequently the number of possibilities is greater than\nthe number of real states. The fact that nothing similar recurs could\nnot be explained by appealing to accident, but only by supposing that a\ncertain intention, that no similar things should recur, were actually\ninherent in the essence of energy: for, if we grant that the number of\ncases is enormous, the occurrence of like cases is more probable than\nabsolute disparity.\n\n\n15\n\nLet us think backwards a moment If the world had a goal, this goal\nmust have been reached: if a certain (unintentional) final state\nexisted for the world, this state also would have been reached. If\nit were in any way capable of a stationary or stable condition, and\nif in the whole course of its existence only one second of Being, in\nthe strict sense of the word, had been possible, then there could\nno longer be such a process as evolution, and therefore no thinking\nand no observing of such a process. If on the other hand the world\nwere something which continually renovated itself, it would then be\nunderstood to be something miraculous and free to create itself\u2014in\nfact something divine. Eternal renovation presupposes that energy\nvoluntarily increases itself, that it not only has the intention, but\nalso the power, to avoid repeating itself or to avoid returning into a\nprevious form, and that every instant it adjusts itself in every one of\nits movements to prevent such a contingency,\u2014or that it was incapable\nof returning to a state it had already passed through. That would\nmean that the whole sum of energy was not constant, any more than its\nattributes were But a sum of energy which would be inconstant and which\nwould fluctuate is quite unthinkable Let us not indulge our fancy\nany longer with unthinkable things in order to fall once more before\nthe concept of a Creator (multiplication out of nothing, reduction\nout of nothing, absolute arbitrariness and freedom in growth and in\nqualities):\u2014\n\n\n16\n\nHe who does not believe in the circular process of the universe must\npin his faith to an arbitrary God\u2014thus my doctrine becomes necessary\nas opposed to all that has been said hitherto in matters of Theism.\n\n\n17\n\nThe hypothesis which I would oppose to that of the eternal circular\nprocess:\u2014Would it be just as possible to explain the laws of the\nmechanical world as exceptions and seemingly as accidents among the\nthings of the universe, as one possibility only among an incalculable\nnumber of possibilities? Would it be possible to regard ourselves\nas accidentally thrust into this corner of the mechanical universal\narrangement?\u2014That all chemical philosophy is likewise an exception\nand an accident in the world\u2019s economy, and finally that organic life\nis a mere exception and accident in the chemical world? Should we have\nto assume as the most general form of existence a world which was\nnot yet mechanical, which was outside all mechanical laws (although\naccessible to them)?\u2014and that as a matter of fact this world would\nbe the most general now and for evermore, so that the origin of the\nmechanical world would be a lawless game which would ultimately acquire\nsuch consistency as the organic laws seem to have now from our point\nof view? So that all our mechanical laws would be not eternal, but\nevolved, and would have survived innumerable different mechanical\nlaws, or that they had attained supremacy in isolated corners of the\nworld and not in others?\u2014It would seem that we need caprice, actual\nlawlessness, and only a capacity for law, a primeval state of stupidity\nwhich is not even able to concern itself with mechanics? The origin of\nqualities presupposes the existence of quantities, and these, for their\npart, might arise from a thousand kinds of mechanical processes.\n\nIs not the existence of some sort of irregularity and incomplete\ncircular form in the world about us, a sufficient refutation of\nthe regular circularity of everything that exists? Whence comes\nthis variety within the circular process? Is not everything far too\ncomplicated to have been the outcome of unity? And are not the many\nchemical laws and likewise the organic species and forms inexplicable\nas the result of homogeneity? or of duality?\u2014Supposing there were\nsuch a thing as a regular contracting energy in all the centres of\nforce in the universe, the question would be, whence could the most\ninsignificant difference spring? For then the whole world would have\nto be resolved into innumerable completely equal rings and spheres of\nexistence and we should have an incalculable number of exactly equal\nworlds side by side. Is it necessary for me to assume this? Must I\nsuppose that an eternal sequence of like worlds also involves eternal\njuxta-position of like worlds? But the multifariousness and disorder\nin the world which we have known hitherto contradicts this; no such\nuniversal similarity has existed in evolution, for in that case even\nfor our part of the cosmos a regular spherical form must have been\nformed. Should the production of qualities not be subject to any strict\nlaws? Can it be possible that different things have been derived from\n\u201cenergy\u201d? Arbitrarily? Is the conformity to law which we observe\nperhaps only a deception? Is it possible that it is not a primeval law?\nIs it possible that the multifariousness of qualities even in our part\nof the world is the result of the absolute occurrence of arbitrary\ncharacteristics? But that these characteristics no longer appear in our\ncorner of the globe? Or that our corner of existence has adopted a rule\nwhich we call cause and effect when all the while it is no such thing\n(an arbitrary phenomenon become a rule, as for instance oxygen and\nhydrogen in chemistry)??? Is this rule simply a protracted kind of mood?\n\n\n18\n\nIf the universe had been able to become an organism it would have\nbecome one already. _As_ a whole we must try and regard it in the\nlight of a thing _as_ remote _as possible_ from the organic. I believe\nthat even our chemical affinity and coherence may be perhaps recently\nevolved and that these appearances only occur in certain corners of\nthe universe at certain epochs. Let us believe in absolute necessity\nin the universe but let us guard against postulating any sort of law,\neven if it be a primitive and mechanical one of our own experience,\nas ruling over the whole and constituting one of its eternal\ncharacteristics.\u2014All chemical qualities might have been evolved and\nmight disappear and return. Innumerable characteristics might have been\ndeveloped which for us,\u2014from our limited point of view in time and\nspace, defy observation. The transformation of a chemical quality may\nperhaps now be taking place, but so slowly that it escapes our most\ndelicate calculations.\n\n\n19\n\nInorganic matter, even though in most cases it may once have\nbeen organic, can have stored up no experience,\u2014it is always\nwithout a pastl If the reverse were the case a repetition would be\nimpossible\u2014for then matter would for ever be producing new qualities\nwith new pasts.\n\n\n20\n\nWe must guard against ascribing any aspiration or any goal to this\ncircular process: Likewise we must not, from the point of view of our\nown needs, regard it as either monotonous or foolish, &c. We may grant\nthat the greatest possible irrationality, as also its reverse, may be\nan essential feature of it: but we must not value it according to this\nhypothesis. Rationality or irrationality cannot stand as attributes of\nthe universe.\u2014We must not think of the law of this circular process as\na thing evolved, by drawing false analogies with the circular motions\noccurring _within_ the circle. There was no primitive chaos followed\ngradually by a more harmonious and finally definite circular motion of\nall forces: On the contrary everything is eternal and unevolved. If\nthere ever was a chaos of forces, then that chaos itself was eternal\nand was repeated at its particular moment of time in the turn of the\nworld wheel. The circular process is not the outcome of evolution, it\nis a primitive principle like the quantum of energy, and allows of no\nexception or violation. All Becoming takes place within the circular\nprocess and the quantum of energy which constitutes it: therefore we\nmust not apply ephemeral processes like those for instance of heavenly\nbodies, of the ebb and flow of tides, of day and night, of the seasons,\nto the drawing of analogies for characterising the eternal circular\nprocess.\n\n\n21\n\nThe \u201cchaos of the universe,\u201d inasmuch as it excludes any aspiration to\na goal, does not oppose the thought of the circular process: the latter\nis simply an irrational necessity, absolutely free from any formal\nethical or \u00e6sthetical significance. Arbitrariness in small things as in\ngreat is completely lacking here.\n\n\n22\n\nLet us guard against believing that the universe has a tendency to\nattain to certain forms, or that it aims at becoming more beautiful,\nmore perfect, more complicated! All that is anthropomorphism! Anarchy,\nugliness, form\u2014are unrelated concepts. There is no such thing as\nimperfection in the realm of mechanics.\n\nEverything has returned: Sirius, and the spider, and thy thoughts at\nthis moment, and this last thought of thine that all these things will\nreturn.\n\n\n23\n\nOur whole world consists of the ashes of an incalculable number of\nliving creatures: and even if living matter is ever so little compared\nwith the whole, everything has already been transformed into life once\nbefore and thus the process goes on. If we grant eternal time we must\nassume the eternal change of matter.\n\n\n24\n\nWhoever thou mayest be, beloved stranger, whom I meet here for the\nfirst time, avail thyself of this happy hour and of the stillness\naround us, and above us, and let me tell thee something of the thought\nwhich has suddenly risen before me like a star which would fain shed\ndown its rays upon thee and every one, as befits the nature of light\u2014\n\n\n25\n\nThe world of energy suffers no diminution: otherwise with eternal\ntime it would have grown weak and finally have perished altogether.\nThe world of energy suffers no stationary state, otherwise this would\nalready have been reached, and the clock of the universe would be at\na standstill. The world of energy does not therefore reach a state of\nequilibrium; for no instant in its career has it had rest; its energy\nand its movement have been the same for all time. Whatever state this\nworld could have reached must ere now have been attained, and not\nonly once but an incalculable number of times. This applies to this\nvery moment It has already been here once before, and several times,\nand will recur in the same way, with all forces distributed as they\nare to-day: and the same holds good of the moment of time which bore\nthe present and of that which shall be the child of the present.\nFellow-man! Your whole life, like a sandglass, will always be reversed\nand will ever run out again,\u2014a long minute of time will elapse until\nall those conditions out of which you were evolved return in the wheel\nof the cosmic process. And then you will find every pain and every\npleasure, every friend and every enemy, every hope and every error,\nevery blade of grass and every ray of sunshine once more, and the whole\nfabric of things that makes up your life. This ring in which you are\nbut a grain will glitter afresh for ever. And in every one of these\ncycles of human life there will be one hour where for the first time\none man, and then many, will perceive the mighty thought of the eternal\nrecurrence of all things:\u2014and for mankind this is always the hour of\nNoon.\n\n\n\n\n2. THE EFFECTS OF THE DOCTRINE UPON MANKIND\n\n\n26\n\nHow can we give weight to our inner life without making it evil and\nfanatical towards people who think otherwise. Religious belief is\ndeclining and man is beginning to regard himself as ephemeral and\nunessential, a point of view which is making him weak; he does not\nexercise so much effort in striving or enduring. What he wants is\nmomentary enjoyment He would make things light for himself,\u2014and a good\ndeal of his spirit gets squandered in this endeavour.\n\n\n27\n\nThe political mania at which I smile just as merrily as my\ncontemporaries smile at the religious mania of former times is above\nall Materialism, a belief in the world, and in the repudiation of a\n\u201cBeyond,\u201d of a \u201cback-world.\u201d The object of those who believe in the\nlatter is the well-being of the ephemeral individual: that is why\nSocialism is its fruit; for with Socialism ephemeral individuals wish\nto secure their happiness by means of socialisation. They have no\nreason to wait, as those men had who believed in eternal souls, in\neternal development and eternal amelioration. My doctrine is: Live\nso that thou mayest desire to live again,\u2014that is thy duty,\u2014for in\nany case thou wilt live again He unto whom striving is the greatest\nhappiness, let him strive; he unto whom peace is the greatest\nhappiness, let him rest; he unto whom subordination, following,\nobedience, is the greatest happiness, let him obey. All that is\nnecessary is that he should know what it is that gives him the highest\nhappiness, and to fight shy of no means! Eternity is at stake!\n\n\n28\n\n\u201cBut if everything is necessary, what control have I over my actions?\u201d\nThought and faith are a form of ballast which burden thee in addition\nto other burdens thou mayest have, and which are even more weighty than\nthe latter. Sayest thou that nutrition, the land of thy birth, air, and\nsociety change thee and determine thee? Well, thy opinions do this to\na much greater degree, for they even prescribe thy nourishment, thy\nland of adoption, thy atmosphere, and thy society for thee.\u2014If thou\never assimilatest the thought of thoughts it will also alter thee. The\nquestion which thou wilt have to answer before every deed that thou\ndoest: \u201cis this such a deed as I am prepared to perform an incalculable\nnumber of times?\u201d is the best ballast.\n\n\n29\n\nThe mightiest of all thoughts absorbs a good deal of energy which\nformerly stood at the disposal of other aspirations, and in this way\nit exercises a modifying influence; it creates new laws of motion in\nenergy, though no new energy. But it is precisely in this respect that\nthere lies some possibility of determining new emotions and new desires\nin men.\n\n\n30\n\nLet us try and discover how the thought that something gets repeated\nhas affected mankind hitherto (the year, for instance, or periodical\nillnesses, waking and sleeping, &c). Even supposing the recurrence of\nthe cycle is only a probability or a possibility, even a thought, even\na possibility, can shatter us and transform us. It is not only feelings\nand definite expectations that do this! See what effect the thought of\neternal damnation has had!\n\n\n31\n\nFrom the moment when this thought begins to prevail all colours will\nchange their hue and a new history will begin.\n\n\n32\n\nThe history of the future: this thought will tend to triumph ever more\nand more, and those who disbelieve in it will be forced, according to\ntheir nature, ultimately to die out.\n\nHe, alone, who will regard his existence as capable of eternal\nrecurrence will remain over: but among such as these a state will be\npossible of which the imagination of no utopist has ever dreamt!\n\n\n33\n\nYe fancy that ye will have a long rest ere your second birth takes\nplace,\u2014but do not deceive yourselves! \u2019Twixt your last moment of\nconsciousness and the first ray of the dawn of your new life no time\nwill elapse,\u2014as a flash of lightning will the space go by, even though\nliving creatures think it is billions of years, and are not even able\nto reckon it. Timelessness and immediate re-birth are compatible, once\nintellect is eliminated!\n\n\n34\n\nThou feelest that thou must soon take thy leave perhaps\u2014and the sunset\nglow of this feeling pierces through thy happiness. Give heed to this\nsign: it means that thou lovest life and thyself, and life as it has\nhitherto affected thee and moulded thee,\u2014and that thou cravest for its\neternity\u2014_Non alia sed hac vita sempiterna!_\n\nKnow also, that transiency singeth its short song for ever afresh and\nthat at the sound of the first verse thou wilt almost die of longing\nwhen thou thinkest that it might be for the last time.\n\n\n35\n\nLet us stamp the impress of eternity upon our lives! This thought\ncontains more than all the religions which taught us to contemn this\nlife as a thing ephemeral, which bade us squint upwards to another and\nindefinite existence.\u2014\n\n\n36\n\nWe must not strive after distant and unknown states of bliss and\nblessings and acts of grace, but we must live so that we would fain\nlive again and live for ever so, to all eternity!\u2014Our duty is present\nwith us every instant.\n\n\n37\n\nThe leading tendencies: (1) We must implant the love of life, the\nlove of every man\u2019s own life in every conceivable way! However each\nindividual may understand this love of self his neighbour will\nacquiesce, and will have to learn great tolerance towards it: however\nmuch it may often run counter to his taste,\u2014provided the individual in\nquestion really helps to increase his joy in his own life!\n\n(2) We must all be one in our hostility towards everything and\neverybody who tends to cast a slur upon the value of life: towards\nall gloomy, dissatisfied and brooding natures. We must prevent these\nfrom procreating! But our hostility itself must be a means to our joy!\nThus we shall laugh; we shall mock and we shall exterminate without\nbitterness I Let this be our mortal combat\n\nThis life is thy eternal life!\n\n\n38\n\nWhat was the cause of the downfall of the Alexandrian culture? With all\nits useful discoveries and its desire to investigate the nature of this\nworld, it did not know how to lend this life its ultimate importance,\nthe thought of a Beyond was more important to it! To teach anew in\nthis regard is still the most important thing of all:\u2014perhaps if\nmetaphysics are applied to this life in the most emphatic way,\u2014as in\nthe case of my doctrine!\n\n\n39\n\nThis doctrine is lenient towards those who do not believe in it It\nspeaks of no hells and it contains no threats. He who does not believe\nin it has but a fleeting life in his consciousness.\n\n\n40\n\nIt would be terrible if we still believed in sin, but whatever we may\ndo, however often we may repeat it, it is all innocent. If the thought\nof the eternal recurrence of all things does not overwhelm thee, then\nit is not thy fault: and if it does overwhelm thee, this does not stand\nto thy merit either.\u2014We think more leniently of our forebears than\nthey themselves thought of themselves; we mourn over the errors which\nwere to them constitutional; but we do not mourn over their evil.\n\n\n41\n\nLet us guard against teaching such a doctrine as if it were a suddenly\ndiscovered religion! It must percolate through slowly, and whole\ngenerations must build on it and become fruitful through it,\u2014in order\nthat it may grow into a large tree which will shelter all posterity.\nWhat are the two thousand years in which Christianity has maintained\nits sway? For the mightiest thought of all many millenniums will be\nnecessary,\u2014long, long, long will it have to remain puny and weak!\n\n\n42\n\nFor this thought we do not require thirty years of glory with drums\nand fifes, and thirty years of grave-digging followed by an eternity\nof macaberesque stillness, as is the case with so many other famous\nthoughts.\n\nSimple and well-nigh arid as it is, this thought must not even require\neloquence to uphold it.\n\n\n43\n\nAre ye now prepared? Ye must have experienced every form of\nscepticism and ye must have wallowed with voluptuousness in ice-cold\nbaths,\u2014otherwise ye have no right to this thought; I wish to protect\nmyself against those who are over-ready to believe, likewise against\nthose who gush over anything! I would defend my doctrine in advance.\nIt must be the religion of the freest, most cheerful and most sublime\nsouls, a delightful pastureland somewhere between golden ice and a pure\nheaven!\n\n\n\n\nEXPLANATORY NOTES TO \u201cTHUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA\u201d\n\n\n1\n\nAll goals have been annihilated: valuations are turning against each\nother:\n\nPeople call him good who hearkens to the dictates of his own heart, but\nthey also call him good who merely does his duty;\n\nPeople call the mild and conciliating man good, but they also call him\ngood who is brave, inflexible and severe;\n\nPeople call him good who does not do violence to himself, but they also\ncall the heroes of self-mastery good;\n\nPeople call the absolute friend of truth good-, but they also call him\ngood who is pious and a transfigurer of things;\n\nPeople call him good who can obey his own voice, but they also call the\ndevout man good;\n\nPeople call the noble and the haughty man good, but also him who does\nnot despise and who does not assume condescending airs.\n\nPeople call him good who is kindhearted and who steps out of the way of\nbroils, but he who thirsts for fight and triumph is also called good;\n\nPeople call him good who always wishes to be first, but they also call\nhim good who does not wish to be ahead of anybody in anything.\n\n\n2\n\nWe possess a powerful store of moral _feelings,_ but we have no goal\nfor them all. They mutually contradict each other: they have their\norigin in different tables of values.\n\nThere is a wonderful amount of moral power, but there is no longer any\ngoal towards which all this power can be directed.\n\n\n3\n\nAll goals have been annihilated, mankind must give themselves a fresh\ngoal. It is an error to suppose that they had one: they gave themselves\nall the goals they ever had. But the prerequisites of all previous\ngoals have been annihilated.\n\nScience traces the course of things but points to no goal: what it does\ngive consists of the fundamental facts upon which the new goal must be\nbased.\n\n\n4\n\nThe profound sterility of the nineteenth century. I have not\nencountered a single man who really had a new ideal to bring\nforward. The character of German music kept me hoping longest, but\nin vain. A stronger type in which all our powers are synthetically\ncorrelated\u2014this constitutes my faith.\n\nApparently everything is decadence. We should so direct this movement\nof decline that it may provide the strongest with a new form of\nexistence.\n\n\n5\n\nThe dissolution of morality, in its practical consequences, leads\nto the atomistic individual, and further to the subdivision of the\nindividual into a quantity of parts\u2014absolute liquefaction.\n\nThat is why a goal is now more than ever necessary; and love, but a new\nlove.\n\n\n6\n\nI say: \u201cAs long as your morality hung over me I breathed like one\nasphyxiated. That is why I throttled this snake. I wished to live,\nconsequently it had to die.\u201d\n\n\n7\n\nAs long as people are still _forced to_ act, that is to say as long as\ncommands are given, synthesis (the suppression of the moral man) will\nnot be realised To be unable to be otherwise: instincts and commanding\nreason extending beyond any immediate object: the ability to enjoy\none\u2019s own nature in action.\n\n\n8\n\nNone of them wish to bear the burden of the commander; but they will\nperform the most strenuous task if only thou commandest them.\n\n\n9\n\nWe must overcome the past in ourselves: we must combine the instincts\nafresh and direct the whole together to one goal:\u2014an extremely\ndifficult undertaking! It is not only the evil instincts which have to\nbe overcome,\u2014the so-called good instincts must be conquered also and\nconsecrated anew!\n\n\n10\n\nNo leaps must be made in virtue! But everyone must be given a different\npath! Not leading to the highest development of each! Yet everyone may\nbe a bridge and an example for others.\n\n\n11\n\nTo help, to pity, to submit and to renounce personal attacks with a\ngood will,\u2014these things may make even insignificant and superficial\nmen tolerable to the eye: such men must not be contradicted in their\nbelief that this good will is \u201cvirtue in itself.\u201d\n\n\n12\n\nMan makes a deed valuable: but how might a deed make man valuable?\n\n\n13\n\nMorality is the concern of those who cannot free themselves from\nit: for such people morality therefore belongs to the conditions of\nexistence. It is impossible to refute conditions of existence: the only\nthing one can do is not to have them.\n\n\n14\n\nIf it were true that life did not deserve to be welcomed, the moral\nman, precisely on account of his self-denial and obligingness, would\nthen be guilty of misusing his fellow to his own personal advantage.\n\n\n15\n\n\u201cLove thy neighbour\u201d\u2014this would mean first and foremost: \u201cLet thy\nneighbour go his own way\u201d\u2014and it is precisely this kind of virtue that\nis the most difficult!\n\n\n16\n\nThe bad man as the parasite. We must not be merely feasters and\ngourmets of life: this is ignoble.\n\n\n17\n\nIt is a noble sense which forbids our being only feasters and gourmets\nof life\u2014this sense revolts against hedonism\u2014: we want to perform\nsomething in return!\u2014But the fundamental feeling of the masses is that\none must live for nothing,\u2014that is their vulgarity.\n\n\n18\n\nThe converse valuations hold good for the lower among men: in their\ncase therefore it is necessary to implant virtues. They must be\nelevated above their lives, by means of absolute commands and terrible\ntaskmasters.\n\n\n19\n\nWhat is required: the new law must be made practicable\u2014and out of its\nfulfilment, the overcoming of this law, and higher law, must evolve\nZarathustra defines the attitude towards law, inasmuch as he suppresses\nthe law of laws which is morality.\n\nLaws as the backbone They must be worked at and created, by being\nfulfilled. The slavish attitude which has reigned hitherto towards law!\n\n\n20\n\nThe self-overcoming of Zarathustra as the prototype of mankind\u2019s\nself-overcoming for the benefit of Superman. To this end the overcoming\nof morality is necessary.\n\n\n21\n\nThe type of the lawgiver, his development and his suffering. What is\nthe purpose of giving laws at all?\n\nZarathustra is the herald who calls forth many lawgivers.\n\n\n22\n\n_Individual instruments._\n\n1. The Commanders, the mighty\u2014who do not love, unless it be that they\nlove the images according to which they create. The rich in vitality,\nthe versatile, the free, who overcome that which is extant\n\n2. The obedient, the \u201cemancipated\u201d\u2014love and reverence constitute their\nhappiness, they have a sense of what is higher (their deficiencies are\nmade whole by the sight of the lofty).\n\n3. The slaves, the order of \u201chenchmen\u201d\u2014: they must be made\ncomfortable, they must cultivate pity for one another.\n\n\n23\n\nThe giver, the creator, the teacher\u2014these are preludes of the ruler.\n\n\n24\n\nAll virtue and all self-mastery has only one purpose: that of preparing\nfor the rule!\n\n\n25\n\nEvery sacrifice that the ruler makes is rewarded a hundredfold.\n\n\n26\n\nHow much does not the warrior, the prince, the man who is responsible\nfor himself, sacrifice!\u2014this should be highly honoured.\n\n\n27\n\nThe terrible task of the ruler who educates himself:\u2014the kind of man\nand people over which he will rule must be forecast in him: it is in\nhimself therefore that he must first have become a ruler!\n\n\n28\n\nThe great educator like nature must elevate obstacles in order that\nthese may be overcome.\n\n\n29\n\nThe new teachers as preparatory stages for the highest Architect (they\nmust impose their type on things).\n\n\n30\n\nInstitutions may be regarded as the after effects of great individuals\nand the means of giving great individuals root and soil\u2014until the\nfruit ultimately appears.\n\n\n31\n\nAs a matter of fact mankind is continually trying to be able to\ndispense with great individuals by means of corporations, &c But they\nare utterly dependent upon such great individuals for their ideal.\n\n\n32\n\nThe eud\u00e6monistic and social ideals lead men backwards,\u2014it may be that\nthey aim at a very useful working class,\u2014they are creating the ideal\nslave of the future, the lower caste which must on no account be\nlacking!\n\n\n33\n\nEqual rights for all!\u2014this is the most extraordinary form of\ninjustice, for with it the highest men do not get their due.\n\n\n34\n\nIt is not a matter of the rights of the stronger, for strong and weak\nare alike in this, that they all extend their power as far as they can.\n\n\n35\n\nA new form of estimating man: above all the question:\n\nHow much power has he got?\n\nHow manifold are his instincts?\n\nHow great is his capacity for communication and assimilation?\n\nThe ruler as the highest type.\n\n\n36\n\nZarathustra rejoices that the war of the classes is at last over,\nand that now at length the time is ripe for an order of rank among\nindividuals. His hatred of the democratic system of levelling is only\na blind; as a matter of fact he is very pleased that this has gone so\nfar. Now he can perform his task.\u2014\n\nHitherto his doctrines had been directed only at the ruling caste of\nthe future. These lords of the earth must now take the place of God,\nand must create for themselves the profound and absolute confidence\nof those they rule. Their new holiness, their renunciation of\nhappiness and ease, must be their first principle. To the lowest they\ngrant the heirloom of happiness, not to themselves. They deliver the\nphysiologically botched by teaching them the doctrine of \u201cswift death.\u201d\nThey offer religions and philosophical systems to each according to his\nrank.\n\n\n37\n\n\u201cThe conflict in the heart of the ruler is the contest between the love\nwhich is in his heart for him who is most remote, and the love which he\nfeels for his neighbour.\u201d\n\nTo be a creator and to be capable of goodness are not at all things\nwhich exclude one another. They are rather one and the same thing; but\nthe creator is farsighted and the good man nearsighted.\n\n\n38\n\nThe feeling of power. The strife of all egos to discover that thought\nwhich will remain poised above men like a star.\u2014The ego is a _primum\nmobile._\n\n\n39\n\nThe struggle for the application of the power which mankind now\nrepresents! Zarathustra calls to the gladiators of this struggle.\n\n\n40\n\nWe must make our ideals prevail:\u2014We must strive for power in such a\nway as our ideal commands.\n\n\n41\n\nThe doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence is the turning point of history.\n\n\n42\n\nSuddenly the terrible chamber of truth is opened, an unconscious\nself-protectiveness, caution, ambush, defence keeps us from the gravest\nknowledge. Thus have I lived heretofore. I suppress something; but the\nrestless babbling and rolling down of stones has rendered my instinct\nover-powerful. Now I am rolling my last stone, the most appalling truth\nstands close to my hand.\n\nTruth has been exorcised out of its grave:\u2014we created it, we waked it:\nthe highest expression of courage and of the feeling of power. Scorn of\nall pessimism that has existed hitherto!\n\nWe fight with it,\u2014we find out that our only means of enduring it is\nto create a creature who is able to endure it:\u2014unless, of course, we\nvoluntarily dazzle ourselves afresh and blind ourselves in regard to it\nBut this we are no longer able to do!\n\nWe it was who created the gravest thought,\u2014let us now create a being\nunto whom it will be not only light but blessed.\n\nIn order to be able to create we must allow ourselves greater freedom\nthan has ever been vouch-safed us before; to this end we must be\nemancipated from morality, and we must be relieved by means of feasts\n(Premonitions of the future! We must celebrate the future and no longer\nthe past! We must compose the myth poetry of the future! We must live\nin hopes!) Blessed moments I And then we must once again pull down the\ncurtain and turn our thoughts to the next unswerving purpose.\n\n\n43\n\nMankind must set its goal above itself\u2014not in a false world, however,\nbut in one which would be a continuation of humanity.\n\n\n44\n\nThe half-way house is always present when the will to the future\narises: the greatest event stands immediately before it.\n\n\n45\n\nOur very essence is to create a being higher than ourselves. We must\ncreate beyond ourselves. That is the instinct of procreation, that is\nthe instinct of action and of work.\u2014Just as all willing presupposes a\npurpose, so does mankind presuppose a creature which is not yet formed\nbut which provides the aim of life. This is the freedom of all will.\nLove, reverence, yearning for perfection, longing, all these things are\ninherent in a purpose.\n\n\n46\n\nMy desire: to bring forth creatures which stand sublimely above the\nwhole species man: and to sacrifice \u201cone\u2019s neighbours\u201d and oneself to\nthis end.\n\nThe morality which has existed hitherto was limited within the confines\nof the species: all moralities that have existed hitherto have been\nuseful in the first place in order to give unconditional stability to\nthis species: once this has been achieved the aim can be elevated.\n\nOne movement is absolute; it is nothing more than the levelling down of\nmankind, great ant-organisations, &c.\n\nThe other movement, my movement, is conversely the accentuation of all\ncontrasts and gulfs, and the elimination of equality, together with the\ncreation of supremely powerful creatures.\n\nThe first movement brings forth the last man, my movement brings forth\nthe Superman. It is by no means the goal to regard the latter as the\nmaster of the first: two races ought to exist side by side,\u2014separated\nas far asunder as possible; the one, like the Epicurean gods, not\nconcerning themselves in the least with the others.\n\n\n47\n\nThe opposite of the Superman is the last man: I created him\nsimultaneously with the former.\n\n\n48\n\nThe more an individual is free and firm, the more exacting becomes his\nlove: at last he yearns for Superman, because nothing else is able to\nappease his love,\n\n\n49\n\nHalf-way round the course Superman arises.\n\n\n50\n\nAmong men I was frightened: among men I desired a host of things and\nnothing satisfied me. It was then that I went into solitude and created\nSuperman. And when I had created him I draped him in the great veil of\nBecoming and let the light of midday shine upon him.\n\n\n51\n\n\u201cWe wish to create a Being,\u201d we all wish to have a hand in it, to love\nit. We all want to be pregnant\u2014and to honour and respect ourselves on\nthat account.\n\nWe must have a goal in view of which we may all love each other! All\nother goals are only fit for the scrap heap.\n\n\n52\n\nThe strongest in body and soul are the best\u2014Zarathustra\u2019s fundamental\nproposition\u2014; from them is generated that higher morality of the\ncreator. Man must be regenerated after his own image: this is what he\nwants, this is his honesty.\n\n\n53\n\nGenius to Zarathustra seems like the incarnation of his thought.\n\n\n54\n\nLoneliness for a certain time is necessary in order that a creature\nmay become completely permeated with his own soul\u2014cured and hard. A\nnew form of community would be one in which we should assert ourselves\nmartially. Otherwise the spirit becomes tame. No Epicurean \u201cgardens\u201d\nand mere \u201cretirement from the masses.\u201d War (but without powder) between\ndifferent thoughts and the hosts who support them I\n\nA new nobility, the result of breeding. Feasts celebrating the\nfoundation of families.\n\nThe day divided up afresh; bodily exercise for all ages. \u1f08\u03b3\u03ce\u03bd\nas a principle.\n\nThe love of the sexes as a contest around the principle in becoming and\ncoming.\u2014Ruling will be taught and practised, its hardness as well as\nits mildness. As soon as one faculty is acquired in a masterly manner\nanother one must be striven after.\n\nWe must let ourselves be taught by the evil, and allow them an\nopportunity of a contest. We must make use of the degenerate\u2014The right\nof punishment will consist in this, that the offender may be used as\nan experimental subject (in dietetics): this is the consecration of\npunishment, that one man be used for the highest needs of a future\nbeing.\n\nWe protect our new community because it is the bridge to our ideal of\nthe future And for it we work and let others work.\n\n\n55\n\nThe measure and mean must be found in striving to attain to something\nbeyond mankind: the highest and strongest kind of man must be\ndiscovered! The highest tendency must be represented continually\nin small things:\u2014perfection, maturity, rosy-cheeked health, mild\ndischarges of power. Just as an artist works, must we apply ourselves\nto our daily task and bring ourselves to perfection in everything we\ndo. We must be honest in acknowledging our real motives to ourselves,\nas is becoming in the mighty man.\n\n\n56\n\nNo impatience! Superman is our next stage and to this end, to this\nlimit, moderation and manliness are necessary.\n\nMankind must surpass itself, as the Greeks did\u2014and no fleshless\nfantasies must be indulged. The higher mind which is associated with a\nsickly and nervous character must be suppressed. The goal: the higher\nculture of the whole body and not only of the brain.\n\n\n57\n\n\u201cMan is something that must be surpassed\u201d:\u2014it is a matter of tempo:\nthe Greeks were wonderful, there was no haste about them.\u2014My\npredecessors: Heraclitus, Empedocles, Spinoza, Goethe.\n\n\n58\n\n1. Dissatisfaction with ourselves. An antidote to repentance.\nThe transformation of temperament (_e.g.,_ by means of inorganic\nsubstances). Good will to this dissatisfaction. We should wait for our\nthirst and let it become great in order to discover its source.\n\n2. Death must be transformed into a means of victory and triumph.\n\n3. The attitude towards disease. Freedom where death is concerned.\n\n4. The love of the sexes is a means to an ideal (it is the striving of\na being to perish through his opposite). The love for a suffering deity.\n\n5. Procreation is the holiest of all things. Pregnancy, the creation of\na woman and a man, who wish to enjoy their unity, and erect a monument\nto it by means of a child.\n\n6. Pity as a danger. Circumstances must be created which enable\neveryone to be able to help himself, and which leave him to choose\nwhether he would be helped.\n\n7. Education must be directed at making men evil, at developing their\ninner devil.\n\n8. Inner war as \u201cdevelopment\u201d\n\n9. \u201cThe maintenance of the species,\u201d and the thought of eternal\nrecurrence.\n\n\n59\n\nPrincipal doctrine. We must strive to make every stage one of\nperfection, and rejoice therein,\u2014we must make no leaps!\n\nIn the first place, the promulgation of laws. After the Superman the\ndoctrine of eternal recurrence will strike us with horror: Now it is\nendurable.\n\n\n60\n\nLife itself created this thought which is the most oppressive for life.\nLife wishes to get beyond its greatest obstacle I\n\nWe must desire to perish in order to arise afresh,\u2014from one day to\nthe other. Wander through a hundred souls,\u2014let that be thy life and\nthy fate! And then finally: desire to go through the whole process once\nmore!\n\n\n61\n\nThe highest thing of all would be for us to be able to endure our\nimmortality.\n\n\n62\n\nThe moment in which I begot recurrence is immortal, for the sake of\nthat moment alone I will endure recurrence.\n\n\n63\n\nThe teaching of eternal recurrence\u2014it is at first oppressive to the\nmore noble souls and apparently a means of weeding them out,\u2014then the\ninferior and less sensitive natures would remain over! \u201cThis doctrine\nmust be suppressed and Zarathustra killed.\u201d\n\n\n64\n\nThe hesitation of the disciples. \u201cWe are already able to bear with this\ndoctrine, but we should destroy the many by means of it!\u201d\n\nZarathustra laughs: \u201cYe shall be the hammer: I laid this hammer in your\nhands.\u201d\n\n\n65\n\nI do not speak to you as I speak to the people. The highest thing for\nthem would be to despise and to annihilate themselves: the next highest\nthing would be for them to despise and annihilate each other.\n\n\n66\n\n\u201cMy will to do good compels me to remain silent. But my will to the\nSuperman bids me speak and sacrifice even my friends.\u201d\n\n\u201cI would fain form and transform you, how could I endure things\notherwise!\u201d\n\n\n67\n\nThe history of higher man. The rearing of the better man is\nincalculably more painful. The ideal of the necessary sacrifice which\nit involves, as in the case of Zarathustra, should be demonstrated: A\nman should leave his home, his family and his native land. Live under\nthe scorn of the prevailing morality. The anguish of experiments and\nerrors. The solution of all the joys offered by the older ideals (they\nare now felt to be partly hostile and partly strange).\n\n\n68\n\nWhat is it which gives a meaning, a value, an importance to things?\nIt is the creative heart which yearns and which created out of this\nyearning. It created joy and woe. It wanted to sate itself also with\nwoe. Every kind of pain that man or beast has suffered, we must take\nupon ourselves and bless, and have a goal whereby such suffering would\nacquire some meaning.\n\n\n69\n\nPrincipal doctrine: the transfiguration of pain into a blessing, and of\npoison into food, lies in our power. The will to suffering.\n\n\n70\n\nConcerning heroic greatness as the only state of pioneers. (A yearning\nfor utter ruin as a means of enduring one\u2019s existence.)\n\nWe must not desire one state only; we must rather desire to be\nperiodical creatures\u2014like existence.\n\nAbsolute indifference to other people\u2019s opinions (because we know their\nweights and measures), but their opinions of themselves should be the\nsubject of pity.\n\n\n71\n\nDisciples must unite three qualities in themselves: they must be\ntrue, they must be able and willing to be communicative, they must\nhave profound insight into each other.\n\n\n72\n\nAll kinds of higher men and their oppression and blighting (as a case\nin point, Duhring, who was ruined by isolation)\u2014on the whole, this\nis the fate of higher men to-day, they seem to be a species that is\ncondemned to die out: this fact seems to come to Zarathustra\u2019s ears\nlike a great cry for help. All kinds of insane degenerations of higher\nnatures seem to approach him (nihilism for instance).\n\n\n73\n\n_Higher Men who come to Zarathustra in Despair._\n\nTemptations to return prematurely to the world\u2014thanks to the\nprovocation of one\u2019s sympathies.\n\n1. The rolling stone, the homeless one, the wanderer:\u2014he who has\nunlearned the love of his people because he has learned to love many\npeoples,\u2014the good European.\n\n2. The gloomy, ambitious son of the people, shy, lonely, and ready for\nanything,\u2014who chooses rather to be alone than to be a destroyer,\u2014he\noffers himself as an instrument.\n\n3. The ugliest man, who is obliged to adorn himself (historical sense)\nand who is always in search of a new garment: he desires to make his\nappearance becoming, and finally retires into solitude in order not to\nbe seen, he is ashamed of himself.\n\n4. He who honours facts (\u201cthe brain of a leech\u201d), the most subtle\nintellectual conscience, and because he has it in excess, a guilty\nconscience,\u2014he wants to get rid of himself.\n\n5. The poet, who at bottom thirsts, for savage freedom,\u2014he chooses\nloneliness and the severity of knowledge.\n\n6. The discoverer of new intoxicants,\u2014the musician, the sorcerer, who\nfinally drops on his knees before a loving heart and says: \u201cNot to me\ndo I wish to lead you but yonder to him.\u201d\n\nThose who are sober to excess and who have a yearning for intoxication\nwhich they do not gratify. The Supersobersides.\n\n7. Genius (as an attack of insanity), becoming frozen through lack of\nlove: \u201cI am neither a genius nor a god.\u201d Great tenderness: \u201cpeople must\nshow him more love!\u201d\n\n8. The rich man who has given everything away and who asks everybody:\n\u201cHave you anything you do not want? give me some of it!\u201d as a beggar.\n\n9. The Kings who renounce dominion: \u201cwe seek him who is more worthy\nto rule\u201d\u2014against \u201cequality\u201d: the great man is lacking, consequently\nreverence is lacking too.\n\n10. The actor of happiness.\n\n11. The pessimistic soothsayer who detects fatigue everywhere.\n\n12. The fool of the big city.\n\n13. The youth from the mount\n\n14. The woman (seeks the man).\n\n15. The envious emaciated toiler and _arriviste.\n\n16. The good,            } and their mad fancy:\n\n17. The pious,           } \u201cFor God\u201d that\n\n18. The self-centred and } means \u201cFor me.\u201d\n        saints,\n\n\n74\n\n\u201cI gave you the most weighty thought: maybe mankind will perish through\nit, perhaps also mankind will be elevated through it inasmuch as by\nits means the elements which are hostile to life will be overcome and\neliminated.\u201d \u201cYe must not chide Life, but yourselves!\u201d\u2014The destiny\nof higher man is to be a creator. The organisation of higher men, the\neducation of the future ruler. \u201cYE must rejoice in your superior power\nwhen ye rule and when ye form anew.\u201d \u201cNot only man but Superman will\nrecur eternally!\u201d\n\n\n75\n\nThe typical suffering of the reformer and also his consolations. The\nseven solitudes.\n\nHe lives as though he were beyond all ages: his loftiness allows him to\nhave intercourse with the anchorites and the misunderstood of every age.\n\nOnly his beauty is his defence. He lays his hands on the next thousand\nyears.\n\nHis love increases as he sees the impossibility of avoiding the\naffliction of pain with it.\n\n\n76\n\nZarathustra\u2019s mood is not one of mad impatience for Superman! It is\npeaceful, it can wait: but all action has derived some purpose from\nbeing the road and means thither,\u2014and must be done well and perfectly.\n\nThe repose of the great stream! Consecration of the smallest thing.\nAll unrest, and violent longing, all loathing should be presented in\nthe third part and be overcome! The gentleness, and mildness, &c, in\nthe first and second parts are both signs of a power which is not yet\nself-reliant!\n\nWith the recovery of Zarathustra, C\u00e6sar stands there inexorable\nand kind:\u2014the gulf separating creation, goodness, and wisdom is\nannihilated.\n\nClearness, peace, no exaggerated craving, happiness in the moment which\nis properly occupied and immortalised!\n\n\n77\n\nZarathustra, Part III.: \u201cI myself am happy.\u201d\u2014When he had taken leave\nof mankind he returned unto himself. Like a cloud it vanishes from him.\nThe manner in which Superman must live: like an Epicurean God.\n\nDivine suffering is the substance of the third part of Zarathustra. The\nhuman state of the legislator is only brought forward as an example.\n\nHis intense love for his friends seems to him a disease,\u2014once more he\nbecomes peaceful.\n\nWhen the invitations come he gently evades them.\n\n\n78\n\nIn the fourth part it is necessary to say precisely why it is that the\ntime of the great noon has come: It is really a description of the age\ngiven by means of visits, but interpreted by Zarathustra.\n\nIn the fourth part it is necessary to say precisely why \u201ca chosen\npeople\u201d has first to be created:\u2014they are the lucky cases of nature\nas opposed to the unlucky (exemplified by the visitors): only to them\n\u2014the lucky cases\u2014is Zarathustra able to express himself concerning\nultimate problems, them alone is he able to inspire with activity on\nbehalf of this theory. They are strong, healthy, hard and above all\nnoble enough for him to give them the hammer with which to remould the\nwhole world.\n\n\n79\n\nThe unity in power of the creator, the lover and the knight of\nknowledge.\n\n\n80\n\nLove alone shall judge\u2014(the creative love which forgets itself in its\nwork).\n\n\n81\n\nZarathustra can only dispense happiness once the order of rank is\nestablished. Therefore this doctrine must be taught first.\n\nThe order of rank develops into a system of earthly dominion: the lords\nof the earth come last, a new ruling caste. Here and there there arises\nfrom them a perfectly Epicurean God, a Superman, a transfigurer of\nexistence.\n\nThe Superhuman\u2019s notion of the world. Dionysus. Returning from these\nmost strange of all pursuits Zarathustra comes back with love to the\nnarrowest and smallest things,\u2014he blesses all his experiences and dies\nwith a blessing on his lips.\n\n\n82\n\nFrom people who merely pray we must become people who bless.","title":"The Twilight of the Idols; or, How to Philosophize with the Hammer. The Antichrist: Complete Works, Volume Sixteen","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":70519}